evolution or religion ?

[Screaminidiot]

Shokushu

Screaminidiot

ready to wear

Screaminidiot

ready to wear

your views are welcome please express them

But this is a science and technology forum and all of my opinions
basically come from religion and spirituality. Mostly philosophies and theories,
but some concrete, unshakable beliefs.

I don't think it would be courteous.

then we can discuss it else where

PM me if you want, but I'll warn you, my ideas are pretty far out.
I've done a lot of drugs in my life, seen some crazy things man.

I've got philosophies on astral projection, spirit guides, higher selves, aliens, the works.

Used to be the most paranoid guy you'd meet,
still have the thoughts just don't react to them anymore.

It's generally useful to know where you're coming from- we like to tailor our approach to an individual so it's more relevant to you (and because we tend to be knowledgeable enough that we can do more than copy and paste a wall of text.)

Screaminidiot

Wow. That's awesome, I actually feel the same way.
Whenever someone asks me, "What proof of God is there?"
I always say, "Look at all the churches and statues and s**t around.
You think they would just keep all this s**t around if there wasn't something to it?"

But they can always say, "That still doesn't prove it's real."

And then I just kind of shrug.

Well there are a couple of things that that could mean, we should look at the options.
There is a god: options are yes and no.
There was a god behind the founding and continuation of those religions: also yes or no.

If we go with double yes then we could basically stop there. That explains at least one religion.
But if we go with either no option then we have to start asking more interesting questions about religion.

Why do people keep doing it? There is the obvious indoctrination angle. Most people that become religious as children stay in that religion for the rest of their lives and generally reject alternatives outright.
Perhaps they are really having these overwhelming personal experiences. Generally we'd call that being crazy but maybe it's something a bit more normal and we're just encouraged to interpret it as this big god revelation.
There are a lot of social functions the churches have been intertwined with so a lot of people go to church just to have friends.

I wasn't one of those people. My mother was raised Catholic, my father Protestant.
No one ever pushed the bible on me in my life, besides Jehovah's Witnesses.
But I'm not saying THIS IS THE ANSWER TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS. It's not.
There are seven major religions in the world and ours is only one of them.
The way I look at it: society believes all these different religions worship different Gods,
while they are all just a means to the same end; the value of right and wrong and the choice.

Like you said: Is there a God? Yes or no.
They make the choice and therefore choose their beliefs.

I'm finished preaching about that kind of stuff. I can't just appeal to a specific audience.
I have to appeal to everyone; reach out to everyone and not just Christians/non-converts.

It's a battle I've waged, to virtually no avail. I'm not saying "quit preaching". Do what you want.

But I'm done preaching. Now I'm thinking. Speaking. Elaborating. Using words people understand. When a person adds the word "God" "Jesus" or "devil" to their conversation,
people will stop listening, or assume this person is "religious crazy" and they hear it but
they don't care. I can hold it in my heart, without having to come out and say it.

[Admiral Underpants]

We did touch on subjects like Creationism and Intelligent Design in one of my High School science classes. Granted it was an AP, college level course, and not a regular science class.

I don't think its a big issue to at least mention creationism and other similar theories in a science class because it's a lot like how in geography or history your teacher tells you that people used to think that the world was flat. Although this was a leading theory for a majority of human existence it was dis-proven. Evolution just like Intelligent Design or creationism can be dis-proven if evidence or new discoveries are brought to light that suggests otherwise, however unlikely that may be. Theories can always be debunked no matter how air-tight they may seem at the time.

[Layra-chan]

Admiral Underpants

We did touch on subjects like Creationism and Intelligent Design in one of my High School science classes. Granted it was an AP, college level course, and not a regular science class.

I don't think its a big issue to at least mention creationism and other similar theories in a science class because it's a lot like how in geography or history your teacher tells you that people used to think that the world was flat. Although this was a leading theory for a majority of human existence it was dis-proven. Evolution just like Intelligent Design or creationism can be dis-proven if evidence or new discoveries are brought to light that suggests otherwise, however unlikely that may be. Theories can always be debunked no matter how air-tight they may seem at the time.

The problem is that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not theories. There is no way to test them. The Flat Earth hypothesis is testable, and was disproven via experiment. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not testable and that, rather than being disproven via experiment, is why we reject them from science and science classes.
If that were explained, the difference between rejection due to experiment and rejection due to not being science, then maybe there might be some merit in mentioning them. But that's not what I'm reading from your post.

[Sun Saru]

I watched Digimon and Pokemon as a child, so evolution makes sense to me....

Really though, what did they expect, creationism is a ridiculousness notion, period.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Evolution and religion. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Shokushu]

Screaminidiot

I wasn't one of those people. My mother was raised Catholic, my father Protestant.
No one ever pushed the bible on me in my life, besides Jehovah's Witnesses.
But I'm not saying THIS IS THE ANSWER TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS. It's not.
There are seven major religions in the world and ours is only one of them.
The way I look at it: society believes all these different religions worship different Gods,
while they are all just a means to the same end; the value of right and wrong and the choice.

Like you said: Is there a God? Yes or no.
They make the choice and therefore choose their beliefs.

I'm finished preaching about that kind of stuff. I can't just appeal to a specific audience.
I have to appeal to everyone; reach out to everyone and not just Christians/non-converts.

It's a battle I've waged, to virtually no avail. I'm not saying "quit preaching". Do what you want.

But I'm done preaching. Now I'm thinking. Speaking. Elaborating. Using words people understand. When a person adds the word "God" "Jesus" or "devil" to their conversation,
people will stop listening, or assume this person is "religious crazy" and they hear it but
they don't care. I can hold it in my heart, without having to come out and say it.

Why's it relevant that they're a major religion?

You got what I was saying about belief all wrong though.
Imagine there are two people. One claims that there is a god and the other claims that there is not. I ask them what there is to support their claims and both of them fall short of justifying it.
I walk away from it saying I do not believe there is a god AND I do not believe there is no god. I was not convinced of either claim so I believe neither claim.

So to put it very flatly, saying that you do not believe in something is not the same as saying that you believe in the opposite.

[Screaminidiot]

Shokushu

Screaminidiot

I wasn't one of those people. My mother was raised Catholic, my father Protestant.
No one ever pushed the bible on me in my life, besides Jehovah's Witnesses.
But I'm not saying THIS IS THE ANSWER TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS. It's not.
There are seven major religions in the world and ours is only one of them.
The way I look at it: society believes all these different religions worship different Gods,
while they are all just a means to the same end; the value of right and wrong and the choice.

Like you said: Is there a God? Yes or no.
They make the choice and therefore choose their beliefs.

I'm finished preaching about that kind of stuff. I can't just appeal to a specific audience.
I have to appeal to everyone; reach out to everyone and not just Christians/non-converts.

It's a battle I've waged, to virtually no avail. I'm not saying "quit preaching". Do what you want.

But I'm done preaching. Now I'm thinking. Speaking. Elaborating. Using words people understand. When a person adds the word "God" "Jesus" or "devil" to their conversation,
people will stop listening, or assume this person is "religious crazy" and they hear it but
they don't care. I can hold it in my heart, without having to come out and say it.

Why's it relevant that they're a major religion?

You got what I was saying about belief all wrong though.
Imagine there are two people. One claims that there is a god and the other claims that there is not. I ask them what there is to support their claims and both of them fall short of justifying it.
I walk away from it saying I do not believe there is a god AND I do not believe there is no god. I was not convinced of either claim so I believe neither claim.

So to put it very flatly, saying that you do not believe in something is not the same as saying that you believe in the opposite.

But if there are 2 sides, you can either pick one or the other or your own, "third side."

I still don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

Put it more "flatly". Dumb it down for me.

[Layra-chan]

He's saying that he isn't picking a side at all. Nor is he picking a third option. He's not picking anything, because none of the sides has given an argument strong enough to get him to agree.
You can vote Democrat or Republican or Independent, or you can choose not to vote at all.

[Shokushu]

Screaminidiot

But if there are 2 sides, you can either pick one or the other or your own, "third side."

I still don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

Put it more "flatly". Dumb it down for me.

I wasn't saying someone picks the third side.

Ok let's say you flip a coin and don't look at it. I say the coin is heads up. You know that there's no reason I'm right other than chance. THIS MEANS that you do not believe me. Saying you do not believe my claim that it is heads up does not mean that you are yourself claiming that it must be tails up. You simply LACK a reason to believe that it is heads up.

People believe lots of things, some of them for good reasons and some of them for bad reasons but any time the have anything less than belief they can say they do not believe.

Now there is actually a word for "I believe that your claim is wrong" and that is disbelief.


And one more time just to be sure: To say "I do not believe in God" is not the same thing as saying "I believe there is no God." In the first statement there is a lack of belief in the claim that there is a god. In the second claim there is disbelief in a god.

The difference is obviously rather important. Saying "you're wrong" deserves a very different response from saying "you haven't shown me that you are right."

I might have mixed this conversation up with another one though. Don't try to tie this point back to much I've said before. I'm really just going into this because of where you said "They make the choice and therefore choose their beliefs."

Looking at belief like this it is not something you choose to do. No matter the claim, either you were shown something that convinced you to believe or you have something that falls short of belief.

[Screaminidiot]

Shokushu

Screaminidiot

But if there are 2 sides, you can either pick one or the other or your own, "third side."

I still don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

Put it more "flatly". Dumb it down for me.

I wasn't saying someone picks the third side.

Ok let's say you flip a coin and don't look at it. I say the coin is heads up. You know that there's no reason I'm right other than chance. THIS MEANS that you do not believe me. Saying you do not believe my claim that it is heads up does not mean that you are yourself claiming that it must be tails up. You simply LACK a reason to believe that it is heads up.

People believe lots of things, some of them for good reasons and some of them for bad reasons but any time the have anything less than belief they can say they do not believe.

Now there is actually a word for "I believe that your claim is wrong" and that is disbelief.


And one more time just to be sure: To say "I do not believe in God" is not the same thing as saying "I believe there is no God." In the first statement there is a lack of belief in the claim that there is a god. In the second claim there is disbelief in a god.

The difference is obviously rather important. Saying "you're wrong" deserves a very different response from saying "you haven't shown me that you are right."

I might have mixed this conversation up with another one though. Don't try to tie this point back to much I've said before. I'm really just going into this because of where you said "They make the choice and therefore choose their beliefs."

Looking at belief like this it is not something you choose to do. No matter the claim, either you were shown something that convinced you to believe or you have something that falls short of belief.

I get it now... but it's not a very important point to make.
People do it. People say things without knowing the way it sounds,
they don't know the inflection, the insight and purpose... so they assume they do know.

It's like if you said "Jesus isn't real" just because you didn't see him,
and another person sees him and says "He is real!"
Person A has no proof, therefore says: it's not real.
Person B has personal proof, therefore says: it is.

To say, "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in Gods." is kind of redundant though.
If you believe their are gods out there, why wouldn't "God" be existent?
If you believe there are gods, then why can't God be real as well?
It's like saying, Greek Mythology is real but Pinocchio isn't.
Pinocchio may not be a real person, but it's a real thing.

The point I'm getting to is everything is about perspective,
your own personal belief on a subject,
and people tend to say what they think others should hear,
and not the actual facts on the matter.

In my opinion, more people care about ideas and theories more than actual facts.

[Layra-chan]

You're still missing the point. He's not saying that he believes that God exists, and he isn't saying that he believes that God doesn't exist. He is neither person A nor person B in your scenario, because both person A and person B are making claims about whether Jesus is real or not, and Shokushu is not making any such claims in either direction.

[Shokushu]

The way you keep describing me makes me feel a need to point out that I do actually disbelieve in gods (and God if you insist) but that my point about belief, not belief, and disbelief being specific to claims IS still fairly important for effective communication.

[Sun Saru]

Shinka 4 the win.....

[Xiam]

I honestly don't see why one cannot be religious, or at least spiritual, and still accept the theory of evolution.

[Layra-chan]

Xiam

I honestly don't see why one cannot be religious, or at least spiritual, and still accept the theory of evolution.

Evolution and belief in the existence of higher or spiritual beings are not inconsistent, and there are plenty of people who are happily and consistently religious and still believe in evolution.

The trouble arises when the religion includes in its dogma statements that are interpreted as facts about biological history and behavior that don't allow for change via mutation and selection.