• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

God versus Evolution

Top postings Tricky, Yahweh, et al. You have the patience of saints.

Iacchus you are one fruity motherf*cker.

Of course he won't be coming back to this thread.
 
Jim Lennox said:
Top postings Tricky, Yahweh, et al. You have the patience of saints.
Click to expand...
Thank you sir. How odd for an atheist being compared to a saint. :D

Jim Lennox said:
Of course he won't be coming back to this thread.
Click to expand...
I disagree. And I would be sad to see him go. It is exactly this sort of question that needs to be hashed out to let people see how well the theory of evolution fits the evidence and how poorly religious/spiritual explanations do. It may require a bit of verbal jousting, but hey! That's why I'm here!

And it is not a waste of time. We have had a number of people come to embrace skepticism from the discussions on these boards. I still hold out hope for lacchus.
 
In my experience, I've noticed zero difference in attitude towards the natural world between (human-myth-centred) religious people & (human-ego-centred) science followers. I've had just as many debates with members of each group who advocate an 'anything goes' policy of man's relationship to the natural world in varying degrees.

Both these groups, I would argue, carry a view of the universe that is predominately self-centred. The labels of religion and science are irrelevant. ‘No-true-scientist’ and ‘no-true-spiritualist’ would put man at the centre of their view of the universe, (and no, these two groups are not opposites of each other, though I often read on this site the basic assumption that they are).

Self-centred-ness is an expected default position for any creature who comes into the world the way we do. We’re born, starting with virtually nothing. We are reliant only on our sensory perception from a very limited place in space and time to form our views of the universe. When we come into this world, we are the centre of the universe as far as we know. It takes much research, discovery, and thought to move the centre of the universe away from one’s self. The process is painful, and different people push the centre to different places and distances.

Since we all start out self-centred, and there are many factors that dictate how far from this default starting position we go, it’s no surprise to find a wide range of degree in self-centred-ness form all walks of life.

This has brought me to the conclusion that it's one’s level of self-assuredness and arrogance of what they perceive that leads one to their attitudes on the environment, not whether their views are based in “science” or “spirituallity”.
 
Dymanic
The photo of the baby with two heads is quite shocking. If God exists he wouldn't be responsible for the deformity, he would only be responsible for the soul. Nature is at fault in creating a second head when only one is needed.

If we all believe in evolution I wonder if the dying state of the planet has been caused because we intervene the whole time. If evolution truly means the survival of the fiittest, we have not kept to that theory in that we assist the poorer countries. Going by Darwins law, we should be looking after our own needs and sod the weakest. Throughout the centuries had we kept to that law I suspect there would be no africans and many other third world people would have become extinct. If we'd have all stayed in our own country from the beginning, I wonder which would still be populated today? Which would have been killed off by disease and poverty.
 
Originally posted by Igopogo

In my experience, I've noticed zero difference in attitude towards the natural world between (human-myth-centred) religious people & (human-ego-centred) science followers. I've had just as many debates with members of each group who advocate an 'anything goes' policy of man's relationship to the natural world in varying degrees.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, are you saying that your conclusion is that it is the position of modern science as a whole that we humans are the center of the universe, that anything goes with regard to our policies regarding our relationship to the natural world, and that we just about have everything figured out?
 
Jim Lennox said:

Top postings Tricky, Yahweh, et al. You have the patience of saints.

Iacchus you are one fruity motherf*cker.

Of course he won't be coming back to this thread.
Click to expand...
No, I can assure you, I wouldn't even touch your mother. :p
 
Dymanic said:

Just to clarify, are you saying that your conclusion is that it is the position of modern science as a whole that we humans are the center of the universe, that anything goes with regard to our policies regarding our relationship to the natural world, and that we just about have everything figured out?
Click to expand...

It all depends on how you define what you mean by "modern science". My idea of what science really is bears little resemblance to what is often touted as such.
 
Igopogo said:
In my experience, I've noticed zero difference in attitude towards the natural world between (human-myth-centred) religious people & (human-ego-centred) science followers. I've had just as many debates with members of each group who advocate an 'anything goes' policy of man's relationship to the natural world in varying degrees.

Both these groups, I would argue, carry a view of the universe that is predominately self-centred. The labels of religion and science are irrelevant. ‘No-true-scientist’ and ‘no-true-spiritualist’ would put man at the centre of their view of the universe, (and no, these two groups are not opposites of each other, though I often read on this site the basic assumption that they are).

Self-centred-ness is an expected default position for any creature who comes into the world the way we do. We’re born, starting with virtually nothing. We are reliant only on our sensory perception from a very limited place in space and time to form our views of the universe. When we come into this world, we are the centre of the universe as far as we know. It takes much research, discovery, and thought to move the centre of the universe away from one’s self. The process is painful, and different people push the centre to different places and distances.

Since we all start out self-centred, and there are many factors that dictate how far from this default starting position we go, it’s no surprise to find a wide range of degree in self-centred-ness form all walks of life.

This has brought me to the conclusion that it's one’s level of self-assuredness and arrogance of what they perceive that leads one to their attitudes on the environment, not whether their views are based in “science” or “spirituallity”.
Click to expand...
So what's your point? ... Ripples occur over the face of the lake?
 
Originally posted by max

If we all believe in evolution I wonder if the dying state of the planet has been caused because we intervene the whole time.
Click to expand...
The planet is dying?

If evolution truly means the survival of the fiittest,
Click to expand...
It doesn't.
we have not kept to that theory in that we assist the poorer countries.
Click to expand...
On close examination, such assistance usually has ulterior motives, but I do agree that humans often practice altruism that appears to go beyond what is easily explained as ultimately selfish altruism under Darwinism.
Going by Darwins law, we should be looking after our own needs and sod the weakest.
Click to expand...
I think it is fairly safe to say that that is by far the most popular policy. (It wasn't actually Darwin who coined the term 'Survival of the fittest, btw, it was the philosopher, Herbert Spencer.)
Throughout the centuries had we kept to that law I suspect there would be no africans and many other third world people would have become extinct.
Click to expand...
Througout the centuries, many peoples have indeed ceased to exist as distinct groups. Many have been killed off by disease and poverty, and many others have been deliberately exterminated by their enemies.
 
Originally posted by max

My idea of what science really is bears little resemblance to what is often touted as such.
Click to expand...
If what you are saying then is that so-called scientific claims are often used, by those with a limited understanding of the actual science, to support personal, emotional, or political agendas, then I agree completely. I would even go so far as to say that even those do have a thorough grasp of the science (being humans, after all) cannot reasonably be expected to be entirely free of any such agendas at all times. But at least the entire endeavor does not have these agendas as its first priority -- something that cannot be said of religious endeavors.
 
Tricky said:

But it is potentially provable. If you provided me evidence, (like a picture, some ID etc.) I would probably believe you. Also, I have lots of empirical evidence that most people sit in chairs when they work at their computer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you've got to find me first! ;)


Showing me God's ID is going to be a bit harder. And I have no empiracle evidence of one.
Click to expand...
And what if He just happened to sit down in the chair beside you? :D


Yes. I shall dedicate one nanosecond of my life to worrying about vengeful spirits. It's not worth any more. ;)
Click to expand...
Well it's all about trama you see, and getting you upset, and by that time the spirit has gottcha! Any good Voodoo expert will tell you that. This is why people who are disturbed -- upset, tramatized, emotionally unstable -- tend to hear voices.


But as for labels, the "spiritual people are only constrained homocidal maniacs" comment was a bit of hyperbole in response to the suggestion that non-spiritual people would be immoral because they have no "retribution" to worry about. Both are ludicrous propositions.
Click to expand...
All I can tell you is that if you keep pressing the buttons, sooner or later you're going to set off something that you wish you hadn't. ;)


Only every woo-woo in the world. :p
Click to expand...
As if that's what it was all about? ... Guess again!
 
Iacchus said:
So what is the imagination then? Basically what exists inside of your brain? If not, then how do you know your brain's not deceiving you? If so, then how do you know that anything is real? In other words, how do you know that everything is not just a by-product of your imagination?
Click to expand...



Imagination, things that we make up. Reality, what refused to go away simply because I stop believing in it.
 
max said:

If we all believe in evolution I wonder if the dying state of the planet has been caused because we intervene the whole time. If evolution truly means the survival of the fiittest, we have not kept to that theory in that we assist the poorer countries. Going by Darwins law, we should be looking after our own needs and sod the weakest. Throughout the centuries had we kept to that law I suspect there would be no africans and many other third world people would have become extinct. If we'd have all stayed in our own country from the beginning, I wonder which would still be populated today? Which would have been killed off by disease and poverty.
Click to expand...
Yes, and instead we coddle the weakness don't we?
 
Chanileslie said:

Imagination, things that we make up. Reality, what refused to go away simply because I stop believing in it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but how do you know that I'm not imaginary and you just didn't make me up? The imagination can be a very powerful thing, especially when people start hearing voices and what not -- that won't go away!
 
max said:
If evolution truly means the survival of the fiittest, we have not kept to that theory in that we assist the poorer countries. Going by Darwins law, we should be looking after our own needs and sod the weakest.
Click to expand...

The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how we "should" behave; it is not a normative theory. The theory of evolution describes a mechanism to explain the observed state of the world, but does not prescribe behavior.

Even if I read your post to mean "I would expect to see us looking after our own needs and sod the weakest," I don't think you're giving evolutionary theory enough credit. I don't think it's as simple as you suggest.
 
Dymanic said:
[B

If what you are saying then is that so-called scientific claims are often used, by those with a limited understanding of the actual science, to support personal, emotional, or political agendas, then I agree completely. I would even go so far as to say that even those do have a thorough grasp of the science (being humans, after all) cannot reasonably be expected to be entirely free of any such agendas at all times.

Yes, I agree so far. Very well put.

But at least the entire endeavor does not have these agendas as its first priority -- something that cannot be said of religious endeavors.

This part I don't agree with, it sounds like a biased assumption to me. As I can't lump all 'science' under the banner of human-centricity, I can't lump all 'religion' either.

[/B]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom