RE: Evolution vs. Religion

RE: Evolution vs. Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 1:02:18 AM)
quote: If you're approaching the word "God" from a purely subjective instead of a semantical perspective, you'd do well to explain that when you say that that "God" and "Higher Power" are one and the same that you're making a subjective statement that is not based in any actual rules or commonly used definitions. Else your statement might be taken as semantical trickery... It has become clear that it doesn't matter what term I use, somebody will object to it, so I'm not going to bother anymore. You disagree with me, oh well. To use tazzy's words: quote: Its ok. I dont mind you being wrong.

tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 1:10:01 AM)
quote: To the origins of things... They just are, tweak. We dont think about where they came from... just that they are. And "people" have the honor and duty of protecting what they were "given" (without an explanation of where it came from). The where doesnt matter to us. What is, is.. what will be, will be. Evolution is like anything else, natural if not forced. Force doesnt equate to the protection of life. Everything discovered is new, everything known is accepted. We are in awe of nature... and celebrate it. Thanks for a clear explanation of your beliefs tazzy. There's a lot there for me to consider. It does sound intriguing and fresh. I'm left wondering why your intervention in this debate has not been from the perspective of: 'Hey guys, all that creation/evolution stuff doesn't matter to us at all. Here's why. Why is it so important to you?' Of course, you aren't obliged to ask that - you have every right to say whatever you feel - but my feeling is that would be an original and positive contribution coming from a unique perspective. It could open up a completely new aspect of the debate. It would help examine what is at stake for each viewpoint, why they need to hold the views they hold, their motivations and so on. That could be quite revealing, don't you think?

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 1:21:54 AM)
LOL.. im not sure its so clear... and its difficult at best to explain... and you see why. Preconceived notions, definitions, using terms one way when others use it another.... it can be confusing at best. I dont speak alot about my native american heritage because so many people wouldnt understand it. But I do try my best to answer any questions. As long as those questions are not personal.

tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 2:49:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL.. im not sure its so clear... and its difficult at best to explain... and you see why. Preconceived notions, definitions, using terms one way when others use it another.... it can be confusing at best. I dont speak alot about my native american heritage because so many people wouldnt understand it. But I do try my best to answer any questions. As long as those questions are not personal. I can understand your feeling. It saddens me to hear you say that tho. Translating customs and belief systems cross-culturally is fraught with difficulty. I've studied some Native American anthropology - mainly in the area of gender - and found it eye-opening! In terms of gender the Western world has a lot to learn from Native Americans IMHO. I came away with the feeling that I'd love to spend more time learning about Native American ways of living.

rulemylife -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 3:41:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Humans are a part of that nature. The whole will always be stronger than any part. I think what you are arguing is more philosophical than spiritual. Quotations by Aristotle The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Metaphysica 10f-1045a

rulemylife -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 4:13:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I don't believe that the evidence exists to justify either a belief in a deity or a belief that there is no deity. Wouldn't the absence of proof negate the need to prove anything else? Generally yes. Those asserting a proposition need to prove it or the proposition fails. In this instance, the proposition that a deity exists fails, IMHO, due to lack of evidence. However there a number of views of what atheism is that cloud the issue. Some people take atheism to be an absence of belief in deities, while others take atheism to be a belief that there are no deities, that the existence of a deity is impossible. The first interpretation of atheism is, IMHO, incorrect. This position is better described as agnostic. It includes the "I don't knows" and the "I think it's un-knowables". Here absence of proof of a deity negates the need to prove anything else. But the possibility of deities existing is left open. The second, stronger (and IMHO, more accurate) interpretation, that atheism asserts that there are no deities, the existence of deities is impossible does require proof IMHO. Specifically, it requires proof that the possibility of deities existing can be eliminated. I hope I have made the distinction clear. You've made yourself clear but I don't agree with your definitions. Agnostics straddle the fence. They believe that there may or may not be a God but we do not have the knowledge to prove it either way. Atheists believe the absence of such proof is reason enough not to believe. The third definition you provided is what believers generally use to attack atheists, saying that it is a belief system in itself when it is actually the absence of belief. And there are some who do what you said. They are very militant about there being no God, but from my experience they are in the minority.

geilematz -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 4:23:02 AM)
what has evolution to do with religion at all? - except that some construct a connection where there is none - their problem if in doubt take the time and read Darwin 'The Origin of Species": there is no mention of religion anywhere besides it's very interesting read

rulemylife -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 4:45:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geilematz what has evolution to do with religion at all? - except that some construct a connection where there is none - their problem if in doubt take the time and read Darwin 'The Origin of Species": there is no mention of religion anywhere besides it's very interesting read In my opinion it has nothing to do with it, but that is the whole point of the discussion. Some people have a hard time reconciling their religious beliefs with evolution. So a hybrid belief system has been developed where they accept evolution but still maintain God is pulling the strings through the use of evolution.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 6:34:15 AM)
quote: I'm far from a pantheist. But pantheism seems to me to be the only theistic belief that makes even the remotest sense. And then only on a general level. Well, not really a theistic belief if you go by this Wiki definition: "Pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a way of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature." I suppose it makes sense if one really needs a sense of "sacredness" to be impressed by the awesome and overwhelming expanse of the Universe. Personally, I can appreciate although not really grasp the immensity of it from a secular platform. quote: Your criticisms are valid from a reductionist perspective. Is a reductionist perspective appropriate when considering a proposal that says all things are one? It could be seen as a trifle limited, if you don't mind my saying so. I don't mind you saying it at all. The problem is that when someone employs such a generalizing proposal that "all things are one" I get the impression they are merely avoiding an examination of issues that have real world (human) political impact. A reductionist perspective is much more appropriate to dealing with the OP and with the undeniable historical conflict. The pantheist nontheist just brushes everything aside conveniently.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 6:44:02 AM)
quote: I don't believe that the evidence exists to justify either a belief in a deity or a belief that there is no deity. Nor do I believe that this question is open to resolution on a rational basis. There may exist other bases for resolution - I don't know - but a rational conclusion seems beyond human potential to me. The absence of evidence for the existence of a creator diety and for an abrahamic diety who is active in history is taken by atheists as evidence that such a diety does not exist. Assuming of course that you define the deity's characteristics to include activity in history. If you dont define it/him that way but as some vague inconsequential spirit then it is immaterial (pun intended) [:D]

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 7:01:03 AM)
quote: A question that several other respondents and I inferred from the OP is whether belief in an ultimate divine Creator necessarily conflicts with evolution. My position, and that of several others, is that belief in a 'Creator God' and evolution are not necessarily incompatible (apologies for the double negative) -- in particular, if you're not a biblical literalist. Thank you for the wb and good to read your posts as well. Darwinian Evolution is a description of activity limited to a particular time and space for which there is abundant evidence all around, i.e. the time of life on this planet. When you talk of a creator god you go beyond those limits into philsophy and cosmology. So, in that sense I agree that one can believe in a creator god and accept the evidence that supports Evolution. However, when you get beyond the narrow confines of Evolution and venture into abiogenesis and then cosmology it seems to me you have two conflicting hypothesis: (a) there is a creator god, or (b) the universe is eternal, i.e. matter and energy always were. I see no reason to pick (a) when (b) is just as plausible, if not more so because it retains the realm of Nature.

tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 7:27:11 AM)
quote: Atheists believe the absence of such proof is reason enough not to believe. The third definition you provided is what believers generally use to attack atheists, saying that it is a belief system in itself when it is actually the absence of belief. And there are some who do what you said. They are very militant about there being no God, but from my experience they are in the minority. I'm happy to sit on the fence for the duration of the argument. My feeling is that difference between our positions is minimal. I would be happier if there was a clear way of distinguishing what you call 'militant' and I would prefer to call 'dogmatic' atheists from those whose views are less categorical. My hope is that we would both share concerns about any one being dogmatic in this area. Look at all the trouble dogmatic beliefs have caused over the centuries......

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 9:07:33 AM)
quote: My hope is that we would both share concerns about any one being dogmatic in this area. Look at all the trouble dogmatic beliefs have caused over the centuries...... Not a personal attack on you or your ideas let me emphasize. My reply to your comment would be something like well yeh now that burning heretics at the stake is no longer politically correct why can't we all just get along? Why are those heretics being so damned dogmatic? The easy answer to my own question is that despite the dismantling of the stakes and bon fires and despite the Constitutional prohibition of a religious test for public office there is still a great lack of equality between the two camps. In 2001 we saw religious zealots attack our homeland. We had a President who said he answered to a "higher father." And. we were treated in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary debates to seeing the candidates raise their hands to disclaim belief in Evolution. Atheistic militancy is only push back against centuries of persecution and continued Christian advocacy in the Public square. Those damned heretics are such trouble makers. Sheesh, it's about time. [:D]

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 9:22:33 AM)
quote: (b) the universe is eternal, i.e. matter and energy always were. that's pretty much the way i see it. always was, always will be. hannah lynn

LafayetteLady -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 11:26:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz A question that several other respondents and I inferred from the OP is whether belief in an ultimate divine Creator necessarily conflicts with evolution. Actually what you (and others) inferred was completely wrong. I wasn't speaking in the least about conflicts between the two. Mine was a purely scientific question regarding why evolution seems to have stopped with some species. The people who answered it best are the ones that pointed out that it evolution is a process that potentially takes thousands or millions of years, so the human race isn't going to necessarily see it since they are minor changes. It is everyone else who feels, what to me is an irrational need, to present their argument regarding God vs. evolution. Understandably, I probably shouldn't have mentioned that I was a Christian. It seems that just admitting you believe in God is enough to inflame so many atheists. I believe it was SailingBum several pages back who spoke about living a good life (not in the wealthy sense) and doing unto others and you would have done unto you. Interestingly enough, that statement is biblical in nature. Regardless, that is the base for MOST beliefs, "treat others decent." From this post, it would seem that atheists figure since they are just worm food waiting to die, how you treat others is of no consequence. The concept that because one believes in God (or multiple gods) makes them stupid is...well ignorant. Many doctors, scientists, etc. DO believe in God. Doesn't stop them from doing their job, in fact, more often, it can enhance their ability to do their job. All religious people aren't desperately trying to prove that GOD exists so we can thumb our noses at non-believers. On the other hand, it seems (again from this post) that non-believers want nothing more than to prove God doesn't exist so they can thumb their nose at the believers. Pretty childish, don't ya think? I am quite comfortable with my beliefs, which while being Christian based, may not be what most people think. I didn't post my question with any desire to argue my personal beliefs or to justify them as some people have quite deragotorily demanded (you know who you are). For the record, unlike many Christians who believe that one must believe in God, Jesus and the bible to ever see the gate of heaven, I believe that EVERYONE, regardless of their beliefs, if doing their best on earth to be a good person, will reach that "place" their religion teaches, whether it be heaven, nirvana, or not being reincarnated as a dung beetle. For me, there is no "debate" about God's existence. That isn't stupidity, ignorance or a lack of wanting to hear what people have to say. It is simply that the debate about God's existence has been going on since Socrates and no one has definitively answered the question yet. No mater how much more technology we have today, we still aren't going to answer it because someone would have to come back and tell us, so it's a moot point. I will continue to stop back here to amuse myself with all the petty arguing/debating back and forth, but the question that I asked was answered, thanks to Panda and others (sorry I don't remember the names, but I don't have time to go back and search at the moment). Other than that, this thread is now nothing but entertainment. Peace and happiness to all! ETA: As for Darwin's "survival of the fittest," the faithful have long outlived and survived the non-believers. So apparently, there is strength in belief. Just sayin.

Real0ne -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 11:54:15 AM)
god references theology, evolution physiology I dont see how those can be directly compared anyone want to enlighten me?

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 11:55:18 AM)
Sure... "God" put organisms here, then stood back and watched as they did their thing.

Real0ne -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 11:55:59 AM)
god as a physical thing then?

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 12:02:34 PM)
Its not my belief, but it is the belief of some... as in a personal god.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 12:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Other than that, this thread is now nothing but entertainment. I'm not so sure that the question was adequately answered. Biological evolution is widely conceived to be a marvelous forward-looking process by which genetic drift and natural selection lead to higher, more complex, and more capable organisms. But to be precise, what these processes lead to is organisms that are better adapted to their environment, which is a somewhat euphemistic way of saying that they are more tightly coupled to their environment, because what we are talking about here is specialization. In consequence, virtually every species that has existed on this dynamic planet is now extinct except for those still waiting their turn. There may have been many times when a capacity for extraordinary abilities appeared that conferred no practical adaptive advantage in the circumstances, which would include not only environmental conditions like climate but also the complement and temperament of other organisms present. Fortunately for us, things eventually turned out like the baby bear's porridge: Just right. But you can't credit evolution for that. K.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875