Evolution is real. Its a real thing that really does happen and did happen. Gah!

[Lexodus]

So, now that you've loaded it completely the other way, Gary decided to turn up as Jim was being murdered, sat there and didn't complain when he was being framed or covered in blood, or testify against Ron, or hire a lawyer to dispute the charges, and no forensics teams examined the circumstances or the event itself to see whether there was prior motive and reasonable explanation. Either way, God didn't do it, it was some dick named Ron.


Now to start the church of the Ronnites, and praise his wrath upon Jim's sinful mortal body!

Well loading it the other way was kind of the point. God had no place in the metaphor, God was given no motivation for wanting to kill Jim. Which was turned around to say "he didn't do it, therefore he doesn't exist".

But that's exactly the point! The whole issue is that there IS no place for God, and yet it's constantly put into these situations. God is used as a filler argument, just look at the whole fossils issue!
And 'he giveth, and he can taketh away'. Traditionally, the judeo-christian god only needs to be displeased with something, and that's enough of a motive for this kind of act.

 

[evilneko]

I stop taking people seriously when they talk about being/not being "evolved from monkeys".
Did anyone go to school here? In mine, we had a rule in History class: if you say we evolved from Monkeys, you get an F(as in, Fuckingidiot).
We had the same ancestors, whatever it was, it wasnt a fucking monkey.

So sure are you? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8]

 

[Roggen Bread]

Hi.
I don't think, you read in context but just nailed me to this quote.

Please, before judging me, read the original post.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.380319-Evolution-is-real-Its-a-real-thing-that-really-does-happen-and-did-happen-Gah?page=4#14941332

Thank you.

I wasn't judging you, I was responding to the ludicrous notion of beliefs existing in a vacuum.

Unless you wish to retract the statement I quoted, in which case it's a response to this notion in general.

I will not retract the statement.

While you are right, that religion is for fools (I, myself, consider myself an atheist, so I am a scientist, who considers a possible theory you cannot disprove (and not prove!) as possible) you are wrong about "social retardation", at least in my opinion, because this is, what we are talking about. Opinions.

I am actually quite glad, that I managed to get away from religion. But if we ban religion in our societies and it just vanishes, we will have a problem.

This trend is getting more visible every day in, at least the European (I cannot speak for the butt-stupid Americans who actually have people who say there was no evolution) societies.

From here on, it's very generalizing:

At all times (up until like the 60's) religion was the factor, that made people work hard. Salvation was a goal to be achieved, so they worked.
The peasant was working his hands to the bone, to get into heaven. This is, what made our economies thriving.
Look at most European countries nowadays:
Numbers of religious people are falling, unemployed people, drug addicts, alcoholics, abortions are rising. There is a sort of "discipline" missing.

Damn. I mentioned abortions.
I am pro abortion. In most cases.
I am against abortion if the fetus is aborted because "it just doesn't fit in with my live". If this risks your career. If you don't want to get fat. If it is too much work.

Of course if you are 15, if your situation is utterly hopeless, if you even got raped (PLEASE NO DISSCUSION!!) [sarcasm] abort all you want [/sarcasm].

Of course it is true, that nearly all great discoveries where made by people who tried to prove the church, and their idiotic beliefs, wrong.
But nowadays there is no need for this anymore. We have accepted, that is, we cultivated people (not talking about those people who protest against gay marriage and evolution in school (that is, Americans!)that we can have both. We can believe, that "someone"/"something" started evolution. Just look at the anomaly of density of water (note: English is not my primary language, I did not find an acutal term for this). If the degree between the two hydrogen atoms was just 1° different, life on Earth, as we know it, was impossible. Sure, it might be a coincidence (and I will sign this statement as well I will sign there is a possibilty of intelligent design), sure, countless other phenomenons like these might be coincidences.

One of my professors is a world accomplished biophysicist. He believes in god and stuff.
I don't share his belive. But he is a brilliant, brilliant man who has one mechanism named after him, and given names to 3 others who has the capacity of believing into the flying spaghetti monster and being a scientist.

Before I forget this:
All these nice things about religion you mentioned:
"he opposition to stem cell research is almost entirely religious, the moronic fixation on gay marriage and abortion and the subsequent clogging up of the public debate is brought on entirely by religion. The opposition to scientific education - entirely religious. Stifling freedom of speech in quite a lot of countries - religion."
are not that bad in Europe. And of course these are wrong.

However: Stem cell research, if we are talking about embryonic stem cells, not adult stem cells, is in my opinion wrong.

 

[burningdragoon]

On the topic of this religious debate, I find myself in concurrence with the creator of this comic: <spoiler=snipoiler>

Affording respect to rubbish just begets more rubbish.

You know, my very first post in this thread was saying how people shouldn't be quick to throw out the label of idiot just because of one thing. And here you are, posting a (rather unclever) relgious-bashing comic when you have trouble dealing with a fairly simple mathematics concept:

Okay people, why can't we discuss much less heated things like whether or not 0.9 repeating = 1?

>.>

Because FUCK YOU, that's why.

Actually, this is one that bothers me. It's because decimals, the most precise type of calculation, aren't as precise as fractions, the least precise. Saying something is a third is overly simplistic, but in cases like this with no answer but a paradoxical one, a fraction's the best we've got. To ease my mind about this horrendous, horrendous problem, I like to imagine all the 9s as little ants, carrying an infinitesimally small piece of the 0.00000...1 along with them past a border patrol, and it's so small it doesn't show up on the radar as a real number but actually exists.
SHUT UP, THAT'S EXACTLY HOW MATHS WORKS!

In case you couldn't tell from the ranting and ants and illogical bold-type yelling, that was a *joke*, based on the idea of a 'much less heated' topic, like numbers. -.-

I was referring to this part: Actually, this is one that bothers me. It's because decimals, the most precise type of calculation, aren't as precise as fractions, the least precise. Saying something is a third is overly simplistic, but in cases like this with no answer but a paradoxical one, a fraction's the best we've got.

Not the part with the ants, nor the parts with bolding and caps.

Decimals are still more precise (precise doesn't mean accurate) than fractions, even in this case. Our base 10 number system just doesn't always play nice. There's nothing more to it. I could also go super pedantic and say that whole numbers are less precise than fractions (which is true) and that decimals aren't calculations (which is also true... at least not in the same way that addition is a calculation) and call you a fool for not getting that right (which is not true, at least not necessarily ).

Not necessarily. Those key words. Not believing in evolution is silly (and also incorrect), but it doesn't necessarily make you an idiot in the same way that being bad at math (and I'm not saying you're bad at math, just an example) or being illiterate doesn't necessarily make you an idiot.

An illiterate Creationist who is bad at math, though? Probably an idiot. >.>

 

[Verkula]

I stop taking people seriously when they talk about being/not being "evolved from monkeys".
Did anyone go to school here? In mine, we had a rule in History class: if you say we evolved from Monkeys, you get an F(as in, Fuckingidiot).
We had the same ancestors, whatever it was, it wasnt a fucking monkey.

So sure are you? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8]

Yes.

 

[HalfTangible]

*sigh*

Don't even know why I clicked this thread. They're all the same, always the same angry gush of stupidity from both sides that feels just like that green stuff i keep finding on my dog's neck in the morning.

1) Evolution does not disprove god (please do not bring up the stupid spaghettii monster again because that completely misses the point here >.>) and yet atheists consistently and CONSTANTLY try to act like it does.

2) Every discussion that has ever brought up Evolution or Religion has inevitably led to the other and at that EXACT point, you get spiel like what's all over this thread of confrontational morons just repeating shit they've heard other people say (atheist, religious, or otherwise) and acting like they know what they're talking about when all they know is what they've been told. What makes me so sure, you ask? Because the people who know what they're talking about don't get angry about it.

3) Atheists are just as close-minded as religious types. And act like they're better. Despite the fact that their arguments can often be turned around on their own beliefs about the religious. Like the total-lack-of-responsibility argument above. Seriously, man? You think that we'd have a big eternal fire pit of damnation if 'take no responsibiltiy' was an actual choice? And even if it was, that doesn't automatically mean 'hey, i can do whatever the hell i want' any more than NOT having god would.

4) Speaking from personal experience, Religious people online are often angry teenagers with nothing better to do with their lives than rage at atheists. Why does anybody act like this demographic is representative of religious adults?

I stop taking people seriously when they talk about being/not being "evolved from monkeys".
Did anyone go to school here? In mine, we had a rule in History class: if you say we evolved from Monkeys, you get an F(as in, Fuckingidiot).
We had the same ancestors, whatever it was, it wasnt a fucking monkey.

Considering that people seem to think that 'monkey' refers to any primate that isn't human (chimpanzee, spider money, gorilla, etc etc)... yeah, it kinda was =P Sure, it wasn't a monkey that's still around today. But a monkey nonetheless.

 

[Altorin]

I responded to someone, but I didn't note on the actual "divide"

I just tend to ignore creationists, unless I intend to laugh at them, or unless it deals with altering the biology curriculum for religious reasons. They're mostly just trying to save face because science has snuck in and disproved their creation myths when they weren't paying proper attention. It's easy to see why they're upset.

People should be able to believe what they want. If they want to believe ANYTHING with no proof, as long as their not hurting anyone (and I'll even go so far as to say they're probably not hurting their children by propagating their beliefs like Dawkins or Thunderf00t might.) And they should have scientific options in the curriculum that don't clash with their beliefs directly. That option should be "not having to take high school biology". They just agree to take a field of science that isn't biology, and we graduate their kids. Sure, they'll be missing out on an amazing facet of life. Something intrinsic to our very nature as living beings, but if they prefer to take applied physics to get their science credits, or chemistry, or geology (and I know that each of these fields might have objectionable material to them, but we're dealing with evolution at the moment, and that's chiefly a biology subject).. More power to them.

Just don't 1) remove evolution, and 2) add some hocus pocus no answer bullshit to the science curriculum. You're doing a disservice to EVERYONE, including yourself, by doing that.

 

[Seneschal]

Hate to do this, but I'm interested in what the reply will be, cause I stumped my Science teacher with it. Science tells us that matter comes from other matter, so what caused the big bang? Where did it come from?

It's fair to say that no one knows for certain. In science, when you don't know about something, you don't attribute it to the divines, to the movement of the stars, to the tides, the flight of the birds, the sins of mankind, the whim of a Creator, etc. - you say "I don't know" and gather more data until you have a clear enough picture that you can postulate a hypothesis to explain it.

That's why most scientists will tell you "I don't know," and perhaps list some of the possibilities. It's not a matter of being "stumped" or taken off their high horse because the admission of ignorance is a crucial part of the scientific process. And it's definitely not comparable to poking holes in religious dogma, that self-identifies as flawless, perfect and given from the realm beyond (when it's quite clearly anything but).

The density of matter at the time of the Big Bang is such that most of our current models can't really predict or account for what happened in that state. Particle research has only just begun recreating what the big bang might have been like, and we're learning more every day of how the Universe began. However, I think the term "before" can hardly be applied to a pre-Big-Bang state - if all matter-energy and all of spacetime existed in a single point, there is really no before or after to speak of before spacetime starts to expand.

 

[Eomega123]

Spoiler: First page of this thread

Spoiler: Current page of this thread

Well I'm done with the internet for a little while, you boys have fun without me.

 

[HalfTangible]

1) Evolution does not disprove god (please do not bring up the stupid spaghettii monster again because that completely misses the point here >.>) and yet atheists consistently and CONSTANTLY try to act like it does.

Of course it doesn't disprove God. Evolution disproves Creationism, not God. Atheists don't use evolution to disprove God, religious people only claim that they do.

3) Atheists are just as close-minded as religious types. And act like they're better. Despite the fact that their arguments can often be turned around on their own beliefs about the religious. Like the total-lack-of-responsibility argument above. Seriously, man? You think that we'd have a big eternal fire pit of damnation if 'take no responsibiltiy' was an actual choice? And even if it was, that doesn't automatically mean 'hey, i can do whatever the hell i want' any more than NOT having god would.

Atheists are close-minded about accepting explanations with no proof that are directly contradicted by explanations with actual proof. You've got them there.

And the concept of 'big eternal fire pit of damnation' is just negative reinforcement to complement 'don't be a dick to others if you don't want them to be a dick to you'. Just because you take that out of the equation, doesn't mean that actions will be free of consquences.

4) Speaking from personal experience, Religious people online are often angry teenagers with nothing better to do with their lives than rage at atheists. Why does anybody act like this demographic is representative of religious adults?

Because religious teenagers who don't question what they're told to believe turn into religious adults who tell their children what to believe.

They do on the internet. I'm sincerely hoping that they're just a VERY vocal minority.

No, i mean that atheists assume everything that could possibly prove that god exists is patently false. Not even 'unlikely', just 'false'. "Jesus wasn't even a real guy" "Believing in evolution and god at the same time is stupid" and my personal favorite, "Flying spaghetti monster. Your argument is invalid."

Yes, that's the point, that the argument that having or not having a god changes whether or not you take responsibility is stupid >.> A huge argument against religion atheists make is that existence of a god means that you DON'T get any consequences for, say, killing your daughter and wearing her skin like a hat... or, you know, something LESS psychotic. Like... ummm... stealing a bottle of shampoo. Or... something... PLEASE DON'T JUDGE ME!

The fact you think teenagers filled with hormones and angst continue to be filled with hormones and angst long enough to have kids, let alone kids that are old enough to understand the concept of a god, really makes me worry for you =( no offense

 

[grimkirby]

well if you ask me evolution is...
*looks at other responses on fourum*
ya know what i think ill stay out of this one

 

[Jacco]

Spoiler: First page of this thread

Spoiler: Current page of this thread

Well I'm done with the internet for a little while, you boys have fun without me.

That made me laugh really really hard! ahahaha. I didn't intend to make it a fight. I just wanted ridiculous stories from people (which precisely one person provided in the 3 post or so).

 

[Denamic]

No, i mean that atheists assume everything that could possibly prove that god exists is patently false.

If there were enough evidence to conclude that a god exists, the one who came up with the hypothetical god theory would have many nobel prices.

Not even 'unlikely', just 'false'. "Jesus wasn't even a real guy" "Believing in evolution and god at the same time is stupid" and my personal favorite, "Flying spaghetti monster. Your argument is invalid."

There's no specific evidence that Jesus existed.
What I mean is that there are accounts of several 'messiah' figures during that time in that area, so it's possible that one of those were Jesus, but there are no evidence pointing to Jesus specifically.

As for believing in god along with evolution, if that's stupid or not depends on how you rationalise that belief. God is redundant when it comes to evolution. so if you, say, believe they exist independently of one another, fine. But if you believe in things like creationism, you have some seriously conflicting beliefs, to the point that you just ignore the conflicts or make shit up about evolution as you go, both of said scenarios being indicative of a crippled mind.

Moving on to the FSM...
Yeah, they're basically right. Your argument IS invalid. Hold on a moment and hear me out.
The point of FSM is that almost every, if not all, arguments for the existence of any god works equally well to prove the existence of the FSM. Invoking the FSM basically nullifies any arguments you present, as they can be used with equal effectiveness against you.

Yes, that's the point, that the argument that having or not having a god changes whether or not you take responsibility is stupid >.> A huge argument against religion atheists make is that existence of a god means that you DON'T get any consequences for, say, killing your daughter and wearing her skin like a hat... or, you know, something LESS psychotic. Like... ummm... stealing a bottle of shampoo. Or... something... PLEASE DON'T JUDGE ME!

What they mean by that is that religion allows disturbed people to rationalise their behaviour by believing that they'll simply be forgiven if they just pray a bit or whatever. That's not to say all people does that, but many do, unfortunately. Many religious people behave with varying degrees of hostility against people outside of their faith. They can even act upon it and cause material, mental, or physical harm upon others and believe that doing so is a good deed.
Atheists do not have this 'comfort'. Whatever they do weighs solely upon their own conscience. They cannot draw upon 'holy providence' to justify their actions.

The fact you think teenagers filled with hormones and angst continue to be filled with hormones and angst long enough to have kids, let alone kids that are old enough to understand the concept of a god, really makes me worry for you =( no offense

I would dispute that. Even a kid can find fault with the bible.
This touches one of the fundamental problems people have with religions in general, too.
Teaching children about reality is fundamental in parenting. But reading them the bible and telling them that what's in the bible is true, they'll believe you. In effect, you teach them fiction and force their perception of reality to accept absurdities as being rational. You undermine their ability to distinguish fiction from reality, and their aptitude towards critical thought.

 

[Bloodstain]

Why are people so fucking stupid?!

Why aren't more people interrigent? Rike me?

OT: I wouldn't call evolution a fact. But I will agree that it's the most plausible system we have now, so we can act like it was a proven fact (before anyone says it's already been proven: You can't prove anything, you can't even prove that magnets attract each other. You can only falsify, never verify, that's how our science works: Things are regarded as 'probably right' until they are proven wrong.)

 

[darthzew]

The smarter Intelligent Design supports I've come across are the ones who don't deny the Theory of Evolution in its entirety. They acknowledge micro-evolution, that being that individual species can adapt and improve over time, but they deny macro-evolution, that being that an organism can become an all-new species.

Not to start a debate with you on this, but allow me to just answer this point by saying that they seem to have the wrong idea of what 'species' means. Evolution doesn't mean that a cat will become a dog, it means that a cat will become a slightly different cat, which will become an even more different cat, and the changes will continue and become more pronounced until you can't say that they're the same animal anymore.

Didn't say they were right, but that's the belief that I've heard wrapped up in a nice, neat little nutshell. It's an interesting point of view, but it too often feels more like a talking point or an excuse than an actual argument.