• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?


  • Total voters
    60
That may be enough for you, but not me. Fact is something that can be seen, demonstrated, and explained in words everyone can understand, not just the words of exalted members of an exclusive scientist club.


You don't have to cater to someone to make it a fact.
Just because someone doesn't understand the science, that doesn't mean that it isn't a fact. It means the person is a dumbass.
 
Unicorn comes from the Greek "unicornis", ie; Rhinoceros unicornis, aka the Indian Rhinoceros. "Unicorn" accurately refers to any horned animal of great size.

I assure you they do exist. Here's a picture of a real unicorn:

230px-Rhinoceros_unicornis_fg01.JPG


I would love to see you have one mow your lawn.

Fine, centaurs, fauns :roll:
 
Fine, centaurs,

The idea of centaurs came from the first reaction of a non-riding culture, as in the Minoan Aegean world, to nomads who were mounted on horses. Here is a picture of a real centaur:

images



Fauns originally refer to aloof wild men or small clans who lived away from mainstream civilization and were unpredictable by 'civilized' ancient Roman standards. Their story offer warning and wisdom in avoiding or seeking the aid of such 'wild men'.


***
Honestly, why can't atheists tell the difference between fact and fiction? I think you need to lay of the Dungeons and Dragons just a tad.
 
If god = gravity then why use the term "god"? Why not just say "gravity"? If god is more than just gravity then what is god?

You seem to be equivocating.

I did not say "God = gravity", I said "God is gravity".

God is everything, every force, every thought, everywhere. God is the Supreme Consciousness. You ask Jerry:
An idea only "exists" within the mind(s) of conscious beings. Does your god only "exist" as an idea?
and you have it backwards. God doesn't exist in the minds of conscious human beings, human beings exist in the mind of God.
 
Honestly, why can't atheists tell the difference between fact and fiction? I think you need to lay of the Dungeons and Dragons just a tad.

I ask theists this question the whole time.

I really don't believe you don't see the error in your reasoning. Just because you say "I'm going for a run because the flying spaghetti monster is telling me to" doesn't mean the FSM exists!
 
I ask theists this question the whole time.

I really don't believe you don't see the error in your reasoning. Just because you say "I'm going for a run because the flying spaghetti monster is telling me to" doesn't mean the FSM exists!

I think humans have don just a tad bit more than go for a light morning jog in the name of God.
 
That may be enough for you, but not me. Fact is something that can be seen, demonstrated, and explained in words everyone can understand, not just the words of exalted members of an exclusive scientist club.

Show me... Prove it to me...

My motor was idling until your post put it into gear... Thanks for the stimulu

ricksfolly

You're welcome.

Actually, you don't have to be a member of any "exclusive scientist club" to understand most of the basic theories. The germ theory of disease, for example, doesn't require any higher mathematics or any knowledge above grade school, where the scientific method is taught. Evolution is a little more complex, but still, anyone who didn't sleep through high school biology should be able to understand that one. The theory of relativity is a little more difficult, as it does involve some higher math. The "big bang" theory is beyond my own comprehension, not being a member of any exclusive scientist club myself. It sounds to me much like god standing in space somewhere and saying, "Let there be light!"

But, that's probably because I really don't understand it.

Much as people who did sleep through high school biology don't understand the theory of relativity.
 
I consider it more a debate between the educated and the ignorant.

That was almost literally my response... thank you.
 
Unicorn comes from the Greek "unicornis", ie; Rhinoceros unicornis, aka the Indian Rhinoceros. "Unicorn" accurately refers to any horned animal of great size.

I assure you they do exist. Here's a picture of a real unicorn:

230px-Rhinoceros_unicornis_fg01.JPG


I would love to see you have one mow your lawn.

Greek would be monokeros, Unicornis is latin. The KJV translators translated "re'em", an animal famed for strength and agility, plus one or two horns, as "unicornis". "re'em"was most likely the auroch, a large bull...
 
Last edited:
I think humans have don just a tad bit more than go for a light morning jog in the name of God.

That doesn't matter. The argument has absolutely no logical value. I put up a light example, but murdering half the world in the name of the FSM doesn't make him exist either. 1*0=10000*0
 
That doesn't matter. The argument has absolutely no logical value. I put up a light example, but murdering half the world in the name of the FSM doesn't make him exist either. 1*0=10000*0

The idea of god existed; the form of the FSM is purely aesthetic. You could have chosen any other form for your god and the idea would remain unchanged.

That's all I've argued here.
 
Last edited:
Greek would be monokeros, Unicornis is latin. The KJV translators translated "re'em", an animal famed for strength and agility, plus one or two horns, as "unicornis". "re'em"was most likely the auroch, a large bull...

I don't see how this nullifies my point.
 
This is actually an interesting notion, Jerry, and it intrigues me. To consider god, gods, or other spiritual beings as ideas, rather than actual sentient beings. Would you then say that a god is really a personification of a culture? It represents the ideals of the culture in which it exists. The nuances of the Norse pantheon gave strong indication of the ideas held within that culture. The importance of battle and struggling against a harsh world, the recognition that great wisdom was more powerful than strength of arms, understanding that virtue is a difficult path to walk. All of those lessons are taught by their gods.

Would the point really be the lessons, then? And the characters in the stories (the gods) are there to illustrate those lessons? What does the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god have to teach us? Those ideas, collectively held, are what constitute a god, then. No entity with intelligence, but a viral idea. I'm comfortable with this notion because it appropriately places this collection of ideas as a tool for us to use, rather than something greater than us. These ideas are a part of us, and they are changeable. We can improve on them over time, grow beyond what we are now, and leave lesser ideas in the past.

However, once we get to this point, I see no reason to continue with the notion of gods anymore. If we recognize them as a sort of cultural codex, we can simply call them what they actually are. The collection of our values and ideas... our culture.
 
This is actually an interesting notion, Jerry, and it intrigues me. To consider god, gods, or other spiritual beings as ideas, rather than actual sentient beings. Would you then say that a god is really a personification of a culture? It represents the ideals of the culture in which it exists. The nuances of the Norse pantheon gave strong indication of the ideas held within that culture. The importance of battle and struggling against a harsh world, the recognition that great wisdom was more powerful than strength of arms, understanding that virtue is a difficult path to walk. All of those lessons are taught by their gods.

Indeed, the Greek and Egyptian pantheons would seem to reflect this as well.

Would the point really be the lessons, then? And the characters in the stories (the gods) are there to illustrate those lessons? What does the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god have to teach us? Those ideas, collectively held, are what constitute a god, then. No entity with intelligence, but a viral idea. I'm comfortable with this notion because it appropriately places this collection of ideas as a tool for us to use, rather than something greater than us. These ideas are a part of us, and they are changeable. We can improve on them over time, grow beyond what we are now, and leave lesser ideas in the past.

Every pantheon has a figure at the top. The Abrihamaic tradition is so far the only faith which actively removes all the sub-gods which seem to naturally spring from the principal god in a belief structure. But even so, scripture shows a change over time in how God and man interact, so I think it's fair to say religion is changeable.

However, once we get to this point, I see no reason to continue with the notion of gods anymore. If we recognize them as a sort of cultural codex, we can simply call them what they actually are. The collection of our values and ideas... our culture.

It would seem that Seth was correct, then.
 
This is actually an interesting notion, Jerry, and it intrigues me. To consider god, gods, or other spiritual beings as ideas, rather than actual sentient beings. Would you then say that a god is really a personification of a culture? It represents the ideals of the culture in which it exists. The nuances of the Norse pantheon gave strong indication of the ideas held within that culture. The importance of battle and struggling against a harsh world, the recognition that great wisdom was more powerful than strength of arms, understanding that virtue is a difficult path to walk. All of those lessons are taught by their gods.

Would the point really be the lessons, then? And the characters in the stories (the gods) are there to illustrate those lessons? What does the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god have to teach us? Those ideas, collectively held, are what constitute a god, then. No entity with intelligence, but a viral idea. I'm comfortable with this notion because it appropriately places this collection of ideas as a tool for us to use, rather than something greater than us. These ideas are a part of us, and they are changeable. We can improve on them over time, grow beyond what we are now, and leave lesser ideas in the past.

However, once we get to this point, I see no reason to continue with the notion of gods anymore. If we recognize them as a sort of cultural codex, we can simply call them what they actually are. The collection of our values and ideas... our culture.

I agree, that is an interesting notion.
It looks to me as if it is not god that is being discussed, but belief in god. It is the belief, not the reality, that inspires people to follow the cultural codex.

Now, the real mystery is this:

Why is it that any discussion of evolution, which is in the realm of science and logic, always seems to bring up a discussion of god, which is in the realm of philosophy and religion? There really is no connection that I can see.
 
I agree, that is an interesting notion.
It looks to me as if it is not god that is being discussed, but belief in god. It is the belief, not the reality, that inspires people to follow the cultural codex.

Now, the real mystery is this:

Why is it that any discussion of evolution, which is in the realm of science and logic, always seems to bring up a discussion of god, which is in the realm of philosophy and religion? There really is no connection that I can see.

Religion itself touches every aspect of life. It's not nearly as compartmentalized as one might think.
 
Religion itself touches every aspect of life. It's not nearly as compartmentalized as one might think.

Religion does not rely on observation and logic. Science relies totally on observation and logic. No, I think religion and science are quite different. The only time religion touches science is when science comes up with a theory that counters someon's religious dogmas.

Now, if science could either prove or disprove the existence of god, then that would combine science and religion.
 
Religion does not rely on observation and logic. Science relies totally on observation and logic. No, I think religion and science are quite different. The only time religion touches science is when science comes up with a theory that counters someon's religious dogmas.

Now, if science could either prove or disprove the existence of god, then that would combine science and religion.

"Science" doesn't come to a DP thread on evolution and post about religion.

People do.

I didn't say religion relied on observation and logic, as you claim. I said something different. I said religion touches every aspect of a person's life, and that it is the person, not "science" who posts on DP.

Just as the sphere of science has ethical standards, so does the sphere of religion have ethical standards. A person who belongs to both spheres must resolve any ethical conflicts between religion and science for themselves so that the person can function. Attempting to resolve such a conflict, or perhaps attempting to correct what the person sees as an error in someone els's personal resolution of the same, are a couple reasons a person might post about religion in a scientific discussion.
 
Last edited:
"Science" doesn't come to a DP thread on evolution and post about religion.

People do.

I didn't say religion relied on observation and logic, as you claim. I said something different. I said religion touches every aspect of a person's life, and that it is the person, not "science" who posts on DP.

OK, I can buy that. But, why is it that people seem to think that evolution somehow is related to the concept of god? There really is no conflict between the two.
 
The idea of god existed; the form of the FSM is purely aesthetic. You could have chosen any other form for your god and the idea would remain unchanged.

That's all I've argued here.

In that case I apologize. I thought you were arguing something else.
 
OK, I can buy that. But, why is it that people seem to think that evolution somehow is related to the concept of god? There really is no conflict between the two.

A young earth creationist would see a clear contradiction. Religion is telling them that the world is 7,000 years old, and even gives a detailed linage to substantiated it's claim. Then they see that science tells them that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and provides evidence in support for that claim.

Typically, young-earth creationists are creationists first, because the authority of biblical commands have a higher impact on their immediate day-to-day life then do some fossils in a museum in another state, in their view.

What I enjoy about day-age creationism is that it resolves the conflict between faith and science in such a way that neither the faith nor science have to change at all. The person has to change, though, which is something a literalist would have a hard time doing.
 
Assuming we're discussing a sense of spirituality, then there is no contradiction between theism and science. It is only when someone tries to assert a factual basis in scripture that problems arise.

Personally, I always viewed ancient religion as the science if its day. People took their understanding of the world, such as it was, and used that knowledge to logically deduce answers to their questions. Why is there lightning? Because someone is up there throwing it. It fits with humans' idea about the creation of things, an act performed by humans over nature. Just as cultures that placed more superiority on nature tended to make their spiritual beings animals. They extrapolated from the things the knew, and applied a logical understanding to the things they did not. That's a strong foundation of the scientific method.
 
Assuming we're discussing a sense of spirituality, then there is no contradiction between theism and science. It is only when someone tries to assert a factual basis in scripture that problems arise.

Personally, I always viewed ancient religion as the science if its day. People took their understanding of the world, such as it was, and used that knowledge to logically deduce answers to their questions. Why is there lightning? Because someone is up there throwing it. It fits with humans' idea about the creation of things, an act performed by humans over nature. Just as cultures that placed more superiority on nature tended to make their spiritual beings animals. They extrapolated from the things the knew, and applied a logical understanding to the things they did not. That's a strong foundation of the scientific method.

Makes one wonder, then, how the very religious ancient people knew the earth's dimensions, long before Marco-Polo, without the benefit of satellites; and then used those dimensions to build the Great Pyramid, something we still can't do today.

It doesn't seem out of place to you to assert the ancients knew practicably nothing while creating such mindblowingly accurate calendars like the Mayan did?

Either they had a sophisticated form of science, which rules out your dumb-as-a-cave-man accusation, or their religion told them, which rules out lame-explanation-for-what-they-couldn't-explain accusation.
 
Last edited:
Makes one wonder, then, how the very religious ancient people knew the earth's dimensions, long before Marco-Polo, without the benefit of satellites; and then used those dimensions to build the Great Pyramid, something we still can't do today.

It doesn't seem out of place to you to assert the ancients knew practicably nothing while creating such mindblowingly accurate calendars like the Mayan did?

Either they had a sophisticated form of science, which rules out your dumb-as-a-cave-man accusation, or their religion told them, which rules out lame-explanation-for-what-they-couldn't-explain accusation.

well, their religion must have been far superior to religions today.
 
Back
Top Bottom