Im Atheist at the moment...
Im Atheist at the moment...
I guess truthfully I don't NOT believe in any religion, but I don't believe in one either...They're all pretty confusing and war inducing...Hey, that ryhmes!
Oh, I just can't decide which one would be the easiest to follow that won't make me lose my super-sensitive conscience and cement-like beliefs and morals.
*snigger*
"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless,
uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
meh, since im getting tired of reading this thread, im just going to say that it really appears that u guys who are biased toward evolution seem to have a lot more to defend than those who believe things were created. ya'll just have to try harder to think of ways for it to work. it'd say it takes more faithto believe in all that stuff than it is to believe it was simply created.
you all are smart people, and im no expert on this subject, but i dont really wanna be coming home and checking a thread on an arguement, so im out
m'yes...
I agree there, its sad when the people with "Scientific Facts" are more biased than those with the religionI really find the irony just humiliating there.
Scence is teh roxar and Spurtualliez enlightenz are Nubz cuz donkees cant talk and 40 yuths cant be killed... But I em Smart cuz sciece is teh r0x0rz:rolleyes2
I have seen a few people whom still argue based on facts, like D and Traitorfish, and I am sure a few others. When arguing facts, arrogance is a wet fish when knowlage is a borad sword! Huzzah!
When it comes down to it, the mobile of attack would be to look at the bible, which is a topic in EOEO. Unfortunatley, I realize some of us are Banned, but its truley a great topic thus far.
I stick to my guns when I say that science simply the process started by GOD, and runs the world. The both can exist, but bottome line is, we just don't know enough factual evidence to disprove the bible. Its hard to ask why did the sea split for Mosses or How did Jesus pull a coin out of a fish mouth when he had no money on him, when we can barely have factual evidnce on evolution. We are still guessing.
BipperOriginally Posted by bipper
Bipper has a point
No argument with that... (BIG SMILES!)
Of course it does. Evolution is far more complex than simply attributing all of existence to some higher force. Therefore, evolutionists do indeed have more to defend. However, their theory falls within the realm of the natural and the logical. Creationism, at least of the variety that ignores the numbers, falls within neither category and is therefore easily dismissed.
Some of evolution's opponents have pointed out, and rightly so, that there is a degree of nihilistic thought involved with evolution. If this is true, and the universe is indeed a place governed by might rather than right, would this not imply that the thesis of the Abrahamic faiths that human nature is inherently sinful is correct? Would undeniable proof of such an existence not merely increase the desire to rise above a universe where one must take life in order to sustain one's own? This of course rests on certain assumptions made by the followers of a given religion, but when operating from those assumptions, it seems to me that their theses are only strengthened. That said, I cannot hold with any religion that implies that nature itself (and by extension, logic and reason) is somehow wrong.
People who support the avenues of logical, rational inquiry can often appear to fierce religionists to be biased because they are indeed biased. Just like EVERYONE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Do you honestly expect anyone advocating any position to offer evidence that doesn't support their side? It's irrational to do such a thing. Not only that, they possess emotions as well, and rightly become angry when logic is ignored in favor of what can best be described as an addicting drug.
Let me put it this way: slavery wasn't justified by evolution, it was justified by religion.And how, praytell, does Creationism leave more room for "rascism" than Evolutionism? How is "God created man" more racist than "black people evolved from apes, and we all evolved from black people"?
Not really. Given the time scales were working with, humans ain't been around all that long. And one could argue that domesticating animals is a type of guided evolution.w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
Let me put it this way: You're wrong. No religion justified slavery. Sometimes, religions were manipulated to "support" the idea of slavery, but that doesn't mean they actually did. Many things can be misinterpreted -- intentionally or unintentionally -- to support things they really don't. That's how Evolutionism gets most of its evidence.
You're missing the entire point. While Christianity has to be manipulated and misinterpreted to support racism, or slavery or whatever evil you want to put out there, Evolutionism envokes racism even in any moderate belief. It has since the idea was thought up, and it still does today. Not to mention, the topic was how Creationism supports or does not support racism, not Christianity.
Minor evolution, yes. Speciation, no. What Evolutionists all too often forget is that nobody denies that evolution happens on a minor scale, only that one blob of cells can somehow, given an extravagant amount of time, become something incredibly complex. Yes, we've seen evolution happen. In nearly everything domesticated -- dogs, flowers, crops, you name it. Even viruses, to some extent. No, we haven't seen Evolutionism happen.Not really. Given the time scales were working with, humans ain't been around all that long. And one could argue that domesticating animals is a type of guided evolution.w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
everyone has a religeon
One point - evolution contradicts part of the Bible, it does not contradict the idea of a God. God could have had evolution as one of its many mechanisms of controlling the universe and all of existence.
I seperate between God and the Bible. The Bible is a human interpretation of what God is. God could exist with a 100% certainty, and still the Bible wouldn't have to be true. The Bible merely raises ideas, interpretations... it is not the end to all discussions.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
Um, yeah, I really don't want to turn this into another Bible dispute, but I belive the Bible is the word of God being written down by humans. How else do you describe many of the truths in the Bible. Anyways, Like I say, its another debate for another thread: http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71534
As far as religion being used for slavery, there are very, very few that actually encourage slavery. I am talking very small relgions or primative peoples such as Amazonians and Incas. Christianity actually stands <i>against slavery</i>.
Bipper
Racism is not explicitly promoted by either point of view. It is implied in both. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit slavery anywhere in its pages - a fact Christian slaveholders of the Confederacy were well aware of.Let me put it this way: You're wrong. No religion justified slavery. Sometimes, religions were manipulated to "support" the idea of slavery, but that doesn't mean they actually did. Many things can be misinterpreted -- intentionally or unintentionally -- to support things they really don't. That's how Evolutionism gets most of its evidence.
You're missing the entire point. While Christianity has to be manipulated and misinterpreted to support racism, or slavery or whatever evil you want to put out there, Evolutionism invokes racism even in any moderate belief. It has since the idea was thought up, and it still does today. Not to mention, the topic was how Creationism supports or does not support racism, not Christianity.
Minor evolution, yes. Speciation, no. What Evolutionists all too often forget is that nobody denies that evolution happens on a minor scale, only that one blob of cells can somehow, given an extravagant amount of time, become something incredibly complex. Yes, we've seen evolution happen. In nearly everything domesticated -- dogs, flowers, crops, you name it. Even viruses, to some extent. No, we haven't seen Evolutionism happen.Not really. Given the time scales were working with, humans ain't been around all that long. And one could argue that domesticating animals is a type of guided evolution.w/ all the creatures that live on this planet, it's strange that none of them have evolved during the existance of man.
Besides, if you have evidence that can defeat the peer-reviewed facts supported by the vast majority of leading scientists, you shouldn't be here, you should be out telling them about it. If the idea is so incredibly false, how did it become so well-grounded in the scientific community?
Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.
It is expressly stated in Evolutionism. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a certain color or race of people should be enslaved, does it? Whereas Evolutionism does indeed state that Africans are the "least developed" form of man.
EDIT: By the way, if you didn't know, many people in the South did not own slaves, and many people in the North did at that time. You're probably one of the people who think "the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves!" Besides, what textile factories and such in the North did to their women and children was worse than most slaves had to go through. But we're not on that topic now.
Because it doesn't involve God. It doesn't matter if it holds water or not, because not involving God is all it needs for most of "science" to accept it. I thought I already explained this.Besides, if you have evidence that can defeat the peer-reviewed facts supported by the vast majority of leading scientists, you shouldn't be here, you should be out telling them about it. If the idea is so incredibly false, how did it become so well-grounded in the scientific community?
Some have evolved, yes. But there's no evidence that any "new" creatures have evolved, just simple traits of old creatures. When in reality, there's no evidence that "new" creatures EVER evolved.Creatures have evolved during the existence of man. Men started to appear roughly three million years ago. Plenty of evolution has occurred during that time.
Posting Permissions
