Evolution/Creation 2 (aka Religion III)

[Knobhead_the_Pommie]

Originally posted by AzureWolf: To me the whole debate seems rather useless, both are fundamentally founded upon faith. Either faith in your religion or faith in your science. Both espouse "facts" to throw at each other to try and turn the tables in the debate but when it comes down to it you have a belief in one or the other. Until either one can show unarguable proof that they are right it will continue. At this stage creationists put their faith into their personal experiences and the tenents of their religion, evolutionists put their faith into scientific discoveries and the enormous cosmos of the unknown yet to be discovered. So who is to say whos right? Either way you all have faith in what you believe is right.

Well said, and I agree. But discussion can be fun. Pondering the mysteries of the world is a perception enhancing experience and, with intelligent people who repect different opinion - who are excited by that difference - discussion on these issues can be very entertaining.

But I agree with what you're saying here. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by AzureWolf: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by AzureWolf: To me the whole debate seems rather useless, both are fundamentally founded upon faith. Either faith in your religion or faith in your science. Both espouse "facts" to throw at each other to try and turn the tables in the debate but when it comes down to it you have a belief in one or the other. Until either one can show unarguable proof that they are right it will continue. At this stage creationists put their faith into their personal experiences and the tenents of their religion, evolutionists put their faith into scientific discoveries and the enormous cosmos of the unknown yet to be discovered. So who is to say whos right? Either way you all have faith in what you believe is right.

There is no "faith" in science, there are only theory, observation, and demonstrable facts/proofs.[/QUOTE]When someone belives science to be the true answer to their question but they have no proof is this not faith that science is right?[/QUOTE] Touche`

[Knobhead_the_Pommie]

Originally posted by johnny: i got three words for ya: religion is dangerous

No. People are dangerous. Most dangerous when following animal instict.

Religion is about controlling that instinct. Concious choice overriding primal compulsion.

Religions promote peace, legal systems, welfare, care for others, abstract thought and incredible amounts of artistic creation. (Think Michelangelo, the Pyramids, Chinese Culture, Handels Messiah etc.)

Seems like Religion is very beneficial to me - EVEN ONES I BELIEVE ARE WRONG I SEE SOME BENEFIT WITHIN.

[Knobhead_the_Pommie]

Aw shoot. I'm on a different computer and forgot to change my Login! Ooops. Yorick here....

[Azred]

Originally posted by AzureWolf: When someone belives science to be the true answer to their question but they have no proof is this not faith that science is right?

Yes. Faith is the state when you believe in something without having any proof. Did you drive your car to work today? You had faith that it would start; there are hundreds of other examples.

When you look at it, faith is child-like in its nature, because you accept that what someone else is telling you as truth (almost all young children believe that everything you tell them is true). This is especially true for faith relative to religion, because at first your belief--your faith--must be the "accepting" kind of faith that children have.
I think some people's problem with religion is not that some periods in religious history are less-than-perfect or that they have had some negative experiences with those who are more zealous in their evangelizing, but that they have a hard time "unlearning" their status as an adult and reverting, at least partially, to a more child-like nature. The fundamental key to religion is that faith is so simple; it takes no effort. Only as you begin to experience God/the Divine for yourself can you begin to accumulate a backlog of "experimental data" with which your faith gets strengthened. Oh, and by debates like the one that has been raging here....

For the record, no, I am not religious; I belong to no church, practice no religion, etc. but I used to. I have studied theology, mythology, and psychology, though; make of that what you will.

Originally posted by Knobhead_the_Pommie: quote: Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: You don't have to accept - or even agree - with my beliefs. I respect your choice of beliefs, all I ask is that you show the same respect towards mine.

I wholeheartedly concur.[/QUOTE]Do you really?
You disrespected my views by taking my post and twisting It deliberately to fit in with your own beliefs and views on what I had written, without even trying to deal with the issues it raised.[/QUOTE]I did it to show you how it felt. Wasn't a nice thing was it? Just remember you have made insulting generalisations repeatedly.[/QUOTE]It seems to me, Yorick?
That your name is flame bait in itself. Calling yourself "Knobhead_the_Pommie" is not exactly very pleasant or respectful towards English people now is it?
I believe that you are a hypocrite,
you hold double standards.
Its perfectly fine for you to flame me in the name of faith, but should I point out materiel facts about faith to you,
you simply *cannot* handle them and have to result to *childish* name calling & flames. Two wrongs don’t make a right y’know.

Originally posted by Knobhead_the_Pommie: quote: Originally posted by johnny: i got three words for ya: religion is dangerous

No. People are dangerous. Most dangerous when following animal instict.

Religion is about controlling that instinct. Concious choice overriding primal compulsion.

Religions promote peace, legal systems, welfare, care for others, abstract thought and incredible amounts of artistic creation. (Think Michelangelo, the Pyramids, Chinese Culture, Handels Messiah etc.)

Seems like Religion is very beneficial to me - EVEN ONES I BELIEVE ARE WRONG I SEE SOME BENEFIT WITHIN.[/QUOTE]Religions have also created:
The inquisition, the crusades, the current situation in northern island, the dark ages, the paedophile abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, Burning heretics, Intolerance, genocide, conversions at the point of a blade, raceism & just about every other bad thing you can think of.

Have you ever read Machiavelli’s “The Prince”? You would find out a lot about religion from his writing I believe.

[Sir Michael]

From Magik:

There is no "faith" in science, there are only theory, observation, and demonstrable facts/proofs.

As a scientist, I must disagree. Science has not completely or correctly explained many, many things in our world. For those things, I simply believe in the current theories based on facts (like, say, the beginning of the universe--the Big Bang or other theories. It is the best explanation we have, and it is based on experimental, scientific evidence, so until someone proves otherwise, or comes up with a theory that better fits the facts, I have faith (believe) that that is the way the Universe began.) Even with stuff we know, it is just a matter where I believe the teachings of my forefathers - I've never seen an atom, or its component protons, neutrons, and electrons...I believe that they exist, though...to not do so is to undermine the foundations of chemistry.

I would submit, though, that science is at least based on factual evidence, whereas religion cannot be so supported. Like as has been said so by others here, religion and faith are intensely individual experiences, which are different from person to person. Also, your beliefs can't be supported by any sort of experimental proofs like we use in science to validate things. I could say that I have been touched by the hand of God and that I am the new Messiah, too, although it wouldn't make it so, unless I could prove it by walking on water, or turning water to wine or somesuch (in front of people, so it can be verified).

That's not to criticize or invalidate people's personal beliefs in any way. Everyone is entitled to believe as they please - this is a free country after all. I would perhaps be more comfortable if people were not so outspoken in voicing their religious beliefs, or pushing them on others, though. Perhaps religion should be thought of as a private matter, and not spoken of in polite company, much like sex is. After all, who wants to hear about what you and your significant other do in the bedroom at night? Most people, even your friends, would get revolted at the thought. It should be that way with religion, too.

[johnny]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by johnny: i got three words for ya: religion is dangerous

So is water if used incorrectly....so your point is?[/QUOTE]see ? i knew i was moving on thin ice when i posted that one (always a little tricky when religion is involved) my point is simple, it's like i said: religion is dangerous, people get killed because of religion isn't that sad ? what i just don't understand is: why do people HAVE to believe in a higher power (especially one you can't see,hear,touch,etc.) don't get me wrong, everyone should do what they feel is best, but IF there is a god, he blew his chances with me !
i guess i'm just a non-believer, sorry about that

[Sir Goulum]

I'm also a non believer like Jonny, and I agree with him. If there is a God, what is he doin? If he is all powerful then why doesn't he try and help us mere mortals??

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Interesting point of view, Sir Michael. Let me ask you this... I know for a fact that some scientists like to use "scare tactics" to convince others that the world's resources are being burnt up like a short fuse and they bristle with righteous indignation when others disagree or question their logic. Why can't they let people do as they please? I've heard the stories of extreme environmentalists who have "spiked" trees in the Northwest to prevent them from being cut...even though they know full well that a lumberjack could be seriously injured or killed if their saw were to hit that spike and recoil off of it. In fact, that's their purpose, to increase the risk faced by the lumberjack so that they won't cut the tree. Never mind the fact that that is how he provides food and clothing for his family. Why can't they let people do as they please? What about animal rights activists who have vandalized research centers or thrown blood on fur coats worn by people? Why can't they let people do as they please? Sorry, Michael, but fanatacism is not restricted to religious beliefs, just as "heavy handed" or "scare" tactics are not. Why do these people act the way the do? Because they believe fervently in thier cause. So do the religious. Why do people kill themselves like in Waco or Jonestown? Because they were decieved by false prophets. Why do people live like dogs in Afghanistan? Because they believe it is "Allah's Will" and that their reward in the afterlife will more than compensate for it. Why do different religions "pressure" you to join thier church? Because they believe your "lack of views" is JUST as destructive as you believe Americans environmental view is. Everybody believes in something, and most of us believe very strongly about certain issues. The difference is that, of the examples mentioned, religion is the ONLY one in which the ENTIRE belief system is "judged" by the actions of a few extremists. {SIDEBAR} I'm not familiar with this Jack Chick or "Mac" that have been mentioned. Which threads have these conversations in them? {SIDEBAR 2} This discussion seems to be evolving into a purely religious debate (Hmmmm....does that mean this thread has become BETTER than when it first started?)

'Why can't they let people do as they please?' you've asked here, repeatedly. It's a question you might want to ask the lawmakers, the judge, and the jury. The police. The Court of Human Rights. Victims of abuse. Battered wives. Someone who's been shot with an illegal weapon. In other words, people who have suffered at the hands of those who have 'done as they pleased'.

Letting people do as they please doesn't always serve the interests of the greater whole. You make points about irresponsible individuals above, however, environmentalism is far more than what you have presented here. We have a planet. Just the one. It behoves us all to take care of what we have, and not wantomly use up the parts of it that are irreplaceable, or that will take so long to be replaced, that they might just as well be, for our purposes. Letting people 'do as they please' often spoils it for everyone else, or has the potential to do so.

Take overfishing, just as an example. You have the large factory ships, which basically clean out the ocean in the areas they fish. It's not sustainable, and it's not serving the interests of the majority. Short term gains for some means long term losses for many more, not just consumers (who are losing some degree of choice), but those whose livelihoods depend on fishing. There are men out there who have been fishermen all their lives, and their fathers before them, often back through many generations. These guys are out of a job, in communities where other work generally isn't available. It's tragic.

I'm not advocating illegal action, particularly, to right 'wrongs'. It is preferable that steps be taken via the proper political processes. But when politicians refuse to listen, some take things into their own hands. (I personally am not in favour of actions which will hurt or maim other human beings. However, it is a fact that sometimes it has been the only way that an issue has received attention. )

It is just your opinion that 'some scientists' are using scare tactics to convince people of this and that. Whether or not that is true, what is certainly true is that there are a number of large campaigns going on in the states to play down the environmental problems currently facing us, and to discredite environmental agencies. (See Exxon's 10 year campaign to convince American's that humans have played no part in global warming).

Environmentalism is very much against the interests of many large and extremely powerful multi/transnationals. They have spent and are spending large amounts of money to put forward a viewpoint that is advantageous to their interests, namely, that we don't have major problems on the environment front, and that business as usual should be allowed to take place without hinderance.

I would agree that environmental organisations tend to present situations in the worst possible light. In this, they follow the example of the media generally. What grabs people's attention in this day and age are extreme situations, presented as such. That's what sells papers, gets people watching tv (thus consuming ads) and so forth. If environmentalists present their case in anything less than the strong terms used elsewhere, then they have absolutely no chance whatsoever of being heard. I think this says more about the nature of the society we live in than anything else, to be frank.

As with anything else, you will find environmental 'extremists'. But as you have asked for religion not to be judged on the actions of 'a few fanatics', I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to those concerned about the environment. Most of us are just ordinary people who care about the world we live in. What's so bizarre about that?

[This originally posted on the original thread, - I didn't notice the new one at first.... Comes of not reading the whole thread before being moved to post!! [img]smile.gif[/img] )

[ 04-25-2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]