|
Quote:
if there is a god maybe we arent meant to know until we do die and meet our maker (if there is one) |
Maybe there is a god that created our planet and it wanted the world and life to be a little dynamic and yet autonomous, so he created "evolution" ;)
I don't believe it, but it's as good a maybe as many others. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
if you believe in evolution, if you think about it goes against all your religous beliefs if your christian
|
Quote:
Ex. >> Vatican Official Defends Evolution Against 'Useless' Creationism In other words, the gap between religion and science seems much wider in the USA .. Where I'm at, I'd say the two coexist quite peacefully. edit : However, in Norway, christianity as a subject has been taken out of school. Now they teach "religion" instead where you learn about every major religion. It's working rather well, I think. I'll admit I wish other nations would do the same. ;) |
i am from new york, and yes god said he created people in his image monkeys arent in his image
|
Quote:
|
what his deciples wrote than in the bible anyway lol
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm sure you agree that if people know nothing, they are gonna come up with something to believe. When you have a lot of people who don't know what they are, what the meaning of life is, what happens when you die, etc. an idea like a proto-religion should be very attractive because it helps explain all those questions so it will be popular and spread. Let's say a religion is then made up by numerous ideas that are being spread from believer to believer or even to non-believers that are converted. What kind of ideas is the religion gonna be made up of? Aside from just answering the questions, they are gonna be made up of ideas that are naturally attractive to the people who believe in them and that people will spread. If a religious message is trivial, people forget about it. If it's important, people won't and they'll likely tell others. What makes an idea attractive? The most important stuff are the ideas that engages you emotionally. The fear of you or people you care about going to hell or otherwise getting punished after death (most religions), rituals like sacrifice which is an incredibly powerful and direct way of worshipping for the clergy and the audience (like the aztecs did), the idea that you will gain power over things you normally don't have power over (such as christianity, voodoo or santeria), anything that will help elevate suffering in your life (again, lots) and so on. Ideas that help spread the religion more directly should also become popular like missioning other peoples or an aggressive attitude towards non-believers. In other words, if a religion was made up of lots of trivial, unimportant thoughts, had no interest in spreading their religion, had no aggression towards nonbelievers .. that religion wouldn't be able to compete with a major religion like christianity. It could survive perhaps if it was isolated from competitors such as having followers in a secluded part of a rainforest where no other religions intrude. At this point in history, the big religions we are left with are the ones that were able to compete and survive. The've had to adapt to the changes in culture andthey do that by incorporating new ideas and abolishing old ones. In a way, the religions are evolving as well. The major ones we have will have to adapt in the future as well if they wanna be around. Thus, most religions now have to adapt to a society in which we have science .. In Norway, that has so far been accomplished by abolishing old ideas. Christianity at large accepts science and generally says stuff like "don't take the bible so literally, it's an old book that has been through a lot of links and it speaks in riddles and metaphors". In USA, the adaptation seems to have been more anti-scientific and instead of abolishing old ideas, it's now gathering anti-scientific ideas and practices such as indoctrination, anti-scientific propaganda and the general attitude that science is even less right than religion, despite it being empirically established. Anyways, while some people certainly use religion to manipulate, a lot of the "unattractive" ideas and practices in religion are predictable because you would expect them to be part of any healthy (competitive that is) religion .. People don't have to make them up to manipulate, believers do it themselves and they become parts of religions in a more natural way. Salvation, suffering, healing, exorcisms, other kinds of "magic", missioning, isolation, alienation, aggressive attitudes towards other religions (and their cultures), etc. etc. |
Quote:
|
ok, it's been a bit of time since I studied this matter of creation vs. evolution teaching in schools. But i'm going to try to argue the point that even if creationism is a scientific theory it is a poor one compared to evolution, and is solely religiously driven and therefor violates the constitution.
Two scientific theories to consider: 1. Scientific theories that make no empirical prediction are not the concern of science 2. Scientific theories cannot be proved true, but a can be proved false through making a false empirical prediction (this is called falsification). Creationism is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, because it makes no empirical predictions (makes claims about the supernatural). However, a creationist might argue that the Duhem-Quine thesis (scientific theories are not testable on their own, need auxiliary hypothesis) undermines these two legends because even a claim about the supernatural makes empirical predictions when it is combined with auxiliary hypotheses. Therefore, it is falsifiable, and is a legitimate scientific theory. An evolutionist would then argue that even though it might make empirical predictions many of them are false, so although creationism might be techinically a scientific theory, it is a very poor scientific theory. So should poor scientific theories be taught in class? Because if they are should we not teach poor grammar as well? Poor theories are generally not taught in science classes. The only motivation I can see for teaching creationism is its religious significance to some people. So, for the state to teach creation theory in public-school science classes would be for the state to promote a particular religious view, which last time I checked is unconstitutional. There's another argument I could make against an intelligent designer, but that would take another 3 or 4 paragraphs of typing that i'm really not wanting to do and I don't remember it nearly as well as I remember the first argument, so if that above doesn't convince you, I will unearth my philosophy book, re-read, and make my second argument |
Intelligent Design is not a valid science because it only excepts data that conforms with or that can be manipulated to conform with a pre-conceived, unscientific, and very irrefutable theory, irrefutable to the creationist that is. Creationism will never accept scientific data that contradicts biblical scripture, and any data that is remotely in the ballpark of agreeing with scriptural accounts of creation is amplified and manipulated to conform to creationist theory.
In Science you begin with a hypothesis create and perform an experiment to test its validity, and if the results support your hypothesis, you have a theory, or at least the beginning of one, if the results contradict your theory you go back to the drawing board to create another hypothesis. This is the scientific method which we all know and love. Creationism starts with an religiously irrefutable theory and works backwards from there, which is absolutely a ludicrous and completely biased practice. The fact is that the book of Genesis was not meant to be a scientific treaty of the origin of the universe. It is the Hebrew creation myth. Does it mean that there isn't wisdom inherent in the story? Absolutely not, but religious zealots have to stop trying to equate that wisdom with scientific fact. |
Quote:
I hate to argue the religious side, but the fact that they stick with the original theory and use auxiliary hypotheses to back this theory makes it more scientifically valid, than the first method you were referring to. (side note: As in my post before it is clear I believe in evolution, so please don't jump on me for being a creationists and spew anti-religious **** at me) |
Quote:
(side note: As in my post before it is clear I believe in evolution, so please don't jump on me for being a creationists and spew anti-religious **** at me)[/QUOTE] |
I tend to be a little more practical perhaps when I consider if creationism is a valid science or not. I don't think it is and there are several reasons.
First off, while science has a naturalistic approach where it wants to describe testeable and observeable, you know, figure stuff out, creationism just accept that there's a God which can conveniently explain anything. Such thinking does not promote inquiry, rather it does the opposite in a very unscientific way and so called creationist "scientists" tend to further their agendas only by exclusion, ie. feeble attempts at disproving evolution and other scientific theories. Because of this, creationism is not very able to answer questions that would have been useful for us such as when did the first cell appear or how do genetic diseases appear and how are they passed on. Furthermore, in a society where you replaced science with creationism, how would you know which creationist theory was right? Everything would be up to interpretation by everyone, people would mix what should have been scientific thinking with religious thinking and frankly, I believe it would be really counter-productive for any society. About your Duhem-Quine problem argument, I would say that is invalid because God is not really testable by any auxiliary hypotheses I know of. |
I don't mean to sound like a dick but there's a larger issue going on here than whether or not Creationism is good science. We all know it isn't. No credible scientist would claim it is. It's a non-issue that's already been decided on. It's ultimately the reason this issue is absurd; that they'd challenge a scientific theory with theology in a school system. I think there's a much more complex and relevant problem going on here then whether or not Creationism is a scientific theory.
The issue is ultimately the strong streak of anti-intellectualism which is prominent in contemporary American society. An example of this is the fact that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, not a couple thousand years old. The margin of error there shows a staggering amount of stupidity that is inexcusable and shouldn't be excused but because the claim that the Earth is so young is a faith-based claimed it's off limits to mock and criticize it. This creates a problem in the average intelligence of a society and whether or not it can progress. If superstition is allowed to dominate public discourse (as it does) then children in schools will be forever brainwashed inside tax exempt cult institu-I mean churches. I'm going to preface the basis of this argument with a quote as I feel it sets up most of what I have to say and summarizes it well enough. Quote:
I believe teaching the "morals" in the Bible is basically psychological abuse. I was raised Catholic and there are many things, from self-pleasure to contraceptives, that I still feel guilty over; despite the fact masturbation is natural and I know, that rationally having sex without condoms is stupid (though religion is of course anti-sex before marriage and even anti-sex in general. This is obvious and has been prominent in all religions. Many gods were born of virgins (impossible) or something else that is sexless, or even not of the birth canal. There's a prominent hatred of menstrual blood and foreskin in religions pertaining to the God of Abraham, and so on.) There's more to it then that though it instills a simplistic approach to morality in children and teaches them to judge things in a far more basic manner then problems in the world can be judged. It also teaches them to externalize they're blame and that they're far more important then they actually are. These values that are forced upon children are dangerous and scarring. This is ignoring the obvious intellectual damage and anti-science bias that is instilled by teaching children about magical books and mammals being able to survive their own deaths which is even more problematic but ultimately it all comes back to the fact that religion is damaging. This is basically what I'm getting at whenever I say religion is intellectually damaging. Science adjusts its views based on observation, faith denies this to preserve belief. Which I'd consider the very definition of anti-intellectualism. |
Quote:
If you're speaking strictly in the sense of what should or shouldn't be taught in a public classroom I'm in agreement with you, but as it's been said before atheism requires as much if not more faith than believing in a "higher power". |
Quote:
edit : Why would atheism require more faith? |
Quote:
|
That's not true though. Atheism requires no faith whatsoever. It is natural, simple and instinctive and you need no intellectual justification to say "I believe in nothing." The intellectual justification falls purely on people who believe in magical deities, holy books and claim to know what happens in unknowable situations.
I also don't really understand how I make the assumption in my post that every person is a religious nut. You can't, without bastardizing and picking and choosing what you want to believe from whatever religious text you choose, reconcile faith with science. There is a conflict there; every religion makes claims about the way the world is and science explains it in terms that are contradictory to what is taught by religion. You can't say "I believe in Science but I also believe in birth without contraception, the ability of mammals to survive death, and other sorts of magic taught in the bible." Jesus and what faith says he did and Christians believe he did isn't something you can reconcile with the way the world works, according to science. |
Quote:
|
You're still ignoring the fact that Genesis is no less scientifically plausible than a mammal surviving his own death, a torturous and brutal death I will add. The belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his own magical powers is something that is fundamental to Christianity. This fundamental belief is directly in conflict with what science has observed in regards to what happens when a human being dies.
|
Quote:
I am one of those rare people who picks and chooses what he believes from a wide varieties of faith because I do believe that all faiths have a certain degree of truth to them. And I find in most cases where the "facts" are disputable the metaphorical value that can be obtained from ignoring the literal and seeing through to the figurative is where wisdom is obtained. This is what is basically wrong with western religion. So much of peoples faith is exhausted on trying to believe in something literally, that no wisdom is able to penetrate into their lives. Not to be offensive, but the same thing happens invertedly with atheists and reductionists.The "i'll believe it when I see it" mentality They become so obsessed with what can be proven scientifically that they ignore everything supernatural or metaphysical. Science has come a long way since Isaac newton died almost 300 years ago. Wev'e grown past reductionist based physical science and are well into the realm of quantum physics. Science and religion aren't really as at odds with each other as we used to think, and a lot of what we would have filed under supernatural 20 years ago is becoming widely accepted scientific theory. It takes a while for the general public to follow suit and internalize a new paradigm. Creationism is still ridiculously stupid we can agree on that for now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
OMG try being more intelligent than the people your bitching about! FIGURATIVE ****ING LANGUAGE. I would say most Christians have the intelligence to know that a talking snake offering forbidden fruit to eve in the garden of Eden is allegorical, and the ones who don't are the ones who are polluting the gene pool. My god it even says IN THE BIBLE that its The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Sound like anything you have growing in your backyard? Ugh, I need a cigarette. |
Seeing as how this stuff was written 3000 or more years ago by guys living in the middle of the desert, I think it's safe to say that they might let their imaginations run wild with what is and isn't real. Christians might say TODAY that it's allegorical, but I find it hard to believe that was the original intent.
|
Quote:
|
The big bang was when space and time collided before that there was nothing...
|
Quote:
I disagree, I think that previous to the Big Bang there was something, but one there was no time to measure what it was, and two taking Hartle-Hawking's idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. But this is off-topic. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
My question to you would be what then? Simply because there has to be? Thats not a good enough reason. The honest answer is we will really never know. I will just continue on with my opinion. Maybe time was irrelevent since everything was traveling at the speed of light (stops time). Who knows. |
the fruit of the tree was science, which keeps us out of paradise. it's aristotle walking in circles in the cave. we've been doing it forever, time to take a breather.
|
I thought life and sins were the things that keep people out of paradise.
|
Quote:
If your goal is to tell me that all Christians are not bible thumping morons then you didn't even really need to argue this since I'm aware they're not. It's not like I run around giving other people grief if they're going to a church or anything. I believe people should have their personal freedom to believe whatever they like until of course in their life, there beliefs start imposing on my life. However a sense of respect for personal ideas doesn't mean that their ideas are not silly. It also doesn't mean I have to treat their ideas as equal when they come up in discussion (they're not) or believe that they're not making a mistake. |
Quote:
Your time irrelevant theory doesn't hold because of the time space continuum thing. When looking at quantum mechanics and quantum cosmetology, you basically learn that time didn't always exists, but at the same time the big bang was not the first moment of time Quote:
Quote:
Or you could just take the view that science keeps us from paradise because science is empirical in nature, and the religion in the supernatural, so you can't believe in both empirical ways of seeing things and religious ways. pick which ever one pleases you the most. |
I think my brain just exploded.... If you cant prove anything is there then what do you really know? Time started for us when this event happened period. Reason? Cause thats all we have.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
take that as you will. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:50 AM. |
© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.