• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Is Evolution or Religion right?

I have read most of the Bible and found to be very far fetched indeed. I dont think the existence of god can be proven or dis proven so I am happy to sit on the fence and remain Agnostic. Dont get me wrong I have nothing against those that go to church or a mosque each week. What really fucks me off is those those do go to church I find to be hypocritical people they skimpily don't practice what they preach. I had a church going neighbour once and she was a horrible up her ass snobby cow. aren't we supposed to love thy neighbour. She wouldn't even lend you a cup of sugar if you asked not that I did cos all she did was look down her nose at me and my family
 
^ It's definitely far fetched, and i know what you mean about hypocrisy. i've found that whether a person lives up to the core ethical message of jesus doesn't really correlate with their christianity; they're often more concerned with the ritual 'faithful' submission to jesus ('accept jeebus into your heart') than the practical application - as many non-christians i've met uphold the basic ethical principles. Christians seem just as likely as anyone to have 'enemies' who they don't show much love for (whether gays, muslims, the godless youth/commies, 'secular society' or whatever). Seems to me that properly seeing the sense in 'turn the other cheek/love your enemy/do unto others' is more a factor of emotional/social dvelopment than what religion you happen to be in.

I can see some good aspects at the heart of all religions though - it's like the 'drugs are bad mkay' talk; collectively, people wouldn't keep on doing it over thousands of years if they didn't benefit from it in some way (whether spiritual or social).
 
Last edited:
I wonder how far religious pseudo-science will be backed into a corner before they show some humility.

anastasius, how can you believe in small changes over a small amount of time, but not large changes over a large amount of time? Even if we don't have a concrete answer, does it not seem possible that larger changes could occur. The way you see evolution animals would have to be akin to Pokemon for you to believe it.

also what coffeedrinker said...
 
It is hilarious and frustrating when people are to stupid to understand something so they assume it is false in favour of a belief in magic, baseless bullshit.

Religious myths are not a theories. It is not a legitimate comparison to evolution. One is based on empirical evidence and makes minimal assumptions while the other is fantastical crap made up by some charismatic type psychopath who got high on ancient hallucinogens.
 
A question quite easy to answear: Neither.

There are truths and untruths to be found in both and they can work alongside each other fine.

The creation of two opposing ideologies for people to argue over is more a form of separation tool or "divide and conquer" technique. Like football fans for two different teams who almost kill each other, for no reason, and find pleasure in it too.

Humanity don't like unity, co-operation, and mutual support (or are socially engineered not to) and are more powerless as a result.

It works as an obstacle to finding truth too.
 
falsifiedhypothesi said:
anastasius, how can you believe in small changes over a small amount of time, but not large changes over a large amount of time? Even if we don't have a concrete answer, does it not seem possible that larger changes could occur. The way you see evolution animals would have to be akin to Pokemon for you to believe it.
Click to expand...

I was not speaking in terms of what is and is not possible, but in terms of what has and has not been confirmed by science - not merely what is possible, but what is actual; certainty of the actual is always greater than certainty of the possible. And it is what has been confirmed that counts as evidence. A jury does not pronounce the defendant "guilty" based on whether or not it "seems possible" that he was the gunman, but on the evidence that is presented to them. And it is the evidence, as David Hume said, that "a wise man proportions his belief to."
To use the jury analogy a bit further, there sometimes are those in the jury box who are so emotionally involved in the case that they will not believe even if presented with the evidence. To them it is more an issue of the will; they "will not" believe the evidence, rather than "cannot" believe. Rather than simply believing what they read, they have a predetermined presupposition to read into the evidence what they already believe. It's ones presupposition that keeps them from drawing out proper interpretation from all facets of life, whether it be people, fossils, the earth, the Bible, and God. One might disbelieve biblical accounts of miracles only because he/she has a predetermined desire NOT to believe in miracles. Same holds true for the fossil record.

And I'm not sure if the Pokemon thing was suppose to be an Ad Hominem, but I thought it was kinda funny. I had to do a google search to find out who Pokemon was.

Ninae said:
Humanity don't like unity, co-operation, and mutual support (or are socially engineered not to) and are more powerless as a result.

It works as an obstacle to finding truth too.
Click to expand...
Take it for what you will, but it's always better to be divided by the truth than be united in error. In fact any truth statement implies that the opposite is not true. If "all dogs are four legged creatures" is true, then it is not true that "all dogs are not four legged creatures." Opposites are an undeniable part of reality. If you are on the side of truth, then you are not on the side of falsehood. And if you are on the side of falsehood, then you are not on the side of truth. Truth just has a very interesting way of being narrow.
 
Last edited:
... This isn't a debate. Evolution is fact, it is an observable event, that we ourselves can manipulate in labs.

Creationism has not, and cannot be proven.

I have no problem with accepting evolution while also embracing faith, but "creation science" is complete and utter bs. Like flood archaelogy! ��

( And in regard to the (ex) OP: To say a Christian philosophy is accepted by Christians as evidence to it's credulity is just silly.
 
I agree with you on creationism, but religion's contribution to ideas of origins doesn't start and end with christian creationism - many religions (including sects of christianity) are fully on side with the evolutionary idea. Eg A muslim scholar/scientist (avernus?) had some ideas that pretty obviously prefigured darwin's ideas in the 10th or 11th century. Taoist ideas can be linked to evolution via a sort of dialectic conception (that might be some words i just stuck together ;))

And while the overall idea of evolution is some sort of 'fact', there are still some details need working out with regards to the process (which i feel may come from the science of complexity (as waffled about above)). That's not to say i think simplistic creationism or religion can help us with this particularly though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top