Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #334820 is a reply to message #334812] |
Thu, 12 June 2008 02:43   |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 02:10 |
| Cabal8616 wrote on Wed, 11 June 2008 18:02 |
When I say evolution, I'm naturally referring to the belief that it's what created us. Not the process of evolution itself.
|
simply agreeing with a theory qualifies as being "religious"?
|
You could say the same for simply agreeing with the theory that God exists.
Everyone can be classified as having some form of religious belief... Be it a belief of something, or a lack of a belief. If they don't know, then they're agnostic.
Calling yourself "non-religious" yet believing in a theory that also apperently explains how the world was created, and a belief concerning God (That he doesn't exist, or didn't crate the world), is a religion. Deny it if you wish, but it is.
Yeah, there's people who believe in a different form of evolution. Like it's possible God created the world with evolution or somesuch. That's ALSO a religious belief.
A belief that concerns the creation of the universe and everything in it, whether by a person or persons or no, is considered a religion.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #334824 is a reply to message #334823] |
Thu, 12 June 2008 03:01 |
|
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| SSADMVR wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 04:56 |
It's called rationality.
|
Rationality is one of those words where the definition is based upon personal preference. Religion is pretty much an obvious thing.
Really, what's the point of classifying yourself as "non-religious"? Because you don't believe in a God/believe in evolution/whatever? So you can have an ego trip saying "HAHA, THOSE RELIGIOUS FAGGOTS BLOW THEMSELVES UP. GOOD THING I'M NOT RELIGIOUS"?
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #334828 is a reply to message #334827] |
Thu, 12 June 2008 04:02 |
|
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| SSADMVR wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 05:57 |
There's a word in my language, which I don't know the English equivelant of, that states you do not believe in any form of God, church, etc. It would fit better to the situation.
Oh, and a rational look at the possible definitions of rationality would give you the right definition. lol
|
What's "reasonable" differs from person to person. What you may think is "rational" could be completely insane to another person. Same goes for what you think is insane, could very well be rational to another person.
But, if you want to think of it that way, look at the rational definitions of Religion then...
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #334835 is a reply to message #334828] |
Thu, 12 June 2008 05:43 |
SSADMVR
Messages: 274
Registered: June 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Cabal8616 wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 06:02 |
| SSADMVR wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 05:57 |
There's a word in my language, which I don't know the English equivelant of, that states you do not believe in any form of God, church, etc. It would fit better to the situation.
Oh, and a rational look at the possible definitions of rationality would give you the right definition. lol
|
What's "reasonable" differs from person to person. What you may think is "rational" could be completely insane to another person. Same goes for what you think is insane, could very well be rational to another person.
But, if you want to think of it that way, look at the rational definitions of Religion then...
|
Well that's not completely true. Some people find it rational to believe in something supernatural like ghosts. I think everyone here knows that's not a rational way of thinking.
On the other hand I agree when you look at the purely linguistic meaning the word has. "Ratio" means something like common sense. However, due to different education and culture, common sense coming from one person is usually different then that coming from another person.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #334837 is a reply to message #333436] |
Thu, 12 June 2008 05:46 |
|
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Kind of lame then that there's people who classify religion as a "supernatural" thing. It doesn't always need to pertain to a supernatural wonder that occured that created us.
Even still though, wouldn't a universe that never existed that suddenly appears through a "big bang" be considered something of a supernatural event?
It's somewhat sad though that when someone can't explain something, they label it as "supernatural", and then deem it unexisting because of that. Or they just plain say it doesn't exist.
Having a religion that could possibly pertain to themselves because they don't believe in a popular religion is a terrible crime, I guess.
Also, @ SSADMVR: Yeah, that was my point. Something that seems sound to you could very well be unsound if not outright insane to another human.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!
|
[Updated on: Thu, 12 June 2008 05:48] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #334856 is a reply to message #333436] |
Thu, 12 June 2008 07:44 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Heh, I actually did a paper on Rationality.
Take this into consideration as well. Whether or not the views you (and I mean the "you" who is reading this, and not a specific person) currently have. Are they (or at least one of them) rational?
Now, think back to a time when you thought differently than you do now. Were your thoughts at the time you had them rational? Do they still seem rational now?
Now, go back to the first question. Are the thoughts you have right now rational? Will they still be rational if you think differently in the future? (Take into consideration how you answered whether or not your past thoughts were rational).
If you thought your past thoughts were not rational (you believed in Santa, you thought you could trust a friend that now betrayed you, you changed your mind on a political stance, etc.) because you think differently now, what is to say the thoughts you currently have are rational if you know that at some point in the future, you may look back and think they are not as rational as you "once thought"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #334863 is a reply to message #333436] |
Thu, 12 June 2008 08:25 |
|
|
Honestly, I don't see how my political views can evolve any farther than they have at this point. That is, unless I become an anarchist, but even then I don't think I'd look back and see my current libertarian views as irrational. Instead, I'd see them as more moderate, I guess.
However, two views that I once had are incredibly irrational, in my opinion. Those are my anti-gay marriage stance and my liking of rap. Those two views bother me now.
Starbuzz, so you went from Christian to atheist to deist? Interesting move from atheist BACK to some belief in a deity.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Thu, 12 June 2008 08:26] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #334923 is a reply to message #333436] |
Thu, 12 June 2008 12:44 |
 |
egoflux0
Messages: 46
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
Take this into consideration as well. Whether or not the views you (and I mean the "you" who is reading this, and not a specific person) currently have. Are they (or at least one of them) rational?
|
Well, considering rationality is a subjective and relative thing. I say this since we have to LEARN logic through school, family, culture, etc. I think I'm rational enough (this phrase is quite ironic since I'm using THINK to describe a function of thought process which is being rational lolz). A basic element of rationality is causality (all things have a cause since all things are effects of something else in the passage of time). I found this post because I was looking through this forum, which was traced back to looking at information on the weird arrow thing that everyone is talking about which I was looking for because... etc, the list goes on... essentially this line of causality naturally goes all the way back to our universal origins which everyone likes to debate (as seen here). I'm going to go with the safe bet and say that since I wasn't there to EXPERIENCE (and thus PROVE TO MYSELF THROUGH THE MIND OF SCIENCE) I cannot truly understand or fathom wtf happened. I guess many people already came to this conclusion and went with a "leap of faith" to try to take a stab at our physical/spiritual origins.
| Quote: |
Now, think back to a time when you thought differently than you do now. Were your thoughts at the time you had them rational? Do they still seem rational now?
|
My personality has changed over time and thus my skillz at rationality has changed as well. What I thought use to make sense now no longer is the case. Also, I'm reminded of talking to women -- irrationality galore =D (the point is still the subjectivity of and observance of this skill in myself and others based on my biased position).
| Quote: |
If you thought your past thoughts were not rational (you believed in Santa, you thought you could trust a friend that now betrayed you, you changed your mind on a political stance, etc.) because you think differently now, what is to say the thoughts you currently have are rational if you know that at some point in the future, you may look back and think they are not as rational as you "once thought"?
|
All things go back to how truth can be derived -- and this is all a personal journey. The problem is that truth is also subjective to people as it is based on their past experiences. We believed in Santa because culture and the family taught us these things. We believed because we did not know better. It went back to someone telling us what the "truth" was and we went happily along with it -- just like in school, TV, friends, random internet people, etc. Yet, when you eat the apple from the tree and you become aware that you are naked you now have the burden of knowing.
Here's an example -- it is easy to hate your enemies until you know more about them, their families, their story, you learn their motivations for disliking you "why THEY hate us" etc... as you learn more about them you learn more about the "truth" of that specific situation. I'll go so far to use September 11th as an example. When the planes hit the buildings, the overwhelming response from people around me was "why do they hate us". When I tried to explain to people, it's not too difficult to see why they are angry at us I got labeled a traitor, unpatriotic, idiot, etc. It came back to this -> it is much easier to hate your enemies when you know little about them.
This actually seemingly is tied back to god and "not doing anything"... if you could take your self-centered egotistical view to outside of yourself and "zoom out" to see the "whole picture" of ALL REALITY (I mean, you're god, you made this place ya?) would the picture not be a very hazy gray color? In a weird sense, it is in balance as it is (imo). As there is death, there is life, what rises from the earth returns to the earth... and so on and so forth.
Then again, trying to find possibly an illogical answer in a logical world might be fruitless too -- maybe we're just here to enjoy what we have and experience things as they are AT THIS MOMENT.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #334949 is a reply to message #333436] |
Thu, 12 June 2008 13:41 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Well, considering rationality is a subjective and relative thing.
|
Heh, exactly what I was getting at with my post.
Not only is it subjective between people, but subjective to our current selves as well.
Heh, just in case there was confusion, I wasn't speaking with a view to showing how faith or science is right or wrong, just speaking to the ideas presented regarding rationality.
Heh, though if you want to bring it into the greater discussion, it can be done.
You believe 'x' and I believe 'y'. I call 'x' to be an irrational belief, and you call 'y' to be an irrational belief. When we do this, it is judged as we are now. Not who we were in the past, nor who we will become in the future. However, if that is the case can we truly profess something to be rational or irrational if our own actions (going back to my previous post) are subject to the same criticisms of our future-selves?
If so and we can still call something rational "as we are now", by what criteria are we basing this rationality on? And then is this criteria subject to the same criticism as the original judgment, or is it something objective and exempt from further recession?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #334952 is a reply to message #334949] |
Thu, 12 June 2008 13:50 |
|
egoflux0
Messages: 46
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
This all goes back to "logos": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
Essentially, rationality and logic can be derived from language (and thus culture and bias). How can you "know" anything in reality without LABELING it anything? Personally, I think people could not say god's name JHVH because no HUMAN WORD could ever label that which cannot have a label (thus beyond rationality!)
Objectivity is impossible -- only through exposure, experience, and an open mind can anyone really get close to that -- ya know.. kinda like OMNIPOTENT... I guess true objectivity could be obtained when you "know" everything... but lemme tell ya... the ratio of stuff I think I know to the stuff I don't know is pretty sharp.
Plus, I fully expect my beliefs, personality, and rationality to change as I grow older and get ever closer to my death bed and really wonder what this life was about anyways, then I'll really wonder just what happens to me post death... which of course is another topic of contentious debate which has plagued our ancestors from the beginning of consciousness and us to this very day.
EDIT: A situation to think about: my grandfather had Alzheimers for like 10 years before he died. He made absolutely no sense in almost anything he was talking about, but to him it was obvious he made sense to himself. To us, he was irrational and incomprehensible.
This reminds me of that time right after you regain consciousness from a deep dream in which everything makes sense, but as you wake you recall most everything what was happening and you think --> that made NO SENSE like people you "knew" in your dream, but on waking you realized you didn't know who the hell they were, etc
[Updated on: Thu, 12 June 2008 13:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #335078 is a reply to message #334820] |
Fri, 13 June 2008 07:03 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Cabal8616 wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 11:43 |
You could say the same for simply agreeing with the theory that God exists.
|
| Cabal8616 wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 11:43 |
Calling yourself "non-religious" yet believing in a theory that also apperently explains how the world was created, and a belief concerning God (That he doesn't exist, or didn't crate the world), is a religion. Deny it if you wish, but it is.
|
Garbage. If all you do is say "yeah, I think there probably is a God" if someone asks you, that doesn't make you religious. Agreeing with the theory of evolution and the Big Bang isn't a religion in any sense of the definition. You may as well say atheism is just another religion.
There's no code of conduct you have to follow, no meetings you need to attend, no 'clergy' or historical figures you have to pay any particular level of respect to, no promise of divine reward or threat of after-death punishment if you misbehave... these are what defines religions, not just agreeing with a theory someone put forward. The same would be true if you just said "yeah, I think there probably is a god".
See, I am inclined to believe the theories that the big bang took place and that evolution is happening, but those "beliefs" don't demand or promise anything at all from/to me other than if someone asks me, I'd say "Yeah, I think they probably did happen"
| Cabal8616 wrote on Thu, 12 June 2008 11:43 |
Really, what's the point of classifying yourself as "non-religious"? Because you don't believe in a God/believe in evolution/whatever? So you can have an ego trip saying "HAHA, THOSE RELIGIOUS FAGGOTS BLOW THEMSELVES UP. GOOD THING I'M NOT RELIGIOUS"?
|
Listen to how ridiculous you sound. As if someone needs to justify their atheism/apatheism (because I consider myself an apatheist, not an atheist). As if we're the ones with any explaining to do...
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #335085 is a reply to message #335078] |
Fri, 13 June 2008 07:45 |
|
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony |
Garbage. If all you do is say "yeah, I think there probably is a God" if someone asks you, that doesn't make you religious. Agreeing with the theory of evolution and the Big Bang isn't a religion in any sense of the definition. You may as well say atheism is just another religion.
|
Being "religious" and believing in a form of religion are generally two different things. It's like calling someone a racist because they said something that could be interpreted as racist. I don't know why almost every athiest/"non religion believer" thinks they're oh-so-different than others because they believe in God in a different way (That he doesn't exist). You're not, it just means you have a seperate belief than others. But it's still a belief regarding similar aspects of religions.
Christianity apperently explains how the world was created, and who created us. Yes, there is ALOT more to it than that, but surely a belief that large would have much more to it.
Evolution apperently explains how the world was creared, and who didn't create us. Yes, there is ALOT more to it than that, but surely a belief that large would have much more to it.
| Spoony |
There's no code of conduct you have to follow, no meetings you need to attend, no 'clergy' or historical figures you have to pay any particular level of respect to, no promise of divine reward or threat of after-death punishment if you misbehave... these are what defines religions, not just agreeing with a theory someone put forward. The same would be true if you just said "yeah, I think there probably is a god".
|
Just because that's how you define a religion isn't how everyone else defines it. See previous posts regarding rationality.
Yeah, that might seem contradictory, but look at it for a sec. I'm asking that people who believe in what created us and whatnot be classified under other people who believe that something created us (The big bang counts as something, believe it or not). Why? Well, it annoys me, and I'm sure it annoys others, that athiests, evolutionists, and many other people along those lines consider themselves "above" or "seperate" from the "religious" people because they believe in something "better". Really, if you look at it, I'm sure that you get pissed off when a Christian takes a "holier-than-thou" attitude when you tell them you believe that the process of evolution is what created us.
Yet at the same time, think about how many times you've pretty much said to yourself, if not to others, "This guy's a nutjob, I'm obviously more intelligent" when you argue/debate about religion. I've seen it many times. So in that respect, there's a fairly large similarity between evolutionists and Christians- they both always think they're right, and the other is wrong.
Granted, this doesn't apply to EVERY evolutionist and Christian out there, but still. The majority of Christians think they're right, and that's the end of the story. The majority of athiests/evolutionists/whatever think they're right, and that's the end of the story.
But wait, how can BOTH be right, and the other be wrong? Surely, there must be a middle ground. Or, there's parts of the other religion that are wrong, and there's a middle ground between the two.
That's why I generally take the stance I do. I don't go to church, I don't go to confession, I don't constantly read the bible, I don't always do some sort of daily/weekly tribute. But I have a belief regarding the creation of the universe, and I consider myself one who believes in a religion.
You can say all you want that those things define a religion, but why do they? There's another similarity that they all share. They believe that something happened that created them. It's pretty much like saying a tank and a soldier are entirely different things because the tank has a lot more around it than the soldier.
But in the end, they're both tools of war. That's what we call seperate divisions or somesuch (Can't think of the exact military terms right now), but they're still part of the military.
The same can be applied to religion. The tank being Christianity, and the soldier being the evolutionist. The "military" and their goals being religion.
But wait, according to you, the soldier is then not a part of the military because of the fact that the tank is the military. Surely, even though they have different goals, this must mean that because they are radically different, there's no possible way they could have the same goals and therefore be classified under a greater definition... Right?
Oh wait...
| Spoony |
See, I am inclined to believe the theories that the big bang took place and that evolution is happening, but those "beliefs" don't demand or promise anything at all from/to me other than if someone asks me, I'd say "Yeah, I think they probably did happen"
|
See, I am inclined to believe the theories that the big bang is possible, and that evolution is a fact, but that it did not create us and that a greater being atleast guided evolution in its favor, but those "beliefs" don't demand or promise anything at all from/to me other than if someone asks me, I'd say "Yeah, I think that probably did happen".
Yet I still consider what I believe to be a religion.
| Spoony |
Listen to how ridiculous you sound. As if someone needs to justify their atheism/apatheism (because I consider myself an apatheist, not an atheist). As if we're the ones with any explaining to do...
|
You know, it's just as ridiculous saying someone doesn't need to justify their actions or belief. Really, you should always have good reasoning and judgement behind your beliefs, no matter what they are. If an athiest/evolutionist cannot justify why they believe what they do.
If a highly religious person walks up to you and asks why you believe in what you do, does that still mean you don't need to justify it? If all you can say to them is "because I can", you're as ridiculous as that guy who has a "god hates fags" sign. Blindly following a belief is still blindly following it, no matter what the belief is.
However, if you DO have reasoning behind it, then there you go. That's justification. Not neccisarily GOOD reasoning and whatnot, but, y'know.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve [message #335227 is a reply to message #335085] |
Sat, 14 June 2008 03:54 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 09:45 |
Evolution apperently explains how the world was creared
|
does it...? didn't know evolution is theorised to apply to planets as well.
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 09:45 |
Just because that's how you define a religion isn't how everyone else defines it.
|
Ah, the argument that can't be refuted. That's because it isn't an argument.
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 09:45 |
Yeah, that might seem contradictory, but look at it for a sec. I'm asking that people who believe in what created us and whatnot be classified under other people who believe that something created us (The big bang counts as something, believe it or not). Why? Well, it annoys me, and I'm sure it annoys others, that athiests, evolutionists, and many other people along those lines consider themselves "above" or "seperate" from the "religious" people because they believe in something "better".
|
So? Get over it.
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 09:45 |
Really, if you look at it, I'm sure that you get pissed off when a Christian takes a "holier-than-thou" attitude when you tell them you believe that the process of evolution is what created us.
|
No. I don't give a shit what anyone else believes as long as
1. they're not trying to use it to infringe on others' rights/harm them somehow
2. they're not claiming public money for it
this doesn't qualify as either of those.
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 09:45 |
Yet at the same time, think about how many times you've pretty much said to yourself, if not to others, "This guy's a nutjob, I'm obviously more intelligent" when you argue/debate about religion. I've seen it many times. So in that respect, there's a fairly large similarity between evolutionists and Christians- they both always think they're right, and the other is wrong.
Granted, this doesn't apply to EVERY evolutionist and Christian out there, but still. The majority of Christians think they're right, and that's the end of the story. The majority of athiests/evolutionists/whatever think they're right, and that's the end of the story.
|
And you think they're equivalent, in terms of the amount of evidence supporting the one compared to the other?
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 09:45 |
But wait, how can BOTH be right, and the other be wrong? Surely, there must be a middle ground. Or, there's parts of the other religion that are wrong, and there's a middle ground between the two.
|
Yes, parts of evolution may well be wrong, but this is the wonderful part about it: it's a science, not a religion. Here's the difference: scientific theories have no trouble adapting when you learn more.
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 09:45 |
But wait, according to you, the soldier is then not a part of the military because of the fact that the tank is the military.
|
I'd really love to know where you got the "according to you" part from.
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 09:45 |
See, I am inclined to believe the theories that the big bang is possible, and that evolution is a fact, but that it did not create us and that a greater being atleast guided evolution in its favor, but those "beliefs" don't demand or promise anything at all from/to me other than if someone asks me, I'd say "Yeah, I think that probably did happen".
Yet I still consider what I believe to be a religion.
|
What's it called?
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 09:45 |
You know, it's just as ridiculous saying someone doesn't need to justify their actions or belief. Really, you should always have good reasoning and judgement behind your beliefs, no matter what they are. If an athiest/evolutionist cannot justify why they believe what they do.
|
You're being dishonest. I never said I don't need to justify my "belief". You spouted out this "atheists love to feel superior to theists" bullshit, when anyone with a double-figure IQ or higher can plainly see that you don't need any kind of ulterior motive to live your life without the need for religious belief.
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 13 June 2008 09:45 |
If a highly religious person walks up to you and asks why you believe in what you do, does that still mean you don't need to justify it?
If all you can say to them is "because I can", you're as ridiculous as that guy who has a "god hates fags" sign. Blindly following a belief is still blindly following it, no matter what the belief is.
|
Firstly, yes - it does mean I don't need to justify my "beliefs", because they aren't used to infringe on anybody else's rights, cause anybody harm, or claim public money.
Secondly, from where did you extrapolate this:
If all you can say to them is "because I can"?
Thirdly, I hardly think my idle agreement with the theories of the big bang and of evolution can be classed as "blindly following". Seems rather desperate to me.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Sat, 14 June 2008 03:55] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 06 21:23:42 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01271 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
