Login

Join for Free!
118234 members


God vs Evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby charles brough » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:10 pm

vikas srivastava wrote:Being a worker of biology,we can not neglect that the human is the result of progressive evolution,but as far as believe is concern,we still believe in "life after death" and "the existance of God"may be because of uneven happening in our surrounding,for which we do not have any exact reason,


Yes, but natural selection has made no changes in us biologically that would account for the rise and fall of societies, civilizations, world population and the growth of the total human cultural heritage. It can be explained, potentially, only by SOCIAL evolution.

Yes, also, you, to paraphrase, attribute our religious beliefs to handy explanations for something we have not yet otherwise explained. Yes, indeed, that sums it up! Since we have to have a common world-veiw and way of thinking to feel a sense of community (because we now live in much larger groups than the hunting-gathering sizegroups we evolved in) it has worked best to have those beiefs (religions) consist of our best explanation of things for the times. Unfortunately, however. religions have to grow old with age until they become obsolete and need to be replaced. . . .
Brough,
civilization-overview (dot) com
User avatar
charles brough
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:22 pm
Location: California

Postby checkers » Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:14 pm

The problem is that many Christians and Atheists think the two are mutually exclusive. Without starting a long bible debate, I will state that the two creation and evolution can co-exist and also that the bible does not give a definitive date of how old the world is. English translators took many liberties in their translation. Often words that could mean an indefinite amount of time, were given an time frame.
checkers
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:01 pm

Postby evointrigued » Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:18 am

I'm a staunch antitheist and atheist. Saying God exists outside of time is as plausible as me saying I'm a billionaire and my cash exists outside of time and space. I just don't understand, especially in the context of a personal god. Isn't conscience itself proven to be altered by chemical reactions (e.g. drinking)? The Bible disturbs me (e.g. Deuteronomy 22:22-29 and Leviticus 20:13). I always hear: "What about the New Testament and Jesus's loving testimony?" Of course, failure to mention the Hell fire and gnashing of teeth scare tactics (that mainly Jesus started) is a common practice. President Bush strived to implement Intelligent Design in curriculum when the last major court case (Dover County) took place. Why is calling Genesis's six days allegorical deemed to bring a religion closer to reason? Moses's staff instantly turned into a snake according to the Bible. The word "faith" has to represent the most unfortunate concept I've ever heard of. All it takes is faith (belief without evidence) to make a belief rational, right? Why not loan money to a random stranger in New York City? We don't need evidence a person will pay us back. Faith can explain its reasoning. Actually, not really... Faith is opposite of sense, reason, logic, and evidence. It, by definition, is absurd. Christianity should never be pictured as children Christmas caroling a few cute tunes. Global warming may end life on this planet as we know it and the fundies are fighting precautions. There is no reason to even suspect that God exists. Consciousness and intelligence, as far as we know, only come after extensive periods of evolution. We're animals. They're animal characteristics. Does applying animal characteristics to cosmos origins explain anything? Have you seen those Jesus Camp videos? American evangelical sects are just like militant Islam. I'm American and certainly not anti-American, but didn't Bush apparently say God told him to strike Iraq? I suppose Buddhism doesn't really bother me much but the Bible/Koran religions are fatally toxic (as well as impoverishing). I agree with the honorable and legendary Dawkins when he speaks of religion as acting like a virus.
evointrigued
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:09 pm


Postby alextemplet » Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:25 am

evointrigued wrote:I'm a staunch antitheist and atheist. Saying God exists outside of time is as plausible as me saying I'm a billionaire and my cash exists outside of time and space. I just don't understand, especially in the context of a personal god. Isn't conscience itself proven to be altered by chemical reactions (e.g. drinking)? The Bible disturbs me (e.g. Deuteronomy 22:22-29 and Leviticus 20:13). I always hear: "What about the New Testament and Jesus's loving testimony?" Of course, failure to mention the Hell fire and gnashing of teeth scare tactics (that mainly Jesus started) is a common practice. President Bush strived to implement Intelligent Design in curriculum when the last major court case (Dover County) took place. Why is calling Genesis's six days allegorical deemed to bring a religion closer to reason? Moses's staff instantly turned into a snake according to the Bible. The word "faith" has to represent the most unfortunate concept I've ever heard of. All it takes is faith (belief without evidence) to make a belief rational, right? Why not loan money to a random stranger in New York City? We don't need evidence a person will pay us back. Faith can explain its reasoning. Actually, not really... Faith is opposite of sense, reason, logic, and evidence. It, by definition, is absurd. Christianity should never be pictured as children Christmas caroling a few cute tunes. Global warming may end life on this planet as we know it and the fundies are fighting precautions. There is no reason to even suspect that God exists. Consciousness and intelligence, as far as we know, only come after extensive periods of evolution. We're animals. They're animal characteristics. Does applying animal characteristics to cosmos origins explain anything? Have you seen those Jesus Camp videos? American evangelical sects are just like militant Islam. I'm American and certainly not anti-American, but didn't Bush apparently say God told him to strike Iraq? I suppose Buddhism doesn't really bother me much but the Bible/Koran religions are fatally toxic (as well as impoverishing). I agree with the honorable and legendary Dawkins when he speaks of religion as acting like a virus.


Hm . . . I would reply to this, but I somehow suspect it won't turn into a very reasonable discussion.

In any case, I am very glad Christianity is in fact quite the opposite of what you describe it to be, or I would have to change religions in a hurry.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby AstusAleator » Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:08 am

Now THAT was a rant.
I 60-80% agree, but blanket statements don't solve problems, they only create new ones. Religion is what people make it, and unfortunately bad people have made certain religions do bad things for them at points during history (or currently depending on your views).
Perhaps your gripe should be more with narrow-minded fundamentalism?
I understand your beef with faith. But then again, everything in life takes faith. You can listen to your science teacher tell you about atoms, but unless you become a nuclear physicist, you'll probably never see primary indisputable evidence that atoms truly exist. Therefore you are putting faith in science... odd eh? The good thing about science is that it's testable and refutable, so really you're putting faith in the good scientists of the world to keep you from being mislead.
But anyway, I agree it can be frustrating to reason with someone when their beliefs are based entirely on faith. In fact I don't even attempt it, except from time to time on this forum.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby Roland Pohlmeyer » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:00 pm

Evolution or creation? Is this what it boils down to? Are they not nearly synonymous? I think that we should all respect each other's points of views. If someone believes in God, good on him/ her. I have always admired people who had this personal relationship with their God, unfortunately I have not. That is not to say that I cannot marvel at the universe and the wonders from quarks and photons to the DNA double helix, cells and virus to planets, stars and galaxies.

Scientist just want to understand how things work, our dogmas are transitory until we find something better. Many scientists are atheists, but then it's only a small step from atheism to pantheism where the universe can be seen as God. We are just searching for a truth that is reproducible. Unfortunately, science can come across as dogmatic and aggressive which is a real shame. If you are happy I'm happy for you, but please don't try to change me, because I'm just as happy being a scientist and Darwinist.

As for the purpose of life. Life can have many meanings or none at all. In a way, it may be less important to know where we have come from than to decide where we want to get to. It's up to each individual to decide what they want to do with their existence.
Roland Pohlmeyer
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:37 pm

Postby charles brough » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:15 pm

checkers wrote:The problem is that many Christians and Atheists think the two are mutually exclusive. Without starting a long bible debate, I will state that the two creation and evolution can co-exist and also that the bible does not give a definitive date of how old the world is. English translators took many liberties in their translation. Often words that could mean an indefinite amount of time, were given an time frame.


Sure . . . deists think of God as a "First Cause." That does not interefere with or need not be inconsistent with evolution. Einstein seems to have been a deist, perhaps Darwin as well. I am an atheist and I consider deists and myself as in the same group called Free Thinkers. What we have in common is that we do not accept the idea that no "God" runs things to suit his whim or in response to prayers and that all that can be known can be ultimately understood as natural cause and effect.
Brough,
civilization-overview (dot) com
User avatar
charles brough
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:22 pm
Location: California

Postby charles brough » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:26 pm

evointrigued wrote: I'm American and certainly not anti-American, but didn't Bush apparently say God told him to strike Iraq? I suppose Buddhism doesn't really bother me much but the Bible/Koran religions are fatally toxic (as well as impoverishing).


Yes, President Bush does represent the Baptist, Evangelical and Penticostal people in the South and Mid-West. Their St. Patrick college is turning out young Christian Fundamentalist militants by the hundreds and the Bush Administration is fitting them into all branches of the governmental bureaucracy. The president's policy has a religious agenda.

I disagree with only one sentence in your post. The human race HAS to have religion(s) in order to bind people into societies. We are evolutionary products of small hunting-gathering groups and are instinctively unsettled and stressful in larger groups unless religion is there so that we can identify with these huge, Religious bonded societies. The problem with modern times is that the religions have been outgrown and we need something far more scientific with which to replace them. Our secular ideology has proven unable to do that.
Brough,
civilization-overview (dot) com
User avatar
charles brough
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:22 pm
Location: California

Postby alextemplet » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:18 pm

"Christian Fundamentalist militants"??? Um . . . yeah . . . right . . . :roll:

Once again the irrationality of atheism is all too clearly demonstrated.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby evointrigued » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:15 pm

I'll aim at coming off lighter. I don't want to offend anyone. I am just concerned with how religion is attacking compassion. I'll throw a couple extra points in to spark controversy.

alextemplet wrote:"Christian Fundamentalist militants"??? Um . . . yeah . . . right . . . :roll:

Once again the irrationality of atheism is all too clearly demonstrated.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). There are atheists who are religion apologists. Anti-theism is what your statement was against.

I consider B-52 carpet bombing mass populations in the name of the Judeo-Christian god to be a militant act.

I consider forbidding marriage with non-believers (2 Corinthians 6:14-15) to be fundamentalism, and an idea present in both the New Testament and Old Testament.


AstusAleator wrote:Perhaps your gripe should be more with narrow-minded fundamentalism?

I consider my gripe to be with fundamentalism. Without any genuine evidence, there is no genuine reason to postulate. Without reason, positing is an act of unreason. What consensus generally calls a "moderate Christian" is founded upon unreason, and they have a bad tendency to provide a power base for the fundamentalists. Until the roots of the problem (unreason/theism) are tackled, the problem will continue. I've heard it argued that the roots of the problem are the people, not the religion. This was debunked when I saw well-intended people hurt others because they feared God's wrath. It's like physicist Steven Weinberg said: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

AstusAleator wrote:I understand your beef with faith. But then again, everything in life takes faith. You can listen to your science teacher tell you about atoms, but unless you become a nuclear physicist, you'll probably never see primary indisputable evidence that atoms truly exist. Therefore you are putting faith in science... odd eh?

If the experiments aren't performed first hand, that would be trust in the scientific community's objective conclusions, but that's not faith at all. Ideas from scientific consensus are constantly reinforced to us. When I was sick and consumed antibiotics inconsistently, natural selection proposed by the scientific community was supported by evidence. When I consumed them consistently, evidence was revealed again. When a cell phone fails to operate because the polarity of the battery is incorrect, the consensus is supported again. In fact, just the fact there are battery cells is evidence consensus isn't formed arbitrarily. The list could continue for days. When the community calls an idea fact, evidence has displayed there is genuine reason to take it seriously.

charles brough wrote:I disagree with only one sentence in your post. The human race HAS to have religion(s) in order to bind people into societies. We are evolutionary products of small hunting-gathering groups and are instinctively unsettled and stressful in larger groups unless religion is there so that we can identify with these huge, Religious bonded societies. The problem with modern times is that the religions have been outgrown and we need something far more scientific with which to replace them. Our secular ideology has proven unable to do that.

What about Sweden? They're apparently 85%+ secular.
evointrigued
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:09 pm

Postby charles brough » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:40 pm

[/quote]
What about Sweden? They're apparently 85%+ secular.[/quote]

Your rebuttals of the fundamentalists were well done, but as you are well aware, all is not black and white. The human race has had religion for well over 100,000 years. You perhaps assume that means we are adicted to belief in "spirits," but as Sweden indicatres, people are able to be held together by ideology that has much less to do with spirits than the old religions. If it holds a people together, it serves the same function as the old religions. "Religion" is merely a world view and way of thinking that binds people together. East Asian Marxism is a "religion" also since it functions the same. A "seat" is something you sit on and is defined by its function: the same with what binds us into societies.

Sweden is remarkably better off without fundamentalists. People there tend to believe in only a "First Cause." In addition to a Christian heritage involving belief in a sort of spiritual Christ, they have manger scenes at Christmas. But they are also bonded by a strong socialist ideology that is part of their secular belief which is absent in our secularism.

We atheists are so ineffective because we have so little in common. If we were bonded together by a SCIENTIFIC system that had the self consistency most of the old religions have, we would be united, could effective organize and actually run the world.
Brough,
civilization-overview (dot) com
User avatar
charles brough
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:22 pm
Location: California

Postby evointrigued » Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:38 pm

I like your logic. Science, and skepticism when there's little/no evidence for claims, would solve many problems founded on irrationality. Ethical philosophies like the Golden Rule (to replace the Christian/Muslim mix-up of ethics/cruelty) certainly have my support.
evointrigued
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests