Religion vs. Evolution

[The Amazing Rando 0]

EDIT: This is not intended to start a flame war. I actually do want some help.

 

 

Sure, we are allowed to believe in whatever we want. We can believe in Christianity, Judiasm, Buddhism, or any other multitude of religions. We can believe in Evolution and science, or we can just make stuff up. If all of that sounds like too much work or just does not sound right to you - you can simply believe in nothing at all.

 

 

The problem I have is...

 

I can't figure out what I truly want to put my mind into.

 

 

 

For the past few years, I have jumped around alot in my beliefs and never really stuck my feet firmly into a specific group. I always put trust in science, but religion seemed to pop up with me in daily conversation, or in my reading, and I never turned it away. I saw it as a learning experience, but lately it has just gotten too much for me to handle.

 

 

For starters, I have never read the Bible, and probably couldn't even answer the most basic of questions, because Sunday School was a LONG time back and when I decided to block out most of my 5th grade to 8th grade life, it really took a toll on my memories of the rest of my childhood as well, though I doubt they'd be much better no matter what.

 

I enjoy philosophical discussion, but DESPISE people trying to force things on me or changing their views to fit the topic. I walked out of a Philosophy class during my sophomore year because my Prof was spewing so much crap that I just couldn't take it. Sure, 99% of it was all fact and by the book stuff, but it was that 1% of her instance to make it seem like whatever religion or group we studied on that particular day was the greatest religion or group ever. It was like a prophaganda film with short term memory loss and ADD. Too make matters worse, I would usually take up about half the class myself trying to understand what she was talking about in intelligent discussion, only to get her mindless rambling in return.

 

I only finally walked out after getting a D on a paper that she clearly just didn't like at all because it was "against the grain" a little. I can't even remember what the paper was about, but i just remember her using the word "unacceptable" for something that was supposed to be OUR OPINION in the first place. I had my opinion and I backed it up clearly, concisely, and logically...but since it didn't follow the spirit of the book she just tore it apart. Since then, I loathed any paper I had to write where my opinion was to be judged.

 

 

But, since I am open to ideas, discussion, thoughts, and whatever else you all have to share on the subject.... post all you please about whatever you please.

 

 

I want to find a small bit of philosophical ground to stand on, so help me out.

 

 

Thank you,

 

~Rando.

[GreatWhiteNope 0]

I believe a higher power, be it God or something else, influenced the creation of mankind through evolution.

 

In escence, I think the development of humans from simple organisms to their current state couldn't have been done by chance.

 

Like you, I haven't really indulged in bible study since Sunday School, which I last attended when I was 13.

 

Could the teachings of Christ be true? Sure.

 

But I just find it hypocritical that most people are taught to shun past and foreign civilizations that are polytheistic or have other religious beliefs.

 

Nobody will ever know for sure why we're really here. Might as well pick a religion and stick with it.

[godthedog 0]

every time this thread comes up i put up the exact same argument. which i will continue to do, because it's fun:

 

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

 

definition of god: that than which nothing greater can be conceived. it is, by definition, impossible to conceive of anything greater than god.

 

think of a god that exists in the mind and in reality: something that exists in the world, which we have a concept of.

 

now think of a god that only exists in the mind: something we have an idea of, but doesn't exist in reality. which of the two is greater?

 

the god that exists in reality.

 

therefore, god must exist. if he didn't exist in reality, we could conceive of something greater. but by definition, that's impossible. since god is the greatest conceivable being, and since a god that only exists in the mind would NOT be the greatest conceivable being, he must exist in reality.

 

there you go. study it, commit it to memory, amaze your friends at parties.

For starters, I have never read the Bible, and probably couldn't even answer the most basic of questions, because Sunday School was a LONG time back and when I decided to block out most of my 5th grade to 8th grade life, it really took a toll on my memories of the rest of my childhood as well, though I doubt they'd be much better no matter what.

if your wrestling with these questions is as serious as you're claiming, you should just go back and start reading so you know what the hell it is you're wrestling with. otherwise there's really no point.

I enjoy philosophical discussion, but DESPISE people trying to force things on me or changing their views to fit the topic.  I walked out of a Philosophy class during my sophomore year because my Prof was spewing so much crap that I just couldn't take it. Sure, 99% of it was all fact and by the book stuff, but it was that 1% of her instance to make it seem like whatever religion or group we studied on that particular day was the greatest religion or group ever.  It was like a prophaganda film with short term memory loss and ADD.

okay, exactly what did you expect in a philosophy class? the material you're studying will, by nature, contradict itself, and the professor is obligated to give a fair shake to each of the views you study. she's SUPPOSED to convince you during hegel week that hegel is a genius, and she's supposed to convince you during kierkegaard week that hegel was a retard. it's her job to play devil's advocate because it forces you into active critical thinking.

I only finally walked out after getting a D on a paper that she clearly just didn't like at all because it was "against the grain" a little.  I can't even remember what the paper was about, but i just remember her using the word "unacceptable" for something that was supposed to be OUR OPINION in the first place. I had my opinion and I backed it up clearly, concisely, and logically...but since it didn't follow the spirit of the book she just tore it apart.

i honestly find this hard to believe. don't throw out the "but it's my opinion so it can't be wrong" argument. if your argument backing up the opinion isn't strong, the opinion IS wrong. if your arguments WERE clear and concise and logical, did you try to talk to her and point it out?

[Nighthawk 0]

There was a 17 page thread about this, you know.

 

Straight up, though, evolution in the common vernacular doesn't hold up at all. It's a terrible theory. So study that, or you'll be forced to concede things which are retarded. Shoot.

[Hoff 0]

My basic philosophy: we're here to be good people. I pretty much don't worry about religion anymore. I believe in God and Jesus Christ solely because I find it believable, likely because of a Catholic education. But I don't conform to any religion, even Christianity (in the common sense, anyway -- I do try to follow Jesus' teachings). I figure, if being nice makes me happy, and I believe in a higher power, then there must be some reason that power put such feelings in me. Because, I don't know about you, but I feel a lot happier and even healthier to an extent when I'm being nice and helping people out. I tried it the other way through tenth grade, and it didn't work. I don't claim to have all the answers, but that's what works for me.

 

And yes, it involves sacrifice. That, for me, goes back to Jesus, but it's also a commonsense thing. You simply cannot win all of the time. Don't try. Give a little and you'll get back. Karma, I guess.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I am a believer

 

However. Tis better to be safe than sorry. I wouldn't want to die being a non-believer, and than meeet up with a pissed of GOD up in heaven.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

I have a degree in Palaeobiology and Evolution.

 

IDRM is right, evolutionary theory is flawed. It's so commonplace now that any new findings are wrangled into the already held theory. However, the basic principles are correct and evolution does exist.

 

I'll make up my mind on God as soon as I know how the Univers started. That's the one thing which no scientific theory I've heard can explain.

[Perfxion 0]

This is a hard subject to Redebate. But lets just say that it is harder to disprove Evolution than it is to disprove Religion. And furthermore, beliefs in either are like brickwalls. You get nowhere talking to them.

[Nevermortal 0]

[Nighthawk 0]

But lets just say that it is harder to disprove Evolution than it is to disprove Religion.

Fool.

 

It's as though I spent those 17 pages talking about my tamagotchi or something.

[Perfxion 0]

A simple flaw of creationism:

 

first book, first chapter, first verse: In the beginning God created the heavens in the earth. That is "Day" one. Evloution says rocks on this planet are around 5.??? billion years old. God created the sun on the second "Day".

 

logic: Without a sun how do we know how long a day is? It could have been 22 hours it could have been 25 hours, how can you tell? Isn't a day recorded as time the earth spins on its axis in relation to the sun. Without the SUN there is no way of knowing. It could have been much much much longer. As in billions of years.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Both Aquinas and Kiekergard provide the only non-rebuked philosophical argument for the existence of God (aside from the ontological one said above) that I know of.

[Nighthawk 0]

A simple flaw of creationism:

That's not a flaw, you know. That would be like saying astronauts disproved the law of gravity. I did support the literal Genesis viewpoint previously, but it's a much longer path to reach it than simply reading the book.

[Guest Contentious C]

I believe a higher power, be it God or something else, influenced the creation of mankind through evolution.

 

In escence, I think the development of humans from simple organisms to their current state couldn't have been done by chance

Then that isn't evolution.

 

If you're going to even USE the word evolution outside a HHH thread, the least any of you could do is understand the underlying concepts. Read some fucking Richard Dawkins, why don't you?

[Guest Contentious C]

There was a 17 page thread about this, you know.

 

Straight up, though, evolution in the common vernacular doesn't hold up at all. It's a terrible theory. So study that, or you'll be forced to concede things which are retarded. Shoot.

No, "evolution in the common vernacular" wouldn't hold up, because the "common" people using it are even dumber than the dolts here, who have A) never studied it, B) don't understand it, or C) both.

 

Really, how much study have you done on the theories and proof that support evolution?

[godthedog 0]

Both Aquinas and Kiekergard provide the only non-rebuked philosophical argument for the existence of God (aside from the ontological one said above) that I know of.

the ontological argument has been disproven.

 

what are the aquinas & kierkegaard ones that you're talking about?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Ooh, I can't wait to see this.

 

EDIT: Between IDRM and Coey, I mean.

[Ace309 0]

If anyone's truly feeling conflicted on the evolution-creation question, may I suggest a visit to Talk.Origins? The site has a certain degree of preaching to the choir, if you'll pardon the phrasing, but it attempts to deal with arguments on both sides of the discussion. For an alternative view (which is dealt with heavily on T.O, among other places), Kent Hovind's website is a hardline young-earth creationist website that attempts to deal scientifically with creation. For a synopsis of the hardline view in handy-dandy oversimplified comic book form, go to Jack Chick's site and look at the Big Daddy tract. Warning: Fundamentalism.

 

There's a ton of material on the web if you want to explore the various arguments and urban legends surrounding each of the views. It's a bit of a hobby of mine to keep up with the literalist viewpoints - I just find it interesting.

[Nevermortal 0]

I hate serious discussions, can we please get back to talking about surreal meetings between board posters and Kotz and I's slow descent into become druggies?

 

Pweez

[godthedog 0]

If anyone's truly feeling conflicted on the evolution-creation question, may I suggest a visit to Talk.Origins? The site has a certain degree of preaching to the choir, if you'll pardon the phrasing, but it attempts to deal with arguments on both sides of the discussion. For an alternative view (which is dealt with heavily on T.O, among other places), Kent Hovind's website is a hardline young-earth creationist website that attempts to deal scientifically with creation. For a synopsis of the hardline view in handy-dandy oversimplified comic book form, go to Jack Chick's site and look at the Big Daddy tract. Warning: Fundamentalism.

 

There's a ton of material on the web if you want to explore the various arguments and urban legends surrounding each of the views. It's a bit of a hobby of mine to keep up with the literalist viewpoints - I just find it interesting.

i've always wanted to say this:

 

you are not the coolest straight guy below 14th. you may be the coolest straight guy from houston on down, but from bleecker to 14th it's me.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

what are the aquinas & kierkegaard ones that you're talking about?

 

Aquinas (A restatement of Aristotle with Christian Themes)

 

In his 1264 Summa Contra Gentiles, Thomas Aquinas restated Aristotle's argument and named it the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God.

 

Aquinas saw that everything is changing. Change is produced by some cause. There is a sequence of efficient causes in the cosmos. All these causes, except the very first one, were conditional results, and had the possibility of not being. The ultimate first efficient cause behind all other causes could not be both cause and effect. That cause is God.

 

I.e., the very existence of the cosmos, or world, argues for a God. The cosmos must have an explanation; it could not "just happen." There must be a cause at least equal to its effect.

 

Dr Robert Jastrow, agnostic founder of NASA's Institute for Space Studies, says it plainly,

 

"The astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and the biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.

 

"Scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause. Now science have proven that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions."

 

Kierkergard

http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/kierkegaard.html

 

 

/Point. I was wrong. Aquinas' cosmological argument was disproven in the late 1800s, but has recently resurfaced as the arguments disproving it were disproven.

 

Kierkergard is the only philosophic argument for a God I'm aware of that still hasn't been destroyed logically

 

the correct translation from Hebrew in Genesis is... "And some time passed" When translated inappropriately, it came out as "day 1, day 2""

Edited January 4, 2005 by Stephen Joseph

[Guest Failed Mascot]

I was thinking last night...if there's a god and he really did have the dinosaurs killed off...do you think all the dinosaurs are in hell?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

No. Animals don't have souls, thus they don't go to Heaven or Hell. They just die.

 

Evloution says rocks on this planet are around 5.??? billion years old.

 

I find it interesting that the evolutionary theory apparantly has things to tell us about rocks. Inanimate rocks. Which don't evolve.

[Ace309 0]

That's because it's a shoddy use of the term "evolution" to describe, inter alia, geological concepts that fall with evolution proper into an overarching theory of the origin of the Earth. (EDIT: Or, rather, a theory that describes why the earth is in the state we find it today. The original phrasing is inaccurate.)

 

Evolution proper has nothing to say about the Big Bang, for example, or how the earth got to be here. It deals only with change among living things.

Edited January 4, 2005 by Ace309

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

I believe a higher power, be it God or something else, influenced the creation of mankind through evolution.

 

In escence, I think the development of humans from simple organisms to their current state couldn't have been done by chance

Then that isn't evolution.

 

If you're going to even USE the word evolution outside a HHH thread, the least any of you could do is understand the underlying concepts. Read some fucking Richard Dawkins, why don't you?

I met Dawkins.

 

Guys a dick.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

That's because it's a shoddy use of the term "evolution" to describe, inter alia, geological concepts that fall with evolution proper into an overarching theory of the origin of the Earth. (EDIT: Or, rather, a theory that describes why the earth is in the state we find it today. The original phrasing is inaccurate.)

 

Evolution proper has nothing to say about the Big Bang, for example, or how the earth got to be here. It deals only with change among living things.

But evolutionary theory is about the adaptation to new niches. Therefore it is possible to discuss mineralogical evolution, but it would be very fucking boring.

 

For example, you could talk about how the earths surface has adapted to the change in climates over time.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

well i did kinda disappear out of here last night after my first little post, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions in some places where I shouldn't. After all, I am just learning.

 

I have made this my New Year's Resolution. Basically to figure out where I lie in the philosophical world. While I have my thoughts, they aren't deep, aren't studied, and I can't back them up at all...so I'm looking to change that.

 

I guess I feel that this is a piece of me that is missing, like a deeper plane. Sure, that sounds odd, but I am just going to sit back and read anything I can get my hands on in terms of why we are here, how we got here, and where we are going, among other things.

 

2005: Rando searches for the meaning of life

[Guest Failed Mascot]

No. Animals don't have souls, thus they don't go to Heaven or Hell. They just die.

You silly bastard. Dinosaurs aren't animals, they're dinosaurs.

[Guest Cerebus]

No. Animals don't have souls, thus they don't go to Heaven or Hell. They just die.

You silly bastard. Dinosaurs aren't animals, they're dinosaurs.

Well, I'm Brian Fellow!

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

well i did kinda disappear out of here last night after my first little post, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions in some places where I shouldn't. After all, I am just learning.

 

I have made this my New Year's Resolution. Basically to figure out where I lie in the philosophical world. While I have my thoughts, they aren't deep, aren't studied, and I can't back them up at all...so I'm looking to change that.

 

I guess I feel that this is a piece of me that is missing, like a deeper plane. Sure, that sounds odd, but I am just going to sit back and read anything I can get my hands on in terms of why we are here, how we got here, and where we are going, among other things.

 

2005: Rando searches for the meaning of life

Lifes too short to worry about the meaning of it. Accept that what you know you know, and what you don't you don't need to.

 

Seriously. Live life, don't think about it. You'll be dead soon.