Evolution vs Creationism: Are We Beating A Dead Horse, Here?

Originally posted by vox2442
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

More missionaries? When are they going to learn? the Mormons have been going around here for decades, and at this point there's a ratio of about 1:1, missionaries to converts. Including expats, there's about a million Christians total in Japan, of all flavours. Less than one percent of the population.

Best of luck to your relatives. Tell 'em to try the oysters, that area has some of the best in Japan.

I've been urging them to try the puffer fish.

I don't think we're beating a dead horse because the truth is somewhere in the middle (unless deity=forces of physics we don't yet understand; not really conscious or you think that a deity established the laws of physics). Trying to put the two together in a comprehensive model seem like trying to mix oil and water... you can shake & stir it as long as you want but it won't ever be homogeneous. Could someone who thinks the two are compatible, please elaborate?

Beating a dead horse? Yes. I don't think that there is any way that both sides will back down and let the other side gain ground (I'm not just talking about Creationists, I know several die-hard Evolutionists that will would be willing to be aressted if it ment that they could prove their point).

Personally, I think a little bit of both Creationism and Evolution is involved in the process. What the "Creator" is, I have no idea. For several years, I was a big believer in Evolution and only Evolution. I thought that Creationists were idiots and just lieing to themselves. I've now learned that I felt that way because I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church, so I constatnly was told about the "evil monkey thoery."

reply to post by X-tal_Phusion


Well seeing as how for the most part each side is only going off what they they choose to believe and refusing to accept either side's points as being valid, the argument will continue to rattle on forever. It's like arguing over which color is better; blue or green? I say it's green. If you think blue is better, prove it! I'll still believe that green is better anyway.

Originally posted by mostlyspoons
reply to post by X-tal_Phusion

 

Well seeing as how for the most part each side is only going off what they they choose to believe and refusing to accept either side's points as being valid, the argument will continue to rattle on forever. It's like arguing over which color is better; blue or green? I say it's green. If you think blue is better, prove it! I'll still believe that green is better anyway.

I beg to differ. Evolutionists go with what's provable. I have yet to see a creationist prove the existence of a god of any kind.

Should I again point out that no response to creationist dogma would be needed if they were trying to hijack our schools?

Do you really want your children (present or future) to not be given all avenues to brainstorm? Would not the evolutionary theory without the counter-balance of creationism be one-sided in education?

Why not have both? The truth may actually lie somewhere in-between!

With that said, I am against religion. Most who know me on ATS, know this of me. But neither will I go the opposite dogmatic way, and go from one box into another.

Originally posted by MatrixProphetDo you really want your children (present or future) to not be given all avenues to brainstorm? Would not the evolutionary theory without the counter-balance of creationism be one-sided in education?

Why not have both? The truth may actually lie somewhere in-between!

With that said, I am against religion. Most who know me on ATS, know this of me. But neither will I go the opposite dogmatic way, and go from one box into another.

So teach it in Religion Class. It's not science, so it doesn't belong in science class. What's so hard about that?

reply to post by riddle6

Personally, I think a little bit of both Creationism and Evolution is involved in the process. What the "Creator" is, I have no idea. For several years, I was a big believer in Evolution and only Evolution. I thought that Creationists were idiots and just lieing to themselves. I've now learned that I felt that way because I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church, so I constatnly was told about the "evil monkey thoery."

Most of us have been raised with filters.

The goal of those who want to defy ignorance need to first look at our own filters. Where dogmatism resides, there resides also: miscalculations, concepts, and judgments (right, wrong, or indifferent!). It is enough to create a path.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

So teach it in Religion Class. It's not science, so it doesn't belong in science class. What's so hard about that?

Well, my thoughts are: don't teach atheism in science either! Both are inappropriate, as both cannot be proven by science, for science is limited.

Religion is a whole other concept and world! Spirituality and religion rarely mix.

Science works far better with some philosophy incorporated in. Philosophy works better with science to support aspects of it. Science nor philosophy are complete within themselves. Too many open ended questions!

How many scientists do you think use philosophy in their motive for research? You would not be able to list one person that does not philosophize on their experiment or research.

Look at the Creator or a power with consciousness in this light. Leave religion out of it! They fail!

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

So teach it in Religion Class. It's not science, so it doesn't belong in science class. What's so hard about that?

Well, my thoughts are: don't teach atheism in science either! Both are inappropriate, as both cannot be proven by science, for science is limited.

Religion is a whole other concept and world! Spirituality and religion rarely mix.

Science works far better with some philosophy incorporated in. Philosophy works better with science to support aspects of it. Science nor philosophy are complete within themselves. Too many open ended questions!

How many scientists do you think use philosophy in their motive for research? You would not be able to list one person that does not philosophize on their experiment or research.

Look at the Creator or a power with consciousness in this light. Leave religion out of it! They fail!

You don't have to teach atheism in science class. No body "teaches" atheism.

Your opinion is that science works better with some philosophy, perhaps. But the woo that is religion is not philosophical, it's manipulative propaganda.

Scientists think about their projects. If you want to call that philosophizing, fine. I'm used to people making up their own definitions here.

"Look at the Creator or a power with consciousness in this light. Leave religion out of it! They fail!"

That's because the Great Sky Fairy is needed for the delusion of religion.

You are arguing that religion is necessary. I disagree.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

You don't have to teach atheism in science class. No body "teaches" atheism.

You sure about that? No covert shaming of those who believe that a power greater than ourselves is part of the whole scheme?

Your opinion is that science works better with some philosophy, perhaps. But the woo that is religion is not philosophical, it's manipulative propaganda.

Couldn't agree more.

Scientists think about their projects. If you want to call that philosophizing, fine. I'm used to people making up their own definitions here.

What is brainstorming or using abstract reasoning?

That's because the Great Sky Fairy is needed for the delusion of religion.

I see a lot of fairy dust in organized religion and in atheism!

You are arguing that religion is necessary. I disagree.

Do you understand the definition of religion? Here again, I repeat the definition that I have done so many times:

(If all else fails, look it up). These are definitions that omit those regarding a God:

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects...something a person believes in and follows devotedly..." - Webster's

This would include the belief in atheism.

It seems to be a block that most atheists have - in lumping a belief in a power with consciousness with; religion. But often they are diametrically opposed!

Example:

Not too many centuries ago, man felt that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun and stars revolved around the earth. And who promoted that? The Church! But along comes Copernicus who attempts to prove otherwise.

Both were right in that Earth exists, just as matter exists. I don't throw God out because of the very poor interpretation that religion or atheism gives him. Nor because neither God nor matter can be proven without observation. It is obvious! But HOW are they to be interpreted? That is the choice of each individual.

Another words: just because religion has given God a bad wrap, doesn't deny his existence just as it doesn't with matter, or the place we have in the universe.

Religion NEEDS to keep to their doctrines, dogma and set beliefs because their continuance depends on it!

Do they have freedom of thought or exploration? Or are they threatened by new views, or thoughts?

The spiritual; search out the variables and recognize all that is missing, in order to be free. We thirst for knowledge and aren't afraid of the answers, even if it goes against the tide of mankind (which it usually does).

Isn't growth about not being just one of the sheep? All religion including atheism are too boxy for me. Too black and white with each having their own set of dogma.


Where do you fit?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
You are arguing that religion is necessary. I disagree.

Honestly, I'm little divided on this issue ...

I see it as a double edged sword.

I actually like seeing many finding inner peace in believing in God.

They reflect the light of something else, purely fictional from the Atheist point of view, but nevertheless beneficial to those who would be otherwise lost in coping with realization that there is no life after death.

For us who do not have need for external forces to steer our moral compass in desirable direction and are able to face our mortality it might seem unnecessary, but our history showed us that morality is something we have to work on very hard in the times to come and that our mortality was always a "problem" for the mind, it refuses to let go.

It is necessary IMO, necessary evil, if you will...

I do sleep better at night knowing that there is plenty of nuts out there who do not dare to harm others because of the fear from God.

Double edged sword because some of these very people when pressured enough often choose God (and doing bad things in his name) over fellow human beings

reply to post by X-tal_Phusion


It isn't about religion versus science. It's about religion versus religion, that being the religious belief system of atheism against the religious belief system of theism. It is all at it's very basis a war of who's opinion is correct when neither really has much of a factual leg to stand on for their ultimate assertions *that being whether atheism or theism is correct*. One side has Genesis the other side has the Big Bang and tons of breathed into meaning to the Theory of Evolution. That is the reason for this bullcrap battle over evolution, it's all about who's creation myth is correct.



[edit on 26-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


"It's about religion versus religion, that being the religious belief system of atheism against the religious belief system of theism."

That's what you'd want it to be anyway, to drag atheists down to your level. Atheism means "Free of religion". Until you understand that, you're just babbling.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Not it doesn't mean "free of religions". I use my own defintion for things do I? Think you might be confused.

2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...

Once again, answer "None of the Above" and you are still answering the question. Become proactive about your answer you got religion.

[edit on 26-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


You re-enforce my point. Good enough, but I really don't need the help.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Confusion is result of equating God Religion (faith, belief system) with Belief in supernatural.

No religious person have a greater proof of existance of God then ANY other in the world and that very proof is based on FAITH (or accepting existance of something which we cannot possibly see, touch and smell as real) which technically cannot be distinguished from belief in faeries...

If I believe in faeries nobody can disprove that the same way nobody can disprove God.

Atheists have no Church, Prayers, Holy Books, Rituals, Scriptures, it is not Patriarchal and they do not have "way of life" rooted in traditions, therefore Atheism is not a religion.

Calling Atheism religion is not going to slow down consolidation and growth of Atheistic movement in the world, contrary to what religious leaders tend to believe

That atheism is religion claim is really lame. Even Buddhists and Taoists can be Atheists as they don't necessarily believe in deities. That's what atheism is. Lack of belief in deities. You're telling me that's a religion?

Actually atheism has all the calling cards that other religions have:

Literature that promotes this belief system.

The Skeptic Society which meets in groups to discuss atheistic beliefs.

Evangelists within the faith that actively promote atheism.


Proof:

I have family members that do all of the above.

You have Pope Dawkins who actively promotes this faith. Just read his book; "The God Delusion." It is considered a new form of evangelizing and I find all of his parishioners doing the Dawkins talk, especially here on ATS.

Here, I will quote some of it for you!:

"My dream is that this book may help people come out...the easier it will be for others to join them. There may be a critical mass for the initiation of a chain reaction." Preface

"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." Page 5

Now, isn't that a piece of evangelism??

A religion is a religion is a religion!

Different doctrines, dogma and prejudice, yet all under the guise that we are smarter, more righteous, or more evolved than the rest of the "heathens" on earth. I want no part of any of it!


I am anti-religion of ALL sorts. He is only doing an evangelizing work that he feels is important, probably not realizing that he is no different than the Christian soldiers he criticizes. The same sneer and contempt that the orthodox religious have. Watch him, if you deny what I say!



[edit on 26-4-2009 by MatrixProphet]

reply to post by MatrixProphet


"Actually atheism has all the calling cards that other religions have:

Literature that promotes this belief system.

The Skeptic Society which meets in groups to discuss atheistic beliefs.

Evangelists within the faith that actively promote atheism."

You can say the same thing about the Celine Dion Fan Club. Do you consider that a religion? Or are you desperate to prop up your position?