Creation vs. Evolution

[Pako]

Depends on how you look at it, religion has had more blood spilled in it's name then any other cause. That's a fairly negative affect on society.

Depends on how you look at it. What of all the scientific advancements as the result of war and weapons technology?

 

[Joey D]

Depends on how you look at it. What of all the scientific advancements as the result of war and weapons technology?

I think that's a terrible way of looking at it. Human life isn't a price we should ever have to pay for advancement. And it still doesn't negate that religion is the biggest cause of blood shed. Most inventions of war could have been figured out without the need for conflict, it just probably would have taken longer.

There's to many what if questions when you start looking at different scenarios. Yes technological advancements were the result of religious folks not getting along and wanting to blow each other up. But say there was no religion, or only one religion if you prefer. Would that mean there would be less conflicts or would we kill each other over something else? Would we have gotten those technological advances? Would we have need them? Could have we come up with something better? See this is why you can't play that game. You need to look at it from what history has shown up.

Has religion had a negative affect on society, yes of course, a major negative affect in many ways. However, it's not totally drain on society like LizMcQueen seems to be suggestion.

 

[Pako]

I think that's a terrible way of looking at it.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I didn't say it was a good way of looking at it, just different.

 

[niky]

It's very difficult to pin war on religion. Granted, many wars have been waged with the stated intent of spreading a religion or punishing infidels... but many of these have root causes that go far beyond the rallying cry of those who start the wars.

Some of the most powerful empires and conquerors, for example, were not driven by any strong religious drive... Greece, Rome, Darius, Alexander, Genghis Khan... Napoleon... (in fact, Darius and the Romans let conquered peoples keep their religions... which is how Judaism survived and Christianity flourished in Rome)

Sure, the Crusades were waged in the name of religion... but that doesn't take away the fact that they were wars of conquest motivated by greed and glory... actually... that describes the entire history of Western civilization, the colonization of the Third World and the Americas..

World War I was a war of conquest. World War II was, also... the Jewish connection was more racism than religion.

And on to the present day. It's easy to blame Islam for terrorism, but the factors behind the terrorist movement: poverty, inequality, racism (on both sides) and the struggle for power, go far beyond that.

 

[LizMcQueen]

it's not totally drain on society like LizMcQueen seems to be suggestion.

I said:

religion always has delayed the progress of science.

and that's true, religion has hampered science, nowadays religion could say stem cell research would help cure many diseases or condom use prevents the spread of AIDS, but not, they are against everything.

So science is the only vessel or measurable medium for human progress?

exactly.

there are lots of religious people in science.
And let's not forget how monasteries managed to preserve learnings and culture throughout the dark ages.
My favorite example of religious scientist? Gregor Mendel. Whose pioneering work in genetics would help pave the way for Evolutionary Theory. And he was a monk.

creationists deny evolution, I doubt they believe in the evolutionary laws of Mendel.

 

[DK]

Liz, you're treading a very fine line here. You should never generalise people or anything else for that matter. An example would be saying "All Irish hate the British". While that may almost be true in council estates which have walls decorated with pro-IRA graffiti, the opposite is true in other areas. I've made the mistake of generalising so many things, ranging from boring-as-hell Korean superminis (I don't see what's so super about them) to viewers of Fox News. I have accepted that there are some smart creationists, seeing as I doubt William Shakespeare knew about the theory of evolution. Religion has both hindered and helped culture. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, for example, was religiously inspired. Humans evolved, so what's to say human culture can't? In short, it's wrong to say "All of x are like this" or "All of y are addicted to this".

 

[Joey D]

I said:

and that's true, religion has hampered science, nowadays religion could say stem cell research would help cure many diseases or condom use prevents the spread of AIDS, but not, they are against everything.

Yes, I agree that religion has hindered science in many ways however you also said this:

Seriously, man created god and that's the only truth, god, religion and their fan club are a burden, a hindrance to human progress.

There is no way, shape or form that religion is holding back all of human progress.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Yes, I agree that religion has hindered science in many ways however you also said this:

god, religion and their fan club are a burden, a hindrance to human progress.

There is no way, shape or form that religion is holding back all of human progress.

You're right, I meant scientific advances as I said after, sorry for the misunderstanding.

If you make a statement and say that it's true, you must be able to prove it.

That's what I wanted to hear, the believer is who must show evidences of the existence of god to the atheist, and not vice versa.

Liz, you're treading a very fine line here. You should never generalise people or anything else for that matter.

I know and you're right, but I'm generalizing on the basis of religious beliefs.
Religion, for example, is against some medical advances, maybe not all its members feel the same way but general belief is against it.

 

[Joey D]

That's what I wanted to hear, the believer is who must show evidences of the existence of god to the atheist, and not vice versa.

Those who state that their is a supernatural being have to prove it just as much as those who say there isn't one.

Why is it that non-believers always say they don't have to prove anything? You are making a rather bold statement with no evidence. You are no different then the believers in that area.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Those who state that their is a supernatural being have to prove it just as much as those who say there isn't one.
Why is it that non-believers always say they don't have to prove anything? You are making a rather bold statement with no evidence. You are no different then the believers in that area.

I disagree again.
You said:

If you make a statement and say that it's true, you must be able to prove it.

Then, you believe in god, you have to prove his/her existence.
I don't believe in god, I don't have to prove his/her existence because for me he/she doesn't exist, how am I going to prove that something doesn't exist? he/she doesn't exist and that's all.

 

[Dan_]

Religion has hindered science progress to a degree, however it pushed the scientists to new lines of thinking and therefore contributed positively too.

When it comes to science, any limitation can be translated into combustible to new ideas.

The dogmatic structure is simply, rough and not rational, and this is what has been reducing the number of believers amongst young people. Nowadays, people tend to believe in a big God, who rules all over the universe and represents a supreme and undeniable power, however, it's existence can't be proved by any feasible way. No one can prove his existence, no one can deny for sure.

In my opinion, this is just a way to not feel all alone in some situations, people tend to ask God for help and guidance, so it's effects are pure psychological and then can produce even physical results. Just the simple existence of God can back the Creationist theory, the bible was written by men, so it's not 100% trustable. Even some catholics agree with that, so Dinosaurs and meteor showers doesn't mean much to the average believer.

Science is advancing at a wonderful pace, however, I wouldn't dare to say that it will, some day, explain the evolutionary theory to an extent that every single person will believe on it. Creationism will always be there, no matter what scientists do or discover. Having a God to believe in is someting crucial to some people, and this will never change.

 

[Joey D]

Then, you believe in god, you have to prove his/her existence.
I don't believe in god, I don't have to prove his/her existence because for me he/she doesn't exist, how am I going to prove that something doesn't exist? he/she doesn't exist and that's all.

Who's to say I believe in god? I'm under the impression that no one knows what's out there and that's the only stance to take that requires no evidence. I can't prove something I don't know.

Atheism is still a belief because there is no definitive proof that there isn't a supernatural being out there. There is plenty of evidence to suggest there could be one, mainly the millions upon millions of people in the world who worship a higher power(s).

Show me evidence there isn't a supernatural being. There must be something that made you arrive at this conclusion because you just don't get up one day and say "I no longer believe in god".

 

[LizMcQueen]

Show me evidence there isn't a supernatural being. There must be something that made you arrive at this conclusion because you just don't get up one day and say "I no longer believe in god".

I can't prove the existence of a supernatural being because it's impossible, no evidences, and as there is no evidences implies the nonexistence of that supernatural being.
I never believed in god, I just believe in what I see or in what can be shown.

In my opinion god was created by man thousands of years ago to explain unexplainable things at that time, and creationism is the religion with more problems explaining things that happened thousands of years ago.

 

[bullie77]

What/Who is God?...

I believe that WE are God. If one truly analyse the (apparent) words of Jesus, I think that he told us what/who is God, but simply people didn't get it. God it's an 'entity', a role-model if you like, of how we should interact with each other and with everything we share the world with, in order to achieve peace and harmony.

The ability to forgive. The compassion for the fellow man. The respect for all living creatures. So on, so on...

"God" isn't a religion, neither a person, or a being. God is a philosophy. A life's philosophy of how we should act toward each other, to have a globally better life. God is within each one of us. We are God.

 

[Joey D]

I can't prove the existence of a supernatural being because it's impossible, no evidences, and as there is no evidences implies the nonexistence of that supernatural being.
I never believed in god, I just believe in what I see or in what can be shown.

In my opinion god was created by man thousands of years ago to explain unexplainable things at that time, and creationism is the religion with more problems explaining things that happened thousands of years ago.

If you are claiming, without a shadow of doubt, there is no supernatural being then you must have some evidence that shows you know better then millions upon millions of people. You can not just say there isn't supernatural power without something to go on.

Since there is no definitive evidence either way the best way to look at it is from a purely agnostic perspective. You don't know, and there isn't a way to know.

 

[Blitz187]

What/Who is God?...

I believe that WE are God. If one truly analyse the (apparent) words of Jesus, I think that he told us what/who is God, but simply people didn't get it. God it's an 'entity', a role-model if you like, of how we should interact with each other and with everything we share the world with, in order to achieve peace and harmony.

The ability to forgive. The compassion for the fellow man. The respect for all living creatures. So on, so on...

"God" isn't a religion, neither a person, or a being. God is a philosophy. A life's philosophy of how we should act toward each other, to have a globally better life. God is within each one of us. We are God.

What a quote! I want to ask if youve ever read about Buddhism because it seems that youve taken that state of mind or way of thinking and incorporated it into the belief set of religions involoving god or a supernatural being.

I think in the end ALL religions come down to the same basic ideas and the people who wrote the bible, for example, wrote it in that form so it would be easy to understand these "rules". Basically, to prevent chaos and keep order amongst the general public. If you think about it, how easy would it be for a King a few thousands years ago, to tell all his serfs to act a certain way or you will go to hell. The general public was uneducated and only nobles were educated, so the simple serfs probably didnt know any better and it gave them something to hold on too, since they had next to nothing. Religions were set into place to keep order in these types of soceities imo. This has progressed over the years and it gives people a guide on how to live life to the most positive extent, nothing more. It doesnt contain (the bible) proof of god, but provides a way of thinking and functioning in a rational/positive manner in soceity. In the end you are your own god, YOU decide what happens in your life and ONLY you, not a supernatural being watching over you. The bible and other religious texts just give you a means and something tactile to show you how to live life in this way.

 

[Dan_]

^^ Agree to 100%. 👍

 

[niky]

creationists deny evolution, I doubt they believe in the evolutionary laws of Mendel.

But they're not his laws. And not all Christians are creationists.

The sets may intersect, but not all religious people are creationists (and interestingly, it is possible that some creationists are atheists), just as not all scientists are atheists. It's a dangerous misconception.

I know and you're right, but I'm generalizing on the basis of religious beliefs.
Religion, for example, is against some medical advances, maybe not all its members feel the same way but general belief is against it.

Which is again, an erroneous generalization... a much larger one.

Religion, in general, has never been against medicine. In fact, it's only very specific sects that are completely against modern medicine... and these are the far-out ones... the ones who choose to live in grass huts, drink herbal tea and pray to Amun-Ra... the traditional view of Christianity and other major religions has been in support of medical care of the sick.

People of the cloth throughout history have actually tended to be practitioners of medicine and the medical arts.

Granted, there are passages of scripture that have held back the advancement of medicine, but these are very particular ones relating to old Judaic taboos.

The only medical procedure that is frowned upon by most religions is abortion. Simply because most religions are against the taking of life. But that's another subject and debate.

Contraception is another touchy subject, but contraception is not taken/used/practiced for one's health, in general, and the debate about it is rather silly, with the Catholic Church allowing natural contraceptive methods but disallowing artificial ones. I guess they're still of the mind that condoms are sheepskins and that their use is somehow akin to bestiality.

Generalizations are a poor way to construct an argument or an opinion... simply because they miss much in the way of evidence to the contrary.

 

[bullie77]

What a quote! I want to ask if youve ever read about Buddhism because it seems that youve taken that state of mind or way of thinking and incorporated it into the belief set of religions involoving god or a supernatural being.

I think in the end ALL religions come down to the same basic ideas and the people who wrote the bible, for example, wrote it in that form so it would be easy to understand these "rules". Basically, to prevent chaos and keep order amongst the general public. If you think about it, how easy would it be for a King a few thousands years ago, to tell all his serfs to act a certain way or you will go to hell. The general public was uneducated and only nobles were educated, so the simple serfs probably didnt know any better and it gave them something to hold on too, since they had next to nothing. Religions were set into place to keep order in these types of soceities imo. This has progressed over the years and it gives people a guide on how to live life to the most positive extent, nothing more. It doesnt contain (the bible) proof of god, but provides a way of thinking and functioning in a rational/positive manner in soceity. In the end you are your own god, YOU decide what happens in your life and ONLY you, not a supernatural being watching over you. The bible and other religious texts just give you a means and something tactile to show you how to live life in this way.

I'm not particular familiar to Budhism, but I know that it's more of a philosophy rather than a religion, at least in the way most people understand what a religion is.

I honetly believe that all religions are nothing more than different interpretations (if you like) of the same basic principles of human behaviour and interaction as a society.

Although not proved beyond any shadow of doubt, I do believe that a person identified as Jesus Christ did exist. As the first Budha, or Mohammed did exist (some already proved, or who's real existence is inquestionable). None of them were supernatural, at least the way people today interpret that concept. But imagine a man, more than 2,000 years ago, while the Roman Empire ruled most of known world and people watch others being beheaded just for fun, and Emperors were considered Gods, imagine that man then stepping out and say: "we are all alike." "You must learn to love each other." And so on... that man was revolutionary! Almost "out-of-this-world"! Supernatural! Not him as a being but his ideas, his conception of the world and what humans should be.

This "philosophy" is what he gave us. Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and up-to-some extent more contemporary people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela, have gave us a legacy which full deepness, impact in our lives is so advanced in time that we, common man, have a great difficulty to fully understand it.

The bible was written several decades and centuries after Jesus. And only a small portion was written by those who actually knew him. The catholic church itself wasn't established but several centuries later by the Roman Emperor Constantin! Imagine how distorted and adapted accordingly to particular conveniences the whole basis of modern Christianity must have been!

I consider myself as a "rationalist" and so, as rationality might suggest, "when all explanations are defendable, the simpliest is likely to be the right one".

I believe that this is what a number of different men throughout the centuries tried to show us - "God" is the role model we, as individuals, must pursue to achieve in order to make us all better social "animals" and, subsequently, the whole society better! God isn't an angel, neither a punisher, or a almighty entity, but a representation of human virtues, of goodness and righteous, that we should aim at to become. God is the standards, the goals, by which we should be living our lives.

Jesus, Mohammed, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, amongst many others, just stop and think for a minute how the world would be if all men and women live by the principles they defended? And notice how close they are from each other in the basis of those principles (different ways to transmitted apart).

So I trully believe that if you want to met God, just imagine how the perfect man would be, not physically but spiritually what his principles would be, how he would integrated himself in the world and amongst others, and look at a mirror.

 

[Duke]

And let's not forget how monasteries managed to preserve learnings and culture throughout the dark ages.

Dark Ages which were largely brought about by the Vatican excercising such strict control over "proper thought", not to mention the burning of the Library of Alexandria, destroying a huge quantity of human knowledge and art.

Did you know the Pantheon was made of reinforced concrete? Did you know that it is still the largest free-span concrete dome in the world?

Was anybody making catherdrals out of concrete 500 years after the fall of the Roman Empire?

 

[bullie77]

Dark Ages which were largely brought about by the Vatican excercising such strict control over "proper thought", not to mention the burning of the Library of Alexandria, destroying a huge quantity of human knowledge and art.

Did you know the Pantheon was made of reinforced concrete? Did you know that it is still the largest free-span concrete dome in the world?

Was anybody making catherdrals out of concrete 500 years after the fall of the Roman Empire?

What is the connection between the Vatican, Catholic church and the destruction of the Library of Alexandria?! Care to explain?

 

[Famine]

What is the connection between the Vatican, Catholic church and the destruction of the Library of Alexandria?! Care to explain?

One of the suspected causes of the destruction of the library was a 4th Century AD instruction from the newly-Christian Rome to destroy all non-Christian temples, carried out in Alexandria by Theophilus, the Coptic Pope at the time.

 

[Dotini]

Human life isn't a price we should ever have to pay for advancement. And it still doesn't negate that religion is the biggest cause of blood shed. Most inventions of war could have been figured out without the need for conflict, it just probably would have taken longer.

The machine gun is a perfect example of technology driven by war, and only war. First devised by whites to kill Mexicans and red Indians, it mowed down millions upon millions in WWI. Wanna go into a room of people bigger and stronger than you and be the only one to come out alive? Take in an AK-47.

 

[bullie77]

One of the suspected causes of the destruction of the library was a 4th Century AD instruction from the newly-Christian Rome to destroy all non-Christian temples, carried out in Alexandria by Theophilus, the Coptic Pope at the time.

Didn't know that theory. I knew that for a fact there's no generally accepted cause of the Library's destruction, neither when it happened. I guess is one more possibility.

 

[niky]

Dark Ages which were largely brought about by the Vatican excercising such strict control over "proper thought", not to mention the burning of the Library of Alexandria, destroying a huge quantity of human knowledge and art.

Win some, lose some. The whole point was that there is good in bad that can be attributed to religion... it's not all one-sided. And this is coming from an agnostic who despises organized religion.

Did you know the Pantheon was made of reinforced concrete? Did you know that it is still the largest free-span concrete dome in the world?

Was anybody making catherdrals out of concrete 500 years after the fall of the Roman Empire?

Stone is much sexier than concrete...

 

[Joel]

The machine gun is a perfect example of technology driven by war, and only war. First devised by whites to kill Mexicans and red Indians, it mowed down millions upon millions in WWI. Wanna go into a room of people bigger and stronger than you and be the only one to come out alive? Take in an AK-47.

Your point?

 

[Dotini]

Your point?

Merely in response and agreement with Joey_D who said, "Human life isn't a price we should ever have to pay for advancement..." The machine gun is the perfect example of a technological advancement that greatly increased human loss of life and misery, yet did nothing to advance advance the cause of civilization. The "war to end all wars" was another lie. Does that make sense?

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Joel]

Merely in response and agreement with Joey_D who said, "Human life isn't a price we should ever have to pay for advancement..." The machine gun is the perfect example of a technological advancement that greatly increased human loss of life and misery, yet did nothing to advance advance the cause of civilization. The "war to end all wars" was another lie. Does that make sense?

Respectfully,
Dotini

Yes yes, I understand what you're saying now. But I would argue that the machine gun example is more something that came about due to necessity more than anything. If one side on WW1 decided not to use MG's, they wouldn't last long. I think one of the few good things that comes out of war (kinda depends on the war in question) is advances in technology, but in no way should we look at religious bloodshed as a "good" thing because it taught us how to fling rocks and boiling oil over a castle wall.


To sum it up, I think technological advancement by necessity is one of the "good" side effects of war. But do I think the invention and refinement of machine guns is a reason to say "WW1 was worth it"? Definitely not.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Dark Ages which were largely brought about by the Vatican excercising such strict control over "proper thought", not to mention the burning of the Library of Alexandria, destroying a huge quantity of human knowledge and art.

Did you know the Pantheon was made of reinforced concrete? Did you know that it is still the largest free-span concrete dome in the world?

Was anybody making catherdrals out of concrete 500 years after the fall of the Roman Empire?

The destruction of Alexandria, at this point, is widely held to be a centuries-long progression, contributed to by the Christians, but finished by the Muslims in the 600's. Either way, it stands as a devastating and centuries-sustained attack on a remarkable secular institution, motivated by religious faith in most cases, and what I hold to be the single greatest tragedy ever to befall mankind. It is generally accepted that the Library held a copy of virtually every attainable work penned by man to that point in time. Given the miniscule fraction that survives to the present, this is flatly unforgiveable.

As for the Pantheon, Duke is basically correct, but forget 500 years. Try nearly a millenium and a half. It took an architectural genius the likes of Brunelleschi, a vulgar-large wad of Medici cash, and a fair 1300 years for man to become capable of building an unbuttressed dome similar in size to the Pantheon's. It's no coincidence that this dome, atop the Cathedral of Florence, is considered by historians to be among the first gasps of the Renaissance. Whatever revisionists might like to claim about the "Middle Ages" (how dare we call them "dark"), it remains a stain of intellectual stagnancy - no, regression - on the fabric of humanity. What was the cultural institution that ushered it in and shepherded it so carefuly for so long? Yes, the church.

Likewise, yes. Even those as "militant" as Richard Dawkins admit that lovely art and architecture drew inspiration from religious sources. That, however, ignores the fact that equally (perhaps more) beautiful works have, and could have spawned from secular inspiration. In fact, many late-middle-age and rennaisance artists (and in fact their patrons) consciously created art in the language of faith without themselves holding such faith, because that's the only language that wouldn't earn them a grisly death at the hands of their neighbor, the Pope.

So it's hard to argue that religion hasn't been a net handicap to man's progress, and in LizMcQueen's defense, yes, it rests upon he who makes a claim to support the claim. It is, and always will be, impossible to prove a negative. While it's tempting to think atheists claim inerrant knowledge of the nonexistance of something, this is a gross and conceptually important error; to repeat Bertrand Russell for the umpty-millionth time on this topic: I can't prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars, but that doesn't mean it's very bloody likely, does it?

So no, I can't tell anyone for an inescapable certainty that there is no god. What is clear though is that there is nothing of merit to support the claim that there is.

Beyond that, addressing the institution rather than the entity: I challenge anyone to name for me a single religious evil that couldn't have been avoided assuming religion didn't exist, or a single religious good that couldn't occur without it.

 

[Dotini]

: I challenge anyone to name for me a single religious...good that couldn't occur without it.

"Benefit of clergy".