A solution to the creationism v. evolution debate
- Thread starter smallharmlesskitten
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Focusing on WHY we are here at the expense of trying to keep ourselves here is whats breaking the world right now in this ones opinion.
Not so much in the sense that we should stop exploring the final frontier or the quasi dimensional m-theory, but in the sense of everyone arguing that there way is better. Once everyone realizes that God is merely a metaphor for the human inability to affect the world in a meaningful way past what is "accepted" and that most if not all religions boil down to the "Don't kill, don't steal, don't be an asshole" prime directives is when the aforementioned argument is solved.
Not so much in the sense that we should stop exploring the final frontier or the quasi dimensional m-theory, but in the sense of everyone arguing that there way is better. Once everyone realizes that God is merely a metaphor for the human inability to affect the world in a meaningful way past what is "accepted" and that most if not all religions boil down to the "Don't kill, don't steal, don't be an asshole" prime directives is when the aforementioned argument is solved.
That's not why people do it now? For fear of being struck down or going to hell?Amnestic post=18.73869.814248 said:
Actually, that makes it worse. It's an imaginary threat. At least if God was real then people wouldn't fight so much.
Ah, but that'd be a restriction and an imposition on the free will he wants to give us, apparently. Either way, the explanation I gave is the one I know, there may be others but I couldn't say. My philosophy classes seem so terribly far away now, even though it's been less than half a year ;/ It's kinda sad how much I've forgotten already.Danny Ocean post=18.73869.814300 said:
I do remember one thing: 75% of the time the answer to a philosophy question would be
A) God
B) Jesus or
C) Kant
Eventually you can just run them together as Godjesuskant and get a solid B for most questions ;D
I like where this is going.snowplow post=18.73869.813644 said:
First off, we arm as many people as possible with extra-large butterfly nets. Then we go about the nation, from church to church, rounding up creationists with said nets. Yes, it will be hard to storm into a church armed only with a large net, but I think we can pull this off.
Secondly, we take those we're able to get in our nets, and then we bring them to a previously agreed-upon location for reeducation. I cast my vote for whichever convention center we can all get to easiest. Once we've got them in one building, we begin our work.
We'll need one computer with decent Internet connectivity per fundie and a guard armed with a wet towel to stand behind them. For however long it takes, we force them to browse 4chan (make sure the tricky bastards don't get on christchan, learn the difference early on to avoid wasting valuable reeducation time). Should they refuse to look at 4chan or attempt to access a creationist site, the guard will be instructed to give their ward a good rat-tail to the back with their towel.
However, the United States government as well as other world powers will soon begin to take notice. We'll need to make enough ham sammiches and lemonade to keep the prisoners from becoming malnourished and creating a massive human rights shit-storm. We'll also need to get some good PR folks (ACLU should work fine) to talk to the media and convince them that the whole mess is a massive indoor picnic. Depending on how much cancer is on 4chan, they should all be godless and hopeless within the week, thus not putting a severe dent in our lemonade supplies.
Great math skills you've got there.Fondant post=18.73869.814195 said:
Actually, Hitler was a devout Christian. Read Mein Kampf, it shows religion and the Church's authority to be big influences on him. He doesn't really mask his contempt for those who reject religion either.
I'm going to fight for the middle ground because, in any argument, it's the only one that's right. Unfortunately, it is arguably not an actual side and so is generally ignored.
When people realise that history is -metaphorically speaking- behind us, then we can move on into a better future blah blah rainbows and chocolate. They say 'look to the past and learn from your mistakes', but if you ask me looking into the past in the first place was a bad idea; now we have debates over things that happened billions of aeons ago, which affect nothing we do today. If it happens, it happens. And if it happened, there's Jack Robert Shittington you can do to stop it, so accept that it happened, stop arguing and move. The fuck. On!
When people realise that history is -metaphorically speaking- behind us, then we can move on into a better future blah blah rainbows and chocolate. They say 'look to the past and learn from your mistakes', but if you ask me looking into the past in the first place was a bad idea; now we have debates over things that happened billions of aeons ago, which affect nothing we do today. If it happens, it happens. And if it happened, there's Jack Robert Shittington you can do to stop it, so accept that it happened, stop arguing and move. The fuck. On!
Emotions evolved from survival instinct, and feelings are a learned social behavior.Yami Blade post=18.73869.813525 said:
This man speaks the truth.Zixinus post=18.73869.814009 said:
Do you have a better way of figuring things out? And FYI, theories in science are different from "theories" the way they're used in every day language. In every day language, the word means something more like "hypothesis". Theory in scientific lingo is an explanation of observable phenomena. With your statement, you display a profound misunderstanding of how science actually works. Let me show you what I mean:Fondant post=18.73869.814195 said:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
I don't see guesswork on there... though corroboration certainly is. Maybe you meant initial assumptions based on available evidence? Still, that's hardly ALL of what science is and I fail to see how any of that is negative, if that is what you were trying to suggest.
Right. Because the only reason to hate religion is because those who do are emotionally undeveloped... says the emotionally undeveloped 18 year old (at least you can admit it). "Jokes" about violence are never funny and usually betray one's own secret wishes or fantasies. You just frame it in "joke" context because you think people won't get offended...
I hate religion for manifold reasons, but I'll just give you 3.
1. It's completely irrational.
2. It thrives on fear, hatred, violence, and ignorance (can you really say the same about atheism?).
3. All of the major Abrahamic religions are basically political reactions to then-contemporary political situations... taken way out of temporal context. They're meaningless in the modern world. The only way to make any of the religions functional is to ignore half of the tenets and treat the text as historical metaphors. And taking it literally in the modern world is dysfunctional. Useless either way.
So religion did that, right? Not people? It was alllll religion's doing. Also, speaking in generalizations is meaningless. Provide examples or admit ignorance on the subject.
Funny you should say this... the founders of what is described as "modern" logical though (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.), being Greek, were actually suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries because they were "heathen" writings.
And "controlling" the masses isn't the same as leading the masses... or helping the masses develop into something other than just... "masses". Controlling is what you do with cattle.
Zixinus and Simiski are right, despite being abrasive. They're not fanatics... they're just pissed off that people can be so ignorant. Ignorance is never an excuse. Igorance is what happens when you take no interest in educating yourself. It's nobody else's job to make you learn. You have to want to better yourself. Poverty is not a factor. Knowledge is out there.
Who said anything about crimes? And wrongness isn't a quality judgement. You are either right or wrong. It is or it isn't. Science provides us with the best explanations for the world around us using logic and rationality, admits when it is wrong, and corrects its own work. Religion... just guesses, can't be tested, proven, or disproven... yet claims to be unerring and never wrong... even when they change things every now and again. Which do you think has the best answers?
There you go again... not backing up your statements...
I'm SO sick of this provably false comparison. Aside from the fact that Lenin wasn't a mass murderer (I'm assuming that's the conclusion you're drawing), Hitler, as it was pointed out, was a Christian, and Stalin never killed anyone based on his non-belief. You don't kill people because you're an atheist. That doesn't make any sense. Atheism doesn't have dogma and therefore does not demand you go out and "smite the heathen" like religion does. Stalin killed people because he was a psycho in a place of power where he COULD kill millions. Why did the Inquision kill? Why did the Crusaders kill? Because of RELIGIOUS DOGMA and FEAR.
The thing people don't get from that comparison is this: Stalin was psycho. What excuse do the historical religious gangs have for being mass murderers? Were they ALL psychos? Pretty coincidental that they all fell into the same groups at the same times, eh? So does religion make you a psycho, or does it just help to be one to believe in all of it?
Your theory fails from the start as the big bang was a natural event, your just saying 'God was there' to try bottle it all up. Your implying that a God did make everything, as he made the big bang. Epic fail.
Please close this thread as I single handedly shot it down with my squad cannon.
Please close this thread as I single handedly shot it down with my squad cannon.
WowRetiarySword post=18.73869.815084 said:
Just...
wow.
Hang on, gotta get Jack Thompson on the phone and tell him that we've found someone who's more close minded than he is.
"Hey, Jack? Yeah. Amnestic. You'll never believe it! No, I'm totally serious, he's actually more close minded than you are! I know right, it's mind boggling. Listen man, I gotta go mock him some more on the forums. Okay, go die from a incident completely unrelated to video games man. Hahah. Talk to you later."
Sorry about that, you know how it is, gotta keep people in the loop about this kinda thing.
Your very points are so flawed I can't actually argue. It'd be like arguing with a young earth creationist about carbon dating. I know I'm right but they're so stuck in their moronic stubborn beliefs that they won't budge.
that is a great theory but it is flawed by the fact that no evidence supports the idea that god exists. that theory is pretty much the stance the church of england takes. considering we already have a perfectly good theory for how these 'building blocks' are created, it's like going;
The Earth does indeed orbit the sun due to gravity but gravity is caused by invisible woodland critters from Dundee with jet packs on that can never be physically proven to exist but are most certainly their because a lot of people think so'
The Earth does indeed orbit the sun due to gravity but gravity is caused by invisible woodland critters from Dundee with jet packs on that can never be physically proven to exist but are most certainly their because a lot of people think so'
Amnestic, honestly, your constant sarcasm is really irritating. Any idiot can do sarcasm, too, so don't think you're witty for it.
RetiarySword was stating a counter-argument... and a valid one at that. Allow me to summarize, in case you missed it.
Big bang = naturalistic event
God = supernatural being
Stating that "god did it" is basically the most closed-minded thing anyone can do, as it ignores all naturalistic evidence. It's basically like saying, "It was magic".
Does that sound closed-minded? Sounds like a good point to me...
RetiarySword was stating a counter-argument... and a valid one at that. Allow me to summarize, in case you missed it.
Big bang = naturalistic event
God = supernatural being
Stating that "god did it" is basically the most closed-minded thing anyone can do, as it ignores all naturalistic evidence. It's basically like saying, "It was magic".
Does that sound closed-minded? Sounds like a good point to me...
Exactly. No supernatural being can be proven to exist. Natural things have natural causes. There is no evidence that anything supernatural caused anything natural (since no supernatural being can be proven to exist anyway).
Obvious? Yes.
Poor argument? Not really. You basically agreed with it.
Obvious? Yes.
Poor argument? Not really. You basically agreed with it.
you guys do realize that it doesnt matter how many threads people make about religion, you wont convince anyone to change their beliefs. It's not like they are going to read YOUR post and say "Wow, this guy just changed my entire outlook on life!"
While you're probably right about it being annoying (I'll cut back, my bad) I don't think I'm witty. I do it because it makes me happy. Whether you get a laugh out of it is up to you. You're right though, my bad.
OH COME ON. That's just begging for some sort of sarcastic word like "Clever!" or "Witty." Sigh.hubertw47 post=18.73869.815245 said:
Neither side will admit that really, they're just taking a guess. Atheists especially.
I believe evolution takes place, in fact I 'know' evolution takes place, it's common sense. Whether it's responsible for mankind's current physiology is a different matter.The human body is incredibly intricate and I don't entirely believe that some of the body's more complex or elegant systems were formed by random chance alone. That doesn't mean I believe a big beard in the sky designed us though.
I believe evolution takes place, in fact I 'know' evolution takes place, it's common sense. Whether it's responsible for mankind's current physiology is a different matter.The human body is incredibly intricate and I don't entirely believe that some of the body's more complex or elegant systems were formed by random chance alone. That doesn't mean I believe a big beard in the sky designed us though.
Wait... what?Decoy Doctorpus post=18.73869.815356 said:
You're going to have to explain that a bit...
As far as I know, I've never made a claim about the existence of a supernatural being... how am I guessing at anything?
Actually you have made a claim about the existance of a supernatural being. You're guessing one doesn't exist. That being said that was a typo. I meant people who believe in the theory of evolution as the origin of mankind.OuroborosChoked post=18.73869.815378 said: