Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[PKFFW]

And you, Sir, have totally, and utterly got the WRONG end of the stick. Do you see that or not?

I see now that you are changing what your argument has been throughout this thread to something other than what it has always been.

Let me repeat this again for the sake of people with very SHORT attention spans:

1) if such a religious claims to be the word of God, and what is in it is true because God says so
2) and further this religious text says that the earth is only 50,0000 or so years old, and man descended from Adam and Eve, and the earth was created in 7 days and 7 nights

now what happens if science FALSIFIES such claims made by this religious text? Why it's credibility is called into question. On his OWN judgment call, Darwin abandoned the faith that he was brought up with. He became an agnostic. Nowhere have we disproved the existence of God, or a God, or a group of Gods, or unobservable pink elephants, or invisible dancing hippos in tutus that appear when we are not looking.

So let me get this straight......
1: You are saying that the credibility of what is written in a single religious text is called into question because some of what is written in that text has been falsified.

I agree with you, it is called into question. On the other hand not everything in the text is taken to be falisified simply on the basis that some of it has been falsified. To contest that such is the case, as you certainly have time and time again throughout this thread, is simply wrong.

2: As per the previous post I quoted, you argue nothing in the theory of evolution directly refutes that a creator kick started the process.

That has been my only point this entire thread so I agree with you again. I wonder why you have so vehemently argued against that idea and resorted to personal insults when others do not agree with you and now seem to agree with it?

Mine was an emotional response in regards as to why ONE needs to believe in anything at all - by your definition of faith. I don't care in the sense that the question of having a faith or a God is absurd to me. Doesn't mean to say I'm right or wrong, it just means that I don't care personally. Just like you don't care about the existence of pink elephants, but I might - and it's equally just as absurd!!!

Personally I have never argued one needs to believe in anything at all.

You obviously do care, otherwise you would not be getting so worked up and resorting to personal insults and abusive remarks.

I notice you don't seem interested in responding to Mr Gecko's remarks. His list of authors contains a number of individuals considered to be some of the most highly intelligent and logical thinkers in the history of the world and yet many of them professed a belief in a supreme being.

Do you care to still contest that having a belief in a supreme being calls into question ones sanity, intelligence, logical reasoning and continuity of thought?

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[new_trader]

The fact that you are discussing God in the first place means that he must exist... (Ontological Argument).

I completely disagree. The concept of (a) God exists. Just like the concept of parallel universes, String Theory, M-theory, Time Travel etc...etc

 

[new_trader]

Before you determine whether God exists or not, do you not think it an important task to define what God is in the first place? How can you know if you have found him otherwise?

Isn't this the purpose of religion?

 

[temptrader]

So let me get this straight......
1: You are saying that the credibility of what is written in a single religious text is called into question because some of what is written in that text has been falsified.

I agree with you, it is called into question. On the other hand not everything in the text is taken to be falisified simply on the basis that some of it has been falsified. To contest that such is the case, as you certainly have time and time again throughout this thread, is simply wrong.

I never contested anything else, but you weren't paying attention!

IF the existence of such a God depends on the truth of such a religious text, then to falsify the religious text falsifies the existence of this "particular" God. Do you understand what I'm getting at. That is the logical dependence that I speak of - and no more. It's like the statement "all swans are white", for the statement to be false all you require is to produce a black swan, or blue, or green or whatever that is naturally occurring . . . And I'm absolutely certain that many individuals regard their religious text as completely true, and any attack/falsification of any of the claims of their text is treated as an attack on their beliefs - which they defend vehemently.

It is your personal - and this is a psychological matter and nothing more - choice if you still wish to see this religious text as true, even if some of what it says is wrong. That is your judgment call, no one can make it for you. As for Darwin, he made the judgment that it had to be wrong, and it followed from there that this particular "God" promising Heaven and Hell, the afterlife, a soul (all unfalsifiable) cannot be true, since the religious text's credibility was called into question. He probably saw it as made by some bunch of idiots spouting any old crap so they can keep people happy.

In science, when you lose credibility, everything comes crashing down. Logic is worse. The theory of evolution has not lost any credibility since 1859, on the contrary is has been extended and refined by a great number of brilliant scientists and some of their discoveries are quite profound - but that's another story. It's not perfect - no theory can ever claim to be - but it's workable, testable and can be used to make predictions about what happens in the natural world.

2: As per the previous post I quoted, you argue nothing in the theory of evolution directly refutes that a creator kick started the process.

That has been my only point this entire thread so I agree with you again. I wonder why you have so vehemently argued against that idea and resorted to personal insults when others do not agree with you and now seem to agree with it?

Why should it? The theory of Evolution is not about that. It's about a process, why that process is the way it is, and the many subtleties in between (with a good helping of historical accidents here and there). It is sufficient to falsify certain claims made by religious texts - do you understand that or not? This in turns calls their credibility into question. The people whose beliefs/faiths depends on these religious texts being true retaliate by trying to discredit the theory, put in "crap" of their own etc. . . .

Personally I have never argued one needs to believe in anything at all.

You obviously do care, otherwise you would not be getting so worked up and resorting to personal insults and abusive remarks.

I do care when people use what they believe as "evidence" or as a logical inference, when no evidence is ever forthcoming and the logic is flawed - do you understand that?

There is nothing to stop me believing in pink elephants. I could say, further, that THEY put all the physical laws in place, they kick started the Big Bang, and then they b*ggered off and disappeared never to interfere with what went on afterwards. And what happened between the start of the Big Bang and now was nothing more than historical accidents, blind, cold, impartial physical forces/processes that got us to where we are here. Nobody can tell me otherwise. Why believe in God when you can have pink elephants - and in tutus too, mustn't forget the tutus.

I notice you don't seem interested in responding to Mr Gecko's remarks. His list of authors contains a number of individuals considered to be some of the most highly intelligent and logical thinkers in the history of the world and yet many of them professed a belief in a supreme being.

Why should that surprise you? Most of the great scientists were religious - so what? If they were living today, some of them still would be. How you seem to think that their choosing to "believe" has any bearing on what the real truth might be surprises me. It would be like saying: "David Beckham is a very good footballer, and he believes in God, and hence this must mean that God exists".

Do you care to still contest that having a belief in a supreme being calls into question ones sanity, intelligence, logical reasoning and continuity of thought?

Yes I do. Because you don't seem to understand the absurdity of the unfalsifiable. Faith has nothing to do with "sanity, intelligence, logical reasoning and continuity of thought" - absolutely nothing.

 

[MrGecko]

I completely disagree. The concept of (a) God exists. Just like the concept of parallel universes, String Theory, M-theory, Time Travel etc...etc

Lets outline what we consider "God" to be. When we speak about "God", we refer to some being that is a perfect, all powerful, all knowing, all loving thing. These are the things things that something would have to be before it could properly be called God. If God is perfect, then it should be impossible to imagine God being better than he already is...

... now, if we imagine a God that didn't exist, then we could imagine God being better than he was - by existing. For God to be Perfect, OmniPotent, OmniScient, OmniBenevolent, and "That than which nothing greater can be concieved" - it follows a priori that he must exist.

Philosophy of Religion The Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument

Been a while since I studied this..... thoughts?

 

[JTrader]

Well if there is a god, i'm starting to think the ****a don't like me!

 

[MrGecko]

IF the existence of such a God depends on the truth of such a religious text

Necessarily, the existence of God cannot depend on anything.

It is important to make the distinction between God and the Christian God, father of Jesus etc... described in the bible - or any other religious text for that matter.

 

[JTrader]

My gods better than your god!
No my gods better than yours!

 

[Atilla]

Well if there is a god, i'm starting to think the ****a don't like me!

Not you JT, just doesn't like your Avatar... :cheesy:

 

[JTrader]

How many more times -
A Golden Eagle is a highly specialised and intelligent killing machine. Give it some due respect , this aint no dumbass pheasant (that sit in the road at night waiting to be splatted )
Also, i think several religions/cultures hold the golden eagle in especially high regard .

 

[MrGecko]

How many more times -
A Golden Eagle is a highly specialised and intelligent killing machine. Give it some due respect , this aint no dumbass pheasant (that sit in the road at night waiting to be splatted )

Nevermind about your bloody avatar... (though I welcome the change; my vote was planted in the "No" camp - not because I found it offensive, just a bit sad).

Do you have a position on the existence of God JT?

 

[JTrader]

Nevermind about your bloody avatar... (though I welcome the change; my vote was planted in the "No" camp - not because I found it offensive, just a bit sad).

Do you have a position on the existence of God JT?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.

Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
German economist & Communist political philosopher (1818 - 1883)

 

[PKFFW]

I never contested anything else, but you weren't paying attention!

IF the existence of such a God depends on the truth of such a religious text, then to falsify the religious text falsifies the existence of this "particular" God. Do you understand what I'm getting at. That is the logical dependence that I speak of - and no more. It's like the statement "all swans are white", for the statement to be false all you require is to produce a black swan, or blue, or green or whatever that is naturally occurring . . . And I'm absolutely certain that many individuals regard their religious text as completely true, and any attack/falsification of any of the claims of their text is treated as an attack on their beliefs - which they defend vehemently.

Firstly, the existence of God does not depend on the truth of any religious text. God either exists or he doesn't and what any book has to say about it matters not.

Now, the statement "all swans are white" is a single statement that can be falsified by a single black swan.

The bible(for that is the text you are obviously refering to) is made up of many statements. You are claiming that if any one statement within the book is falsified this falsifies the entire book. Surely you can see that is not the case?

temptrader]It is your personal - and this is a psychological matter and nothing more - choice if you still wish to see this religious text as true, even if some of what it says is wrong. That is your judgment call, no one can make it for you. As for Darwin, he made the judgment that it had to be wrong, and it followed from there that this particular "God" promising Heaven and Hell, the afterlife, a soul (all unfalsifiable) cannot be true, since the religious text's credibility was called into question. He probably saw it as made by some bunch of idiots spouting any old crap so they can keep people happy.

What Darwin personally came to conclude regarding the entirety of the bible doesn't really matter. He developed the theory of evolution and found evidence to back that theory up. Fantastic. This does effectively falsify the story of man decending from Adam and Eve. This does not falsify the existence of God as you have suggested, if not come right out and said so.

Have you not come across anything in any scientific book that has turned out to be wrong? If you have, does that mean everything printed in that particular book was wrong?

In science, when you lose credibility, everything comes crashing down. Logic is worse. The theory of evolution has not lost any credibility since 1859, on the contrary is has been extended and refined by a great number of brilliant scientists and some of their discoveries are quite profound - but that's another story. It's not perfect - no theory can ever claim to be - but it's workable, testable and can be used to make predictions about what happens in the natural world.

Yes it has gained credibility, I have never denied that.

Why should it? The theory of Evolution is not about that. It's about a process, why that process is the way it is, and the many subtleties in between (with a good helping of historical accidents here and there). It is sufficient to falsify certain claims made by religious texts - do you understand that or not? This in turns calls their credibility into question. The people whose beliefs/faiths depends on these religious texts being true retaliate by trying to discredit the theory, put in "crap" of their own etc. . . .

I never said it should.

You again seem to suggest that by falsifing one single assertion in the bible then that falsifies the entire bible. This is simply not the case. Yes, one could argue it calls the credibility into question of the rest of it. That is different to falsifing the rest of it. Just as there are science text books that have had parts that are wrong, that does not mean the entire text book is falsified does it?

I do care when people use what they believe as "evidence" or as a logical inference, when no evidence is ever forthcoming and the logic is flawed - do you understand that?

If that is truly all you care about then may I ask why you saw the need to attack me personally when I specifically stated that faith does not provide evidence or proof?

Don't worry, I'm not really interested in an answer.

There is nothing to stop me believing in pink elephants. I could say, further, that THEY put all the physical laws in place, they kick started the Big Bang, and then they b*ggered off and disappeared never to interfere with what went on afterwards. And what happened between the start of the Big Bang and now was nothing more than historical accidents, blind, cold, impartial physical forces/processes that got us to where we are here. Nobody can tell me otherwise. Why believe in God when you can have pink elephants - and in tutus too, mustn't forget the tutus.

No there isn't anything to stop you doing so and if you did so choose to believe such I would not see any reason to belittle you, personally vilify you or bring the debate about such a belief down to the level of personal name calling.

May I ask why you feel the need to do so? Again, that question is more for your benefit so don't feel the need to answer if you don't want to.

Why should that surprise you? Most of the great scientists were religious - so what? If they were living today, some of them still would be. How you seem to think that their choosing to "believe" has any bearing on what the real truth might be surprises me. It would be like saying: "David Beckham is a very good footballer, and he believes in God, and hence this must mean that God exists".

Now you are again putting words in my mouth.

Did I ever say that their belief in a supreme being proved that supreme being existed? No I did not.

It is you who continually accuses others of having no logical reasoning ability, accuses others of being unintelligent, calls others sanity and continuity of thought into question because they choose to have faith in a supreme being.

My point was that such people as Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and many others all professed a belief in a supreme being. It would take a special kind of idiot to claim they were all, unitelligent, illogical, insane people with no continuity of thought.

I was just wondering if that was your position?

Yes I do. Because you don't seem to understand the absurdity of the unfalsifiable. Faith has nothing to do with "sanity, intelligence, logical reasoning and continuity of thought" - absolutely nothing.

I never said faith does. That is exactly my point. Faith has nothing to do with those things. Therefore to question anothers sanity, intelligence, logical reasoning and continuity of thought based on their choice of whether to have faith or not is absurd.

It would be no different to making a judgement on a persons sanity, intelligence, logical reasoning and continuity of thought based on whether they liked peanut butter or not.

Do you see or do you not see?

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[Atilla]

How many more times -
A Golden Eagle is a highly specialised and intelligent killing machine. Give it some due respect , this aint no dumbass pheasant (that sit in the road at night waiting to be splatted )
Also, i think several religions/cultures hold the golden eagle in especially high regard .

Typical JT, I had higher expectations from you...

Not much different from the Esso tiger logo.

It is better to make love and create life than take it away...

 

[JTrader]

Typical JT, I had higher expectations from you...

Not much different from the Esso tiger logo.

It is better to make love and create life than take it away...

I couldn't agree more.

But nature is nature, and thats how predators operate. Beggars cant be choosers, eagles and lions they have to kill if they want to eat. They can't pop down to tescos.

Lions and Golden Eagles are my favourite animals. The Golden Eagle that i held was a bloke who lives near me's pet. He flies it, and practises hawkery? with it. Breathtaking to see it go.

 

[MrGecko]

Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
German economist & Communist political philosopher (1818 - 1883)

Care to elaborate on your "Copy and Paste" position?

Also; Religion and God are not the same.

 

[JTrader]

Care to elaborate on your "Copy and Paste" position?

Also; Religion and God are not the same.

Do i care to elaborate?

I'm telling you what i think of religion as the world knows it. I agree with what Karl Marx said & i think he put it well. Obviously i didnt need to quote him, and probably could have passed it off as my own and some of you wouldnt have known any different....I quoted it so that it would also be educational.

Do i believe that the bible is all fact? No. A lot of it sounds pretty far fetched to me. So why should i believe that "god" is real, if his book sounds more far fetched than harry potter?

Also, i don't want to belong to any club who's symbol is a guy nailed to 2 pieces of wood thank you very much! (paraphrasing George Carlin. But again, i could try & pas it off as my own, and some wouldnt know the difference).

 

[temptrader]

Firstly, the existence of God does not depend on the truth of any religious text. God either exists or he doesn't and what any book has to say about it matters not.

Now, the statement "all swans are white" is a single statement that can be falsified by a single black swan.

The bible(for that is the text you are obviously refering to) is made up of many statements. You are claiming that if any one statement within the book is falsified this falsifies the entire book. Surely you can see that is not the case?

I did not say that, I referring to a logical dependence and the result of that logical dependence. Hence the use of "judgment call".

"what any book has to say about it matters not", tell that to the religious nuts whose entire faith is based on religious texts. They believe in what it says - do you see that?

Have you not come across anything in any scientific book that has turned out to be wrong? If you have, does that mean everything printed in that particular book was wrong?

all the time.:cheesy::cheesy::cheesy::cheesy: science is a human activity - humans have a right to make mistakes. But if a genuine anomaly is found that tears down the foundations then the theory has to be scrapped - there is no doubt about that.

You again seem to suggest that by falsifing one single assertion in the bible then that falsifies the entire bible. This is simply not the case. Yes, one could argue it calls the credibility into question of the rest of it. That is different to falsifing the rest of it. Just as there are science text books that have had parts that are wrong, that does not mean the entire text book is falsified does it?

I never said that. But the religious text "claims" it is the word of "God", hence if some of its claims are wrong, what about the others (which are unfalsifiable)? That's your judgment call to make. I've made mine already so there . . .

It is you who continually accuses others of having no logical reasoning ability, accuses others of being unintelligent, calls others sanity and continuity of thought into question because they choose to have faith in a supreme being.

When you play with the unfalsifiable anything goes!! There can be no logical reasoning. You are just f*cking around with feelings, fanciful notions, your own projected wants/desires into things that aren't there. That's my point.

My point was that such people as Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and many others all professed a belief in a supreme being. It would take a special kind of idiot to claim they were all, unitelligent, illogical, insane people with no continuity of thought.

There are many religious artists who works still stand as testament to man's creativity. Their religious beliefs are another matter. Einstein's place in history would not be diminished if it were found that he, too, believed in invisible pink elephants.

Do you see or do you not see?

No, I don't see. All I see is someone who doesn't know what he's arguing about wanting to gain popularity amongst bystanders (probably because his ego's on the line), and I'm along for the ride because I have free time to practice making fun of people if I can . . .

Oh, and by the way, if anyone looking at this thread thinks we can arrive at proving whether God exists or not by debate/discussion then you're an idiot.

 

[trendie]

God is anything we dont understand.
At one point we didnt understand thunder and lightning. We worshipped. Now, we can recreate lightning bolts at will, harness them in a more controlled way and light up our dark nights.

Proof of god, and faith in god are quite different things.
It is entirely possible god exists. But, being utilitarian, what difference does it make if god exsits?
If you are ill, and god exists, you are no better off if you are ill and god doesnt exist. Either way, your best course of action is to go to a doctor.
If a tsunami is coming towards you, and god exists, you are no better off if god doesnt exist and a tsunami is coming towards you. Either way, your best course of action is to seek high ground or move inland.

Whether god exists is irrelevant, from a utilitarian view.

Science has been wrong in the past, and will continue to stumble its way towards the light.
The luminiferous ether as a medium through which light travels, and the use of trepanning ot "release evil spririts" from people. thankfully these ideas have been abandoned, but only becuase somebody came up with better ideas. I think phlogiston was an early attempt to describe oxygen.

My key beef with god is that god explains nothing.
The universe exists. Its magical. How did it come to be? God created it! Fine. I am, however, none the wiser.
The rose is a beautiful flower. How did it come to be red, and have the shape it does? It is gods will! Fine. I am none the wiser.
I am feeling unwell and a little under the weather. How come? (bacteria/virus/onset of physical infirmity?) Its gods will? ok. Does that mean I am defying gods will by deciding to go to the doctor for a second opinion?

Religion discourages thought and critical thinking. And the ones in power manipulate natural events to reinforce religious notions. (Hurricanes are gods punishment for some arbitrarily chosen "crime" that society has committed)

Attila made some great posts over the weekend about the inability of science to explain love/art/music. Which is fine. and right. somehow a scientific explanation of such things may actually be detrimental to our sense of wonder. the perception what is art and beautiful is also a whole field to explore.

so, what difference does it make if god does actually exist?
how does belief in god make us any more knowledgeable about anything?

 

[MrGecko]

Do i believe that the bible is all fact? No. A lot of it sounds pretty far fetched to me. So why should i believe that "god" is real, if his book sounds more far fetched than harry potter?

Also, i don't want to belong to any club who's symbol is a guy nailed to 2 pieces of wood thank you very much! (paraphrasing George Carlin. But again, i could try & pas it off as my own, and some wouldnt know the difference).

You do not believe that what is written in the Christian religious texts is factually correct in the present day - Fine. What this has to do with God existing or not, I don't know.

As I mentioned... Religion and God are seperate issues.