Discussion: Evolution

[raybia]

I argee and disargee. First I will say you have a point but it doesn't make sense then when people say evolution can't be proved. People get into discussions such as this then say evolution can't be proven hence the other asks god can't be proven to exist. Then the one who questioned evolution goes well I can't prove god exists yet I shall say the typical it all depends on my experiences is evidence response. Yet somehow they can't believe is "crazy theories like evolution or anything science says,

I think I follow you.

First, G-d cannot be proven. I can believe that G-d exist and I can have solid faith that G-d exist, but faith or even evidence is not proof.

Second, proving evolution does not compare to proving G-d as G-d cannot be put under the microscope. Either you believe or you don't.

I do believe through that evolution can be either proven or disproven eventually, if not already.

I have given more thought on evolution and I think that before it can be properly accepted or dismissed, we have to first have a desire to find out the truth and then be willing to seek understanding of the theory of evolution and ponder the research and evidence that we have available at this time with our rational mind.

For me, there is no conflict between the existence of a Supreme Creator and the concept of evolution though I did not subscribe to the belief that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

 

[Caliber]

Yes I agree completely

Religion is a tool for the church and if one looks at history, they've never been "good".

 

[Canadian Rider]

Here we go again, the fact that fossil are missing could be anything. Over time fossil can moved, damaged or parts of them stolen.

and the miraculous appearing kneecap? When all adapted/"evolved" fossils show that vestigial bones remain, not disappear nor "appear"?

Curious that if there are still monkeys without the kneecap and no fossils with the kneecap ... that we think we are linked.

Carry on.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

God(s) is not nor never was meant to be the creation of a "rational mind", especially since the notions of logic, proof and reason did not truly develop until the enlightenment (and the Bible, as most religious texts, stopped prophecy pre-enlightenment). However I think what most people here don't understand (as Wihelm brought up Hindu's), most people do NOT view God the way Western Conservative Christians view "God". For example, Hinduism believes not in a hundred Gods (and actually thousands is closer) but in one God is exists in all things. Everything is Brahman and Brahman is everything. In fact if you read Hindu texts Brahman comes off a lot more sounding like atoms or a cosmic consciousness than any sort of unified, anthropormorphic God.

Number two, is Hinduism still views spirituality through that same "intuitive thought" that was prevelant pre-enlightenment. Most Westernized Christians (specifically the Fundamentalist Mega Church types) attempt to retrofit Christianity to some post-enlightenment view of the world where God is true because he is a logical and rational being...even going so far as to provide evidence for God (or refuting non Biblical stories). However when the Bible was written it was written by very spiritual people who were much more concerned with the meaning of the story than the factual evidence supporting it (hell if you read the Bible you realize there are INCLUDED contradictory stories, Gods of other cultures, and stories that are fundamental to other cultures of the time)....actually they probably did not even care for concepts of fact.

However it is important to note reason and logic does not magically trump all other doctrines of thought. Buddhists and Jainists hardly use logic, reason and facts yet create a society far more fair, far more enviroment friendly and far more tolerant than anything the reasoned west has created. Or for a Christian perspective look at the Amish, who essentially made communism work through religion (which was a failure in the Soviet Union). And of course materialism is all but non-existent in those communities. So it is not akin to a crazy man on the street. Religion can an has proved itself a worthy form of thought on several occasions. However like reason and logic it is pretty easily manipulated...

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

The majority believe in a big protective Daddy in the sky and the safe, cozy idea that if they want everything to turn out nicely with a "Happily Ever After" for themselves and their loved ones, all they have to do is adhere to an easy, straightforward set of rules with,

No confusion.
No helplessness.
No danger.

as long as they just do

this
and this
and this
and this

because the majority of people are weak and scared and lack the fortitude to even recognize when they're in denial about the truly bleak, nasty, terrifying nature of our unsolicited existence here, let alone actively choose to shun their own delusions and psychotic defensive constructs.


Like, I'm being forced to go to AA meetings right now.
I haven't had any booze for months.
No problem.
I'm really glad that I was forced into this 'cause I feel great and have no desire to feel like crap every other day again, or struggle through work hungover, etc.

But in AA, these sobbing human wrecks just keep repeating the bull**** line, that you CAN NOT succeed at abstinence without God's help.
It's "not possible".


Well, the lightman for my old band got sick of alcohol ruining his life and decided to quit and hasn't had a drink for over 20 years or something.....while, at these AA meetings, these people who are conditioned to think that they are "powerless" and that only God can help them ( which is ODD, because, if he has the power to rid them of their miserable addiction...um...WHY DOESN'T HE?!? ), sit weeping, talking about how they joined AA and stopped drinking way back in 1977........and go onto to share their shame about having relapsed LAST WEDNESDAY.


Yeah, impressive work there, "GOD".
I guess it was Rock'n'Roll SAYtan that helped my lightman to quit more successfully, just to upstage Elohim.

 

[raybia]

But he is! The creator is defined by his creation, without it he is nothing.

That is not the belief that I hold. In my faith, G-d is G-d regardless of the existence of his creation. G-d's creation doesn't add to him, nor does it take anything away.

According to my believes, If G-d was nothing, then he wouldn't have been able to create the Creation in the first place.

 

[Canadian Rider]

God(s) is not nor never was meant to be the creation of a "rational mind", especially since the notions of logic, proof and reason did not truly develop until the enlightenment (and the Bible, as most religious texts, stopped prophecy pre-enlightenment). However I think what most people here don't understand (as Wihelm brought up Hindu's), most people do NOT view God the way Western Conservative Christians view "God". For example, Hinduism believes not in a hundred Gods (and actually thousands is closer) but in one God is exists in all things. Everything is Brahman and Brahman is everything. In fact if you read Hindu texts Brahman comes off a lot more sounding like atoms or a cosmic consciousness than any sort of unified, anthropormorphic God.

Number two, is Hinduism still views spirituality through that same "intuitive thought" that was prevelant pre-enlightenment. Most Westernized Christians (specifically the Fundamentalist Mega Church types) attempt to retrofit Christianity to some post-enlightenment view of the world where God is true because he is a logical and rational being...even going so far as to provide evidence for God (or refuting non Biblical stories). However when the Bible was written it was written by very spiritual people who were much more concerned with the meaning of the story than the factual evidence supporting it (hell if you read the Bible you realize there are INCLUDED contradictory stories, Gods of other cultures, and stories that are fundamental to other cultures of the time)....actually they probably did not even care for concepts of fact.

However it is important to note reason and logic does not magically trump all other doctrines of thought. Buddhists and Jainists hardly use logic, reason and facts yet create a society far more fair, far more enviroment friendly and far more tolerant than anything the reasoned west has created. Or for a Christian perspective look at the Amish, who essentially made communism work through religion (which was a failure in the Soviet Union). And of course materialism is all but non-existent in those communities. So it is not akin to a crazy man on the street. Religion can an has proved itself a worthy form of thought on several occasions. However like reason and logic it is pretty easily manipulated...

Just jumping in shadow here for a quick sec. Explain to me again how the christian faith grabbed parts from other religions but they include the text from the old testament going back to the beginning of time because it actually is all one story with prophecies from before Christ being fulfilled in his time?

And although Christ appears in the old testament he was not part of it?

I appreciate your thoughts as you are well spoken and articulate. I may not agree but you present your thoughts in a rational and cohesive manner.

The enlightenment period began when then in your mind?

Science cannot be part of religion then as well correct?

 

[sithgoblin]

I think I follow you.

First, G-d cannot be proven. I can believe that G-d exist and I can have solid faith that G-d exist, but faith or even evidence is not proof.

Second, proving evolution does not compare to proving G-d as G-d cannot be put under the microscope. Either you believe or you don't.

I do believe through that evolution can be either proven or disproven eventually, if not already.

I have given more thought on evolution and I think that before it can be properly accepted or dismissed, we have to first have a desire to find out the truth and then be willing to seek understanding of the theory of evolution and ponder the research and evidence that we have available at this time with our rational mind.

For me, there is no conflict between the existence of a Supreme Creator and the concept of evolution though I did not subscribe to the belief that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

See, but the thing is, if God did really exist, you would be able to prove it. Cause he'd exist.

 

[sithgoblin]

The majority believe in a big protective Daddy in the sky and the safe, cozy idea that if they want everything to turn out nicely with a "Happily Ever After" for themselves and their loved ones, all they have to do is adhere to an easy, straightforward set of rules with,

No confusion.
No helplessness.
No danger.

as long as they just do

this
and this
and this
and this

because the majority of people are weak and scared and lack the fortitude to even recognize when they're in denial about the truly bleak, nasty, terrifying nature of our unsolicited existence here, let alone actively choose to shun their own delusions and psychotic defensive constructs.

That's what it pretty much comes down to.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

See, but the thing is, if God did really exist, you would be able to prove it. Cause he'd exist.

Wrong. That's why these debates must inevitably become lame.
Because, if it's by the very nature of the deity that he is invisible, and intangible, and inaudible, and that he demands that you believe in him without offering any empirically substantiated direct communication with his creation, then no, you can believe in God and conVEEEENiently get away without having to prove his existence.

It's silly.

 

[Spiderine]

See, but the thing is, if God did really exist, you would be able to prove it. Cause he'd exist.

Its a testimony to his faith, noone else. He believes what he believes because he has the proof he needs.I have my own personal beliefs as to what I believe. Its the personal connection one has with his or her God that provides that proof. Can it be shown to someone else,of course not, in the realm of spirituality thats where it exists.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Its a testimony to his faith, noone else. He believes what he believes because he has the proof he needs.I have my own personal beliefs as to what I believe. Its the personal connection one has with his or her God that provides that proof. Can it be shown to someone else,of course not, in the realm of spirituality thats where it exists.

Except it doesn't stop there.
In order to maintain their illusory beliefs, they have to try and disprove the contradictory beliefs of others.
That's why, if there's a thread where someone states that there is sufficient proof for evolution to make it "believeable" for them, people like raybia will come-a-runnin'.

Everyone says "Your free to believe what you want. We just disagree and my belief is enough for me."

But in reality, their first instinct is to defend their belief, and that means they must try to discredit the beliefs of someone who strongly disagrees.

 

[Cyrusbales]

to call upon A J Ayer, saying "god exist" is a tuatology, as the word 'god' refers to nothing. Much like the word 'unicorn'.

 

[raybia]

Saying, "For ME, God exists." is honest, but not enough.
If you're making an outrageous claim, you should have some proof for it.

Personally, I don't think that a claim that is over 5000 years old qualifies as outrageous.

I do agree that saying, "G-d exists" is not enough, but the question is, "Not enough for who?" The person can say, "I believe" but do they have solid faith in that believe? What is the tell tale evidence in a person's belief and faith?

Now, that may not be enough for the critics who don't believe, but that is ok. This is between a person and their Creator.
And how many billions believe in God is irrelevant because:

1) They don't believe in the same God and almost all of their "Gods" claim to be the only true/real "God" and denounce those who believe in other Gods as "sinners" or "the damned".
There is NO way they can all be right, so by their very existence, they tend to discredit "the majority".
Hindus have HUNDREDS of Gods.

2) There was a time when almost every single person on Earthbelieved the Sun obviously revolved in circles around the Earth.

True to some extent. Many opposing perceptives of G-d but at the same time, still an Universal belief in the concept of G-d. Doesn't prove anything other than its not a foreign belief.

The fact that there were only a handful of men who broke out of that superstitious simple-mindedness and discerned the truth, with the aid of science, does not diminish the superiority of their "beliefs" over the beliefs of "the majority".

Its not a fact that belief in G-d is a result of superstitous simple mindedness but certainly there are some perceptions of G-d that could be considered so.

I don't think that the superiority of one group over the other has been established, however I guess it depends how you define superiority.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Just jumping in shadow here for a quick sec. Explain to me again how the christian faith grabbed parts from other religions but they include the text from the old testament going back to the beginning of time because it actually is all one story with prophecies from before Christ being fulfilled in his time?

Because the early Jews were Hapiru or refugees and travelled and were in the captivity of many cultures and they influence their oral tradition and writings.

And although Christ appears in the old testament he was not part of it?

Retroactive shorthorning...Ezekial preached a "messiah" or "messianic age" but never said Jesus Christ was to be that messiah. Jews obviously would disagree with your claim as well.

The enlightenment period began when then in your mind?

Around the 18th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Science cannot be part of religion then as well correct?

It's not...the Bible, as most religious texts, are filled with scientific inaccuracy.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The majority believe in a big protective Daddy in the sky and the safe, cozy idea that if they want everything to turn out nicely with a "Happily Ever After"

No, this is incorrect. Most Christians only got to Church on Sunday and sometimes even just on major holidays...they hardly have that much invested in the God or stories in the Bible.

Only 10% are Fundamentalist Christian (i.e. Evangelicals)....they just happen to be the loudest.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Personally, I don't think that a claim that is over 5000 years old qualifies as outrageous.

The claim that the Earth is a giant disc that is carried around on the back of a giant turtle is that old.
The claim that an eclipse is when a dragon eats the moon is older than that.

The belief that war is a good way to solve disputes is as old as man.
The age of the claim doesn't correspond to it's real-life validity, necessarily.

True to some extent. Many opposing perceptives of G-d but at the same time, still an Universal belief in the concept of G-d. Doesn't prove anything other than its not a foreign belief.

Since, as a rule, when their fruits are tested, all religions bring strife, violence, and oppression and have caused untold emotional trauma, to me it seems to indicate that the belief in a God who explicitly tells us how to behave IS a universal phenomenon...an indicator of a universal PROBLEM with the way humankind tries to interface with reality.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

No, this is incorrect. Most Christians only got to Church on Sunday and sometimes even just on major holidays...they hardly have that much invested in the God or stories in the Bible.

Mmm...I know what you mean, but I disagree.
While the majority are not "devout" (and this is indisputable), we were talking about belief...and I think all it takes is one 9/11, or getting caught in one bank robbery/hostage situation, or finding out you have a terminal illness, etc. to stimulate that "belief" in a protective, paternal "over-seer" who one can plead with, and bargain with in order to get his intervention and a happier outcome.

These are like the "Christians" (CINO) who check "Christian" on a survey, break every single commandment, know a handful of Bible stories, and believe that "As long as you're a good person, you'll go to Heaven." (meaning: "Hitler should go to Hell, but telling white lies? or lusting after my wife's sister? that's not SOOoo bad.")

Which highlights the shallowness of their belief in that the very WORD of GOD they say they believe clearly states that MOST "good people" will go directly to Hell.

 

[Darthphere]

The claim that the Earth is a giant disc that is carried around on the back of a giant turtle is that old.
The claim that an eclipse is when a dragon eats the moon is older than that.

The belief that war is a good way to solve disputes is as old as man.
The age of the claim doesn't correspond to it's real-life validity, necessarily.

Dont mock me.

 

[Canadian Rider]

Because the early Jews were Hapiru or refugees and travelled and were in the captivity of many cultures and they influence their oral tradition and writings.

Retroactive shorthorning...Ezekial preached a "messiah" or "messianic age" but never said Jesus Christ was to be that messiah. Jews obviously would disagree with your claim as well.

Around the 18th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

It's not...the Bible, as most religious texts, are filled with scientific inaccuracy.

Who was the angel of the Lord then?

Why are there so many prophecies fulfilled in Christ?

Inaccuracies such as?

How does the kneecap appear?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

How does the kneecap appear?

You're wise to make this the lynch pin.
You win!
There is clearly NO other possibility than that God instantly created the knee cap out of dirt.
No other possibility.

 

[Canadian Rider]

No, this is incorrect. Most Christians only got to Church on Sunday and sometimes even just on major holidays...they hardly have that much invested in the God or stories in the Bible.

Only 10% are Fundamentalist Christian (i.e. Evangelicals)....they just happen to be the loudest.

I enjoy reading your posts ... but I think your statistics have no basis.

The enrollment in courses at Theological seminaries alone would disprove your percentage.

The Bible is a story. One story with one narrative that flows from beginning to end. A coherent story that shows God has a purpose, a plan and loves us.

While Jews disagree that Christ is there Messiah, they would also argue with you about their tradition and your suggestion that eastern Jews do not take a literal translation of the pentateuch.

I understand your suggestion of the "enlightened" period but I question the idea that this is enlightenment. There have existed civilizations in the past that had better mathematics then we did up until very recently, as well as their construction techniques.

When one considers the work of stone cutters and masons who moved massive stones that we cannot even duplicate today?

Perhaps a postmodern enlightenment that excludes God for the sake of inserting Reason and Rationale thought could be enlightened ... but I would prefer to look at the overall effect of a culture and society ... and we are far from that brother.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Who was the angel of the Lord then?

Unfamiliar.

Why are there so many prophecies fulfilled in Christ?

In your opinion...and generally the prophecies in the Bible are both vague and retroactively fit to circumstances later on. Their have been many Christ like and claimed messiahs both before and after Jesus. And as I said, anything you say is essentially refuted by the pressence of Judaism.

Inaccuracies such as?

Hares don't chew their cud.
The Earth is not the center nor is it flat.
It would be biologically impossible to breed the current human race from Noah's family and two of every kind of animal (or seven unclean) or whatever version you go with.

How does the kneecap appear?

It evolved.

 

[raybia]

The claim that the Earth is a giant disc that is carried around on the back of a giant turtle is that old.
The claim that an eclipse is when a dragon eats the moon is older than that.

I don't consider a 5000+ belief in the concept of a Supreme entity that created the universe to be not outraegous but those examples are.

The belief that war is a good way to solve disputes is as old as man.
The age of the claim doesn't correspond to it's real-life validity, necessarily.

I never said that the age of the claim corresponds to its validity. Try again.

Since, as a rule, when their fruits are tested, all religions bring strife, violence, and oppression and have caused untold emotional trauma, to me it seems to indicate that the belief in a God who explicitly tells us how to behave IS a universal phenomenon...an indicator of a universal PROBLEM with the way humankind tries to interface with reality.

Violence and oppression has not always have religion at its core. Are you saying that Athesists are immune to causing violence and are unable to oppress?

Whether you are right or wrong of your assessment of religion, I would presume to reform religion while your comments suggest that you would just assume abolish it. The freedom of religion is an fundamental principle of America and I would much rather protect that right.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I enjoy reading your posts ... but I think your statistics have no basis.

The enrollment in courses at Theological seminaries alone would disprove your percentage.

Not really. Being Christian and being Fundamentalist Christian are two very different things.

When one considers the work of stone cutters and masons who moved massive stones that we cannot even duplicate today?

I've heard this argument from so many Biblical literalists (which is ironic since the building of the Pyramids take place during the supposed flood). But when you have 1000 slaves and 100 years to complete one Temple this achievement seems hardly as noteworthy as people make it out to be (by comparison to making say a Computer in a week)