Severed bunny head
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > Evolution vs Creationism
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:47. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Sokoro
Member


Posts: 367
Registered: 10-10


Without science, you would not be able to sit here and write in this forum.
While without religion, hmm I can not think of anything...

Old Post 04-22-14 11:58 #
Sokoro is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
dew
experts


Posts: 3615
Registered: 05-08



Phml said:
Here I thought it was all parables and metaphors. But what do I know, I've only lived in a Catholic family for half of my childhood, whereas you have all the experience and wisdom accumulated from skimming through one wikipedia article.

I've been thinking about this instead of work (heh) and after aborting a few paragraphs of loosely related ranting, I've decided your needlessly venomous remark contains a pretty good point. Catholics are quite a big and sophisticated exception, perhaps matched by the way mainstream Muslims organize their teachings.

There is no immovable, ultimate truth indeed and the Bible is just a part of the entire mythos crafted by the Church. All sources are filtered and superceded by dogmata established by the Pope & friends, then explained to plebs by priests. And those directives can be changed as soon as they become a burden for maintaining and controlling believers. Lunatics that worship a definite source of God's true words are a direct challenge to Pope's authority in telling people what to do and therefore are heretics.

It's actually like a twisted mockery of the scientific method, except that new teachings don't stem from a newly presented idea gradually accepted by the wider public, but from a committee of elites pressured into updating a dogma to a long standing suffered status quo.


While on the topic on cognitive dissonances, funny how when religious people change their beliefs over time it's "moving the goalposts", whereas when scientists do the same it's "progress". Modern physicists, worst turncoats ever man.

Actually, religious folks keep moving the goalposts when they don't change their beliefs. The opposite is called "opening their eyes". ;) Also scientists don't move the goalposts, because there's no goal. It's certainly not disproving the existence of God.

Old Post 04-22-14 13:37 #
dew is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
flubbernugget
Member


Posts: 355
Registered: 06-09



Sokoro said:
Without science, you would not be able to sit here and write in this forum.
While without religion, hmm I can not think of anything...




Volunteerism and charity?

Old Post 04-22-14 14:04 #
flubbernugget is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Membrain
Member


Posts: 538
Registered: 09-10



flubbernugget said:
Volunteerism and charity?


Not going to get into this too awfully much, but I've gotta disagree here. Religious charities and volunteerism have contributed as much, possibly more, negatively as they have positively. Even those that operate outside of third world countries often use sneaky, underhanded tactics to convert the people they are helping. In Africa and South America, the problem is much worse. Most charities only put forth about 8% of their proceeds toward their cause. The rest goes to pay their advertisers and the people who run the "non-profit" company. I don't recall exactly where I heard that only 8 cents on every dollar goes where it should, but I believe it was a reputable print source. Anyone have a source that either confirms or denies this?

Old Post 04-22-14 15:50 #
Membrain is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
TheCupboard
Forum Regular


Posts: 934
Registered: 02-06


So what, would you rather give the money to help feed an animal that no one has time or resources to love? Or maybe buy a new game for Xbawks?

Old Post 04-22-14 17:26 #
TheCupboard is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Sokoro
Member


Posts: 367
Registered: 10-10



flubbernugget said:



Volunteerism and charity?



Because there are no charitable organisations all over the world without religious ties?

And because people can not be nice, well mannered and act like grown-up adults without religion?

Old Post 04-22-14 17:59 #
Sokoro is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7738
Registered: 07-00



Sokoro said:


Because there are no charitable organisations all over the world without religious ties?

Indeed, the best charities are the secular ones, like the Red Cross, which just focus on doing good in an inclusive manner rather than pushing an agenda.

I'm skeptical of the charitability claim about religion, in no small part because "giving money to your church" is often counted as a form of charity.

Old Post 04-22-14 18:24 #
fraggle is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Antroid
Senior Member


Posts: 1500
Registered: 09-07



Sokoro said:
And because people can not be nice, well mannered and act like grown-up adults without religion?

Didn't you know? All good morals ever come from religion! It's a wonder they managed to compile the Bible, because before that everyone was just murdering anyone they saw.

Old Post 04-22-14 19:20 #
Antroid is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
printz
CRAZY DUMB ZEALOT


Posts: 8886
Registered: 06-06


Religion is a plague of the mind and needs to be banned.

__________________
Automatic Wolfenstein - Version 1.0 - also on Android

Old Post 04-22-14 19:25 #
printz is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Membrain
Member


Posts: 538
Registered: 09-10



TheCupboard said:
So what, would you rather give the money to help feed an animal that no one has time or resources to love? Or maybe buy a new game for Xbawks?


Way to be a smarmy, condescending asshole. No, as has been said, if I'm donating to anything, it's either resources like blood or labor such that I can be more sure that my contributions are important or to local, secular organizations that operate transparently. Also, considering I live several thousand dollars below the poverty line, I don't really have the money to buy console games, but thanks for the assumptions.

Old Post 04-22-14 19:28 #
Membrain is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
TheCupboard
Forum Regular


Posts: 934
Registered: 02-06


Whatever, dude. You go around making blanket statements like


Religious charities and volunteerism have contributed as much, possibly more, negatively as they have positively. Even those that operate outside of third world countries often use sneaky, underhanded tactics to convert the people they are helping.


Soup kitchens and food banks in my areas often have religious affiliations. It's one thing to feed the body and another thing to also feed the mind if the person wants it. I'm also not sure there's any connection between whether an organization is secular or not vs. how much benefit they distribute to humanity.

Old Post 04-22-14 19:53 #
TheCupboard is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Membrain
Member


Posts: 538
Registered: 09-10


Want to see the discrepancy between religious and secular charities? Count these up: http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html

Like I said, I'm not getting too into this. Take some time to research charities and go with what makes you comfortable. If you're okay funding a soup kitchen you know well, then by all means do so. My statement was in reference to larger, "corporate" charities that use sad music and starving kids to line the pockets of their executives. I'm not saying religious organizations are all bad. They just have a big presence and a lot of the household names abuse the people they claim to help for monetary gain. Again, if you're okay with that, then fine, but not everyone is comfortable supporting it and condescension will get you nowhere.

Old Post 04-22-14 20:53 #
Membrain is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
flubbernugget
Member


Posts: 355
Registered: 06-09



Sokoro said:


Because there are no charitable organisations all over the world without religious ties?

And because people can not be nice, well mannered and act like grown-up adults without religion?



What about the fact that people belonging to a group are easier to organize? It kinda takes advantage of the fact that like minded people tend to get along better too.

I honestly don't have the facts to make an appropriate opinion on corruption in large religious organizations, but I have personally made small donations and volunteered my time to other causes, regardless of their religious association, due to some of the concepts in my religion. I can't imagine nobody else's beliefs have caused them to
do the same.

Old Post 04-22-14 21:19 #
flubbernugget is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Jimi
Senior Member


Posts: 1506
Registered: 06-04


Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

Religion is self-improvement and helping/teaching/listening/caring for others.. being a Personal Jesus.

Old Post 04-22-14 21:36 #
Jimi is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Gez
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 11223
Registered: 07-07



Jimi said:
Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.


But then you get into intelligent design.

Religions were invented to give us a place in the world and a meaning to our existence. "We are how we are because God wanted us like this, and He wants us to do these things."

Pure science instead shows that we don't need a God to exist. It demonstrates how life can have appeared without divine intervention, and evolved towards more complex lifeforms including, eventually, us, through purely natural means.


Jimi said:
being a Personal Jesus.

Old Post 04-22-14 22:28 #
Gez is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
dew
experts


Posts: 3615
Registered: 05-08



Jimi said:
Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, because that fight is long lost, despite the valiant efforts of Young Earth creationists. The name of the real enemy is abiogenesis. I think it's too hard to spell to cut it as a proper villain for the fundies.

Old Post 04-22-14 22:57 #
dew is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Caffeine Freak
black and shiny


Posts: 732
Registered: 05-10



Gez said:

Personal Jesus video



I've always preferred Manson's version of this song, personally.

Old Post 04-22-14 23:47 #
Caffeine Freak is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7738
Registered: 07-00



Phml said:


Here I thought it was all parables and metaphors.

Yeah, that sure makes for an easy/cheap getout clause when all of those things previously assumed to be literally true and taught as divine truths are proven to have been wrong all along.

Old Post 04-22-14 23:56 #
fraggle is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Jimi
Senior Member


Posts: 1506
Registered: 06-04


"Divine intervention" always reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFhs5LCNTFY

I found out about Personal Jesus from some techno/industrial mix by Catharsis. But I have no idea who is singing in it, and couldn't find the tracklist anywhere anymore.

Intelligent design sounds more plausible than random design. My thoughts about it are pretty close to buddhist and hindu cosmology.

Old Post 04-23-14 14:50 #
Jimi is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
dew
experts


Posts: 3615
Registered: 05-08



Jimi said:
Intelligent design sounds more plausible than random design.

Only from our anthropocentric, bottom-up perspective. Try the universal scope and it will be the other way around.

Old Post 04-23-14 15:12 #
dew is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Sodaholic
I feel justified yet disgusted with myself at the same time


Posts: 2884
Registered: 04-07


If you look at it subjectively and arbitrarily enough, even our "designs" are merely the result of chain reactions of matter and energy. It's just that we've formed the cognitive ability through the meat-grinder that is the universe to observe and understand this. Really, we're lucky, and it's all by sheer chance.

Old Post 04-23-14 15:37 #
Sodaholic is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
40oz
Forum Spammer


Posts: 6898
Registered: 08-07


Bear with me, as I'm only about 10 minutes in, but giving both sides my equal impartial judgment, they both sound pathetic. Quite a few of the berating posts in this thread could easily be used against the other side.

Old Post 04-23-14 15:47 #
40oz is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
geekmarine
Senior Member


Posts: 1799
Registered: 05-00



40oz said:
Bear with me, as I'm only about 10 minutes in, but giving both sides my equal impartial judgment, they both sound pathetic. Quite a few of the berating posts in this thread could easily be used against the other side.

You're not exactly being equal or impartial if you're judging an argument based on the politeness of the people presenting it rather than the evidence used to support it. In fact, you're being about as biased as you can possibly be if you say, "Well gee, they're being rude, therefore their argument holds less weight."

Let's say this was not about something so controversial. What if the debate were about whether or not the world is round. Now, if I provide evidence to support the claim that the world is round, but start yelling and insulting anyone who disagrees with me, calling them all a bunch of c-words, does that somehow invalidate my evidence? I mean sure, it makes me a jerk, but me being a jerk has nothing to do with whether the evidence supports my argument.

Likewise, there is a crap-ton of evidence supporting the theory that life on Earth evolved over billions of years. Creationists' arguments aren't based on evidence, they're based on emotion - they just feel in their guts that evolution couldn't have happened, even though the record of our planet's history, even as fragmented as it is, makes it pretty damn clear that it did. So yeah, you're going to have people be disrespectful toward that group, but it doesn't change the fact that said group does not and cannot present evidence to support their outlandish claims beyond, "Well, it just seems like kind of a stretch to us and it goes against what our holy book says."

And don't get me wrong, polite and civilized discourse is always preferred, I'm just saying that the discourse and the evidence are two separate things, and one does not change the other - being forceful and rude is not in itself grounds for throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "I don't know, both sides are about equal to me."

Old Post 04-23-14 16:14 #
geekmarine is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
40oz
Forum Spammer


Posts: 6898
Registered: 08-07


What I'm saying is that one party is looking to be presented with the specific evidence they need to be convinced to sway their beliefs. The other party has not presented them with that evidence, and is instead saying "this is close enough."

Both parties are doing the same thing.

Old Post 04-23-14 16:21 #
40oz is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
dew
experts


Posts: 3615
Registered: 05-08



40oz said:
What I'm saying is that one party is looking to be presented with the specific evidence they need to be convinced to sway their beliefs. The other party has not presented them with that evidence, and is instead saying "this is close enough."

Both parties are doing the same thing.


I don't get it. Are you trying to be a wiseass? How is it the same thing when you even described it differently?

Old Post 04-23-14 19:50 #
dew is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
geekmarine
Senior Member


Posts: 1799
Registered: 05-00


One side has presented specific evidence and then some, and the other side just sticks their fingers in their ears and goes, "La la la I'm not listening!" Any Creationist who tells you the proper evidence would convince them is lying.

Old Post 04-23-14 20:43 #
geekmarine is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Jimi
Senior Member


Posts: 1506
Registered: 06-04



dew said:
Only from our anthropocentric, bottom-up perspective. Try the universal scope and it will be the other way around.
Universe is like one sand grain in a desert filled with infinite number of other sand grains. Each sand grain created by an intelligence, each intelligence created by another intelligence. It is an ever expanding/evolving edible self-re/creating hyperdimensional fractal.

Old Post 04-23-14 21:58 #
Jimi is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7738
Registered: 07-00



Jimi said:
Intelligent design sounds more plausible than random design.
This is a common misconception about evolution: it is not a random process.


40oz said:
What I'm saying is that one party is looking to be presented with the specific evidence they need to be convinced to sway their beliefs. The other party has not presented them with that evidence, and is instead saying "this is close enough."

Both parties are doing the same thing.

Yeah, not really though. It's a case of: what do you consider evidence? What is your method of discovering what is true and how we came into existence?

Science works by collecting evidence, and forming theories that explain that evidence and provide testable predictions. And the fact is, it works. The same process that created the computer you're using right now is the process that has led to the current theory of evolution. It's over 150 years since Darwin first posed the theory, and over that time we've collected masses of supporting evidence that confirms it.

Creationism in its modern form wouldn't exist if religion didn't exist. Does anyone really doubt this? Look at prominent examples like The Creation Museum for example. It's a theory that has been invented to prop up a religion: starting with the assumption that "everything the Bible says is true" and fitting the "evidence" to support it.

One side is an honest appraisal of the evidence; the other is an intellectually dishonest prop. So when you say:

The other party has not presented them with that evidence, and is instead saying "this is close enough."

From the creationist perspective, that's just not true. Creationists aren't interested in looking at evidence, only propping up their preexisting beliefs. Go and watch any creationism-evolution debate (god knows there are plenty of them on Youtube) - it's always the same: creationist presents a preprepared series of arguments, often ones that were debunkend decades ago. Evolutionist debunks them, creationist ignores this and moves on to the next bogus argument.

Putting both sides on the same level smacks of cultural relativism. Maybe it's tempting to want to tell yourself that you're being "balanced" or "impartial", but the simple fact is that Evolution and creationism are not equally valid theories, and if you honestly think that they are, you're ignorant of the actual facts of the matter.

Old Post 04-23-14 22:53 #
fraggle is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Aliotroph?
postCount++


Posts: 2665
Registered: 03-02



Jimi said:
Universe is like one sand grain in a desert filled with infinite number of other sand grains. Each sand grain created by an intelligence, each intelligence created by another intelligence. It is an ever expanding/evolving edible self-re/creating hyperdimensional fractal.


Hi, Deepak! Computers can do your job now!


40oz said:
What I'm saying is that one party is looking to be presented with the specific evidence they need to be convinced to sway their beliefs. The other party has not presented them with that evidence, and is instead saying "this is close enough."

Both parties are doing the same thing.



There hasn't been a debate here so far. This thread is mostly atheist science geeks saying religion is dumb and some other guys suggesting maybe it isn't (even though it really is).

Want some evidence? Have it in lecture form from a scientist! The point here is he and his team wouldn't have been able to find Tiktaalik if the theory (and a whole bunch of related ones) didn't work. Theories are good when they successfully make predictions. Note that PBS has cool new miniseries about this guy and his work. This isn't it.

Old Post 04-24-14 02:13 #
Aliotroph? is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
FireFish
Member


Posts: 562
Registered: 04-13


No matter from what side you look at it, science, forms of creationism, any type of divine interception, it all comes down to a paradoxal infinite loop. There is no end on either side, and the hunt will continue forever.

-> God created us (or some advanced creator).
Who created god, and who created the god of god, and so on...

-> science.
How can something come to be in nothing. if there is nothing then there could by all logical means never be anything to bring particles and atoms and dust to existence. eventually science will come to this point where they get stuck on this. the first content which ever existed in what we call the universe, or the infinite black void... how could it ever come to be from absolutely nothing.

edit : to make the science loop clear.
thus if science discovers the first ever particle or form of existing, then that first ever form could not be the first as it has to have something which made it come to existence to. our human reasoning and logic can not yet fathom this. everything needs something to be able to exist, the only logic we now know.

Last edited by FireFish on 04-24-14 at 03:24

Old Post 04-24-14 02:36 #
FireFish is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:47. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > Evolution vs Creationism

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.