originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
Science indicates an evolution of species,
No, it doesn't. What it indicates is a horizontal mutation within a species to maximise the chances of survival. That's not the same thing as gradual
evolution of one species into another. But people become oblivious of the important philosophical difference between these words because they know
they have to believe what is politically correct and they don't have the time or ability to investigate for themselves.
and not just among species but literally beings transforming into other beings and all descending from a common ancestor.
Where's the evidence for that? You are merely making an unwarranted extrapolation from the known facts. There is NO evidence for sudden crossover or
gradual transition between species. Nor is there any evidence for all life having a common ancestor. Instead, you are confusing a fact with a
scientific belief - an ideological presupposition made by science.
People are convinced,
No, they are not. Most do not have the knowledge to convince themselves. Instead, they become brainwashed from school onwards into accepting the
dogmas and theories that masquerade as scientific truth. All that convinces them is the facade of scientists who tell them what they should
science is right and there is proof. Science manages to reveal things that happened millions of years ago!
So what? Just because religion cannot provide the kind of concrete proof that science offers does not imply that religion is "wrong". This is a non
sequitur based upon an underlying bias.
The finger points at religion, your books are wrong!
What is wrong is not the metaphysical meaning behind creation myths in religious books but the literal, concrete interpretation that educated but
spiritually illiterate teachers pass on to their students - one that distorts the subtle, archetypal meaning of these myths and creates the illusion
that they contradict scientific facts about the universe and life. The fault lies not in religion itself but with most people's understanding of
It's all a lie and your God certainly must not exist also.
A non sequitur. If you don't believe in fairy tales, you cannot logically infer that fairies don't exist. You had to make that assumption BEFORE
disbelieving in fairy tales. So you start by not believing in God and ONLY THEN religion itself becomes a lie.
Believers dive into their books, science must be wrong but the evidence is overwhelming and society evolves into another era when it comes to
All that is overwhelming is the evidence provided by science that the literal interpretation of the creation myth in various religions is wrong. When
that myth is understood in its deeper mystical and metaphysical sense, its harmony with scientific discoveries become revealed.
Science became the salvation of mankind. One day we will find a way to adjust people and make them live longer.
"make" them live longer? What if some don't want to live longer with their frailties and lack of supporting relatives? This is an example of how
science without the wisdom of religion leads to authoritarianism, for science itelf cannot provide the meaning to life, and so it thinks blindly that
extending it at all costs with the latest technologies is life's prime directive. It isn't and it never was. It is the quality of life that is
important, not its length.
Now this God that kept us in the dark ages is gone we will evolve eradicating any leftover beliefs.
It was never God that kept us in the dark ages. It was authoritarian religion intent on preserving its power over people's minds - much as science is