Yo ucan debate all you want but I would rather believe that mankind was created by a higher being than mankind evolved from a monkey over millions of years.......IMO evolution is totally ridiculous and offers its beleivers no hope.......
I don't know how many times this has to be posted before you get it, but MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM A MONKEY. Man and monkeys have a COMMON ANCESTOR.
Regarding the rest of your post -- I really don't know what to say. You'd rather believe it, so that makes it so.
Willfull ignorance at its finest.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Yo ucan debate all you want but I would rather believe that mankind was created by a higher being than mankind evolved from a monkey over millions of years.......IMO evolution is totally ridiculous and offers its beleivers no hope.......
Most Christians and Jews believe in evolution, at least according to most studies I've seen. I'd say that those who do stlll have plenty of hope, as do buddhists, taoists, wiccans, objectivists, nietschean egosists, transcendentalists, deists, pastafarians, agonostics, atheists, jingoists, antagonists, or anyone who looks to the future in a positive way.
The study of how that person believes they Got here does not need to have anything to do with where they believe they are going.
Yo ucan debate all you want but I would rather believe that mankind was created by a higher being than mankind evolved from a monkey over millions of years.......IMO evolution is totally ridiculous and offers its beleivers no hope.......
Yep. If it sounds better, it's clearly more valid as truth.
I too enjoy basing my view of reality entirely upon what makes me feel good.
For this same reason, I believe all women were created to satisfy me, animals were created to work for me, people of different races are inferior to me, and reality is shaped entirely by my whim.
Oh wait no that's dumb as shit.
Evolution is not a 'belief' in the same way that gravity is not a 'belief.' It's an acceptance of fact.
Originally posted by Vhayne Now, in closing, I have a request. Stop with the attacking of people who do not believe in evolution. We're not all attacking you. We don't call you stupid or uninformed, so don't do it to us. Just because we CHOOSE to believe a certain way doesn't mean we're completely ignorant to the other.
I may not agree with Creationism but this I do agree with. Let people believe in whatever they want to believe. If you think they are wrong... so what, it effects you in no way. I may be an Evolutionist but I also feel that if someone wants to believe in Creationism... Hey, whatever gets you through the day. The only time I ever argue with Creationists is when they try to throw it in my face otherwise I leave them alone. Hey, if that is what you personally need to believe more power to you.
Bren
Now this I have to respectfully disagree with. People believing in utter nonsense like creationism does have an affect on the rest of us. Belief and faith are not inviolate, and we should all be free to disagree, or even attack, patently false beliefs and ideas.
Having hundreds of thousands, if not milions of people, believing in something that is patently wrong, and then spreading those falsehoods to their children/friends/congregations etc. is a millstone around everyone's neck.
Yo ucan debate all you want but I would rather believe that mankind was created by a higher being than mankind evolved from a monkey over millions of years.......IMO evolution is totally ridiculous and offers its beleivers no hope.......
And opinions like this offer me no hope that humanity will ever amount to anything. We might as well throw out the last few thousand years of scientific progress and go back to living in huts, and dying of a combination of fear and malnutrition in our mid 20's.
You see how even on the atheist/agnostic side of the fence there are people that disagree with each other. For example, I believe that religious people could an should be left alone as long as they don't enforce their beliefs down other people's throats and leave religion aside in politics. We can't force people to become agnostic, we'd be just as bad. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, I know plenty of Christians and Muslims who fully accept the theory of evolution and accept that the earth revolves around the sun.
Religion often becomes a major part of a person. When you attack or even disagree with their faith, you attack (or disagree with) their very person, and don't acknowledge them as such. That's pretty much how wars start.
It's when religious people try to halt progress because of their religion that it becomes a problem. Gay rights, euthenasia, abortion, etc. At the same time, it's completely acceptable that they themselves choose to believe in those morals and choose not to be euthanised of undergo an abortion. As long as they don't enforce that on to others with different morals. Of course, this goes both ways.
If we truly came from apes then there had to be a time when our free will was evolving along with our facial features. Was there one ape who could discern right from wrong first?
Or were they all in a half and half stage? Was there even any such thing as right and wrong or did they remain pagan apes until their brains developed enough to invent religion? And of course, if they became so smart that they "invented" religion does that not prove that religion is necessary?
I do not see other animals finding this a necessity.
If we truly came from apes then there had to be a time when our free will was evolving along with our facial features. Was there one ape who could discern right from wrong first? Or were they all in a half and half stage? Was there even any such thing as right and wrong or did they remain pagan apes until their brains developed enough to invent religion? And of course, if they became so smart that they "invented" religion does that not prove that religion is necessary? I do not see other animals finding this a necessity.
While not explaining your question in full, you may like the insights this link has to offer. Please read all four pages. Also, we don't come from apes. We have a common ancestor with apes. This has been explained to you many times in topics like these, I'm surprised you still say that. Although I have to admit I understand the 'mistake' and realise that may not have been what you were trying to say. That said, your question is very valid indeed - and many experts are trying to find out the exact answer to that question. However, don't forget that religion, at its base, is a form of superstition. We think (illogically) that we can avoid punishment and get rewards by performing certain actions in the hopes that we get those rewards or not get punished while we, indeed, have no control over it at all - thus forming a belief in a 'higher power'. This is simple operant conditioning and this behavior has been reported many, many times in different scientific fields. Both in the field (nature) and experiments.
If we truly came from apes then there had to be a time when our free will was evolving along with our facial features. Was there one ape who could discern right from wrong first? Or were they all in a half and half stage? Was there even any such thing as right and wrong or did they remain pagan apes until their brains developed enough to invent religion? And of course, if they became so smart that they "invented" religion does that not prove that religion is necessary? I do not see other animals finding this a necessity.
It's interesting that you finished with the term "other animals" there.
There are quite a few schools of thought that posit that what we term "morality" is an offshoot of our social evolution. Humans are unique in that they believe in "good" and "evil", or more simply "right" and "wrong".
The rest of the animal kingdom is simply governed by expediency, and the morality of the wolf will always be at odds with the morality of the sheep. Right and wrong doesn't even enter into it.
Humanity has invented many, many things over the course of our species history, many of these things are now redundant, or were never really useful in the first place, so i don't believe that you can use the argument that because we invented religion we need it.
Have you ever heard of reductionist theory? Basically it means that thousands of years ago we had no clue how the natural world worked, so we invented hundreds of gods and spirits to explain it. As we evolved and our knowledge grew, these hundreds of gods were reduced to the classic pantheons of greek/nordic mythos (for example). Then there were further reduced as our knowledge grew
I'm not saying it's true, I just find it an interesting concept. For me personally, religion has always seemed more of a crutch to humanity, a way to deal with our innate fear of non-existence, and our pathetic belief that we are "special". Like with any crutch, it was useful while we needed it, but we shouldn't keep hobbling along with it because we're too scared to try walking on our own again.
The last page of the link I posted had an interesting question that deserves reading;
So where does this whole evolutionary history leave us in today's scientific age? What are the implications for how we can talk about religion?
I'm part of the camp of people who thinks it's perfectly possible to see religion and science as compatible areas of thought and inquiry. In my book, I lay out three choices. You can say you've got to choose one. You can believe in science or you can have faith in God -- the Richard Dawkins school of thought. Or you can say there are "non-overlapping magisteria" -- the famous Stephen Jay Gould answer that religion will help us with meaning, and science will tell us about other things. I'm actually in a third place. If you can avoid being a biblical literalist, and if you can avoid being an arrogant scientist who tells everyone else what to think, you can think on multiple levels at once. There's a lot of beauty in seeing that religion and science are really about the same things. They can be perfectly compatible.
That said, this comes from an anthropologist. We make fun of them a lot. (Just joking, of course. :-) )
Religion and science are not about the same things. They are deeply opposed.
Science is all about asking questions and skepticism.
Religion is all about not asking question, not to doubt any of its belief.
I never understood how anybody can be a christian and believe in the theory of evolution at it is widely accepted. The theory of evolution is in conflict with the book of Genesis.
Religion and science are not about the same things. They are deeply opposed. Science is all about asking questions and skepticism.
Religion is all about not asking question, not to doubt any of its belief. I never understood how anybody can be a christian and believe in the theory of evolution at it is widely accepted. The theory of evolution is in conflict with the book of Genesis.
Of course, being religious is not the same as being Christian and following the book of Genesis literally. Many faiths and religions are very compatible with the theory of evolution - and not every Christian takes the Bible literally. They realise that stories get 'lost in translation' throughout the hundreds of years, and that everything written down is only man's interpretation of the divine. They accept the 'big picture' and the philosophy with it, but at the same time accept that everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.
Some people need faith, and have no problems with science, yet are sceptic towards many of its tenets. Who am I to denounce them? Even when you study to be a scientist, you learn that at every step of the way, you have to be very sceptical and critical of even the produce of science itself. Otherwise, you're no 'better' (for lack of better words) than a creationist.
Religion and science are not about the same things. They are deeply opposed. Science is all about asking questions and skepticism.
Religion is all about not asking question, not to doubt any of its belief. I never understood how anybody can be a christian and believe in the theory of evolution at it is widely accepted. The theory of evolution is in conflict with the book of Genesis.
Of course, being religious is not the same as being Christian and following the book of Genesis literally. Many faiths and religions are very compatible with the theory of evolution - and not every Christian takes the Bible literally. They realise that stories get 'lost in translation' throughout the hundreds of years, and that everything written down is only man's interpretation of the divine. They accept the 'big picture' and the philosophy with it, but at the same time accept that everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.
Some people need faith, and have no problems with science, yet are sceptic towards many of its tenets. Who am I to denounce them? Even when you study to be a scientist, you learn that at every step of the way, you have to be very sceptical and critical of even the produce of science itself. Otherwise, you're no 'better' (for lack of better words) than a creationist.
You said it yourself, being "sceptical" and and "critical" are the very basic tenets of science, whereas religion actively discourages those viewpoints and asks for blind faith. I think that's one of the main problems a lot of people have with religion.
Religion and science are not about the same things. They are deeply opposed. Science is all about asking questions and skepticism.
Religion is all about not asking question, not to doubt any of its belief. I never understood how anybody can be a christian and believe in the theory of evolution at it is widely accepted. The theory of evolution is in conflict with the book of Genesis.
Of course, being religious is not the same as being Christian and following the book of Genesis literally. Many faiths and religions are very compatible with the theory of evolution - and not every Christian takes the Bible literally. They realise that stories get 'lost in translation' throughout the hundreds of years, and that everything written down is only man's interpretation of the divine. They accept the 'big picture' and the philosophy with it, but at the same time accept that everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.
Some people need faith, and have no problems with science, yet are sceptic towards many of its tenets. Who am I to denounce them? Even when you study to be a scientist, you learn that at every step of the way, you have to be very sceptical and critical of even the produce of science itself. Otherwise, you're no 'better' (for lack of better words) than a creationist.
You said it yourself, being "sceptical" and and "critical" are the very basic tenets of science, whereas religion actively discourages those viewpoints and asks for blind faith. I think that's one of the main problems a lot of people have with religion.
Of course, but if the religious people aren't hurting anybody with their opinion and respect other people's opinion (= the vast majority of the Dutch religious people), who am I to attack their views on life? A religious person that believes in the theory of evolution is not necissarily a scientist, we can't expect that person to apply the tenets of science to every part of his life. In fact, we should be pretty dang happy he's open to such ideas in the first thing without denouncing everything scientific as 'sacrilege'. Live and let live, really. Life is just too damn short for anything else but that.
I'm very much in to science, and working hard towards several MScs/MAs (not even close yet, though, heh), but even I need faith. I could operationalise 'love' as 'nothing more than neurochemicals and hormones running wild' and that we've been 'conditioned' towards our preferences, and I could go on and on and in a lot more detail. But if I were to view it as nothing more than that, and denounce the mystique around emotions as 'primitive basal feelings needed for survival', it'd certainly put a strain on my relationship with my girlfriend and make it much less enjoyable! Of course, this might've been a slightly bad example, but you get my point. Even those of us who view themselves as the most scientific and logical have some beliefs that may seem a bit illogical. I would be a hypocrite if I denounce other people's 'silly' faiths simply because I deem them 'even more ridiculous' (compared to beliefs and superstitions I may hold, most of which I'm probably not aware of).
Religion and science are not about the same things. They are deeply opposed. Science is all about asking questions and skepticism.
Religion is all about not asking question, not to doubt any of its belief. I never understood how anybody can be a christian and believe in the theory of evolution at it is widely accepted. The theory of evolution is in conflict with the book of Genesis.
Of course, being religious is not the same as being Christian and following the book of Genesis literally. Many faiths and religions are very compatible with the theory of evolution - and not every Christian takes the Bible literally. They realise that stories get 'lost in translation' throughout the hundreds of years, and that everything written down is only man's interpretation of the divine. They accept the 'big picture' and the philosophy with it, but at the same time accept that everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.
Some people need faith, and have no problems with science, yet are sceptic towards many of its tenets. Who am I to denounce them? Even when you study to be a scientist, you learn that at every step of the way, you have to be very sceptical and critical of even the produce of science itself. Otherwise, you're no 'better' (for lack of better words) than a creationist.
You said it yourself, being "sceptical" and and "critical" are the very basic tenets of science, whereas religion actively discourages those viewpoints and asks for blind faith. I think that's one of the main problems a lot of people have with religion.
Of course, but if the religious people aren't hurting anybody with their opinion and respect other people's opinion (= the vast majority of the Dutch religious people), who am I to attack their views on life? A religious person that believes in the theory of evolution is not necissarily a scientist, we can't expect that person to apply the tenets of science to every part of his life. In fact, we should be pretty dang happy he's open to such ideas in the first thing without denouncing everything scientific as 'sacrilege'. Live and let live, really. Life is just too damn short for anything else but that.
I'm very much in to science, and working hard towards several MScs/MAs (not even close yet, though, heh), but even I need faith. I could operationalise 'love' as 'nothing more than neurochemicals and hormones running wild' and that we've been 'conditioned' towards our preferences, and I could go on and on and in a lot more detail. But if I were to view it as nothing more than that, and denounce the mystique around emotions as 'primitive basal feelings needed for survival', it'd certainly put a strain on my relationship with my girlfriend and make it much less enjoyable! Of course, this might've been a slightly bad example, but you get my point. Even those of us who view themselves as the most scientific and logical have some beliefs that may seem a bit illogical. I would be a hypocrite if I denounce other people's 'silly' faiths simply because I deem them 'even more ridiculous' (compared to beliefs and superstitions I may hold, most of which I'm probably not aware of).
You've put forward some excellently written arguments in a mature and educated fashion, I've very much enjoyed reading them, even those I don't agree with
Perhaps some of the problem then is that people of faith like you, those who don't try to shove the bible down our throats, and wilfully ignore hundreds of years of scientific progress and proof, are just a lot more noticeable than guys like you. While I am vehemently opposed to the idea of religion, I respect your viewpoints Praetoriani.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on some points, hopefully we've both given the other something to think about in regards to where we're both coming from, and I look forward to talking to you about this (or similar) subjects again (and we all know another thread like this will pop up before long!)
Religion and science are not about the same things. They are deeply opposed. Science is all about asking questions and skepticism.
Religion is all about not asking question, not to doubt any of its belief. I never understood how anybody can be a christian and believe in the theory of evolution at it is widely accepted. The theory of evolution is in conflict with the book of Genesis.
Of course, being religious is not the same as being Christian and following the book of Genesis literally. Many faiths and religions are very compatible with the theory of evolution - and not every Christian takes the Bible literally. They realise that stories get 'lost in translation' throughout the hundreds of years, and that everything written down is only man's interpretation of the divine. They accept the 'big picture' and the philosophy with it, but at the same time accept that everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.
Some people need faith, and have no problems with science, yet are sceptic towards many of its tenets. Who am I to denounce them? Even when you study to be a scientist, you learn that at every step of the way, you have to be very sceptical and critical of even the produce of science itself. Otherwise, you're no 'better' (for lack of better words) than a creationist.
You said it yourself, being "sceptical" and and "critical" are the very basic tenets of science, whereas religion actively discourages those viewpoints and asks for blind faith. I think that's one of the main problems a lot of people have with religion.
Of course, but if the religious people aren't hurting anybody with their opinion and respect other people's opinion (= the vast majority of the Dutch religious people), who am I to attack their views on life? A religious person that believes in the theory of evolution is not necissarily a scientist, we can't expect that person to apply the tenets of science to every part of his life. In fact, we should be pretty dang happy he's open to such ideas in the first thing without denouncing everything scientific as 'sacrilege'. Live and let live, really. Life is just too damn short for anything else but that.
I'm very much in to science, and working hard towards several MScs/MAs (not even close yet, though, heh), but even I need faith. I could operationalise 'love' as 'nothing more than neurochemicals and hormones running wild' and that we've been 'conditioned' towards our preferences, and I could go on and on and in a lot more detail. But if I were to view it as nothing more than that, and denounce the mystique around emotions as 'primitive basal feelings needed for survival', it'd certainly put a strain on my relationship with my girlfriend and make it much less enjoyable! Of course, this might've been a slightly bad example, but you get my point. Even those of us who view themselves as the most scientific and logical have some beliefs that may seem a bit illogical. I would be a hypocrite if I denounce other people's 'silly' faiths simply because I deem them 'even more ridiculous' (compared to beliefs and superstitions I may hold, most of which I'm probably not aware of).
Perhaps some of the problem then is that people of faith like you, those who don't try to shove the bible down our throats, and wilfully ignore hundreds of years of scientific progress and proof, are just a lot more noticeable than guys like you. While I am vehemently opposed to the idea of religion, I respect your viewpoints Praetoriani.
Thanks for your reply! However, I just want to affirm that I am not a man of faith in anything supernatural. I'm agnostic leaning very much towards atheism. When I was talking about faith in my case, I meant very small and minor things, like believing that the love you share with close ones is more than the result of neurobiology and conditioning, and superstitions you may not be aware of. We all have our little quirks and superstitions that we act on when we want something badly enough (or wish to avert something harmful enough!), thinking it will make it more likely that it will or won't happen (or at least, it couldn't hurt to try, we feel). When in an intense situation of fear, for example, it's not uncommon for even the most stout atheist to think “If I make it out unharmed, I'll promise I'll... <insert promise here!“.
I'm trying to say is that that's (and excuse me for my horrible example, I'm not very creative) a very basic version of faith that by far the most humans have in common.
My girlfriend, however, is moderately Christian. I have learned a lot from her and have gained a lot of respect for people of faith. Although, of course, we occasionally have debates. She is also a science student, by the way. 'Proving' that faith and science are not mutually exclusive, she has an amazing knowledge of physiology.
Its mostly the "blind acceptance" and the request to "not ask questions" that bothers me about religion.
Somethingl like 99% of scientist who deal with issues or ideas that are effected by evolution (biologists and such) agree that evolution is true.
The vast majority of scientists who speak out againsed evolution are in fields that are in no way related to evolution, such as world war 2 history, or physical chemistry. Thats what bugs me as well is when a PHD who probably knows as much as any of us about the biology of the situation is cited as being a reputable source of information on the subject simply because they posses a PHD.
Edit: an interested book if anybody wants to learn more about asking questions is "Only virigns need apply."
Its written by a family friend of mine (husband of Daphne Odjig, famous first nations artists in Canada) who is actually dieing, but his entire family was very relgious and he grew up and was becoming a pastor in the 7th day adventist church when he started to ask questions of the faith and couldnt get answers.
In his mid 20's he was excommunicated from the church and disowned by his entire extended family because of his questions asking and he wrote the book.
again its "Only virgins need apply" by Chester Beavon, and it is a VERY well written book from the perspective of a man who was religious for his entire childhood and young adult hood. His family is still HUGE in the religious community and he offers a perspective of somebody who has been on both sides.
An INCREDIBLY interesting man, and a very interesting book for both relgious and non-religious people. VERY eye opening.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Who care whether evolution is true or not. I think it probably is. People just like to use evolutoin to vouch for atheism because all they know about a higher being is from religion which is dumb.
Religion and athiesm are both dumb in their own ways
Who care whether evolution is true or not. I think it probably is. People just like to use evolutoin to vouch for atheism because all they know about a higher being is from religion which is dumb. Religion and athiesm are both dumb in their own ways
Thats gota be uncomfortable having a fencepost that far up your ass
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Who care whether evolution is true or not. I think it probably is. People just like to use evolutoin to vouch for atheism because all they know about a higher being is from religion which is dumb. Religion and athiesm are both dumb in their own ways
Thats gota be uncomfortable having a fencepost that far up your ass
Lol you have no idea what i mean. I could give you a list of people that influenced civilization more than you could imagine that were neither conventional religious or atheist.
Who care whether evolution is true or not. I think it probably is. People just like to use evolutoin to vouch for atheism because all they know about a higher being is from religion which is dumb. Religion and athiesm are both dumb in their own ways
Who care whether evolution is true or not. I think it probably is. People just like to use evolutoin to vouch for atheism because all they know about a higher being is from religion which is dumb. Religion and athiesm are both dumb in their own ways
How exactly are they dumb?
Religion gives the view of God in a dogmatic barbaric form, surrounded by mythology that the atheists see as obviously false (which it is). But they dont believe in God for this sole reason, their only viewpoint of him comes from conventional religion.
Many of the great thinkers (plato, socrates, einstein, ect.) believed in a non personal immanent God, but not the conventional view most people know.
Who care whether evolution is true or not. I think it probably is. People just like to use evolutoin to vouch for atheism because all they know about a higher being is from religion which is dumb. Religion and athiesm are both dumb in their own ways
How exactly are they dumb?
Religion gives the view of God in a dogmatic barbaric form, surrounded by mythology that the atheists see as obviously false (which it is). But they dont believe in God for this sole reason, their only viewpoint of him comes from conventional religion.
Many of the great thinkers (plato, socrates, einstein, ect.) believed in a non personal immanent God, but not the conventional view most people know.
This is far from the truth. The reason most atheists don't believe in God is because there is absolutely no evidence for it, and the "gods" Einstein talks about really isn't "god" in definition. Also what you're describing are a group of people, not atheism.
If we truly came from apes then there had to be a time when our free will was evolving along with our facial features. Was there one ape who could discern right from wrong first? Or were they all in a half and half stage? Was there even any such thing as right and wrong or did they remain pagan apes until their brains developed enough to invent religion? And of course, if they became so smart that they "invented" religion does that not prove that religion is necessary? I do not see other animals finding this a necessity.
My world domination plan involve an army of easy manipulated person like you, care to give me your email?
I like how you say man invented religion tho, make a lot of sense to think we invented god.
Who care whether evolution is true or not. I think it probably is. People just like to use evolutoin to vouch for atheism because all they know about a higher being is from religion which is dumb. Religion and athiesm are both dumb in their own ways
How exactly are they dumb?
Religion gives the view of God in a dogmatic barbaric form, surrounded by mythology that the atheists see as obviously false (which it is). But they dont believe in God for this sole reason, their only viewpoint of him comes from conventional religion.
Many of the great thinkers (plato, socrates, einstein, ect.) believed in a non personal immanent God, but not the conventional view most people know.
This is far from the truth. The reason most atheists don't believe in God is because there is absolutely no evidence for it, and the "gods" Einstein talks about really isn't "god" in definition. Also what you're describing are a group of people, not atheism.
Your right he didnt belive in God in the definition we think of today. He did believe in a superior reasoning power and a "illmitable superior spirit" if you want me to quote him.
Also, show evidence of color to a color blind man using the scienfitic method, its impossible, yet color is known to be true. What i have experienced alone and what other great thinkers have experienced, and religious believers, there is no "evidence" thats going to be presented, just experience. And there is no doubt in my mind something greater than me exists. Look at the world and our symmetric bodies, the capabilities of our mind are extraordinary. Consciousness isn't the product of nothing. If us humans are the highest reasoning power in existance, why cant we create a single cell from scratch? Much less a complex mind and a functioning body.
Im sorry there is no "Hard evidence" for something transcendent. What kind of evidence would you like? God to pop out and say "hey im right here" lol" God" operates on another level.
Comments
I don't know how many times this has to be posted before you get it, but MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM A MONKEY. Man and monkeys have a COMMON ANCESTOR.
Regarding the rest of your post -- I really don't know what to say. You'd rather believe it, so that makes it so.
Willfull ignorance at its finest.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Most Christians and Jews believe in evolution, at least according to most studies I've seen. I'd say that those who do stlll have plenty of hope, as do buddhists, taoists, wiccans, objectivists, nietschean egosists, transcendentalists, deists, pastafarians, agonostics, atheists, jingoists, antagonists, or anyone who looks to the future in a positive way.
The study of how that person believes they Got here does not need to have anything to do with where they believe they are going.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yep. If it sounds better, it's clearly more valid as truth.
I too enjoy basing my view of reality entirely upon what makes me feel good.
For this same reason, I believe all women were created to satisfy me, animals were created to work for me, people of different races are inferior to me, and reality is shaped entirely by my whim.
Oh wait no that's dumb as shit.
Evolution is not a 'belief' in the same way that gravity is not a 'belief.' It's an acceptance of fact.
-
I may not agree with Creationism but this I do agree with. Let people believe in whatever they want to believe. If you think they are wrong... so what, it effects you in no way. I may be an Evolutionist but I also feel that if someone wants to believe in Creationism... Hey, whatever gets you through the day. The only time I ever argue with Creationists is when they try to throw it in my face otherwise I leave them alone. Hey, if that is what you personally need to believe more power to you.
Bren
Now this I have to respectfully disagree with. People believing in utter nonsense like creationism does have an affect on the rest of us. Belief and faith are not inviolate, and we should all be free to disagree, or even attack, patently false beliefs and ideas.
Having hundreds of thousands, if not milions of people, believing in something that is patently wrong, and then spreading those falsehoods to their children/friends/congregations etc. is a millstone around everyone's neck.
And opinions like this offer me no hope that humanity will ever amount to anything. We might as well throw out the last few thousand years of scientific progress and go back to living in huts, and dying of a combination of fear and malnutrition in our mid 20's.
Go team religion! You rock!
You see how even on the atheist/agnostic side of the fence there are people that disagree with each other. For example, I believe that religious people could an should be left alone as long as they don't enforce their beliefs down other people's throats and leave religion aside in politics. We can't force people to become agnostic, we'd be just as bad. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, I know plenty of Christians and Muslims who fully accept the theory of evolution and accept that the earth revolves around the sun.
Religion often becomes a major part of a person. When you attack or even disagree with their faith, you attack (or disagree with) their very person, and don't acknowledge them as such. That's pretty much how wars start.
It's when religious people try to halt progress because of their religion that it becomes a problem. Gay rights, euthenasia, abortion, etc. At the same time, it's completely acceptable that they themselves choose to believe in those morals and choose not to be euthanised of undergo an abortion. As long as they don't enforce that on to others with different morals. Of course, this goes both ways.
If we truly came from apes then there had to be a time when our free will was evolving along with our facial features. Was there one ape who could discern right from wrong first?
Or were they all in a half and half stage? Was there even any such thing as right and wrong or did they remain pagan apes until their brains developed enough to invent religion? And of course, if they became so smart that they "invented" religion does that not prove that religion is necessary?
I do not see other animals finding this a necessity.
While not explaining your question in full, you may like the insights this link has to offer. Please read all four pages. Also, we don't come from apes. We have a common ancestor with apes. This has been explained to you many times in topics like these, I'm surprised you still say that. Although I have to admit I understand the 'mistake' and realise that may not have been what you were trying to say. That said, your question is very valid indeed - and many experts are trying to find out the exact answer to that question. However, don't forget that religion, at its base, is a form of superstition. We think (illogically) that we can avoid punishment and get rewards by performing certain actions in the hopes that we get those rewards or not get punished while we, indeed, have no control over it at all - thus forming a belief in a 'higher power'. This is simple operant conditioning and this behavior has been reported many, many times in different scientific fields. Both in the field (nature) and experiments.
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2007/01/31/king/
I must admit, you really had made me think with that question. Sometimes, I wish I had gone to study archaeology, paleontology or biology instead!
It's interesting that you finished with the term "other animals" there.
There are quite a few schools of thought that posit that what we term "morality" is an offshoot of our social evolution. Humans are unique in that they believe in "good" and "evil", or more simply "right" and "wrong".
The rest of the animal kingdom is simply governed by expediency, and the morality of the wolf will always be at odds with the morality of the sheep. Right and wrong doesn't even enter into it.
Humanity has invented many, many things over the course of our species history, many of these things are now redundant, or were never really useful in the first place, so i don't believe that you can use the argument that because we invented religion we need it.
Have you ever heard of reductionist theory? Basically it means that thousands of years ago we had no clue how the natural world worked, so we invented hundreds of gods and spirits to explain it. As we evolved and our knowledge grew, these hundreds of gods were reduced to the classic pantheons of greek/nordic mythos (for example). Then there were further reduced as our knowledge grew
I'm not saying it's true, I just find it an interesting concept. For me personally, religion has always seemed more of a crutch to humanity, a way to deal with our innate fear of non-existence, and our pathetic belief that we are "special". Like with any crutch, it was useful while we needed it, but we shouldn't keep hobbling along with it because we're too scared to try walking on our own again.
The last page of the link I posted had an interesting question that deserves reading;
So where does this whole evolutionary history leave us in today's scientific age? What are the implications for how we can talk about religion?
I'm part of the camp of people who thinks it's perfectly possible to see religion and science as compatible areas of thought and inquiry. In my book, I lay out three choices. You can say you've got to choose one. You can believe in science or you can have faith in God -- the Richard Dawkins school of thought. Or you can say there are "non-overlapping magisteria" -- the famous Stephen Jay Gould answer that religion will help us with meaning, and science will tell us about other things. I'm actually in a third place. If you can avoid being a biblical literalist, and if you can avoid being an arrogant scientist who tells everyone else what to think, you can think on multiple levels at once. There's a lot of beauty in seeing that religion and science are really about the same things. They can be perfectly compatible.
That said, this comes from an anthropologist. We make fun of them a lot. (Just joking, of course. :-) )
Religion and science are not about the same things. They are deeply opposed.
Science is all about asking questions and skepticism.
Religion is all about not asking question, not to doubt any of its belief.
I never understood how anybody can be a christian and believe in the theory of evolution at it is widely accepted. The theory of evolution is in conflict with the book of Genesis.
Of course, being religious is not the same as being Christian and following the book of Genesis literally. Many faiths and religions are very compatible with the theory of evolution - and not every Christian takes the Bible literally. They realise that stories get 'lost in translation' throughout the hundreds of years, and that everything written down is only man's interpretation of the divine. They accept the 'big picture' and the philosophy with it, but at the same time accept that everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.
Some people need faith, and have no problems with science, yet are sceptic towards many of its tenets. Who am I to denounce them? Even when you study to be a scientist, you learn that at every step of the way, you have to be very sceptical and critical of even the produce of science itself. Otherwise, you're no 'better' (for lack of better words) than a creationist.
Of course, being religious is not the same as being Christian and following the book of Genesis literally. Many faiths and religions are very compatible with the theory of evolution - and not every Christian takes the Bible literally. They realise that stories get 'lost in translation' throughout the hundreds of years, and that everything written down is only man's interpretation of the divine. They accept the 'big picture' and the philosophy with it, but at the same time accept that everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.
Some people need faith, and have no problems with science, yet are sceptic towards many of its tenets. Who am I to denounce them? Even when you study to be a scientist, you learn that at every step of the way, you have to be very sceptical and critical of even the produce of science itself. Otherwise, you're no 'better' (for lack of better words) than a creationist.
You said it yourself, being "sceptical" and and "critical" are the very basic tenets of science, whereas religion actively discourages those viewpoints and asks for blind faith. I think that's one of the main problems a lot of people have with religion.
Of course, being religious is not the same as being Christian and following the book of Genesis literally. Many faiths and religions are very compatible with the theory of evolution - and not every Christian takes the Bible literally. They realise that stories get 'lost in translation' throughout the hundreds of years, and that everything written down is only man's interpretation of the divine. They accept the 'big picture' and the philosophy with it, but at the same time accept that everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.
Some people need faith, and have no problems with science, yet are sceptic towards many of its tenets. Who am I to denounce them? Even when you study to be a scientist, you learn that at every step of the way, you have to be very sceptical and critical of even the produce of science itself. Otherwise, you're no 'better' (for lack of better words) than a creationist.
You said it yourself, being "sceptical" and and "critical" are the very basic tenets of science, whereas religion actively discourages those viewpoints and asks for blind faith. I think that's one of the main problems a lot of people have with religion.
Of course, but if the religious people aren't hurting anybody with their opinion and respect other people's opinion (= the vast majority of the Dutch religious people), who am I to attack their views on life? A religious person that believes in the theory of evolution is not necissarily a scientist, we can't expect that person to apply the tenets of science to every part of his life. In fact, we should be pretty dang happy he's open to such ideas in the first thing without denouncing everything scientific as 'sacrilege'. Live and let live, really. Life is just too damn short for anything else but that.
I'm very much in to science, and working hard towards several MScs/MAs (not even close yet, though, heh), but even I need faith. I could operationalise 'love' as 'nothing more than neurochemicals and hormones running wild' and that we've been 'conditioned' towards our preferences, and I could go on and on and in a lot more detail. But if I were to view it as nothing more than that, and denounce the mystique around emotions as 'primitive basal feelings needed for survival', it'd certainly put a strain on my relationship with my girlfriend and make it much less enjoyable! Of course, this might've been a slightly bad example, but you get my point. Even those of us who view themselves as the most scientific and logical have some beliefs that may seem a bit illogical. I would be a hypocrite if I denounce other people's 'silly' faiths simply because I deem them 'even more ridiculous' (compared to beliefs and superstitions I may hold, most of which I'm probably not aware of).
Of course, being religious is not the same as being Christian and following the book of Genesis literally. Many faiths and religions are very compatible with the theory of evolution - and not every Christian takes the Bible literally. They realise that stories get 'lost in translation' throughout the hundreds of years, and that everything written down is only man's interpretation of the divine. They accept the 'big picture' and the philosophy with it, but at the same time accept that everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.
Some people need faith, and have no problems with science, yet are sceptic towards many of its tenets. Who am I to denounce them? Even when you study to be a scientist, you learn that at every step of the way, you have to be very sceptical and critical of even the produce of science itself. Otherwise, you're no 'better' (for lack of better words) than a creationist.
You said it yourself, being "sceptical" and and "critical" are the very basic tenets of science, whereas religion actively discourages those viewpoints and asks for blind faith. I think that's one of the main problems a lot of people have with religion.
Of course, but if the religious people aren't hurting anybody with their opinion and respect other people's opinion (= the vast majority of the Dutch religious people), who am I to attack their views on life? A religious person that believes in the theory of evolution is not necissarily a scientist, we can't expect that person to apply the tenets of science to every part of his life. In fact, we should be pretty dang happy he's open to such ideas in the first thing without denouncing everything scientific as 'sacrilege'. Live and let live, really. Life is just too damn short for anything else but that.
I'm very much in to science, and working hard towards several MScs/MAs (not even close yet, though, heh), but even I need faith. I could operationalise 'love' as 'nothing more than neurochemicals and hormones running wild' and that we've been 'conditioned' towards our preferences, and I could go on and on and in a lot more detail. But if I were to view it as nothing more than that, and denounce the mystique around emotions as 'primitive basal feelings needed for survival', it'd certainly put a strain on my relationship with my girlfriend and make it much less enjoyable! Of course, this might've been a slightly bad example, but you get my point. Even those of us who view themselves as the most scientific and logical have some beliefs that may seem a bit illogical. I would be a hypocrite if I denounce other people's 'silly' faiths simply because I deem them 'even more ridiculous' (compared to beliefs and superstitions I may hold, most of which I'm probably not aware of).
You've put forward some excellently written arguments in a mature and educated fashion, I've very much enjoyed reading them, even those I don't agree with
Perhaps some of the problem then is that people of faith like you, those who don't try to shove the bible down our throats, and wilfully ignore hundreds of years of scientific progress and proof, are just a lot more noticeable than guys like you. While I am vehemently opposed to the idea of religion, I respect your viewpoints Praetoriani.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on some points, hopefully we've both given the other something to think about in regards to where we're both coming from, and I look forward to talking to you about this (or similar) subjects again (and we all know another thread like this will pop up before long!)
Of course, being religious is not the same as being Christian and following the book of Genesis literally. Many faiths and religions are very compatible with the theory of evolution - and not every Christian takes the Bible literally. They realise that stories get 'lost in translation' throughout the hundreds of years, and that everything written down is only man's interpretation of the divine. They accept the 'big picture' and the philosophy with it, but at the same time accept that everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.
Some people need faith, and have no problems with science, yet are sceptic towards many of its tenets. Who am I to denounce them? Even when you study to be a scientist, you learn that at every step of the way, you have to be very sceptical and critical of even the produce of science itself. Otherwise, you're no 'better' (for lack of better words) than a creationist.
You said it yourself, being "sceptical" and and "critical" are the very basic tenets of science, whereas religion actively discourages those viewpoints and asks for blind faith. I think that's one of the main problems a lot of people have with religion.
Of course, but if the religious people aren't hurting anybody with their opinion and respect other people's opinion (= the vast majority of the Dutch religious people), who am I to attack their views on life? A religious person that believes in the theory of evolution is not necissarily a scientist, we can't expect that person to apply the tenets of science to every part of his life. In fact, we should be pretty dang happy he's open to such ideas in the first thing without denouncing everything scientific as 'sacrilege'. Live and let live, really. Life is just too damn short for anything else but that.
I'm very much in to science, and working hard towards several MScs/MAs (not even close yet, though, heh), but even I need faith. I could operationalise 'love' as 'nothing more than neurochemicals and hormones running wild' and that we've been 'conditioned' towards our preferences, and I could go on and on and in a lot more detail. But if I were to view it as nothing more than that, and denounce the mystique around emotions as 'primitive basal feelings needed for survival', it'd certainly put a strain on my relationship with my girlfriend and make it much less enjoyable! Of course, this might've been a slightly bad example, but you get my point. Even those of us who view themselves as the most scientific and logical have some beliefs that may seem a bit illogical. I would be a hypocrite if I denounce other people's 'silly' faiths simply because I deem them 'even more ridiculous' (compared to beliefs and superstitions I may hold, most of which I'm probably not aware of).
Perhaps some of the problem then is that people of faith like you, those who don't try to shove the bible down our throats, and wilfully ignore hundreds of years of scientific progress and proof, are just a lot more noticeable than guys like you. While I am vehemently opposed to the idea of religion, I respect your viewpoints Praetoriani.
Thanks for your reply! However, I just want to affirm that I am not a man of faith in anything supernatural. I'm agnostic leaning very much towards atheism. When I was talking about faith in my case, I meant very small and minor things, like believing that the love you share with close ones is more than the result of neurobiology and conditioning, and superstitions you may not be aware of. We all have our little quirks and superstitions that we act on when we want something badly enough (or wish to avert something harmful enough!), thinking it will make it more likely that it will or won't happen (or at least, it couldn't hurt to try, we feel). When in an intense situation of fear, for example, it's not uncommon for even the most stout atheist to think “If I make it out unharmed, I'll promise I'll... <insert promise here!“.
I'm trying to say is that that's (and excuse me for my horrible example, I'm not very creative) a very basic version of faith that by far the most humans have in common.
My girlfriend, however, is moderately Christian. I have learned a lot from her and have gained a lot of respect for people of faith. Although, of course, we occasionally have debates.
She is also a science student, by the way. 'Proving' that faith and science are not mutually exclusive, she has an amazing knowledge of physiology.
Its mostly the "blind acceptance" and the request to "not ask questions" that bothers me about religion.
Somethingl like 99% of scientist who deal with issues or ideas that are effected by evolution (biologists and such) agree that evolution is true.
The vast majority of scientists who speak out againsed evolution are in fields that are in no way related to evolution, such as world war 2 history, or physical chemistry. Thats what bugs me as well is when a PHD who probably knows as much as any of us about the biology of the situation is cited as being a reputable source of information on the subject simply because they posses a PHD.
Edit: an interested book if anybody wants to learn more about asking questions is "Only virigns need apply."
Its written by a family friend of mine (husband of Daphne Odjig, famous first nations artists in Canada) who is actually dieing, but his entire family was very relgious and he grew up and was becoming a pastor in the 7th day adventist church when he started to ask questions of the faith and couldnt get answers.
In his mid 20's he was excommunicated from the church and disowned by his entire extended family because of his questions asking and he wrote the book.
again its "Only virgins need apply" by Chester Beavon, and it is a VERY well written book from the perspective of a man who was religious for his entire childhood and young adult hood. His family is still HUGE in the religious community and he offers a perspective of somebody who has been on both sides.
An INCREDIBLY interesting man, and a very interesting book for both relgious and non-religious people. VERY eye opening.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Who care whether evolution is true or not. I think it probably is. People just like to use evolutoin to vouch for atheism because all they know about a higher being is from religion which is dumb.
Religion and athiesm are both dumb in their own ways
Thats gota be uncomfortable having a fencepost that far up your ass
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Thats gota be uncomfortable having a fencepost that far up your ass
Lol you have no idea what i mean. I could give you a list of people that influenced civilization more than you could imagine that were neither conventional religious or atheist.
Gotta suck being that ignorant
How exactly are they dumb?
How exactly are they dumb?
Religion gives the view of God in a dogmatic barbaric form, surrounded by mythology that the atheists see as obviously false (which it is). But they dont believe in God for this sole reason, their only viewpoint of him comes from conventional religion.
Many of the great thinkers (plato, socrates, einstein, ect.) believed in a non personal immanent God, but not the conventional view most people know.
How exactly are they dumb?
Religion gives the view of God in a dogmatic barbaric form, surrounded by mythology that the atheists see as obviously false (which it is). But they dont believe in God for this sole reason, their only viewpoint of him comes from conventional religion.
Many of the great thinkers (plato, socrates, einstein, ect.) believed in a non personal immanent God, but not the conventional view most people know.
This is far from the truth. The reason most atheists don't believe in God is because there is absolutely no evidence for it, and the "gods" Einstein talks about really isn't "god" in definition. Also what you're describing are a group of people, not atheism.
My world domination plan involve an army of easy manipulated person like you, care to give me your email?
I like how you say man invented religion tho, make a lot of sense to think we invented god.
How exactly are they dumb?
Religion gives the view of God in a dogmatic barbaric form, surrounded by mythology that the atheists see as obviously false (which it is). But they dont believe in God for this sole reason, their only viewpoint of him comes from conventional religion.
Many of the great thinkers (plato, socrates, einstein, ect.) believed in a non personal immanent God, but not the conventional view most people know.
This is far from the truth. The reason most atheists don't believe in God is because there is absolutely no evidence for it, and the "gods" Einstein talks about really isn't "god" in definition. Also what you're describing are a group of people, not atheism.
Your right he didnt belive in God in the definition we think of today. He did believe in a superior reasoning power and a "illmitable superior spirit" if you want me to quote him.
Also, show evidence of color to a color blind man using the scienfitic method, its impossible, yet color is known to be true. What i have experienced alone and what other great thinkers have experienced, and religious believers, there is no "evidence" thats going to be presented, just experience. And there is no doubt in my mind something greater than me exists. Look at the world and our symmetric bodies, the capabilities of our mind are extraordinary. Consciousness isn't the product of nothing. If us humans are the highest reasoning power in existance, why cant we create a single cell from scratch? Much less a complex mind and a functioning body.
Im sorry there is no "Hard evidence" for something transcendent. What kind of evidence would you like? God to pop out and say "hey im right here" lol" God" operates on another level.