A solution to the creationism v. evolution debate

[Rolling Thunder]

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of dispute, in part because of apparently inconsistent statements made by and attributed to him

As said before: Actions speak louder than words.

From Hitler's promotion of declared atheists within his party and his use of Muslim fighters in his army, it can be concluded that Hitler in the public realm tolerated different religious opinions, ranging from atheist to Islam to Christianity, as long as those people professing these different creeds would support the Nazi regime

There goes your argument.


And when I want your forgiveness, sir, I'll ask for it. Keep it to yourself otherwise.

More argument:

The concept that the Christian Church is directly responsible for the Holocaust is as illogical than the argument that the inventors of gunpowder are. Yes, many of the ideas (Deicide) and influences of the the Church were used as both excuses and formative logic behind the genocide. But the fact is that the Church did not actively participate in the extermination of the Jews and at times helped to shelter Jews hunted by the SS. One has a greater logical backing for saying that Peter Paul Mauser was responsible for the murder of Jews, homosexuals, Slavs, Romany Gypsies and communists all across europe, because it was his armaments workshop that produced most of the rifles used to kill those people.


And I never said science was the cause of weaponsmakers. It was simply a means to an end. Much like religion is for warmongers- it can easily be twisted to evil ends. Infact, it may be argued that at least religion had good intentions at it's outset-weapons manufacturers have no such defence.

 

[Limasol]

As for Martin Luther King- a amn who beleived in God. As with nearly all great men. In fact, History's only two noticable atheists were.... Stalin, Lenin and Hitler.

Great company you've got there.

That's got to be the crappiest argument ever. This guy was atheist and evil so they ALL must be bad. Hitler and Stalin had Mustaches, maybe that's what made them evil.

Einstein was an atheist. "I do not believe in a personal god" is pretty conclusive. Also Newton merely said he was a Christian because i lived in an age where atheists were ostracised and hated.

Wait a minute, atheists were ostracised, hated and murdered for about 1400 years. Stalin was a drop in the ocean.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Einstein: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"


The theory of a 'personal god' is one where god actually gives two hoots about you. An impersonal god is one that is rather nihilistic.


Oh, and I forgot to mention the most murderous atheist of them all: Ladies and Gentlemen.....please give a big hand for the one, the only... Chairman Mao-Tze Tung!



Look, I'm not saying atheists are inherently evil. As an atheist myself, I would(hey, wait, I am inherently evil. But that's just me).

Okay, the idea that atheists are all evil is just stupid. As is the concept that persons of faith are all good. I was simply using those gentlemen as an example to point out that evil is inherent to human nature, not a result of religion, or, indeed, non-religion. My point is that blaming religion for the Crusades is rather like blaming Athesim for Stalin's purging the Jews, Muslims and Christians. Sure, it provided the pretext for both actions, but if you look closely enough, it becomes apparant that both are an immediate result of human nature.

Much as one might argue that all things of beauty are. The Sistine Chapel is religious in motivation, but the beauty behind it is created by human hand, and spirit.



My final conculsion: God Exists. If not in the 'smite-thee-with-thunderbolts' manner (that has yet to be concluded) then as at the very least, a motivating force. A Boffo, for fans of Terry Pratchett- a manifestation and driving force behind the human spirit. A mental cause and effect.

I could put it more fluently, but I'm currently awaiting the waves of denial, hatred and anger coming from the more rabid forum members who haven't seen the true, spectacular beauty that religion has helped create.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I think your avatar sucks. I, however, kept that opinion to myself, until you acted impolitely.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I believe that there is a practical purpose in discovering what caused the Big Bang.

It might allow us to create our own universe, imagine all the energy we could harness!

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

My point is that blaming religion for the Crusades is rather like blaming Athesim for Stalin's purging the Jews, Muslims and Christians.

No really, as one is simply a universal epitaph for someone not doing something, and the other was at the time a uniform belief system with codified power, the capacity to mandate ethics/assume punishments for their violation and an overarching command structure.

But I mean, to say such a system may be inclined toward positive or negative activity is so obviously fallacious. I mean how crazy an arguement would it be to say dictatorships are inclined to oppression?

Also Newton merely said he was a Christian because i lived in an age where atheists were ostracised and hated.

So the fact he spend the later part of his life trying to find a secret code to the bible is no nevermind I guess.

I think your fishing for views.

Everyones thaught of this, and theres many differant possibilitys, fucking view whore.

You've been here like 70 posts what the hell are you so bitter about?

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Fondant, sorry, but your arguments are laden with logical errors; primarily of the "argument from authority" (so-and-so says so) and "non sequitor" (if grey is a colour and pink is a colour then pink is grey) varieties. They make a hash of your point, to the point that frankly I've lost track of what you're arguing.

My view on the issue is this; there's no way to reconcile the "creationist" and "naturalist" viewpoints. (As pointed out by others, the "Big Bang" theory has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution.) Creationist arguments don't lend themselves to scientific testing, and naturalist arguments can never conclusively prove the absence of Odin Marduk Vishnu Chiconahuiehecatl Gaia Yahweh supernatural influence to those who choose to believe. One camp is simply going to have to out-survive the other. (Personally, I'm rooting for the "naturalist" camp myself; fewer unprovable assumptions, simpler model.)

That doesn't stop both camps from having their fair share of assholes, sadly.

-- Steve

 

[Rolling Thunder]

(Too many long and complex words

That doesn't stop both camps from having their fair share of assholes, sadly.

-- Steve

Agreed, though I must politely beg to differ with you on the concept of theone out-surviving the other, given that within my personal experience I have found that most people enjoy having something to beleive in, and indeed that a beleif system is often neccesary as a means of social control.

 

[axia777]

Stop being militant assholes about either and just go on with life?

We Atheists/Agnostics would stop if only Religious/Christian people would stop trying to force religion in to PUBLIC schools. Creationism/Intelligent Design is NOT SCIENCE. It is Christian based theological philosophy. NOT SCIENCE. They need to stop trying to teach it to PUBLIC school kids as science. If a school receives Federal or State money then it is a PUBLIC school. That means separation of Church and State. They can teach all the Intelligent Design/Creationism to kids in private religious schools. That is their American/God(IF there is one) given right.

Once this stops it is all good. Until then, no, being a militant asshole is about the only way to get through to these people.

 

[Limasol]

My point is that blaming religion for the Crusades is rather like blaming Athesim for Stalin's purging the Jews, Muslims and Christians.

No really, as one is simply a universal epitaph for someone not doing something, and the other was at the time a uniform belief system with codified power, the capacity to mandate ethics/assume punishments for their violation and an overarching command structure.

But I mean, to say such a system may be inclined toward positive or negative activity is so obviously fallacious. I mean how crazy an arguement would it be to say dictatorships are inclined to oppression?

Also Newton merely said he was a Christian because i lived in an age where atheists were ostracised and hated.

So the fact he spend the later part of his life trying to find a secret code to the bible is no nevermind I guess.

I don't remember saying that first thing but on the point regardless. The pope said to every country in Europe, go take the holy land from those Vile Muslims who are abusing out brothers in the east. A few years later many, many,many people were dead, and a few years after hat everything that happened had been reversed. Not only religiously motivated and deliberate, also pointless.

On the second point, finding a code in the bible is like finding a needle in a haystack made of needles. Theres no need for religion in order to do this. After all there are computer programs that you can set to find patterns for you now. The bible code is bullshit anyway.

 

[Limasol]

Just to say, im not at all angry or deliberately vicious to anyone, just annoyed at myself more than anything for not being really clear and hence having to cover my tracks.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

I don't remember saying that first thing but on the point regardless.

'pologizes~!

On the second point, finding a code in the bible is like finding a needle in a haystack made of needles.

Newton was looking for a secret code that would validate his....long story short he went the 16th century version of Grassy Knoll crazy.

Theres no need for religion in order to do this.

He wanted to validate his doctrine of Christianity which he'd kept hidden his whole life as it was heretical.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Axia: Would you accept it's teaching as a part of religious education curriculae?

 

[Alex_P]

Morally, don't think it's okay to teach ID/creationism anywhere, including religious schools. That's because ID/creationism as they exist in the US aren't a bunch of philosophical beliefs about the unknowable or a set of reasonable criticisms about prevailing scientific theories -- they're pure bullshit based on a web of intentional fabrications. Morally, socially, culturally, these ideas are bad. Nobody in the ID movement -- not the Discovery Institute, not Dembski, not Behe, not Davis and Kenyon, and most certainly not Ben Stein -- wants to teach children to think critically. They want to teach children not to think. And that's unconscionable regardless of whether you're doing it in a public school, in a private religious institution, or at home.

This is why it's worthless to engage with cdesign proponentsists(*). You can't have an honest discussion with someone who is determined to avoid any kind of honesty at every turn.

Now, the people who just believe the lies of cdesign proponentsists... well, it is useful to try to engage with them. However, no amount of naked facts will sway them, no matter how incontrovertible they are. Neither will a philosophical discussion about why evolutionary biology or Big Bang theory or whatever might still permit the existence of God. Because what you're dealing with, fundamentally, is the systematic cultural acceptance of something that many know has to be a lie because it's considered a fundamental component of their entire worldview [http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/10/they-need-help.html]. And getting past that is fucking hard.

-- Alex

__________
* - If you're not familiar with the term, you can read about it here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_pandas_and_people#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22] or here [http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80].

 

[Huey1000]

I think Bill Hicks should be mandatory viewing in schools and churches! It really doesn't matter whether there is a god or many gods or no gods; evolution is an incorporeal concept as well, yet it still exists and its evidence is all around us (maybe evolution is G-d). Just because some primitive bronze age tribesmen said there's an omniscient, omnipotent, extraterrestrial entity that looks like Ted Nugent with a beard and is deeply concerned with our sex lives, doesn't mean we have to believe it as well. FINAL POINT: I believe there is a great architect of the universe (and we are his/her workers and masons) who imbedded evolution into this universe in order for us to continue to grow physically, intellectually and spiritually on our own.