Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

That is my main complaint; you are blindly pontificating vague nonsequitor nonsense

---

Ok, I will no longer do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Ok, I will no longer do that.

---

Look, I am sorry for being harsh but it is annoying when someone proposes that they know something you do not and then do not follow up.

Please realize that I do want to learn and I do not doubt that you are knowledgable. So why not share it with us? I want to hear it.

~

I just posted my answer in the other thread to mark75. (link provided) If you don't like the answer or can't see the sense in it. Fair enough. Ask me what you do not understand and I will reply differently in the most suitable way. If you persist you may find a variety of answers to suit your needs. If you do not persist. I may appear as vague nonsequitor nonsense. This will only happen if you ask me a question. Otherwise you have requested that I not respond from your complaint.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...=45074&page=11

Are you referring to the comment "I created your game show" or "..."?? I really hope you meant to link to another page.

~

It's a joke. What is rationality.... I thought it was funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was just telling you what I was taught, what the Bible says, and what I thought most Christians believe, at least most Christians in my region. If most Christians think the Bible is not literal, then there is a whole spectrum of beliefs that could be considered Christianity.

---

The plethora of denominations and millions of "basically Christian" non-churchgoers do indicate that's the case, yes. Fundamentalists are way too powerful and plentiful in the U.S., no doubt, but they're not the only "real" Christians, nor, in my experience, the majority; they're just the loudest. If you were born among them, I'm sorry. Still, plenty of people hear the "fairy tales" as children, come to question them as young adults, and either on their own or through the guidance of reasonable Christian adults come to see that while the stories may not be perfect documents of history and material cosmology, they still have meaning and truth. Others just "take what you can use, leave the rest," not a Christian scripture, but a natural attitude to take toward a religious text if you don't intend to devote years to contemplating it anytime soon. "Rulebook" and "bullshit" are not the only options.

The general point I'm making here is that if you're discounting all Christians as fundamentalists, or fundamentalism is your only understanding of religion, then you're letting personal prejudice obscure crucial elements of the debate, to the detriment of both your position and the conversation as a whole.

More to the point of evolution and its main opposition, Creationism, you're missing the most basic criticism--not that Creationists have misunderstood science, but that they've misunderstood their basis for opposing it: religion.

It's right that selecting the good bits of scripture is better than using all of the scripture, but when you think about it, it is really your own morals which tells you which bits of the scripture you should discard, so you're really following your own morals anyway and might as well do away with all the metaphors, since the only function they seem to have is causing conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The plethora of denominations and millions of "basically Christian" non-churchgoers do indicate that's the case, yes. Fundamentalists are way too powerful and plentiful in the U.S., no doubt, but they're not the only "real" Christians, nor, in my experience, the majority; they're just the loudest. If you were born among them, I'm sorry. Still, plenty of people hear the "fairy tales" as children, come to question them as young adults, and either on their own or through the guidance of reasonable Christian adults come to see that while the stories may not be perfect documents of history and material cosmology, they still have meaning and truth. Others just "take what you can use, leave the rest," not a Christian scripture, but a natural attitude to take toward a religious text if you don't intend to devote years to contemplating it anytime soon. "Rulebook" and "bullshit" are not the only options.

The general point I'm making here is that if you're discounting all Christians as fundamentalists, or fundamentalism is your only understanding of religion, then you're letting personal prejudice obscure crucial elements of the debate, to the detriment of both your position and the conversation as a whole.

More to the point of evolution and its main opposition, Creationism, you're missing the most basic criticism--not that Creationists have misunderstood science, but that they've misunderstood their basis for opposing it: religion.

---

Like I said, with the Bible aside, there is no philosophical documentation for me to go on in answering your question. There is only a spectrum of things people pull out of their asses. That is why I answered your question according to what the Bible says and what the Southern fundamentalists I live around say. It is also what I was taught and what I believed when I was a Christian. My answer answered your question. Right? If not, then how exactly should I have answered your question? Would you like for me to pick some random guy off the street who calls him self a nonfundamentalist Christian and tell you what he has pulled out of his ass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Like I said, with the Bible aside, there is no philosophical documentation for me to go on in answering your question. There is only a spectrum of things people pull out of their asses. That is why I answered your question according to what the Bible says and what the Southern fundamentalists I live around say. It is also what I was taught and what I believed when I was a Christian. My answer answered your question. Right? If not, then how exactly should I have answered your question? Would you like for me to pick some random guy off the street who calls him self a nonfundamentalist Christian and tell you what he has pulled out of his ass?

---

_________

Quote:

---

The general point I'm making here is that if you're discounting all Christians as fundamentalists, or fundamentalism is your only understanding of religion, then you're letting personal prejudice obscure crucial elements of the debate, to the detriment of both your position and the conversation as a whole.

---

Why would you think I might be doing that when I said there is a whole spectrum of people who call themselves Christians but don't base their views on anything but what they make up?

I think Taosaur is jumping too quickly on the "you're being prejudice" argument rather than the more subtextual implications of Universal Minds argument.

The point is that there are many people who consider themselves Christian or any other religion and only loosely follow there beliefs. This immediately goes to show that there are flaws in their beliefs as it is based on an external bias function rather thant the ostensive belief that they purport initially (ie. Christianity).

There are words for these people; hypocrites, apathetic, lazy, non-thinkers, irrational, stupid, ignorant, etc.

All these are in support of the original argument that people ought to think for themselves. Not that fundamentalist believers are the issue; please stop focusing on that.

~

My criticism is out of place in this thread and I apologize--theists arguing against evolution are typically just team players spouting talking points, and UM's criticisms are pretty valid for that group.

I just think it's a mistake to paint religion and religious people with too broad a brush. The story of civilization is largely the story of religions interacting and developing as populations divide, meet, clash, and divide again. Suggesting we get rid of religion is like addressing heart disease by cutting out our hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The story of civilization is largely the story of religions interacting and developing as populations divide, meet, clash, and divide again. Suggesting we get rid of religion is like addressing heart disease by cutting out our hearts.

---

Eloquent, but not very apt in my opinion. Your metaphor depends on our accepting that religion is as vital to civilization as a heart is to a human's life. While its absolutely certain that cutting out a human's heart will end his life, the same cannot be said about cutting religion out of civilization. It's a very untenable position to hold that removing religion would instantly end civilization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

It's a very untenable position to hold that removing religion would instantly end civilization.

---

A very large portion of the Earth's inhabitants are religious. Some more than others, of course.
One of the most important aspects of religion (if not the most important), in my opinion, are the ethics and morals they promote.
The religions give billions of people a set of ethic rules and guidelines.

I would like to expand this to encompass atheists as well. I must admit that I am not very informed about how they derive their morals, but they do have them, and knowing atheists, there is probably good reasoning behind them.

All religious people have reasoning behind their morals (and some atheists can be pretty religious about their views, as well :) ).

"What would happen if religion was removed?" can therefore be analogous to "What would happen if all reason behind morals were removed?".

Well, there would simply not be any reason to adhere to any morals anymore.

Our civilization is based upon morals and rules, and the trust that other people, the government included, will follow those rules.

What would happen if religion was removed?
The end of civilization may very well be the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Eloquent, but not very apt in my opinion. Your metaphor depends on our accepting that religion is as vital to civilization as a heart is to a human's life. While its absolutely certain that cutting out a human's heart will end his life, the same cannot be said about cutting religion out of civilization. It's a very untenable position to hold that removing religion would instantly end civilization.

---

It's a very untenable position to hold that you can remove religion from civilization, anymore than a man could cut out his own heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

"What would happen if religion was removed?" can therefore be analogous to "What would happen if all reason behind morals were removed?".

---

Wrong. Morality is innate in humans. Humans invented religion. Therefore, humans put the morals in religion, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

"What would happen if religion was removed?" can therefore be analogous to "What would happen if all reason behind morals were removed?".

Well, there would simply not be any reason to adhere to any morals anymore.

---

Religion is not the reason for morals any more than frogs are the reason for light bulbs. People seem to think that the bible somehow bestows upon them the unique quality of morality. The truth is Atheists are no less moral than any religious group (and a hell of a lot more moral than most).

But don't worry... if religion is ever suddenly removed, we Atheists would be more than happy to teach you how to be moral without a book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

humans put the morals in religion, not the other way around.

---

That is a good way of putting it. You also pointed out recently that a much lower percentage of atheists are in prison than the percentage of religious people. That destroys the "Morals only come from religion" argument assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is a good way of putting it. You also pointed out recently that a much lower percentage of atheists are in prison than the percentage of religious people. That destroys the "Morals only come from religion" argument assertion.

---

I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other, but it would be much easier to demonstrate that religion is the source of morality, and not necessarily the cause for the practice of the moral code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Wrong. Morality is innate in humans. Humans invented religion. Therefore, humans put the morals in religion, not the other way around.

---

This may be so, I am not denying this. But not all religious people holds the same view, that morale is innate. Many would even say that humans have a disposition towards doing evil things; the opposite of having morals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Religion is not the reason for morals any more than frogs are the reason for light bulbs. People seem to think that the bible somehow bestows upon them the unique quality of morality. The truth is Atheists are no less moral than any religious group (and a hell of a lot more moral than most).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

I am not very informed about how [atheists] derive their morals, but they do have them, and knowing atheists, there is probably good reasoning behind them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

But don't worry... if religion is ever suddenly removed, we Atheists would be more than happy to teach you how to be moral without a book.

---

But would it be possible to teach moral to billions of people?


Please, I am not trying to attack anyone here. It is just my musings. Understanding each others viewpoints is very important.
I have never understood why people with different perspectives seems to have to yell and fight. There is always some common ground. We should all take it.


I feel trapped by the words we have to use. Religion, atheists, those words are so full of prejudice.
I prefer human to both.
Humans have belief, belief in religion, belief in atheism.
Belief is also a good word. Some things cannot, at least for now, be proven or disproven. There is no problem with this.


And, to go on topic; evolution is a good model to describe the world's life. Just as gravitational theory is a good model to describe gravitation.
Often, models are extremely close to the real thing.

Here also I see no argument. Why would I? Evolution seems to work.
Of course there is a philosophical point to be made in that we use induction to prove our scientific theories. But we have to live with this very minimal risk of wrong conclusions. There simply is no other way (that I know of, at least).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other, but it would be much easier to demonstrate that religion is the source of morality, and not necessarily the cause for the practice of the moral code.

---

It would be impossible to demonstrate that religion is THE source of morality. Even wild animals have moral codes. Zebras have to spar with an intended female's father and impress him enough to get his approval before mating with the female. That is one example of many. Have zebras accepted Christ?

I didn't mention Christianity, nor do I think it is the source of religion or morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I didn't mention Christianity, nor do I think it is the source of religion or morality.

---

The Christianity reference was just an example used to illustrate that wild animals have morals without religion.

I would argue that it is extremely difficult to accurately discern the motivations of animals when referencing such complex actions as moral decisions. I would have to see concrete evidence in order to be convinced that the actions of zebras were due to a moral code and not situational or intuitive necessity.

I would also say that any form of religion in the animal kingdom would be extremely hard to recognize and therefore it would be next to impossible to make an accurate claim one way or the other in regards to its existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other, but it would be much easier to demonstrate that religion is the source of morality, and not necessarily the cause for the practice of the moral code.

---

Wrong, see, here I'll do the opposite really quickly, then you can say how it would go the other way.

It's very easy to see how morals evolve in animals that live in social groups, and you can observe the rules that various species who live in groups have, concerning their social behavior. Humans spent much of their evolutionary time living in small tribal groups, in which many people were related, and cooperation was necessary fo survival. It's obvious that all human cultures have the same basic moral codes (don't kill, don't steal, lots of rules about sex). This is true of cultures seperated widely over time and space, and applies even to non-religious people. As people expand on what they innately feel to be wrong, this become the moral code that is part of religion.


I guess you could believe that God handed Moses some stone tablets with the rules written on them, but you wonder how those people survived so long without "thou shalt not kill" rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I would argue that it is extremely difficult to accurately discern the motivations of animals when referencing such complex actions as moral decisions. I would have to see concrete evidence in order to be convinced that the actions of zebras were due to a moral code and not situational or intuitive necessity.

---

No, it's not actually as difficult as you say. If you studied the subject, which you obviously haven't, you would know this. That's how you "see the concrete evidence"; it's not like someone can take a picture of an animal and prove something to you. You can't get it that easily, you actually have to learn about the subject before you point out the flaws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

This may be so, I am not denying this. But not all religious people holds the same view, that morale is innate. Many would even say that humans have a disposition towards doing evil things; the opposite of having morals.

---

See above. Of course religious people don't have the same veiw, they don't believe in science or evolution, and think that magic put morals in people.

I simplified it above, of course there are other things that evolve when people live in small tribal groups--such as the tendency to fight other groups. That's why, altho people usually feel an inhibition against killing, that is easily overcome if necessary by feelings of solidarity with your own group and hatred and fear of people outside the group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

Please, I am not trying to attack anyone here. It is just my musings. Understanding each others viewpoints is very important.
I have never understood why people with different perspectives seems to have to yell and fight. There is always some common ground. We should all take it.

---

Don't worry, I don't think any atheists will be offended by your comments. We are just discussing ideas, that's all, nobody needs to get offended. It is usually the other way around--religious people don't like to be disagreed with; I think atheists get used to it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beorn

Humans have belief, belief in religion, belief in atheism.
Belief is also a good word. Some things cannot, at least for now, be proven or disproven. There is no problem with this.

---

Religious beliefs are faith, which means believing things despite evidence to the contrary. Atheists need proof for the ideas that they have. They are not equally valid viewpoints. The fact that something cannot be disproven does not mean that it exists.