Evolution Vs. God

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by helldiver

 

Oh really? You don't remember any history where science is used as an excuse to kill millions? Wow, I think that is called Eugenics and Hitler who loved it! Seems he used science all the time to justify getting rid of the less evolved peoples. Now, I know you all will say he was a Christian, and to that I will say, he was just another of the godless masses who will use any excuse to dominate mankind.

Lot's of men have used the guise of religion to control the people, and I am sure there are some deluded idiots who actually think they are doing God's work and some of them also claim Lucifer is God and so, which God is it they are really serving?

Please don't pull out the holier than thou "I'm a scientist" card. I do believe we can pull up all kinds of Godless people in history who killed millions in the name of science or used scientific reasoning to do what they did, hmmm Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao come to mind, I'm sure we can find some more.

Be careful with those stones you all are throwing in your glass houses!

edit on 4-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

I think what he was trying to say is no one has ever killed in the name of science. And Hitler used Eugenics because his religious beliefs told him that Germans were Aryans children of god as it were. While religion has been used since the dawn of man for the reasons for war. Science has been used as a means to kill but with science comes technology. And with technology the means to kill more effectively. As Robert Openhiemer put it "Now i am the destroyer of worlds" But there has never been a war in history using science as the reason. How would that work exactly my chart of periodic elements is better then yours?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Oh really? You don't remember any history where science is used as an excuse to kill millions? Wow, I think that is called Eugenics and Hitler who loved it! Seems he used science all the time to justify getting rid of the less evolved peoples. Now, I know you all will say he was a Christian, and to that I will say, he was just another of the godless masses who will use any excuse to dominate mankind.

Once again, you show your true colors with these posts. You have no argument against evolution that is actually based in any kind of reputable science, so you engage in a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad consequentiam. Further, as has been shown by his own words, Hitler was a Christian. You can engage in "no true Scotsman" fallacies all you like, but by your own argument that evolution is wrong because the consequence of it may be interpreted as wrong, the fact that people have used Christianity as an excuse to kill others means that evolution and Christianity are equally wrong.

Lot's of men have used the guise of religion to control the people, and I am sure there are some deluded idiots who actually think they are doing God's work and some of them also claim Lucifer is God and so, which God is it they are really serving?

More "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Sorry that they don't subscribe to your particular granular sect of Christianity, but there are quite a few of them each with its own interpretation of the Bible.

Please don't pull out the holier than thou "I'm a scientist" card. I do believe we can pull up all kinds of Godless people in history who killed millions in the name of science or used scientific reasoning to do what they did, hmmm Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao come to mind, I'm sure we can find some more.

First, you're conflating atheism with being a scientist or a proponent of science. Poor showing from someone who likes to proclaim "fact" as often as you do. But, by all means, let's talk about Stalin...

Stalin wasn't one who subscribed to Darwin's theory of evolution. Stalin was a Lysenkoist, which is a particularly amusing branch of pseudoscience based on Lamarckism. Look those up, as I have no doubt that you're not really familiar with Lamarck or Lysenko. Stalin and Lysenko actually rejected the basic concepts of evolution and genetics -- as you yourself do, which means you have more in common with Stalin than the proponents of modern evolutionary synthesis that have posted in your threads. Further, Stalin persecuted biologists to such a degree that agriculture suffered and he also imprisoned and killed thousands of scientists and engineers from all fields.

Pol Pot? Theravada Buddhist, went to a Catholic school.

Mao? Born into a family of Buddhists, philosophy more in line with Taoism than anything else. Said things like:

it is wrong to tell people to be against religion.

and

believing in a certain religion doesn’t mean people don’t oppose imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism.

Further, if you really want to do some research, read some of Mao's poetry. It's full of references to Heaven, gods, goddesses, souls... things a "Godless atheist" would definitely be writing about, right?

Seriously... did you even look into these claims before you made them or are you just regurgitating what you've heard from other people?

Be careful with those stones you all are throwing in your glass houses!

Heed your own advice.

reply to post by Fromabove

Gravity has been observed in real time. Evolution suggests events that may have taken place under circumstances that are assumed to be present at that time long ago. Evolution, that is, change of one kind into a complete and new form, or another present kind has never been observed.

If you still think that evolution hasn't been observed in real time, you haven't been paying attention to this thread (or almost any other thread in O&C forum here on ATS) for long enough to comment.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Hitler was a racist madman, not a scientist.

Eugenics is more of a racist concept than a scientific concept as, in Hitlers case, it involved a lot of killing. Mass murderers often use weapons to good effect but blaming science as being the creators of weapons is a no-brainer. For example, would you blame science for the sarin attacks in Tokyo or a gunman going on a killing spree in a school?

To blame science for creating weapons is the same as blaming science for creating televisions or computers.

If science is misused then it's the perpetrator that should be held accountable.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Other religions have their unique creation mythologies as well, should we also teach those in public schools?

We do. There's a certain point at which almost every class delves into religion, because religion is a huge part of literature and art and war and exploration and history. Just because you're afraid of your kids catching the god bug, doesn't mean their education should suffer for it. If anything, you should let them learn everything they can so that they can at least make an informed decision in the matter.

Otherwise, you're just as bad as the Christian parents who refuse to let their kids learn anything other than Christian stuff.

No we don't... Public schools don't teach religious mythology as alternative scientific theory. Literary works are presented as fiction, not fact. Greek and Roman mythologies are not presented as religions, you should know that. What creationists want is to have creation theory presented as alternative to evolution. Try getting a degree in science with an educational foundation of creationist theory, it can't be done.

You presume too much about me. I have no children and I'm not afraid of anything. However, I do believe it's every parents right to decide what their children are exposed to. I've studied Theology, I understand that it's important to gain an understanding of differing religious views but I don't think it's right to force feed anyone. It's not your decision and if you think it is, you're just as bad as those idots who proselytize.

You have some strange ideas about things....

reply to post by Blarneystoner

No we don't... Public schools don't teach religious mythology as alternative scientific theory. Literary works are presented as fiction, not fact. Greek and Roman mythologies are not presented as religions, you should know that. What creationists want is to have creation theory presented as alternative to evolution. Try getting a degree in science with an educational foundation of creationist theory, it can't be done.

This is what you said:

Other religions have their unique creation mythologies as well, should we also teach those in public schools?

This was my response:

We do. There's a certain point at which almost every class delves into religion, because religion is a huge part of literature and art and war and exploration and history.

You never said anything about substituting creation mythologies for scientific theories.

You presume too much about me. I have no children and I'm not afraid of anything. However, I do believe it's every parents right to decide what their children are exposed to. I've studied Theology, I understand that it's important to gain an understanding of differing religious views but I don't think it's right to force feed anyone. It's not your decision and if you think it is, you're just as bad as those idots who proselytize.

I think it best to inform our children as much as we are absolutely able. Otherwise, their ignorance is our fault.

You have some strange ideas about things...

Thank you, I'm sure Einstein and Edison and Tesla were all told the same thing.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

I think it best to inform our children as much as we are absolutely able. Otherwise, their ignorance is our fault.

There's a difference between being informed and brainwashed... do I really need to explain it to you? And again... you're completely ignoring the parents right to decide. Who made you the decider?

You have some strange ideas about things...

Thank you, I'm sure Einstein and Edison and Tesla were all told the same thing.

Oh that's cute... aren't you clever.... The difference being that those guys were genius.... Hitler had some strange ideas as well...

reply to post by Blarneystoner

There's a difference between being informed and brainwashed... do I really need to explain it to you? And again... you're completely ignoring the parents right to decide. Who made you the decider?

Of course there's a difference. I'm not talking about teachers putting a plot tree of the Egyptian gods on an overhead and saying, "These are the gods of our world." I'm talking about them putting that plot tree on the overhead and saying, "These are the gods that the Egyptians recognized and worshipped. As you can see, many of these gods bear a startling resemblance to the gods of these other cultures, though they were separated by vast bodies of water. It is suggested by scientists that they are connected so and so as evidenced by these discoveries in the year yada yada by explorers Herp and Derp. If you'll look closely at these artifacts..."

That's called "informing". Are we clear now? Oh, and here's what happens when parents are given complete control of education:



What you are talking about is the polar opposite - children won't know the first thing about religion and will therefore be critically stunted when it comes to making an informed decision, particularly when confronted with that spiritual aspect of society. If you feel it is your right to cripple your child's education in such a manner, then perhaps it is your right to not have any children as well. Part of denying ignorance is not breeding it - literally.

Oh that's cute... aren't you clever.... The difference being that those guys were genius.... Hitler had some strange ideas as well...

Hitler was also a genius. A terrible, misguided genius, but still a genius. Had he applied his skills in a more positive manner, he might have been the Martin Luther King of Europe...or something similar. Point being, he had everything he needed to be a great man, a powerful and inspirational champion of the people. He just chose to be a war-mongering tyrant instead.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Of course there's a difference. I'm not talking about teachers putting a plot tree of the Egyptian gods on an overhead and saying, "These are the gods of our world." I'm talking about them putting that plot tree on the overhead and saying, "These are the gods that the Egyptians recognized and worshipped. As you can see, many of these gods bear a startling resemblance to the gods of these other cultures, though they were separated by vast bodies of water. It is suggested by scientists that they are connected so and so as evidenced by these discoveries in the year yada yada by explorers Herp and Derp. If you'll look closely at these artifacts..."

But we're not talking about historical religions are we? The study of conventional religions is called Theology. What you're talking about is Comparative Mythology and there is a huge difference.... I would expect a genius like yourself would know that.

That's called "informing". Are we clear now? Oh, and here's what happens when parents are given complete control of education

Thanks for making my point. That's what happens when a minority group is allowed to impose their religious beliefs on the educational system.

What you are talking about is the polar opposite - children won't know the first thing about religion and will therefore be critically stunted when it comes to making an informed decision, particularly when confronted with that spiritual aspect of society. If you feel it is your right to cripple your child's education in such a manner, then perhaps it is your right to not have any children as well. Part of denying ignorance is not breeding it - literally.

You're starting to piss me off. The inuendo in your response is not lost on me but it only serves to make you look like an ass.

It's everyone's right to raise their children as they see fit with regards to religious beliefs. I have no problem offering Theology classes in public schools for those who wish to take it but if someone doesn't want their children exposed to modern religious dogma, it's certainly their right. Do you deny that? If you do, you're no better than those who legislate morality.

Hitler was also a genius. A terrible, misguided genius, but still a genius. Had he applied his skills in a more positive manner, he might have been the Martin Luther King of Europe...or something similar. Point being, he had everything he needed to be a great man, a powerful and inspirational champion of the people. He just chose to be a war-mongering tyrant instead.

I'm beginning to see the kind of person you are... the picture is more clear now. I don't like you.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

But we're not talking about historical religions are we? The study of conventional religions is called Theology. What you're talking about is Comparative Mythology and there is a huge difference.... I would expect a genius like yourself would know that.

Theology, Comparative Mythology...I really don't care. Religion has a large and significant and influential enough role in this world that our children are going to run into it eventually. That's a given. What's not a given is how they will react or interact with those spiritual elements when they do meet them. That's where we come in, by telling our educational boards to give them a full education by which to measure and respond to such encounters.

You're starting to piss me off. The inuendo in your response is not lost on me but it only serves to make you look like an ass.

It's everyone's right to raise their children as they see fit with regards to religious beliefs. I have no problem offering Theology classes in public schools for those who wish to take it but if someone doesn't want their children exposed to modern religious dogma, it's certainly their right. Do you deny that? If you do, you're no better than those who legislate morality.

My intention was not to piss you off, but to make clear my opinion that regardless of your stance on whether or not religion should have a place in government affairs, it is unfair to allow your ignorance to perpetuate that same ignorance in the future generations upon which our nation depends. Unfair? Make that downright irresponsible.

I'm beginning to see the kind of person you are... the picture is more clear now. I don't like you.

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not sorry that you don't like me; I'm sorry that you find such a premature reaction to be appropriate. I have been nothing but respectful toward you, but clearly the deciding factor is that we don't agree with each other. I had hoped to see a more mature resolution to this matter.

Oh, and I deleted that back-stabbing manipulative comment you left on my profile. You know, because you were apparently too chicken to post it here where I could respond to you directly. Don't try a maneuver like that again.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If you feel it is your right to cripple your child's education in such a manner, then perhaps it is your right to not have any children as well. Part of denying ignorance is not breeding it - literally.

You call that reponse respectful?

Honestly... that's a low blow. You have no idea who I am or why I do not have children. Go to hell.

Oh, and I deleted that back-stabbing manipulative comment you left on my profile. You know, because you were apparently too chicken to post it here where I could respond to you directly. Don't try a maneuver like that again.

I only quoted what you said.... did you not say those words?

reply to post by dragonridr

Prove to me theres a god and im going wow cool i was wrong but the problem is religions attack science and ignore evidence that disputes there claims. See thats a problem if theres no proof god exists great believe what you will we have people who believe all kinds of crazy things. But you cant prove a belief by ignoring reality it doesnt work that way.

I don't want to sound crass but... that is really just a tad naive and assuming.

Of course there is no 'proof' that God exists and even if there were, you can rest assured that there would be a corner where all the opposing evidence would be found and from which, disseminated. There is no amount of 'proof' of anything that can't be challenged. Why is that? Because we just aren't as smart, as a species, as we like to think we are.

Beyond that, even science admits that it cannot prove the nonexistence of anything at all.

One recent example is the official re-dating of the beginnings of the Egyptian civilization. And this is not the first time that science has had to change fact to re-fact... manu'fact'uring a new view of an old vista. Just over a century ago, science was solidly sure that powered, heavier than air flight was... well, impossible.

But, wait... we weren't as smart then as we are now!

And a century from now, we might be smarter still and all our current beliefs will be laughed at just as we today look back and giggle at yesterday's beliefs.

God is more than a myth. God exists in one form or another across the broadest expanse of human history. This runs contrary to most everything we THINK we know of our most ancient beginnings. There were a multitude of differences in what one early civilization could do and then the next. But the one thing we all held in common, we a belief that there was something greater than ourselves... that were were indeed, not all that great.

Only modern arrogance assumes that we are at the apex of understanding... something just recently infecting us.

None of this means that God or any god truly exists... but it does say that making brash and self-fulfilling assumptions on a vast universe we haven't yet even begun to know... is not going to lead to any major discovery.

Open minds can navigate a narrow hallway. Closed minds get lost in open spaces.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

You call that reponse respectful?

Honestly... that's a low blow. You have no idea who I am or why I do not have children. Go to hell.

No more disrespectful than any opinions you have given voice to. You seem to adhere to the "two wrongs make a right" philosophy. If my responses cause you such discomfort, I apologize and advise you review your own approaches as well.

I only quoted what you said.... did you not say those words?

You quoted me out of context, then alluded to the missing context in a manner that did not reflect the actual nature of that context. For future reference, if you have a bone to pick with me, pick it where everyone can see it and where I can actually respond to it.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

You call that reponse respectful?

Honestly... that's a low blow. You have no idea who I am or why I do not have children. Go to hell.

No more disrespectful than any opinions you have given voice to. You seem to adhere to the "two wrongs make a right" philosophy. If my responses cause you such discomfort, I apologize and advise you review your own approaches as well.

I only quoted what you said.... did you not say those words?

You quoted me out of context, then alluded to the missing context in a manner that did not reflect the actual nature of that context. For future reference, if you have a bone to pick with me, pick it where everyone can see it and where I can actually respond to it.

So... let me get this straight... you think that trading jibes is comparable to a deeply personal, intentionally hurtful remark made about my lack of children? And your insinuation that I shouldn't "breed" in order to deny ignorance? You must be young, at least not old enough to know how hurtful that remark was. You obviously have no scruples and will say anything regardless of the consequences. I only hope that you will never know how incredibly painful it is to lose a child.

It's become painfully obvious that you lack the mental capacity to understand the issue being discussed. Your view is that religious beliefs should be taught in public schools so that children are better prepared for life situations which include spiritual aspects. (If I'm paraphrasing that incorrectly then ny all means, correct me) While, on the surface that may sound like a good idea, it's not. Where do you draw the line? Should we also teach Satanism, Wicca, and other cultish religions as well? Or should we only teach your religious views? You just don't get it and you probably never will because you currently lack the capacity.

..and if you don't like being quoted on your profile page I would suggest that you carefully vet your words in the future. Tell you what, I'll leave it off your page and just make it my signature.

I have nothing more to say to you... that won't be removed for T&C violations.

What I find a bit ironic is public schooling was begun by Christians to enable those who could not read to be able to read the bible. Now, we have gone full circle and we can have anything but the bible in schools. Granted, as a melting pot, America is not this simple society of all Christian viewpoints, but many different religions, and it is in the vein that I believe it's best to leave religion out of schooling. I also think evolution should be removed if it insists on teaching Macro vertical development of species into other kinds. There is zero proof of it no matter how many times the adherents of evolution scream there is proof.

We can talk about natural selection, extinction, mutations, cellular biology and the issue of massive data to create living systems which points to intelligent design.

This of course is not acceptable to evolutionists, who are anti-God, because "Intelligence" denotes a creator.

It seems to me this is a very difficult issue because of the strong feelings involved in it. It's too bad we can't just allow for both viewpoints to be expressed and for no teacher being allowed to indoctrinate their viewpoint into the matter.

Why is this so hard?

As for the childish antics on this thread, you show your viewpoints to be weak when you have to throw out personal insults and accusations against people you have very little personal knowledge of. I might not agree with someone's viewpoints, but I don't like to see them belittled, or hurt, and for that Blarneystoner, I am sorry this has happened on my thread.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

So... let me get this straight... you think that trading jibes is comparable to a deeply personal, intentionally hurtful remark made about my lack of children? And your insinuation that I shouldn't "breed" in order to deny ignorance? You must be young, at least not old enough to know how hurtful that remark was. You obviously have no scruples and will say anything regardless of the consequences. I only hope that you will never know how incredibly painful it is to lose a child.

I am painfully honest, it is true. You also should not expect me to exhibit psychic traits, as I have none. I don't know anything about your children, or lack thereof, so don't address me as though I should have known beforehand that my response would set off a completely irrelevant issue.

From this point forward, I will no longer be responding to your emotionally intensive barbs regarding my alleged insensitivity to your personal information. Now, back to the topic -

It's become painfully obvious that you lack the mental capacity to understand the issue being discussed. Your view is that religious beliefs should be taught in public schools so that children are better prepared for life situations which include spiritual aspects. (If I'm paraphrasing that incorrectly then ny all means, correct me)

This is correct.

While, on the surface that may sound like a good idea, it's not. Where do you draw the line? Should we also teach Satanism, Wicca, and other cultish religions as well? Or should we only teach your religious views? You just don't get it and you probably never will because you currently lack the capacity.

Yes. All of those you just listed. If they are culturally significant, they should be taught. At the very least, they should be included in electives that our children are allowed to choose of their own free will. If they want to learn, it is not your right to stop them. And removing educational material from a curriculum is the worst form of oppression in my mind. You are, at that point, manipulating the freedom of information for reasons that have less to do with the progress of our nation and more to do with comforting your own ignorance.

To do anything else is to support that ignorance and encourage it in the future of our nation through the children who will eventually take our place as the leaders and visionaries of society. They will then perpetuate the ignorance their parents imposed on them just as their parents did before them, and the cycle will continue. The only way to break the cycle is to stop doing what was done, and start doing things differently.

Starting with not manipulating the information and education available to our children to comfort our own ignorance. And if you have to, start taking some classes yourself until you're at peace with the idea.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

As for the childish antics on this thread, you show your viewpoints to be weak when you have to throw out personal insults and accusations against people you have very little personal knowledge of. I might not agree with someone's viewpoints, but I don't like to see them belittled, or hurt, and for that Blarneystoner, I am sorry this has happened on my thread.

If you have something to say to me, a private message would be nice. Blarneystoner, the same goes for you. If your comments are related to the topic, then please post them here for open discussion.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

As for the childish antics on this thread, you show your viewpoints to be weak when you have to throw out personal insults and accusations against people you have very little personal knowledge of. I might not agree with someone's viewpoints, but I don't like to see them belittled, or hurt, and for that Blarneystoner, I am sorry this has happened on my thread.

If you have something to say to me, a private message would be nice. Blarneystoner, the same goes for you. If your comments are related to the topic, then please post them here for open discussion.

edit on 5-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I have witnessed plenty of childish antics and schoolyard bully tactics from many members on this thread an others. They seem to run in packs and gang up on others as if having 4 people bombard a thread they don't like proves they are right when in fact it's nothing but a psy-op to shut up the opposition. I see some decent debate on some threads, but threads that have to do with religion, creation, etc seem to attract a certain sort of rude behavior, and if it feels like it fits your posts then it is directed at you, but if you have not been insulting, rude, or childish then you have no reason to be concerned.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I have witnessed plenty of childish antics and schoolyard bully tactics from many members on this thread an others. They seem to run in packs and gang up on others as if having 4 people bombard a thread they don't like proves they are right when in fact it's nothing but a psy-op to shut up the opposition. I see some decent debate on some threads, but threads that have to do with religion, creation, etc seem to attract a certain sort of rude behavior, and if it feels like it fits your posts then it is directed at you, but if you have not been insulting, rude, or childish then you have no reason to be concerned.

Context indicates that your post was made with me in mind. Don't bother employing diplomatic tactics, you've already made your move and I see right through it. Refer to my previous post.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Hr tries to deflect the issue when he lost an argument then raps himself as if hes just the voice of reason.