Evolution V. Creation, does it matter? 235 replies

Please wait...

MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,330 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,016 Posts

7 Threads

#231 11 years ago

wolvesgoalie;4173402I'm sure you are familliar with Richard Dawkins (one of the worlds most famous athiests). His book, "The Selfish Gene" describes his theory that all organisms are controlled by their genes "want" to reproduce. This seems to be the most accepted theory of determinism among athiests, because it defeats any kind of a "spiritual" being.[/quote] Not really, all I know about Dawkins is the quote about atheism and other gods. The idea that instincts influence behaviour isn't exactly new, nor is it something only atheists believe in.

[quote=TheDarkInvader;4174791]Maybe you could stop trying to characterise atheists as a religious sect who treat popular science writings as their holy doctrine? Atheism is, pure and simply, the lack of belief in any deity. Nothing else is implied by the fact that a person is an atheist. There is absolutely no other belief, viewpoint or characteristic you can rightly ascribe to atheists or to atheism in general. So no, an atheist does not simply have to say "my genes made me do it", because they do not necessarily believe that. To suggest that they do is what we call a non-sequitur. Simply because some atheists believe something, does not mean it is characteristic of atheism to believe it.

Exactly. I wonder what is so hard to understand about this. I also wonder if the instinctive response of some religious people here would be to disagree even if I posted that Jesus is our saviour.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#232 11 years ago
TheDarkInvader;4174791Maybe you could stop trying to characterise atheists as a religious sect who treat popular science writings as their holy doctrine? Atheism is, pure and simply, the lack of belief in any deity. Nothing else is implied by the fact that a person is an atheist. There is absolutely no other belief, viewpoint or characteristic you can rightly ascribe to atheists or to atheism in general. So no, an atheist does not simply have to say "my genes made me do it", because they do not necessarily believe that. To suggest that they do is what we call a non-sequitur. Simply because some atheists believe something, does not mean it is characteristic of atheism to believe it.

The same can be said about a religious person. It simply means they do believe in a deity, and nothing else is implied by the fact that a person is religious. They believe in a higher power, and that is about it. They can be scientists, such as the fact that a PRIEST was one of the fathers of the Big Bang theory, or the fact that the man who was the head of the human genome project was a devout Christian, or on the other hand they can be a fundamentalist who doesn't believe in science.

The real problem is neither side really takes the time to understand the other, they just make wild ass assumptions. Both sides are guilty of this.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#233 11 years ago
Afterburner;4176429The same can be said about a religious person. It simply means they do believe in a deity, and nothing else is implied by the fact that a person is religious. They believe in a higher power, and that is about it.

A religious person is a person who subscribes to a specific set of religious beliefs and doctrines, such as Christianity. I think "theist" is the term you're looking for.

They can be scientists, such as the fact that a PRIEST was one of the fathers of the Big Bang theory, or the fact that the man who was the head of the human genome project was a devout Christian, or on the other hand they can be a fundamentalist who doesn't believe in science.

I don't think I said anything to contradict this, if that was directed at me. I'm well aware that religious scientists exist and that fundamentalism is not a necessary element of religious belief.

The real problem is neither side really takes the time to understand the other, they just make wild ass assumptions. Both sides are guilty of this.

That might be the problem in a debate about the existance of God, or another religious debate. I would say in a scientific debate such as that regarding evolution, the problem is in understanding science, not each other's beliefs about religion.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#234 11 years ago

It is not important for there to be debate between creationists and evolutionists, the debate is frankly over, one is a theory with credible evidence one isnt, the real debate ended over this years ago, when evolution was accepted as a theory and taught in schools, when that happened in the public school system, creation was no longer taught, humans at the end of the day would like to better mankinds knowledge, this means some cold hard truths for creationists, but thats just life, nowa days you got alot more religious schools popping up, its one way to counter the issue, ID is another, but they dont teach fact, and places like them are why theres so many religious people at places like this.Indoctrinated is the word. If you really thing the evo v crea debate is important, debate it with chineese uni student in china, they will own you outright, thereeducation is comming along so fast, want to know why, because china have a huge investment into science's in the public school system, they realise its the future. While you are debating this topic over the next 40 or 50 years, china are likely to overtake your country economicly and technologically.Intersting isnt it.Or scary ?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#235 11 years ago
TheDarkInvader;4176790A religious person is a person who subscribes to a specific set of religious beliefs and doctrines, such as Christianity. I think "theist" is the term you're looking for.

Indeed, thank you for the correction.

I don't think I said anything to contradict this, if that was directed at me. I'm well aware that religious scientists exist and that fundamentalism is not a necessary element of religious belief.

It wasn't directed at you specifically. I often quote someone simply to provide a reference point, while directing my comments themselves at a wider audience. It's really simply to anyone(and there are many) who argue otherwise.

That might be the problem in a debate about the existance of God, or another religious debate. I would say in a scientific debate such as that regarding evolution, the problem is in understanding science, not each other's beliefs about religion.

I mean in the overall debate of Science vs Religion. A scientist often makes the mistake of assuming that all religious people are fundamentalists, and many religious people assume that scientist are a bunch of godless heathens(godless? sometimes, heathen? no) that are out to destroy religion and corrupt the youth and such things. What's needed is understanding of the other side in the argument, and a general respect for fellow humans regardless of their religious(or lack there of) beliefs.




Psychokenesis

I'm too cool to Post

136,505 XP

16th October 2003

0 Uploads

13,428 Posts

0 Threads

#236 11 years ago

It proves that scientist are human and make mistakes...it also says that perception has alot to do with the results of investigative research.