The Religion of Evolutionism ~ discussion and CIVILIZED debate

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Further more , you cannot identify yourself as a Christian , because you must believe in Genesis.
You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe.
You can't even believe in Jesus , because Jesus is a direct descendant of Adam and Eve , as we all are.
If you don't believe in Genesis , then you don't believe in the genealogy from Adam to David.
If you don't believe in David , then you can't believe that David had a descendant named Jesus.
If you don't believe in Jesus or Genesis , then you don't believe in sin , which Jesus died for.

I believe that 2000 years ago, a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed. I believe that he had some great philosophies on how to live one's life, and I try to follow them. I do not necessarily believe that he was a deity incarnate, nor do I necessarily believe that he even made such a claim (since a lot of the times he mentions God as his father, he also calls God 'our father', as much as to say that we were his equals. He even referred to himself almost exclusively as Son of Man. Furthermore, the Bible was written by human hands, which, as we all know, are prone to exaggeration).

However, even if I don't believe that he had magic powers, I do believe in something more important - that his example was and is worth following.

What does that make me?

Originally Posted by River Zora

This annoys me. The Qur'an explicitly forbids violence of any kind and 'Greater Jihad' refers to the struggle to achieve closeness with God and freedom from evil within oneself. Those 'extremists' who do the acts you suggest here are no more 'Muslim' than Hitler was Christian and the vast, vast majority of Muslims would agree. Also Christians and Jews are labelled 'Men of the Book' in Qur'anic law and counted to be respected and as 'fidels' for lack of a better word. So much so that any animal killed by a Christian or Jew regardless of killing method should be considered Halal by Qur'anic law.

I have a huge liking for Islamic doctrine in its truest form and the sooner Muslims stop being the scapegoat for the world's problems the better.

Islam is as much against sexism and violence as Christianity is against virgin rape and animal sacrifices.

Im not picking Islam, all religions are brutal, barbaric dogmas that have for centuries required violence to sustain their control. Just because the majority of their followers don't agree with, or practice the more extremist interpretations, doesn't mean the books don't contain them. There are just as many violent doctrines in the bible that christians don't practice for the same reason that non violent muslims aren't all jihadists.

If I may point it out, when Richard Dawkins is passionately debating for his ideology he greatly resembles missionaries and such people who have strong beliefs as well.

Psychology suggests that some people may be driven to atheism as some are driven to religion. Darwin and Francis Collins are both good biologists whose experiences reflect this.

Im not picking Islam, all religions are brutal, barbaric dogmas that have for centuries required violence to sustain their control. Just because the majority of their followers don't agree with, or practice the more extremist interpretations, doesn't mean the books don't contain them. There are just as many violent doctrines in the bible that christians don't practice for the same reason that non violent muslims aren't all jihadists.

Originally Posted by Jesus:
'The greatest commandment of them all is 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength', the second is like it- 'Love your neighbour as yourself'. All the other commandments and all the prophets have written are based on these first two.'

The Bible is choc-a-block with contradictions. There is, however, significantly more in the way of what is culturally 'good' (after school special happy joy joy) than bad (IRA, Spanish Inquisition and religious terrorism).

To whittle out what is God derived and what is not one needs a sieve. Christianity provides this in Jesus. He said that ALL the laws we are to obey are based on love for God and love for one another. If a command does not adhere to these, then it is not a commandment and should not be treated as such. The Bible is written by man- the only bits we know for sure are to be followed are those bits God himself said. Namely the Ten Commandments and Jesus' teachings. And seeing as they have been scribed by others even those need careful plannings.

If it's loving- it's Christian. The same goes for Islam, Judaeism, Buddhism and all modern religions in their own way (though less Christocentric than Christianity of course ).

Back on topic. Evolutionism- NOT A RELIGION

Originally Posted by River Zora

IRA

For the record, the IRA's motivations had little to nothing to do with religion. The English conquered Ireland in 1169 and proceeded to oppress the native Irish for the next several hundred years. They eventually started plantations on the island and soon the plantationers were wealthy while the locals were basically serfs. After the War of Independence, we got rid of most of them but by the negotiated treaty, they kept Northern Ireland (where they held a stronger portion of the demographic). In the North, the conflict continued, with both sides claiming that it was THEIR right to be there. The conflict was cultural more than sectarian, but it JUST SO HAPPENED that the "culturally Irish" were Catholics and the "culturally British" were Protestants. The conflict had little to do with religion itself, but more to do with 800 years' worth of class conflict. The ones who wanted to join the rest of the freed Ireland (nationalists) saw the ones who wanted to stay part of the UK (unionists) as illigitimate invaders, while the unionists figured that they shouldn't be punished for something that happened hundreds of years ago, and that they were born there and had as much a right to call it home as anyone.

I imagine that it's quite similar in Israel/Palestine: the Palestinians probably don't care so much about the Israeli's religion, so much as "WHERE DID YOU COME FROM? HEY, THAT'S MY - HEY, I WAS LIVING THERE, JERK!"

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

No one hasn't tested abiogenesis.

Quite a few people have. The most famous example being the Urey-Miller experiments.

If I live to see the day that a scientist could create life in a lab , can make that life form evolve from one species into another , and can prove to me that the universe began randomly , then I would confirm the fact that it isn't supernatural .

We're half-way to the first one, have been doing the second one for over 8 000 years, and the third is not what anyone is currently claiming.

Phool was talking about the idea that we all evolved from a common ancestor , which is Abiogenesis.

No it isn't.
We could all have evolved from an alien that God created. Or perhaps God created the first life form. Or perhaps chemistry did.

Abiogenesis refers to the source of life, evolution couldn't care less about that.

Your arrogant lifestyle is rediculous.
To claim that you know that there is no God , would be like saying you are mentally ill.
No one can claim to know what they don't know , or else they would be considered closed minded.

I know that there is no God in the same way that I know that the Aos Si do not live in the hills of Ireland.

I have, admittedly, no proof that they don't. But then, I have no proof that they do. So I conclude that they don't until I see some proof.

Indeed, you do the same thing, I suspect. I very much doubt you believe in the Aos Si (Aka: Fae, Fair Folk, Faeries, Sidhe, Seelie, and many other names.) I may be wrong, you may put out milk for them, may carry iron on you at all times, may put a horseshoe over every entrance to your house, may do everything you can to avoid the wild hunt and watch over all children to make sure that they aren't switched for changelings. You may only call them "The Fair Folk" to avoid their wrath. You may avoid circular structures and be wary of lights in the forest at night.

If so, then you probably don't believe in the Norse Pantheon or their Elves, Dwarves, and Ice Giants.

Or maybe you do, but then do you also believe in Ifrit? In Amaterasu? Anansi? Nanabush? Vishnu? Muhammad? Buddha? Guan Yu?

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins: "Pretty much everyone is an atheist about all the Gods, save one or two. I just go a bit further."

We can't measure the distance from a molecule and another molecule , because there is either no ruler for it , or measurement would be inaccurate.

Er, yes we can. We can also measure the distance between atoms in a molecule.

Measure a fourth dimensional object with a 3 dimensional object.

How do you suppose people draw tesseracts and Klein bottles?

Clocks don't measure time.
Time is an illusion that we create.

Argh! Where does this ridiculous idea come from? It's not true. Time is an innate property of space. It exists. Without it we could not think since our brain takes time to do so. As such, if time did not exist we could not imagine this fictional thing called 'time'.

If a clock says 5O'Clock , then it would be that time , no matter how much time you spent.

A clock just counts the number of ticks.
Each tick is always different from another.

And? Clocks are not absolutely accurate. This is true. As you've already pointed out all measurement is, to a greater or lesser extent, inaccurate. However, this doesn't mean that space, gravity, distance, time, mass, brightness, wind speed, force, earthquakes, carbon monoxide levels, heat, age, conductivity, opaqueness, density, velocity, energy, and any other thing that you'd care to name that can be measured (read: all of reality) does not exist.

IMPOSSIBLE!
You can't accurately measure a second , because each second is different.
Second is a count in a pause of time between the alarm , just like a clock tick.

Saying that it takes 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of emission , is saying that is how long a second is.
But seconds vary , depending on the measurement of time you are using.

So? A second still exists. And the rate of decay of Cesium is ridiculously constant. The fact that other measurements are less precise means nothing at all.

The process of creation , which took about 6 days , would be what the human mind would have perceived.
Angels could have looked at the Earth form before their eyes instantaneously.

For example, I could have been frozen in time for millions of years , which would have probably looked like an hour or a minute.

If time was frozen then nothing could be made, because everything needs time to occur in.

If you could somehow freeze time for everyone but yourself you'd be incapable of altering anything (including moving yourself, since air would be unable to move without any time to move in.) so it'd be rather pointless.

Now, you could, in theory, speed up your perception of time relative to everyone else, or slow theirs down, but that's not altering the speed of time, simply altering one's perception of it, which is very different.

A creator could have created Earth for billions of years , or could have sped the universe up.
A spectator would have watched as if it took one single day to create.
As soon as the creater put life on the planet , the universe was slowed down , so the life forms would have the perspective of everything being created in 6 days , rather than 4+1x+1y
Either way , God said that he would allow people to be deceived in the end times.

And your proof that these are the end times is...?

Look, people have been claiming that it's the end of the world for, as far as records show, at least 4 000 years. Probably much, much longer. Indeed, it seems likely that as soon as people could write things down they started writing about how incredibly soon the world was going to end.

@BRAVO:

Wonderful post there-
It hits the nail of why I don't get why so many people hate religion. 'Because it's been the cause of so much conflict'- doubtful! It's been a excuse for conflicts over simple things such as land or conquest, rarely do i suspect it's the real 'reason' for any violence. Such a thing seems logically absurd!

Originally Posted by shadowofhyrule

Islam says females wearing jeans is wrong, yet says blowing ones self up to smite the "infidels" is right. I think we can pretty much ignore what Islam has to say about anything.

Woah woah woah woah.

Woah.

Woah.

Jesus. What a statement. Let me calm myself down by rationalizing it for you.

1) Okay, so, you could have done some research to get the basics down. But you didn't. Maybe you just don't have the time to do that research. Okay.

2) It could also be that you're just plain lying. Well, please Mr. shadowofhyrule, please start playing dumb and claim that you were trolling now....*looks at rest of the post* *sigh*

3) It could be that you're misinformed. Now, if I were to blow up (lol j/k) on you, it would only reinforce your misinformation, so I won't get angry.

4) You could be brainwashed. But then you could say that I'm the one who's brainwashed and we'd get nowhere.

Okay.

So, let's start off with women's jeans. I have not seen anything in the Qur'an saying that denim is bad. I mean, neither men nor women are supposed to wear anything tight, so, uh okay man. But jeans are perfectly okay.

Now, as far as blowing ourselves being okay...well, that's a no no in the Qur'an, too.

"And do not kill yourselves, surely God is most Merciful to you." (Surah 4, Verse 29)

"He who commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in the Fire (Hell), and he who commits suicide by stabbing himself, he shall keep stabbing himself in the Fire (Hell)."

But for some reason, all religions seem to do that.

Oh gosh. One of these guys.

Islam is as much against sexism and violence as Christianity is against virgin rape and animal sacrifices.

Yeah man. Christianity is actually against virgin rape and animal sacrifice...and Islam is against sexism and violence...so, uh, what's your point?

Im not picking Islam, all religions are brutal, barbaric dogmas that have for centuries required violence to sustain their control.

Hmmm...so, all religions are brutal and barbaric? I'm assuming that you're 100% knowledgeable on all religions?

There are just as many violent doctrines in the bible that christians don't practice for the same reason that non violent muslims aren't all jihadists.

Well, the violent doctrines in the Bible are mostly in the Old Testament, and depending on what kind of Christian you ask, either they are highly exaggerated events that have value in them, semi-real events that detailed the Jewish agreement with God, or are actually real, but were superceded by Jesus. In any case, you're WRONG.

Originally Posted by River Zora

This annoys me. The Qur'an explicitly forbids violence of any kind

Except for self defense.

So much so that any animal killed by a Christian or Jew regardless of killing method should be considered Halal by Qur'anic law.

Nope. Actually, the Jewish slaughtering of animals is almost exactly the same as the Islamic method, so the killing method actually matters. So, pretty much anyway a Christian slaughters an animal is probably not going to work, unless they decide to go Old Testament on the animal.

Majoradorf- your ignorance on this is actually painful. We are no longer arguing philosophy, but stuck on the terrible semantics of 'what is religion', and you are adhering to some strange definition of 'religion' I am hitherto unaware, much like the majority of those involved in this terrible linguistic debate.

I know, right? This debate is almost unwinnable because people seem to have their own definitions for everything.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

Jesus. What a statement. Let me calm myself down by rationalizing it for you.

I don't need it rationalized to me, the problem with all religions is that they rationalize absurd fallacies and barbaric behavior in the name of their faith.

1) Okay, so, you could have done some research to get the basics down. But you didn't. Maybe you just don't have the time to do that research. Okay.

The basics of all religion is indoctrination. Just because one book goes about it in a different fashion from christianity, doesn't mean it doesn't have the same goal.

2) It could also be that you're just plain lying. Well, please Mr. shadowofhyrule, please start playing dumb and claim that you were trolling now....*looks at rest of the post* *sigh*

One question. I can go on about any other religion being fallacious and full of lies, but as soon as Islam comes up, Im "trolling". Tell me, why should your faith be exempt from criticism when I believe that ALL religions are full of crap?

3) It could be that you're misinformed. Now, if I were to blow up (lol j/k) on you, it would only reinforce your misinformation, so I won't get angry.

Good for you.

4) You could be brainwashed. But then you could say that I'm the one who's brainwashed and we'd get nowhere.

I've rejected all religions, so if there is any brainwashing, its not on my end.

So, let's start off with women's jeans. I have not seen anything in the Qur'an saying that denim is bad. I mean, neither men nor women are supposed to wear anything tight, so, uh okay man. But jeans are perfectly okay.

In a fundamentalist muslim society, women are forced by threat of death to wear the burka. Wearing anything other than a fire retardant tent will result in them being stoned in the street. (yes this is a generalization, but its not inaccurate) This includes jeans, and everything not a burka.

Now, as far as blowing ourselves being okay...well, that's a no no in the Qur'an, too.

I don't have any particular verses, but what about all the martyrdom that is tossed about? The Jihad, smite the infidels, and so on? If Islam does not preach these things, why is it so prevalent in the faith?

You may say that this is an extremist interpenetration of Islam. Well I ask you this. How are you supposed to tell the difference between the "extreme" interpretations and the "right" ones? Religious texts have verses which justify all agendas so how do you pick and chose which ones are right and wrong and which ones you follow?

Oh gosh. One of these guys.

Ditto

Yeah man. Christianity is actually against virgin rape and animal sacrifice...and Islam is against sexism and violence...so, uh, what's your point?

Really? Christianity is against such things?

Hmm. I guess these verses in the bible just don't count then?

Joshua 11.6
Numbers 31.17-18
Deuteronomy 22.28-29
Leviticus 23.12
Numbers 7.17-23-29-35-41-47-53-59-65-71-83-88
Ezra 7.17
Ezra 8.35
Luke 22.7
Judges 19.23-25
Numbers 31.17

I can go on, there is alot more in there, but hopefully you get the point.

Hmmm...so, all religions are brutal and barbaric? I'm assuming that you're 100% knowledgeable on all religions?

No, and I never claimed to be "100% knowledgeable on all religions". However, just because I don't know every verse from every holy book from the bible, quran, torah, urantia, vedas, book of mormom, Adi-Granth, book of the dead, or anything else, does not mean I don't know these faiths have relied on violence and brutality to maintain their status. If religions are truly peaceful, then there wouldn't be wars fought for them. No defenders of the faith, no holy war, no jihad, and no soldiers of christ.

And on this note, which faith is the true faith?

Well, the violent doctrines in the Bible are mostly in the Old Testament, and depending on what kind of Christian you ask, either they are highly exaggerated events that have value in them, semi-real events that detailed the Jewish agreement with God, or are actually real, but were superceded by Jesus. In any case, you're WRONG.

Jesus did not supercede the old testament, in fact he said that all the books and laws in the old testament still applied.

In any case, If these books were worth anything at all, why would they contain "exaggerated" stories? Which parts are exaggerated, which are accurate and how the hell can you tell the difference? The truth is, you can't, you can only apologize for them and try to rationalize the bad parts by claiming that god didn't have anything to do with them, that he only condones the "good" parts.

Except for self defense.

And crusade, holy war, inquisition, jihad and God himself when he commands it.

I know, right? This debate is almost unwinnable because people seem to have their own definitions for everything.

Yep, esspecially when it comes to religious interpretations.

Now, if the debate is still active, lets try to get back to the creationist crap.

Originally Posted by shadowofhyrule

Really? Christianity is against such things?

Hmm. I guess these verses in the bible just don't count then?

yeah, that's basically how it works. You would be hard pressed to find a single Christian who agreed with those verses. Most of them will say something along the lines of "they don't count, at least not since Jesus came."

Ooh, a new angry SD anti-theist, to balance out the new angry SD young earth creationist. :P

Originally Posted by shadowofhyrule

In a fundamentalist muslim society, women are forced by threat of death to wear the burka. Wearing anything other than a fire retardant tent will result in them being stoned in the street. (yes this is a generalization, but its not inaccurate) This includes jeans, and everything not a burka.

In some of the corrupt misogynistic dictatorships that rule over parts of the Middle-East, this may be true. I doubt it's really anything to do with the religion itself though, and more to do with anti-westernism and corruption.

I currently live in Singapore, and due to it being connected directly to Malaysia, there's like a 20% Muslim population. I see Muslims walking through the streets and heading to work etc. and I even attend courses with some of them. I see Muslim women wearing pants and long skirts all the time - as long as you're not exposing I think your kneecap or above it's generally fine (so no short shorts). The same rule of decency in showing skin applies to males too. :3

So yeah, it's not the actual Muslim rules that are causing that. It's the psychotic dictators. Same line of logic as "just because Stalin was an atheist and murdered millions of people for disagreeing with them it doesn't mean that it's atheist law to do so".

Originally Posted by Cody

Ooh, a new angry SD anti-theist, to balance out the new angry SD young earth creationist.

What, exactly, is an anti-theist?

active opposition to theism.

where a-theists are just not theists, anti-theists are against theists.

Originally Posted by Cody

Ooh, a new angry SD anti-theist, to balance out the new angry SD young earth creationist.

I wouldn't say Im anti-theist so much as I am anti theism.

I have no problem with personal faith, or people who posses it, or even people who are religious. My beef is with indoctrination, and more specifically religious persecution, corruption, political turmoil brought about by faith, and all the other maladies created by the dogmas of the "all loving god". Religion has systematically been a retardant to human progress for eons. What an individual believes is completely up to them, but when those beliefs become policy in the form of religion, and religious dogma, then it becomes a problem because it blocks both scientific, and philosophical advancement.

Im not against anybody for believing what they do, just when their believes start becoming policy.

Originally Posted by Cody

Ooh, a new angry SD anti-theist, to balance out the new angry SD young earth creationist.

the force is strong with these two, yet much fear I sense.....


Anyway, as far as anti-theists versus atheists go: those are really motive descriptors and not really useful in logical debate.

i think a better descriptor for the SD is the one I've read John using on a couple occasions.

strong versus weak theism

strong versus weak atheism

levels of agnosticism and such, if that helps clear things up at all.

In an ideal SD board, motives should be irrelevant, so long as civil discussion is happening; thus why I think the motive descriptors are kind of silly.

Originally Posted by Lysis

active opposition to theism.

So because I believe that society would be better off without theism I am an anti-theist? This makes anyone who believes that society would be better off if more individuals started following their religion anti-atheists, yes?

^yes.

Originally Posted by Twilight Joker

Wut? Evolution is not a religion. What makes you think it is a religion? It is just a scientific principle...like the Theory of Gravity.

^THIS

Originally Posted by shadowofhyrule

I wouldn't say Im anti-theist so much as I am anti theism.

antitheism : antitheist :: theism : theist

Originally Posted by 8bit

So because I believe that society would be better off without theism I am an anti-theist? This makes anyone who believes that society would be better off if more individuals started following their religion anti-atheists, yes?

if you are opposed to theism, or the belief in any deity, then I suppose you would be an antitheist.

edit: although, you might also or instead be antireligious.

Originally Posted by Lysis

if you are opposed to theism, or the belief in any deity, then I suppose you would be an antitheist.

edit: although, you might also or instead be antireligious.

Oh? And what's the distinction between anti-religious and anti-theist?