ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Other General Discussion => Topic started by: ???? on August 12, 2012, 09:38:13 pm
-
Finished unit 4 bio and I would just like to get a generally idea on what people think about it.
-
Bahahahah
This could be fun.
-
I'll comment in the morning.
-
inb4 someone turns this to a religious debate...AGAIN.
I'm just going to say this: don't escalate things.
In fact, don't raise any religion vs science rant here.
Ppl, pls.
-
I think it's the best explanation we have at the moment. That said I don't know much about it beyond what little information can be gained from a cursory glance at Wikipedia and VCE biology 3/4.
Also, taking bets on how many pages this thread gets to before it has to be locked. I'm putting $10 on page 3
-
To be honest I'm not hugely educated on the topic but I accept it as true. Sort of like the Dinorawrs. There was a small portion of Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion" that touched on it and meme cells and there was a really cool Simpsons episode beginner that showed the evolution of Homer. That's the extent of my knowledge, I still (perhaps sadly) believe/accept it without doing my own research.
I don't think this thread will be locked. I have faith in you, forum-dwellers.
-
Honestly, the Science vs Religion debate is so old it's not funny. It's not worth arguing over anymore, simply because the fundamentalist adherents to either science or religion are the only people who bother. They are, however, amusing to watch. IMHO, coming from a Christian background, the two perspectives don't really contradict each other.
-
... there was a really cool Simpsons episode beginner that showed the evolution of Homer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY#t=0m6s
-
I think it's the best explanation we have at the moment. That said I don't know much about it beyond what little information can be gained from a cursory glance at Wikipedia and VCE biology 3/4.
Also, taking bets on how many pages this thread gets to before it has to be locked. I'm putting $10 on page 3
Haha 3 is a really good bet...but I reckon 2 will take it for this one, since it is pretty quite so far.
-
Also, taking bets on how many pages this thread gets to before it has to be locked. I'm putting $100 on page 3
Deal. I pay $1.01 .
Lets not get into religion though... it's never a proper dialogue/debate and both sides have no idea how to do these things.
That said, a lot of religions are fine with evolution, including the catholic church.
It doesn't need to necessarily be science verses religion either, you could disagree on evolution on other grounds. It is a scientific idea, not rigid dogma, so, of course its open to discussion. There are a fair few cosmologists who believe in alternative models to the big bang for instance. Going to have a tough time though considering the mountains of evidence we have and it is really one of the most well supported scientific theories out there.
-
Lets not get into religion though... it's never a proper dialogue/debate and both sides have no idea how to do these things.
I agree.
That said, a lot of religions are fine with evolution, including the catholic church.
wat.
-
wat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
Some snippets:
The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
---------------------------------
In addition, while he was the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism."
-
it has to be true to some extent, why else do we have asians looking different to indians or arabs or caucasians? the environment must influence your physiology to a certain extent, and whats to say that over several million years the same species may have different attributes? but the more i learn about the human body, the more impossible it feels that the body could EVER result from a random occurrence....
just my personal feelings :)
p.s., still christian, still hold the belief that God created man etc. etc.
-
What if i were to tell you God designing us is actually the less defensible alternative in terms of being religious?
-
it has to be true to some extent, why else do we have asians looking different to indians or arabs or caucasians? the environment must influence your physiology to a certain extent, and whats to say that over several million years the same species may have different attributes? but the more i learn about the human body, the more impossible it feels that the body could EVER result from a random occurrence....
just my personal feelings :)
p.s., still christian, still hold the belief that God created man etc. etc.
What if i were to tell you God designing us is actually the less defensible alternative in terms of being religious?
hahaha couldnt resist ;D
-
It needs to be posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7tgX_Uaqs
-
Both can be compatible depending on how you view the book of genesis (which deals with creation, original sin,, the first humans, etc.) some people view it as an allegory and don't treat it as if it were a scientific textbook but rather stories which were created in order to tell people during those times about the world, god, etc. and have a deeper purpose, others view it as literal and therefore don't believe that the two can ever be compatible. I think it's nonsense to exclude religion out of the debate because for thousands of years, religion has always had the explanation for the origin of the universe and the world - since evolution deals with questions which once where only dealt with in the realm of religion - I can see why religion is brought up.
Personally, I don't see the incompatibility with believing in a god (say a deist god) and accepting evolution.
I believe that evolution, as defined as changed over time does occur and we can see it evident everywhere and given enough time large scale changes can occur as organisms begin to adapt more into their respected environments and evolve. However the real controversy is how the first cell begin in the first place (abiogenesis), if you believe in evolution you can't ignore the fact that you had to first have the first organism which could replicate itself in order for the process of evolution to began in the first place.. which means that the first replicating molecule or organism had to have came up due to chance - which is what I disagree with, because I think it's improbable that mere molecules can arrange themselves into that order just purely based on chance.
I think once you go into origins - this is where some of the science gets shaky, especially when it comes to the evolution of life - not necessarily the evolution of the universe since we can actually see how in the universe used to be in the past and how it evolved whilst in the natural world we only see a few glimpses and clues in the fossil record.
Overall; I believe it's true. However I'm still ignorant and intend to study these issues of origins further, to understand the overall evolutionary process more especially the biochemistry behind abiogenesis.
-
What if i were to tell you God designing us is actually the less defensible alternative in terms of being religious?
not quite sure what you mean? are you saying its more likely that the universe and everything in it was a random occurrence than God designing everything?
-
What if i were to tell you God designing us is actually the less defensible alternative in terms of being religious?
not quite sure what you mean? are you saying its more likely that the universe and everything in it was a random occurrence than God designing everything?
Evolution is not random. Randomness does not drive evolution. Random mutations are a part of it, sure, but natural selection is the mechanism which dictates the favourable mutations and discards the uncountable number of undesirable ones.
If your argument for god is "look at how amazing all of this is", because its complexity is unfathomable to you, then for you, god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
-
What if i were to tell you God designing us is actually the less defensible alternative in terms of being religious?
not quite sure what you mean? are you saying its more likely that the universe and everything in it was a random occurrence than God designing everything?
Evolution is not random. Randomness does not drive evolution. Random mutations are a part of it, sure, but natural selection is the mechanism which dictates the favourable mutations and discards the uncountable number of undesirable ones.
If your argument for god is "look at how amazing all of this is", because its complexity is unfathomable to you, then for you, god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
im well aware that natural selection is not random, as i made clear when i said "it has to be true to some extent, why else do we have asians looking different to indians or arabs or caucasians?". I'm just asking kingpomba what he meant.
i never made an argument for god existing, and your assumption that i did as well as the last sentence of your post, i find offensive.
-
i never made an argument for god existing, and your assumption that i did as well as the last sentence of your post, i find offensive.
p.s., still christian, still hold the belief that God created man etc. etc.
-
I think this sums up my position on the utter implausibility of Christianity quite adequately. From 2:19 on until about 3:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&v=iR0GyYaeI-k&feature=player_detailpage#t=139s
-
not quite sure what you mean? are you saying its more likely that the universe and everything in it was a random occurrence than God designing everything?
I'm saying i believe there are serious theological and philosophical difficulties that come along with believing that. I can't really respond until i'm sure what your exact position is.
There are a few things i need to know before i can say much more though. I'm not sure if you're presenting what you actually believe or doing something else like playing the devils advocate (which is fine), i don't really mind or need to know which it is either.
Your position for example, does it entail....
A)Creationism - That God "designed" everything the way it is. Bacteria, plants, animals, etc.
Eg. That it's intended that we are the way we are.
It's not particularly important how you think this design was actualised, whether he just simply plonked down all these things at once or that he "guided" evolution. The intentional design bit is the thing i'm interested in.
B) That in regards to creationism, God created everything as it is, unchanging. If you are willing to concede that things change, that of course implies evolution can occur as well. So, therefore, it must be at least a possibility for our origin. So, you can't really brush it away with any kind of certainty. Of course, if you take the alternative position and believe nothing changes, in light of what we know, you're also going to have a very hard time with that.
-
i never made an argument for god existing, and your assumption that i did as well as the last sentence of your post, i find offensive.
p.s., still christian, still hold the belief that God created man etc. etc.
that isnt an argument for the existence of god by any means at all...
also, this thread wasnt intended for the plausibility of christianity, but regardless, what hitchens said was a fundemental misunderstanding on his behalf - god doesn't sit idly by for 98,000 years then spontaneously decide to intervene, preparation begins in foreshadowing of Christ's coming from the very start of the bible, in the first book in Noah and the second in Moses, all the while, God had Israel, his people, and was standing by them the whole time.
I dont know hitchens pulled out a figure 25 years for life expectancy:
"And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”" Gen6:3.
and the best way to intervene was not comdemning some random to human sacrifice in the less literate areas of the world, it was sending God incarnate to pay the price for which humanity was liable: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”Gen2:7
I think its so so so dangerous/wrong to make any inference about a religion based on either what its followers do, or what others say about it. the only way you can make objective judgments about any religion is to read the texts on which theyre founded, thats the only infallible way to judge a religion.
-
I'm saying i believe there are serious theological and philosophical difficulties that come along with believing that. I can't really respond until i'm sure what your exact position is.
There are a few things i need to know before i can say much more though. I'm not sure if you're presenting what you actually believe or doing something else like playing the devils advocate (which is fine), i don't really mind or need to know which it is either.
Your position for example, does it entail....
A)Creationism - That God "designed" everything the way it is. Bacteria, plants, animals, etc.
Eg. That it's intended that we are the way we are.
It's not particularly important how you think this design was actualised, whether he just simply plonked down all these things at once or that he "guided" evolution. The intentional design bit is the thing i'm interested in.
B) That in regards to creationism, God created everything as it is, unchanging. If you are willing to concede that things change, that of course implies evolution can occur as well. So, therefore, it must be at least a possibility for our origin. So, you can't really brush it away with any kind of certainty. Of course, if you take the alternative position and believe nothing changes, in light of what we know, you're also going to have a very hard time with that.
im saying what i personally believe, not playing devils advocate at all. A) is my belief, but with the addition of free-will, the ability to make our own decisions.
-
How can the statement "I believe God created man" NOT be an argument for the existence of god? That makes no sense?
-
How can the statement "I believe God created man" NOT be an argument for the existence of god? That makes no sense?
thats not an argument at all, i didnt provide any reasoning, i just stated my belief. saying "i believe in monsters" isnt an argument for the existence of monsters, it would be if you say "i believe in monsters because etc. etc."
-
right. but presumably you believe in the existence of god
If your argument for god is "look at how amazing all of this is", because its complexity is unfathomable to you, then for you, god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
he didn't say you had an argument for god, he said IF you were arguing for god's existence and that were your argument, THEN blahblahblah
-
So you are saying that God does not exist?
im saying exactly what my posts say. I believe god exists, i provided no arguments for this. enwibee's post was:
If your argument for god is "look at how amazing all of this is", because its complexity is unfathomable to you, then for you, god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
I pointed this out because i didnt provide any argument for the existence of god, and so this statement (i would say insult, not statement) is unwarranted.
-
but the more i learn about the human body, the more impossible it feels that the body could EVER result from a random occurrence....
You're saying here that the more you learn about the intricacies of the human body, the more you feel like there was a design behind it. Let me ask you now if it's possible for something to be purposefully designed without having a designer?
If you are arguing that the human body is designed, which you are, then -you- are implying a designer. And your argument for this design is that you are simply unable to fathom a natural explanation for the human body. And to that, I say, "If that is your reasoning for god, then your god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance." (loosely paraphrased from Neil deGrasse Tyson)
You can decide, either you're participating in this debate, and your views are open to inquiry, or you don't want to participate. But don't dip your toes in and then all of a sudden call "insult" when somebody critiques your views. That is intellectual abdication of the highest order. I have not insulted you, I have criticised your arguments and your views. If you cannot delineate between the two, then maybe you shouldn't be debating the topic, because it's only going to cause you pain. I'm not going to pull punches just because you write "oh I'm offended. You've -insulted- me!!!" I did NOT insult you. I called your beliefs a load of horse manure. There's a difference, and you'd do well to learn it.
-
Why does every religion debate on AN always turn ugly?
-
(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3871/calmthefuckdownbymooh43s.jpg)
You're saying here that the more you learn about the intricacies of the human body, the more you feel like there was a design behind it. Let me ask you now if it's possible for something to be purposefully designed without having a designer?
The designer doesn't have to be God though. Raelians are creationists, with one minor modification, they think aliens did it rather than God.
And your argument for this design is that you are simply unable to fathom a natural explanation for the human body.
What if he just thinks this is the better explanation or there is a natural origin except it was guided by God? He doesn't have to be ignorant to think that this is also a plausible idea, especially God working through naturalistic means (again, we still haven't defined God yet either) or an Aristotelian or Deist conception of God.
You can decide, either you're participating in this debate, and your views are open to inquiry, or you don't want to participate. But don't dip your toes in and then all of a sudden call "insult" when somebody critiques your views.
Ease up, its not a trial.
This is all petty arguing over semantics anyway, i dont know why you two (three?) continued the bickering for so long. No wonder these things cant be actual debates. One of you should of just stopped responding. Let's not go on about "Oh, he started it!" either.
This is why we cant have nice things.
I will respond to abes22 when i can.
-
kingpomba, but taken in context with the fact that he says "I'm still a christian", I think we can cut the semantic crap and realise he's arguing for his christian version of god. Your entire post hinges on "omgz what if he's deist, or raelian" etc. and he clearly says in one of the first posts I'm a christian.
Also, your "ease up, it's not a trial" is bizarre. If you were wrongfully accused of something, you'd be wanting to clear your name too. I think your entire post was just a bit of mental masturbation trying to cut a position that places you squarely above both of us? It really adds nothing to the topic at hand at all. Your entire post is "lolz semantics".
-
Why does every religion debate on AN always turn ugly?
Fixed.
-
Complexity of the body as argument for a designer is crazy, the human body is terribly designed anyway -.-
-
Damn...it seems this thread has already exceeded 2 pages , but a few more posts should make it 4 overall. ;)
-
kingpomba, but taken in context with the fact that he says "I'm still a christian", I think we can cut the semantic crap and realise he's arguing for his christian version of god.
Christianity isn't a monolithic bloc, this won't get you much further. Anyway, lets stop arguing over this point. No wonder these things get so petty so fast.
It really adds nothing to the topic at hand at all.
Can't you see the irony?
I like to take my time to write well considered responses, especially to in-depth issues like the ones that emerge from the particular positions abes22 has put forward, so, it'll take me awhile.
You can practice sophism all you want and act like its a schoolyard but I'd rather it be serious and talk about actual philosophical issues. Thats why i came to this thread in the first place.
Complexity of the body as argument for a designer is crazy, the human body is terribly designed anyway -.-
Complexity as an argument and good design as an argument aren't necessarily the same thing.
-
Why does every religion debate on AN always turn ugly?
"On AN"
Every religion debate everywhere will always turn ugly. It is the nature of people wearing their hearts on their sleeves. There's really no easy way to tell someone that you think their entire worldview is a lie and just plain ridiculous.
They're going to take it personally, of course, because it's been mashed into them from a young age by -everyone- they love. They've been told it's a part of their identity. If they feel someone attacking that, they're obviously going to take it personally, even if you're just attacking an idea. To them, the idea is a part of them. I get that. At the same time, it's the equivalent of a Marxist getting personally offended if I were to tell them I thought Marxism is a miserable failure and has been demonstrated as such throughout the 20th century.
The only differences between the ideologies is the age at which people tend to adopt them. Obviously the people who adopt them from a young age are going to have an extremely tough time copping any criticism over it.
-
kingpomba, but taken in context with the fact that he says "I'm still a christian", I think we can cut the semantic crap and realise he's arguing for his christian version of god.
Christianity isn't a monolithic bloc, this won't get you much further. Anyway, lets stop arguing over this point. No wonder these things get so petty so fast.
Nope, not letting you make some hipster-semantic argument. Christian means believing in the bible and jesus. If you don't want those assumptions made about you, don't attach that tag. If you call yourself Christian, it is very fair to assume that you believe in the Christian theology which names Hashem/Yaweh as their god and creator, and Jesus as their saviour.
-
Complexity of the body as argument for a designer is crazy, the human body is terribly designed anyway -.-
Whose smart idea was it to make the penis both the excreter of urine, and the secreter of semen?
Seriously.
-
Nope, not letting you make some hipster-semantic argument. Christian means believing in the bible and jesus. If you don't want those assumptions made about you, don't attach that tag. If you call yourself Christian, it is very fair to assume that you believe in the Christian theology which names Hashem/Yaweh as their god and creator, and Jesus as their saviour.
Can at you at least try to remain serious? There are basic beliefs that tie Christians together of course (nicene creed etc) but there is significant theological differences amongst the different denominations, not to mention the ways they approach biblical literalism and science (and other contemporary issues).
-
Nope, not letting you make some hipster-semantic argument. Christian means believing in the bible and jesus. If you don't want those assumptions made about you, don't attach that tag. If you call yourself Christian, it is very fair to assume that you believe in the Christian theology which names Hashem/Yaweh as their god and creator, and Jesus as their saviour.
Can at you at least try to remain serious? There are basic beliefs that tie Christians together of course (nicene creed etc) but there is significant theological differences amongst the different denominations, not to mention the ways they approach biblical literalism and science.
The core theology is Jesus is the son of god.
Seriously, there's really no escaping that :P I don't know why you're trying to argue it.
-
inb4 shitstor.....
Oh wait
-
Complexity of the body as argument for a designer is crazy, the human body is terribly designed anyway -.-
Whose smart idea was it to make the penis both the excreter of urine, and the secreter of semen?
Seriously.
Why have two pipes when you can settle with one? If I had to take God up for something, its making my nuts sensitive to pain
-
But enwibee, I'd like you to consider the following:
We are considering the human body and it's immense complexity, Abraham argues that due to the complexity the of the human body, he believes that there is a creator as it is too complex to have arisen by chance. I understand that in your mind you have disproved this by challenging his logic, but you have not qualified your own logic for there certainly being no designer. Thus, I will now challenge your logic. How is it that you see something and make the conclusion that there is no designer?
So in the end, it really does just come down to what you believe, not what you can qualify, because you just cannot and this is not a decision like 'Is there toast in the fridge?' and not necessarily one bound in logic. Life, is often not bound in logic, it's not necessary that the answer to this question is either, so sometimes you just believe what you do, and that's it.
-
But enwibee, I'd like you to consider the following:
We are considering the human body and it's immense complexity, Abraham argues that due to the complexity the of the human body, he believes that there is a creator as it is too complex to have arisen by chance. I understand that in your mind you have disproved this by challenging his logic, but you have not qualified your own logic for there certainly being no designer. Thus, I will now challenge your logic. How is it that you see something and make the conclusion that there is no designer?
So in the end, it really does just come down to what you believe, not what you can qualify, because you just cannot and this is not a decision like 'Is there toast in the fridge?' and not necessarily one bound in logic. Life, is often not bound in logic, it's not necessary that the answer to this question is either, so sometimes you just believe what you do, and that's it.
In fact, I know that evolution by natural selection caused our complexity over literally millions of years. The complexity arose from trillions of mutations occurring before we finally became the human body that you see today.
That's not a belief. that's a scientific theory supported by mountains of evidence. My logic is extremely well qualified by any biology textbook from the last 150 years.
-
Also, your "ease up, it's not a trial" is bizarre. If you were wrongfully accused of something, you'd be wanting to clear your name too.
okay:
I think your entire post was just a bit of mental masturbation trying to cut a position that places you squarely above both of us?... Your entire post is "lolz semantics".
If your argument for god is "look at how amazing all of this is", because its complexity is unfathomable to you, then for you, god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
But don't dip your toes in and then all of a sudden call "insult" when somebody critiques your views. That is intellectual abdication of the highest order.
I used to watch your hypocrisy passively, i thought it wasnt my business. i would have done well to have realise it would eventually be turned on me.
now,
If you are arguing that the human body is designed, which you are, then -you- are implying a designer. And your argument for this design is that you are simply unable to fathom a natural explanation for the human body. And to that, I say, "If that is your reasoning for god, then your god is simply an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance." (loosely paraphrased from Neil deGrasse Tyson)
you have made the logical fallacy that the complexity of the human body is my reasoning for god. i purposely didnt present it that way because it is not my reasoning for god. god is my reasoning behind the complexity, the complexity is not my reasoning behind god. If you cannot delineate between the two, then maybe you shouldn't be debating the topic. my reasoning for god lies in my own personal experiences which places his existence, and involvement in my life, beyond my doubt - its application to you is neither relevant, nor in my intention, and that, is not up to you to debate.
I did NOT insult you. I called your beliefs a load of horse manure. There's a difference, and you'd do well to learn it.
my basis for offence doesn't lie in your criticism of christianity, which is something that i fully support (i make criticism of religions including my own very regularly), but rather it lies in the fact that you made an insult to my intellect on the basis of your own inability to understand logical literacy.
enwibee, everyone supports critical thinking. no one supports the way you patronise and condescend on the members of your own forum. be respectful when you come to criticise something.
-
You've avoided the question, it is entirely possible that a God intelligently designed man and set up natural selection in the universe he intelligently designed. Let's reduce the question, the big bang occurred, I'm sure we'll both agree. I am saying that, the big bang was initiated by a God. I don't want you to disprove my view, I simply want you to qualify your own beyond any reasonable doubt that it was certain that no god exists and it happened independent of any God.
-
I think the distinction between insulting someone and making a valid criticism is when you get personal.
Let's forget religion for the moment and talk about food.
Let's just say I like pizza.
If you were to say "Pizza tastes shit" - I wouldn't be offended because you're making an objective statement about Pizza. I would sit down with you and discuss why I think Pizza is a good food.
If you were, however, to say "Pizza tastes like shit and you are stupid for even liking it" - I would be offended, but not because you made a statement about Pizza, but because you called me stupid when I have the right to like whatever food I like, just like how other people can believe what they want to.
There's a fine line between attacking the ideologies of the religion itself and personally attacking the followers of that religion.
-
I think the distinction between insulting someone and making a valid criticism is when you get personal.
Let's forget religion for the moment and talk about food.
Let's just say I like pizza.
If you were to say "Pizza tastes shit" - I wouldn't be offended because you're making an objective statement about Pizza. I would sit down with you and discuss why I think Pizza is a good food.
If you were, however, to say "Pizza tastes like shit and you are stupid for even liking it" - I would be offended, but not because you made a statement about Pizza, but because you called me stupid when I have the right to like whatever food I like, just like how other people can believe what they want to.
There's a fine line between attacking the ideologies of the religion itself and personally attacking the followers of that religion.
very well said IMO
-
you people will argue over anything y/n
-
"Post was mental masturbation".
I thought the post was rubbish.
"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."
Notice, I said that it is scientific ignorance, not your ignorance. Scientific ignorance is simply those answers which science is yet to uncover.
"Intellectual abdication"
Yes, I think that your copout was an abdication of the argument. Again, not a personal insult, merely pointing out that you refused to engage when it didn't suit you.
So you're 0 for 3. None of those were insulting you personally, they were merely criticising your arguments (or in the latter case, your non-argument).
And, no, there is implicit reasoning that if you write "the more I learn about the human body, the more I am convinced it is not a random occurrence" there is a logical breakdown as follows:
- You don't know X about the body.
- You learn X about the body.
- Learning X about the body causes you to think it is not a random occurrence
- If it is not a random occurrence, it must have been purposefully designed, or guided at the very least.
- You have stated that you are a christian, and you therefore believe in a creator
- Ergo, with every X you learn about the body, you feel it is evidence for lord jeebus
Bozo, and to you I say the scientific ignorance quote applies even more.
You'll also actually find that I never said that no god exists and I can know that for sure. I've never said that, I have always maintained being an agnostic atheist. I am certain that the christian version of god is a lie. This is through an absurd number of logical contradiction. As for abiogenesis being the result of some tinkering aliens? Maybe, but in the absence of any evidence for such theories, it's utter nonsense to subscribe your entire life to the view. So your entire argument is simply a strawman that you've stumped up. :)
-
With these kind of threads we need to be conscious of the thoughts of the community and not our own ideologies. Whether you believe in religion or science is besides the matter.
Now lets look at it, evolution is proven by science, and Enwiabe is correct by saying that. However going to the point of attacking someone's beliefs is clearly wrong in my opinion, and does not represent the ATAR Notes community. Religion has existed for thousands of years, and it has made some underlying important contributions to the modern world.
Honestly, when going into a thread like this we just need to be aware that people have beliefs, and attacking someone for believing in a certain thing is wrong in this day and age.
-
ive made all the points i wanted to make, i'll write no further posts on this thread.
-
ive made all the points i wanted to make, i'll write no further posts on this thread.
Yeah well FYI, the only person to make any actual personal insults here was you.
"I used to watch your hypocrisy passively, i thought it wasnt my business. i would have done well to have realise it would eventually be turned on me."
Really feelin' that Christian love :)
-
I know this has taken a bit of a side step off of the topic of evolution but I just want to make the point that religion does have its benefits, even if this thread is being attacked only for its negatives. As a spiritual agnostic I firmly believe that even if I don't fully lean towards the belief of God, it is still nice to at times engage in prayer or meditation and feel as if their is a God, without having evidence but still having hope.
Apart from this topic religion does bring forth idealistic morals that we do seek in our time. Religion can bring people together in times of need (death), it can raise the importance of community and the fact that as need to love our fellow man.
Even if it scientific ignorance from someone such as enwibee's view, to someone like me acting from anecdotal experience, I do believe it is nice to have the feeling of being listened to and cared for my someone that may or may not exist.
-
and on that note, locked for off-topic
(damnit, missed my bet by 1 page)