Evolution, Yes, No?

[wmw999 2,551]

I think there's a noticeable difference between the atheist who says "I don't think there's a God because there's no evidence" and the one who says "there's no God, period, end of statement."

The one allows for the possibility (however unlikely) of being disproven. The other is a declaration that's based on belief, rather than evidence. Because you can't prove God's absence any more than you can prove the presence.

I choose to believe that the world extends beyond what we understand. Whether that's a bearded dude up in Heaven, a shared spirit called Gaia, or whatever, it doesn't matter -- it attempts to define a space for that which we don't know, in one general area. But that's a belief, too.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[MartinOlsson 0]

Or a more interesting question: How do I do if i don't want to belong to a religion? I really want an answer on this one cause right now I feel puzzled about the impossibility of not belonging to a religion.

/Martin

[frequentfaller 0]

Agnostic atheism, also called Atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of this.

It is possible for an agnostic atheist to subscribe to either strong or weak atheism, independently of his agnosticism.

Individuals identifying as agnostic atheists may justify their position by reference to epistemology, theory of justification or Occam's razor

Born ok 1st time.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The only thing I think is provable today it that those who vehemently opposed that there may be a God do not wish to be held responsible for their actions. They wish to blame society instead of themselves. That, where true, is where thing are really sad.

I thought you would have caught more fish with this stinkbait.

but it certainly makes your subsequent statement about avoiding emotional debates obviously false.

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

The only thing I think is provable today it that those who vehemently opposed that there may be a God do not wish to be held responsible for their actions. They wish to blame society instead of themselves. That, where true, is where thing are really sad.

I thought you would have caught more fish with this stinkbait.

but it certainly makes your subsequent statement about avoiding emotional debates obviously false.

Buried in the middle of the rest of his little tirade, I didn't even notice it.

Rush: You're talking shit again.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Yesterday I saw an excellent lecture by Ed Larson, who won the Pulitzer prize for his book, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. Amongst many other points, he raised an issue I have never thought of before. I had thought the main issue for Christian fundamentalists was over the literal truth of the Old Testament, and the Bible as a whole. However, he pointed out that Genesis defines a cornerstone of fundamentalist theology: that the world was literally perfect when first created by God, and it was subsequently corrupted in the Fall (as in, fallen from a higher level of existence, not the season) when Eve fell for the talking snake and ate the forbidden fruit. This (supposedly) defines humans relationship with God: we were given a perfect world, but because of human disobedience or whatever, we rejected that and thereby brought death, disease, and misery into the world. Evolution, even (or maybe in particular theistic evolution, the idea that evolution is real but guided by God) turns that whole theology upside down. Under theistic evolution, we started out imperfect (i.e. non human), and through evolution we are progressing to a more perfect (i.e. God-like) form. [note this isn't what I believe, I'm just recounting the argument]. This reordering of the relationship between God and Man is apparently why Christian fundamentalism, or more accurately Protestant fundamentalism, can't be reconciled even with theistic evolution. From the little I recall of my Catholic theology, it isn't so Old Testament-centric, and the conflict is less problematic.

For my part, it seems obvious to me that evolution is as well supported as any Law in science. The 150 years since the publication of the Origin of Species has only added overwhelming weight and substance to Darwin's theory of the mechanism of how evolution works. Happy belated 200th birthday, Darwin.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In context of the initial cited survey, the thread subject title, and the above quoted response, do you see evolutionary theory as threatening to the existence of God/disproving existence of God?

If yes, why?

This is where Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Atheists stop making sense.


God does not stop existing, or begin to exist, based on whether or not Evolution occurred.

(I think that's her point.)

Yep ....

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

The only thing I think is provable today it that those who vehemently opposed that there may be a God do not wish to be held responsible for their actions. They wish to blame society instead of themselves. That, where true, is where thing are really sad.

I thought you would have caught more fish with this stinkbait.

My question is how is that more "provable" than evolution?

What are the standards of proof?

I can think of a couple methods to explore correlations (divorce rates, incaceration rates) but am not sure one could ever prove, in positivist sense, a causal mechanism.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The only thing I think is provable today it that those who vehemently opposed that there may be a God do not wish to be held responsible for their actions. They wish to blame society instead of themselves. That, where true, is where thing are really sad.

I thought you would have caught more fish with this stinkbait.

My question is how is that more "provable" than evolution?

What are the standards of proof?

I can think of a couple methods to explore correlations (divorce rates, incaceration rates) but am not sure one could ever prove, in positivist sense, a causal mechanism.

/Marg

I think you're giving it far more consideration than it warrants.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

This is what Speaker's Corner is all about. Of course there are going to be flashes of extreme emotion. But the art of the dialog is in the ability to temper those emotions and foster the exchange of ideas, not simply to vent extreme emotion.

That's really cute.








{I hope so too, but it's certainly not even close right now}

Yea, that's true. I was just positing theory. I suppose a better way to put it would be "hanging out in Speaker's Corner and complaining about emotional posts is like going to Bonfire and bitching about boobs!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The only thing I think is provable today it that those who vehemently opposed that there may be a God do not wish to be held responsible for their actions. They wish to blame society instead of themselves. That, where true, is where thing are really sad.

I thought you would have caught more fish with this stinkbait.

but it certainly makes your subsequent statement about avoiding emotional debates obviously false.

Why? Cause it is true?
And I find it hard to understand how you can say my statement is emotional. Yours is however.

But think about it. Those who are religious usually oppose abortion. Those who support abortion spew the womans body montra (and please, before you flame me my position on abortion has been stated very clearly on this site so dont read crap into my post here).

Fact is, dropping your drawers has consequenses. But for those who want to drop drawer and a baby is the consequence, they want a way to "get out of the responcibility of thier actions" by aborting him/her.

Take this situation.

You are standing in line behind a man. He is dirty and wearing old clothes. He is buying a hot dog at an outside ventors cart. While getting his money out he drops a $20 bill. No one but you sees it. He gets his food and walks off. Do YOU give him his money back?

Same senario, execept the man pulls up in a driven limo. Two ladies get out with him and he buys himself and the ladies the food and starts to leave. Do YOU give HIM is money back?

Are the situations the same? Do you have the same responsibilities in either case or can you justify different actions in your own head?

No, the fact that YOU took my post as emotional is a good example of my point..

The stinkbait is yours sir, not mine

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

You didn't have your coffee yet, did you?

Can anyone else guess what this rambling has to do with a belief (or lack thereof) in God?

[billvon 3,080]

>You are standing in line behind a man. He is dirty and wearing old
>clothes. He is buying a hot dog at an outside ventors cart. While getting
>his money out he drops a $20 bill. No one but you sees it. He gets his
>food and walks off. Do YOU give him his money back?

>Same senario, execept the man pulls up in a driven limo. Two ladies get
>out with him and he buys himself and the ladies the food and starts to
>leave. Do YOU give HIM is money back?

>Are the situations the same?

They are only the same if:

one lady is an Arab woman who raised her son in a madrassa
the other lady is a librarian who refuses to carry any books about evolution
the rich guy is a member of Hair Club for Men
the poor guy is an abortion doctor who just lost his job
the limo driver is Al Franken.

In that case, the two situations are exactly the same.

But seriously, I'd give them both back their money. It's the right thing to do, and it has nothing to do with what they look like. (It also has nothing to do with the discussion over evolution vs creationism, of course.)

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Fact is, dropping your drawers has consequenses. But for those who want to drop drawer and a baby is the consequence, they want a way to "get out of the responcibility of thier actions" by aborting him/her.

Bollocks. It's not avoiding the responsibility, it's just making a choice that you disagree with. And what the fuck does it have to do with "blaming society"?

Quote

You are standing in line behind a man. He is dirty and wearing old clothes. He is buying a hot dog at an outside ventors cart. While getting his money out he drops a $20 bill. No one but you sees it. He gets his food and walks off. Do YOU give him his money back?

Same senario, execept the man pulls up in a driven limo. Two ladies get out with him and he buys himself and the ladies the food and starts to leave. Do YOU give HIM is money back?

Are the situations the same? Do you have the same responsibilities in either case or can you justify different actions in your own head?

What are you talking about?

Quote

The stinkbait is yours sir, not mine

You posted shit, you got called on it. Take your own advice and face up to it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Fact is, dropping your drawers has consequenses. But for those who want to drop drawer and a baby is the consequence, they want a way to "get out of the responcibility of thier actions" by aborting him/her.

Bollocks. It's not avoiding the responsibility, it's just making a choice that you disagree with. And what the fuck does it have to do with "blaming society"?

Quote

You are standing in line behind a man. He is dirty and wearing old clothes. He is buying a hot dog at an outside ventors cart. While getting his money out he drops a $20 bill. No one but you sees it. He gets his food and walks off. Do YOU give him his money back?

Same senario, execept the man pulls up in a driven limo. Two ladies get out with him and he buys himself and the ladies the food and starts to leave. Do YOU give HIM is money back?

Are the situations the same? Do you have the same responsibilities in either case or can you justify different actions in your own head?

What are you talking about?

Quote

The stinkbait is yours sir, not mine

You posted shit, you got called on it. Take your own advice and face up to it.

No, no I did not. You however are the one who makes the kinds of posts that supports my opinion.

Actions and consequenses. Cept some dont want the pain after the pleasure so they have the pain "eliminated"!

Thanks for helping me make my point!

You SHOULD heed YOUR own advise though

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

You however are the one who makes the kinds of posts that supports my opinion.

You always say that, and you're always wrong.

Support your assertion that non-religious people tend to avoid the consequences of their actions and "blame society." You called it a provable fact. So far you've proved fuck all.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You however are the one who makes the kinds of posts that supports my opinion.

You always say that, and you're always wrong.

Support your assertion that non-religious people tend to avoid the consequences of their actions and "blame society." You called it a provable fact. So far you've proved fuck all.

Quote

"..always wrong"

Thought it was important to show that quote from you. However, peoples opinions cant be wrong, yours or mine. They are opinion after all

I said provalble "fact?"

Well, you will have to show me that post. I stated my opinions that I have developed based on posts similar to yours and others. And while my point may have been related to religion that is not what I have said directly anyway. I know and feel religious people who do not want to own up to their actions. And they are hypocrits for doing it. It fits anyone regardless of a belief in a god or not.

I have said that those who trash religion tend to be those who do not want to own up but that is a different thread.

So, sorry I struck a nerve with you. Especially when I post about personal responcibilities.

So, I, nor do you have to "prove" anything because as I have stated before, it is a waste of time attacking those who are uber religious and those who are antin religious (which are both religious in their very nature IMO) cause all that come out is emotion.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Thought it was important to show that quote from you. However, peoples opinions cant be wrong, yours or mine.

Yes, they can. What is it that prevents an opinion from ever being wrong?

Quote

I said provalble "fact?"

You said provable. You said it was the only thing that was provable. So go on then, start proving.

Quote

So, I, nor do you have to "prove" anything...

If you claim that something is provable then yes, you do have to either prove it or admit that you were talking bollocks. Which is it going to be?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

If I am "always wrong" it would be a waste of time to try and prove anything to you.

But I dont think I said that was provable (In the context you posted anyway)


Oh, and opinions are not wrong. You might disagree with ones opinion but no ones opinions are wrong. They may be wrong headed but again, that is another thread.

In any event, you have helped me prove my post in different thread

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,080]

>You might disagree with ones opinion but no ones opinions are wrong.

Sure there are. If someone's opinion is that George Bush was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, or that gravity is a myth, or that God created women from Adam's rib - they are wrong, and provably so.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I know and feel religious people who do not want to own up to their actions.

The Catholic Church is an obvious counterexample.

BTW, your feelings aren't proof of anything.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I know and feel religious people who do not want to own up to their actions.

The Catholic Church is an obvious counterexample.

BTW, your feelings aren't proof of anything.

You are right, my feelings are not proof of anything and I do not think I have said that they do.

and yes, there are examples from every side of most topics

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

>You might disagree with ones opinion but no ones opinions are wrong.

Sure there are. If someone's opinion is that George Bush was the mastermind.....

You could have stopped there.







Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm weak.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>You might disagree with ones opinion but no ones opinions are wrong.

Sure there are. If someone's opinion is that George Bush was the mastermind.....

You could have stopped there.







Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm weak.

That is your opinion

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

If I am "always wrong" it would be a waste of time to try and prove anything to you.

Learn to read, please. I said you are always wrong when you assert that another poster's reply to you proves your point. It never does.

Quote

But I dont think I said that was provable

It's right there, in black and fucking white. "The only thing I think is provable today it that those who vehemently opposed that there may be a God do not wish to be held responsible for their actions. They wish to blame society instead of themselves."

So what's it going to be Rush, are you going to start proving, or are you going to admit that you were talking bollocks. Your call.

Quote

Oh, and opinions are not wrong. You might disagree with ones opinion but no ones opinions are wrong. They may be wrong headed but again, that is another thread.

What the hell are you talking about? In what possible world can an opinion never be wrong? What do you think opinion means?

Quote

In any event, you have helped me prove my post in different thread

Still wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?