|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:34 am
I hope it's okay to post, at another guild I got chewed out for posting without asking for permission from a moderator. rolleyes
I just read the first thread in the post with the other.. anti-Evolution threads.
So read my argument and tell me if it sounds accurate, or if you agree/disagree/whatever.
KayleeFrye Wrote:
Three points I feel completely prove God's exsistance, and completely disprove all notions of evolution and athiesm.
1. Science vs. Evolution
Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is NOT abstract.
Science proves evolution. Evolution is part of Biology books. Have you ever heard of natural selection? Or artificial selection? Do you even know why cats and dogs are domesticated? Do you think that, at the end of the seven days "god" took to create the world, that domesticated cats and dogs just "magically appeared"? No. This was done on purpose by Egyptians before jesus christ even walked the Earth. This is an example of artificial selection. They were bred to be smaller than their ancestors, which was most likely a product of Time. This explains why there are so many species of cats and dogs. They were not created that way. They became that way by mingling with each other and eventually becoming new species. Evolution takes time, but with the help of natural selection, the organisms with the most adapted genes will prosper. This is blatantly obvious. Do you think blind, deaf, and dumb people were meant to rule the government and be the majority? What about the mentally impaired? It's common sense that these lowly forms of humans (not saying they are bad people, just not well off in the gene department) were not meant to be the majority. Instead, the majority should be healthy people who are physically fit and capable of adapting to their environment. The only reason YOU don't believe in Evolution is because you can't see it happening. But you have some blind conviction in a false idol whom you worship.
Explain that to me.
KayleeFrye Wrote:
2. The Second Law of Thermal-Dynamics
so, how did we become organized if there was no outside intervening agent to make us organized? how did time, chance, and erosion create not just one, but millions of of organized systems, and yet, show no evidence of going towards organization in any other aspect of the world. there is only one answer the way i see it- there has to be a God. There has to be some outside force that made the world the way it is. there is no other way we can exist.
Have you ever heard of the Chaos theory? It states that a small, minute, insignificant change in a set of data forming a system will result in worldwide change. Therefore, through small changes, the whole world ended up how it is today. Why would we need an "agent" to implement these changes? There is a way we can exist without a god. The natural processes of the ecosystem provide an example. Two species sharing the same environment with the same niche will eventually show some distinction in their territory, purposefully avoiding each other. Things like this happen on their own, on purpose, without the help of a "god". It would be sad if there were a "god" who had to hold our hands through everything, and change the world for us. These things work themselves out, if you ever took a Biology class you would understand. We are perfectly capable of being our own gods.
KayleeFrye Wrote:
3. Good vs. Evil
now, i feel like i've basically proven a god exists, in some form or another, but why should he care about whether we're good, evil, etc. so some greater being helped us into existance- so what?
how does man determine what is right and wrong?
There is naturally a right, and a wrong, although some religions believe that everyone has an equal amount in them. They simply act upon their dark or light side depending on the circumstances. There is an equal and opposite reaction to every action. Therefore, in order for there to be blind christians, there must be atheists. In order for someone to not steal, rape, commit incest, etc. there must be someone out there to set an example and do this deed so that others may see it is bad. And, on top of that, who decides what is bad? The ten commandments don't do anything for me. Rape, for example, is a natural instinct. But, of course, most think of it as bad and evil. It is a personal decision what is bad or evil. It depends on your upbringing and your genes. It depends on your positive or negative views on that issue. So everyone has a different or slightly askew opinion than another person. Just like I don't believe in god, which you think is good. I believe this is evil. Living your whole life to please someone who you have never seen is inane and mundane.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:22 pm
I only see a few problems there.
First, Jesus is a mythological figure so there is no need to include 'before jesus christ even walked the Earth.'
Secondly, Saying it's a part of 'biology books' isn't a good defense since the person can just throw religious text books or the Bible in your face upon hearing that; I suggest removing that.
Third, I really suggest removing this: "We are perfectly capable of being our own gods." It's unnecessary and is going to give the person an excuse to go off on a tangent to avoid the main argument, I'm almost entirely sure that the excuse WILL be latched onto and used for an ad hominem response of some kind, or at least to set up a straw man argument.
Fourth, the argument about morality was rather weak as a whole. You should focus on memes and the fact that morality evolved out of what was pragmatic. Also make sure to bring up secular ethics and the various atheistic philosophers that didn't use religion as a basis for morality; it helps to add that animals such as monkeys have a moral system and that testing has done which reveals that people of all faiths have relatively similar moral systems, it was even done on a South American tribe with little to no contact with the western world and the same moral results were found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:22 pm
Harvested Sorrow I only see a few problems there. First, Jesus is a mythological figure so there is no need to include 'before jesus christ even walked the Earth.' Secondly, Saying it's a part of 'biology books' isn't a good defense since the person can just throw religious text books or the Bible in your face upon hearing that; I suggest removing that. Third, I really suggest removing this: "We are perfectly capable of being our own gods." It's unnecessary and is going to give the person an excuse to go off on a tangent to avoid the main argument, I'm almost entirely sure that the excuse WILL be latched onto and used for an ad hominem response of some kind, or at least to set up a straw man argument. Fourth, the argument about morality was rather weak as a whole. You should focus on memes and the fact that morality evolved out of what was pragmatic. Also make sure to bring up secular ethics and the various atheistic philosophers that didn't use religion as a basis for morality; it helps to add that animals such as monkeys have a moral system and that testing has done which reveals that people of all faiths have relatively similar moral systems, it was even done on a South American tribe with little to no contact with the western world and the same moral results were found. She mentioned that last sentance, but it didn't sound credible because she had poor grammar. Ha. Thank you for the input, I'll take it to mind next time. She abandoned her thread so I don't think she'll be defending her views anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
