Evolution vs Creationism - Page 3

**Pokerface** · 07-27-2004, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Along those lines, I recently was looking up some stuff about fatherhood, since I'm on that road. Step #1: Get over yourself. That's basically what I struggle to do in my religious life. Hell, that's basically what I struggle to do in every way!

I too, and trying to get over Leejo.

**leejo** · 07-27-2004, 05:49 PM

Let me know if you figure it out.

Fait_Maker · 07-27-2004, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

The best argument for belief in a higher power is apply order to that which is unordered.

There are basic questions for which science has yet to come up with good answers, and that's a God-shaped hole if ever I saw one. Questions like "Where did we come from?" and "Why are we here?" have answers that are fundamental to our lives. In the absence of clear answers, the imposition of a universal order (or alternatively, the denial of one) grants those answers.

Why believe in a god? Because you gotta believe in something, and a god is as fine a choice as any.

1000 years ago science couldn't come up with an answer about thunder and lightning. They to believed it was God himself smiting his mighty fist in anger. They were proven wrong over time. "I don't know" isn't the same thing as "it must have been god"

I might also argue that a god is as fine a choice as any. Misuse in the belief of god has killed way more than the misuse of science.

Fait_Maker · 07-27-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Mot73+

I guess the thing that has confused me is that those who don't believe in a God due to lack of Proof or it doesn't make sense or whatever have no problems believing in the theorys created by science.

Its as if science was flawless and as Lee pointed out better and more factually than me...it just isn't.

Do you believe in the invisible pink unicorn? If not, why?

I'm going to guess your answer and reply "That's why I don't believe in god". You do realize that a theory is nothing more than a prediction based on carefully validated experiments or observations? Sure science isn't flawless but it's more right than it's wrong. A god-belief isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis.

I'm confused how you could believe a hypothesis over a theory any day. There's got to be more evidence pointing to any other theory of our origins than there is evidence showing that it must be due to a god. Yet many many many people have no problem believing in a god or creationism.

**leejo** · 07-27-2004, 07:50 PM

Belief in God is almost totally separate from science. It's like choosing between loving your mother or using a hammer.

Any system complex enough to be self-referential is either inconsistent or incomplete. Science or mathematics that is inconsistent (sometimes 2+2=4, sometimes it equals something else) is useless, therefor they are incomplete. There is at least some part of life that science is totally incapable of describing much less predicting. Quantum mechanics bears this out. It can predict with a high degree of accuracy how particles will behave in aggregate, but it is totally incapable of predicting how a single particle will behave. In fact, it's proven that you cannot predict how a single particle will behave in certain situations. Don't put all your bets on science.

And it's not a matter of believing one over the other. I said belief in God is almost totally separate from science because for me at least there's an elegance in science and mathematics that hints at God. Again, many scientists are, or were, deeply religious.

Fait_Maker · 07-27-2004, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

With respect, comparing God to the easter bunny doesn't come across as a very respectful attitude, nor does referring to "the religion joke". I do hope that someday you find a little less anger toward religion or the people who turned you off of yours, as I hope I simmer down some myself in many ways.

Leejo, take a deep breath for me. Now hold it as I say something in the most respectful tone I can muster. For years I have been told to respect others beliefs and I do. I firmly believe in your right to believe what you want. For years, I have been labeled evil, immoral, blah blah blah because I simply do not believe in god. I've had people completely stop talking to me upon the knowledge that I'm Atheist. People I viewed as friends, co-workers... I've been told that I'll be prayered for like I have some sick disease. I've been belittled. I've had death threats sent to my home and my family. And yet I am told that I must be respectful.

Comparing a god <because I don't consider anything God or my god or anything else> to the easter bunny is simply a discription of what it is for us. We don't believe in what we consider your myth like you don't believe in the easter bunny. They are one in the same. I find it offensive that an Atheist cannot state his belief or describe the situation from his perspective without someone pulling the "your being disrespectful to my beliefs" card. I agree with Ender in that I consider it all a religious joke. If that bothers you, so be it. Tell me you'll pray for me or even better yet, tell me it's my god too whether I like it or not. I'll one up that even. Stop and think about how arrogant that all sounds to us when you stand in our shoes for a minute. It's not about anger, for me at least. Certainly I am angry but it's only because most do not hold themselves to the same standard they would of the Atheist.

I got it.. Tell me this is a Christian nation and if I don't like it.. leave.

You want to see hostility? Read my essay on Religious Bigotry. You'll really like the part where my Aunt says "GOD HELP YOU! How dare YOU use my email list for your selfish ideas. GO TO HELL."

Fait_Maker · 07-27-2004, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

An omnipotent god -- while ABLE to speak through miracles -- need not do so. A sunset, a symphony, the vastness of the ocean... an all-powerful creator doesn't have to use words, and I'd go so far as to say that to expect such an entity to would be awfully presumptuous.

But yet he did for how many years in the Bible? How many years does the Old Testament cover? He sent his Son in the New Testament and showed miracles upon miracles. Why would I be presumptous for wanting the same proof they had? They had proof and did not believe. All I'm asking is for the same amount of proof they had. If he can't or won't, he's not worth my time.

Fait_Maker · 07-27-2004, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Well part of religion is understanding that it isn't about you. GOD is up hyah, we're down hyah. A private doesn't ask a general why, and the difference between God and us is far greater. It's about service.

How could I have a relationship with anything that doesn't think it's about me? Who cares so little for me that he won't stop for a second and manifest himself with the proof that he knows *I* need to believe.

At least I can see the general or at least the officer he sent in his place. Why would I offer any service?

Emanon · 07-27-2004, 08:33 PM

Bible = StarTrek

Just one was along time ago. Each have followers to an unbelievable story but yet they continue to believe. Ask me why? I couldnt tell you!

The Subject of "GOD" is touchy. From the early days of man, whenever something happened that wasnt explainable was deemed an act of "God" Reason you see so many people not going to church/believing anymore is because now they dont need the phrase to explain these things.

I just find it funny how we funnel so much money into such things. I guess its good for guiding kids, reminds me of how parents scare kids into doing things like with the boogie man.

Never been to church in my life, besides funnerals, and I find I'm no differently better or flawed than those who have been every week. So my Logic tells me there is no advantage.

My little spazz.

**Pokerface** · 07-27-2004, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fait_Maker

But yet he did for how many years in the Bible? How many years does the Old Testament cover? He sent his Son in the New Testament and showed miracles upon miracles. Why would I be presumptous for wanting the same proof they had? They had proof and did not believe. All I'm asking is for the same amount of proof they had. If he can't or won't, he's not worth my time.

In Christian theology, Jesus was put on this planet for a VERY specific purpose, that being the forgiveness of sin. The miracles are all secondary. Raising Lazarus, loaves and fishes, walking on water: they're all parlor tricks compared to the Resurrection. God essentially let man murder Him, and then, by coming back to life, took that most egregious of sins away. So doing, one sin -- thie biggest sin -- stood for all sins, past and future. The people BEFORE Jesus didn't have anything but the promise of him, and the people AFTER Jesus don't have anything but the memory of him. Given population extrapolotions, geography and such, you're asking for an experience that MAYBE tens of thousands of people had in the history of time. More people have watched the Paris Hilton sex tapes than who got to live and interact with Jesus. :P

And there WERE believers... it'd be kind of hard to have any nowadays if there weren't any back then.

Now would probably be a keen time to mention that if forced to choose a religion, I'd pick Zen Buddhism. Christian mythology just happens to be something I know a lot about.

**Pokerface** · 07-27-2004, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fait_Maker

How could I have a relationship with anything that doesn't think it's about me? Who cares so little for me that he won't stop for a second and manifest himself with the proof that he knows *I* need to believe.

At least I can see the general or at least the officer he sent in his place. Why would I offer any service?

What WOULD it take for you to believe, Fait?

**CingularDuality** · 07-27-2004, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Mot73+

If I had the opportunity to do the research and presently I don't, there is a history book called the Bible. Some will say....blahhhhh and just toss it out. Facts are that historically, it is the most accurate book from a historic and scientific sense than an other piece of literature.

There are more manuscripts of the events that is in that book closer to the original writings than any other book in history.

But if you can buy that...then its hard to use its factual historic data.

What I discovered is that people who lean towards something other than a God as creator or sustainer of life..etc is usually not willing to pursue the facts in researching it like they are willing to following the facts of some scientist somewhere who he himself created the model for which he basis his scientific facts.

Hmmm, I was under the impression that the Bible was one of the least accurate books due to its vast number of rewritings and translations. I remember reading somewhere that the current New King James or New International Version only has about 60% of its text in common with some of the oldest known manuscripts.

**CingularDuality** · 07-27-2004, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

What WOULD it take for you to believe, Fait?

I won't speak for Fait, but I've read all but the last book in the Left Behind series... If the rapture occurs, I'll admit that I was wrong and I'll start praying.

For me, the bottom line is that science is based on facts. Scientists make every attempt to use data to support theories. Faith is based on, well, faith. You have to make this emotional leap to believe in something that has no data to support it, just other people telling you to believe it. That's not for me...

**DudeMan** · 07-27-2004, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Mot73+

I appologise if I seemed arrogant. I was just pointing my experience in past discussions and was not aimed at you personally Dudeman. Sorry.

i did not think for a second it was aimed at me, i only used myself as an analogy,

and while i agree that science isnt flawless, i doubt seriously that the beliefs of science are just believed with no proof.

the one aspect of science that makes you question what the bible tells you is some kind of logical proof. correct or incorrect, science constantly updates on its errors and therefore it is easy to create a clear picture. religion, on the other hand does not, the only reforms in religion are to do with society.

**DudeMan** · 07-27-2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

The best argument for belief in a higher power is apply order to that which is unordered.

There are basic questions for which science has yet to come up with good answers, and that's a God-shaped hole if ever I saw one. Questions like "Where did we come from?" and "Why are we here?" have answers that are fundamental to our lives. In the absence of clear answers, the imposition of a universal order (or alternatively, the denial of one) grants those answers.

Why believe in a god? Because you gotta believe in something, and a god is as fine a choice as any.

i believe your answer is a classic personification of Karl Marxs' famous quote, "religion is the opium of the masses"

you justify an existance of god because you have unanswered questions. this is not a great reason for a religious belief in my opinion. when i was 3 yrs old i didnt know where babbies came from, upon watching a film it was answered, they came from a bird.

is the bird therefore a god, no, its a concept that at that time i could not grasp, therefore i believed in the easiest solution, the illusion i had seen became the substitute for the truth.

just because we have questions we cant answer yet, does not mean they are being withheld by some supreme being, it is a possibility, but it is not the best of arguments to suggest that we should just accept that.

07-27-2004, 05:49 PM	#32 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Evolution vs Creationism Let me know if you figure it out.

07-27-2004, 07:50 PM	#35 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Evolution vs Creationism Belief in God is almost totally separate from science. It's like choosing between loving your mother or using a hammer. Any system complex enough to be self-referential is either inconsistent or incomplete. Science or mathematics that is inconsistent (sometimes 2+2=4, sometimes it equals something else) is useless, therefor they are incomplete. There is at least some part of life that science is totally incapable of describing much less predicting. Quantum mechanics bears this out. It can predict with a high degree of accuracy how particles will behave in aggregate, but it is totally incapable of predicting how a single particle will behave. In fact, it's proven that you cannot predict how a single particle will behave in certain situations. Don't put all your bets on science. And it's not a matter of believing one over the other. I said belief in God is almost totally separate from science because for me at least there's an elegance in science and mathematics that hints at God. Again, many scientists are, or were, deeply religious.

07-27-2004, 08:33 PM	#39 (permalink)
Emanon Banned Join Date: May 2003 Age: 25 Posts: 1,249	Re: Evolution vs Creationism Bible = StarTrek Just one was along time ago. Each have followers to an unbelievable story but yet they continue to believe. Ask me why? I couldnt tell you! The Subject of "GOD" is touchy. From the early days of man, whenever something happened that wasnt explainable was deemed an act of "God" Reason you see so many people not going to church/believing anymore is because now they dont need the phrase to explain these things. I just find it funny how we funnel so much money into such things. I guess its good for guiding kids, reminds me of how parents scare kids into doing things like with the boogie man. Never been to church in my life, besides funnerals, and I find I'm no differently better or flawed than those who have been every week. So my Logic tells me there is no advantage. My little spazz.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links