PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     "Evolution is a religion!"
       Not so, unless you can explain these points!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I copied this from the talk.origins feed back (April 2000).  It sums it up better than I can.  

How so? It has no deity. No worship. No priests. No sabbath. No commandments. No inerrant doctrine-- it is constantly undergoing revision. It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles. It has no penalties for unbelief. Belief in evolution carries no promises of reward. It is acceptable for any deity, including Jehovah, to be inserted in the forefront, taking credit for the progression of evolution. How, then, is evolution a religion? Are other scientific theories, such as the theory of relativity, also a religion? How does one distinguish and determine this?



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:27 PM on April 23, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

‘A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to co-ordinate men’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and scientific Humanism.’

‘Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally.’

In other words, evolution = religion. That is, people (not God) set whatever rules they want. In practice, this usually becomes ‘might makes right’, including the tyranny of the majority.


You have demonstrated that Evolution is not a "Hebrew" religion.  

Dictionary.com states the definition of 'religon' is :

1.  Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2.  The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.  A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4.  A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Let's measure Evolution to see if it fits any of those descriptions:

1.  Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe

In evolution, the 'creator' is Nature and Natural Causes.  Natrual process 'created and governs' the universe.  Evolutionists definately have a reverence for Nature.

2.  The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A religious order is a subdivision of a religious group.  In the case of Evolution, I would say the religous group is humanism.  

3.  A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Darwin was a humanist.  He is the 'father of evolution'.  I would say this description fits.

4.  A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I would say that describes evolutionists (at least the ones I have encountered here and elsewhere) very well.


By the way - just fun the fun of it - lets analize your quote:

Evolutionists Diety = Nature, man
Evolutionists worship = Darwin Day Celebrations
Evolutionists Priests = evolutionary scientists and theorists (such as Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagin, etc)
Evolutionists Sabbath = earth day, darwin day, etc
Evolutionist commandments = laws of nature (such as laws of thermodynamics, gravity, etc)
Evolutionist inerrant doctrine = man created in present form by nature and chance not the God of the Bible
Evolution is constantly undergoing revision - glad to see you guys admit that.  (I recently read 'another' poster on this board claimed that there would be revisions to the laws of gravity before there would be revisions to the ToE.  )
It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles - Macro-evolution is a miracle.  It cannot be observed or duplicated.
No penalties for unbelief - oh yeah?  Tell that to the countless creation scientists who are ostracized and denied research grants (or remain unpublished) because they espouse a Young Earth creation model.  
Carries no promises of reward - Live your life the way YOU want... persue immorality and selfish pleasure - do whatever makes you feel good - after all, there is No biblical authority - there is no absolute right and wrong because we are just a result of random chance, time and chemistry.  

It is acceptable for any deity, including Jehovah, to be inserted in the forefront, taking credit for the progression of evolution.

Any good Modern Humanist will tell you it's not important what you believe, but the passion and degree to which you believe (have you ever heard - it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you stand for something).  Basically evolution is a humanist religious order, and humanists believe that they can choose what they want to believe because they are ultimately only responsible to man and not God.  

Are other scientific theories, such as the theory of relativity, also a religion?

Theory of relativity 1) is mathmatically viable (evolution defies mathmaticall probability), 2) can be tested and observed by experimentation, 3) requires no 'blind faith'



 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 10:07 PM on April 23, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to co-ordinate men’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past.


Note, the "may"?  Also, where did this quote come from, so I can read it in context.

Humanism:

Once again, evolution does not equal humanism.

1.In other words, evolution = religion. 2.That is, people (not God) set whatever rules they want. 3.In practice, this usually becomes ‘might makes right’, including the tyranny of the majority.

1. Hmm, I seem to have missed the part where you proved your point.
2. Evolution makes as much of a statement about morals as does any other scientific theory.  How does germ theory affect your morals?  What about the atomic theory?
3. That is not evolution, that is a twisted version of social darwinism.

In evolution, the 'creator' is Nature and Natural Causes.  Natrual process 'created and governs' the universe.  Evolutionists definately have a reverence for Nature.

Evolution makes absolutely no statement about God.  How else do you explain the many theistic evolutionists?

A religious order is a subdivision of a religious group.  In the case of Evolution, I would say the religous group is humanism.

Once again (for about the 20th time in a week, evolution does not equal humanism.
Darwin was a humanist.  He is the 'father of evolution'.  I would say this description fits.

Once again,... Never mind, I'm tired of typing it.  Read above.  Besides, many of Darwins ideas have been discarded or adapted, so he's not much of a religous leader, is he?

I would say that describes evolutionists (at least the ones I have encountered here and elsewhere) very well.

So, intellectual integrity is considered a sign of religion?

1.Evolutionists Diety = Nature, man
2.Evolutionists worship = Darwin Day Celebrations
3.Evolutionists Priests = evolutionary scientists and theorists (such as Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagin, etc)
4.Evolutionists Sabbath = earth day, darwin day, etc
5.Evolutionist commandments = laws of nature (such as laws of thermodynamics, gravity, etc)
6.Evolutionist inerrant doctrine = man created in present form by nature and chance not the God of the Bible
7.Evolution is constantly undergoing revision - glad to see you guys admit that.  (I recently read 'another' poster on this board claimed that there would be revisions to the laws of gravity before there would be revisions to the ToE.  )
8.It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles - Macro-evolution is a miracle.  It cannot be observed or duplicated.
9.No penalties for unbelief - oh yeah?  Tell that to the countless creation scientists who are ostracized and denied research grants (or remain unpublished) because they espouse a Young Earth creation model.  
10.Carries no promises of reward - Live your life the way YOU want... persue immorality and selfish pleasure - do whatever makes you feel good - after all, there is No biblical authority - there is no absolute right and wrong because we are just a result of random chance, time and chemistry.

1. Sorry, I don't worship nature or man.  I appreciate them, but that's about it.
2. So being american is a religion too.  After all, you celebrate Washington's birthday, independence day, etc.
3. So, physics is a religion too then, right?  Einstein is held in much higher esteem than they are.  Atomic theory must be too.  Look at the respect Madame Curie gets as well.
4. Once again, being american  must be a religion as well
5. first, the law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution.  Secondly, with this statement you have now declared all disciplines of science as religions.
6. First off, chance has nothing to do with it.  Secondly, the evidence from numerous disciplines says this, not evolution itself.
7. Of course it is.  I think what the poster meant was serious revision.  As with any scientific theory, the fine details are always under debate.
8. Sorry, wrong again.  There is way too much evidence to even consider this a point made in anything but ignorance.
9. Hmm, that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that there is no such thing as creation science, could it?  
10. Once again, what does germ theory tell you about morals?  How about atomic theory?  Probably about as much as the ToE.

Basically evolution is a humanist religious order, and humanists believe that they can choose what they want to believe because they are ultimately only responsible to man and not God.

Once again... read above (four times now?)

Theory of relativity 1) is mathmatically viable (evolution defies mathmaticall probability), 2) can be tested and observed by experimentation, 3) requires no 'blind faith'

Exactly, other than the "mathematically impropability" part, you have accurately described the ToE correctly for the first time!  Good job!


(Edited by TQ 4/24/2004 at 03:26 AM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 03:26 AM on April 24, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup, TQ has already debunked some of your points well, noticably arguments that Darwin day is a sabbath (?!)

The main problem is that in order to get these definitions to fit evolution you have had to stretch them to the limits of their credibility. It works rather well for evolution alone, but you forget that these stretched definitions can also be applied to subjects other than evolution. This is the weakness with your argument. When by your own definition, independance day is shown to be a religious worship event, even you must acknowledge you have stretched your definition too far.

When model plane making and wind surfing become religions because to the hobbyist they are "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion", then you know your definitions have been stretched too far.

What I am trying to say is that in the same way you have stretched the definitions to fit evolution, the definitions can be stretched to fit *any* activity or area of interest. I could do it for computer science, skiing, driving, listening to music, and so on.

I know you want evolution to be a foundation of our morality, but it is not. No matter how much you keep refering to the universe being chance, random,etc does not alter the fact that evolution provides me with no moral or immoral suggestions whatsoever. It is the study of lifes history on earth, that is all

(Edited by Void 4/24/2004 at 07:43 AM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 07:41 AM on April 24, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20 states:
Evolution is constantly undergoing revision - glad to see you guys admit that.  (I recently read 'another' poster on this board claimed that there would be revisions to the laws of gravity before there would be revisions to the ToE.  )


To which TQ replies:
7. Of course it is.  I think what the poster meant was serious revision.  As with any scientific theory, the fine details are always under debate.


I'm sure I made the orginal statement about the
Theory of gravity.  The Laws of gravity are simple equational approximations that give useful information regarding gravity in most cases.  Newton's Laws of gravity for instance would in no way be accurate enough to allow for GPS receivers  to calculate an accurate position on the earth's surface.  For that, we need to invoke Einsein's Theory of Relativity, which is the best theory of gravitation we have to date.  

This Theory is incomplete, as was recognized by Einstein himself, who spent the rest of his life trying to complete it.  Physicists are lining up for their Nobel prize to be the first to come up with the next Theory of gravity.

Gup20 further states:
Theory of relativity 1) is mathmatically viable (evolution defies mathmaticall probability), 2) can be tested and observed by experimentation, 3) requires no 'blind faith'


The Theory of Relativty is a mathematical model of the Universe that gives good results in many but not all cases.  When a better one comes along, it will be happily replaced, perhaps by
M-Theory .

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/24/2004 at 08:46 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:26 AM on April 24, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks Apoapsis, I didn't feel like hunting down the post, so I interpreted it as I remembered.  Thanks for posting the correct interpretation of your words.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:59 PM on April 24, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In the simplest sense, and according to the defiinitions of religion, evolution is a religion.  

As I said... those point by point comparrisons were showing how the religion of evolution compared to the Hebrew model of religion.  

However, most religions do not follow that pattern.  Can you give the same comparrison for all of the world's religions?  For example, what is the 'sabbath day' for humanism?  What is the sabbath day for Buddhism?  What is the sabbath day for Hinduism?

Clearly not all religions follow the pattern of Hebrew/christian religion.  You guys decided to foccus on the humorous portion of my post rather than the 'meat and potatoes' - which is that Evolution fits the dicitonary's definition of religion on multiple points.  

TQ: Once again, evolution does not equal humanism.

But isn't it interesting how humanism ALWAYS equals evolution?  How many humanists you know of believe that God Created the earth 6000 years ago?  Humanism was here as an idea before Evolution, and it was this idea of humanism that lead to the presentation of evolution as a viable theory by Darwin.  The concensus of the time was that they needed a way to describe the origin of man without the Bible or creation.  

Humanists look at the Bible as a 'crutch' for people who want to answer the questions of "where does humanity come from, and how?"  As well as "where does evil come from and why?"  However, that is EXACTLY the reason evolution was dreamed up - to answer those questions in the absence of God the creator.  It attempts to 'do away with God' thereby making man God, or ruler of himself.  It is purely humanistic.

As I said before in my fun little comparrison - the only absolute that is unalienable from the ever changing Theory of Evolution is that God didn't create the world in the way He says he did in the Bible.  Why?  Because the basic fundamentalist principles of evolution and humanism are the same.  Why?  Because evolution was born out of humanistic thought.

The purpose of humanism and the Theory of Evolution is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.  An evolutionist would say "No it's not - we are just trying to understand where we all came from and how we got here".  Well, the Bible already describes that, and it's been available for centuries.  So it must be that you want an explanation that doesn't involve the Bible or supernatural phenomena and causation.  






 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:02 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You started off making sense in your discussion of humanism, then you went off into gup-land again.

1.Humanists look at the Bible as a 'crutch' for people who want to answer the questions of "where does humanity come from, and how?"  As well as "where does evil come from and why?"  2.However, that is EXACTLY the reason evolution was dreamed up - to answer those questions in the absence of God the creator.  It attempts to 'do away with God' thereby making man God, or ruler of himself.  3.It is purely humanistic.

1. Fine, I'll agree with you.
2.Wrong, wrong, wrong!  Evolution was never "dreamed up" to expalin anythig about the creation of life.  Evolutionary theory came about through observations of the world, such as the geological record, the diversity of life, etc.  The vast majority of these discoveries were made by christians who were looking for evidence to support the biblical account, and they discovered the opposite instead.  You have never yet adressed that fact, even though this is the third or fourth time I've brought it up.
3. Nope.  Explain theistic evolutionism then.

Using your reasoning skills, let's do a little exercise here:
1. All people have hair.
2. Some people have brown hair
3. therefore, all people have brown hair!

See the problem with your little diatribe yet?

Well, the Bible already describes that, and it's been available for centuries.
And it's been wrong for centuries as well.  As a book on morality and religion it's pretty good.  As a book of science and history, it sucks.

So it must be that you want an explanation that doesn't involve the Bible or supernatural phenomena and causation.

Not at all, I just want to study the evidence and see where it leads.  So far, it's leading far far away from the bible.




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:39 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: The vast majority of these discoveries were made by christians who were looking for evidence to support the biblical account, and they discovered the opposite instead.

What examples or evidence do you have?  You have been trumpeting a very different story - that christians/creationists never do any real science.  But here you change your story and say now that THE VAST MAJORITY of discoveries were made by christians?  That the 'vast majority' of the science in Evolution is now somehow based on christian scientists discoveries?  You will say anything.

As I said, the Theory of Evolution leaves no room for any christian belief - even in your quote you said "It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles. ".  In fact, it says that there MUST NOT EVER BE ANY supernatural or miraculous occurence - that everything occured as a result of natural process.  

TQ: Explain theistic evolutionism then.

Those who have allowed humanistic ideals and values to influence their thinking have allowed this humanistic religion (and those who support it - evolutionists) to influence their Christian values.  Examples of this are those who are pro-choice and christian, or those who allow homosexual clergy, etc.  These are exampels of humanistic influence on 'the church' in general.  Theisic evolution is just a progression of allowing the Bible to be undermined by humanism.  

You think that the Theory of Evolution and humanism are not linked.  In fact, the ToE is a subdivision of the humanistic whole.  Humanism was developed to try to answer those questions about humanity outside the context/influence/authority of the Bible.  Evolution was developed as the mechanism for humanistic relligous belief.  

Darwin was a Humanist.  He wanted to define the world he saw in context of his religous beliefs.  This is why the Theory of Evolution was born.  This is exactly what Creationists do as well.  We take the earth we see and interpret it under the framework of what we know to be true already.  In the case of Evolution, this involved the initial assumption that everthing came to be without God or the account of creation in Genesis.  So it's really funny when you say things like "where is your evidence" or "creationism isn't real science".  It's exactly the same evidence and science - it's just applied and interpreted under your 'religious' beliefs - aka what you already assume or 'know' about the universe.  In the case of evolution, we have already established what is absolute:  the Bible and Genesis isn't true - everything came about by Nature and natural process.  +

TQ: And it's been wrong for centuries as well.

So are you a Humanist or an Atheist?

TQ: As a book on morality and religion it's pretty good.

You have completely missed the point of the Bible.  Rather than a religous book, its a covenant - an agreement.  It's a guidebook on how to deal with the creator of the universe.  The Rev. Billy Grahm likes to say it's 66 love letters.  It's not a science/history textbook, but where it touches on those things it's accurate.  

TQ: Not at all, I just want to study the evidence and see where it leads.

This is what creationists do - the only difference is we interpret it under the famework of the bible, instead of a man-made humanist philosophy.  

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:01 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm, now if you had anything worth responding to other than your conspiracy theories and S.S.C theories, I'd respond in depth, but you don't so...

I'm agnostic.  Research geology and biology in the early 19th late 18th century, and you will see what i mean.  I never said christians are incapable of good science.  I said creationists are incapable of science.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:30 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: I'm agnostic

All the values of an atheist, but without the commitment.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:13 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oooo, gup made a funny!  I prefer to think of it as being open minded, and without the arrogance of the "devout" to boot.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:18 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or it could simply be a cop out  - you don't know what to think so you make up some lame cross-breed of beliefs that seems to suit yourself.  

Funny... that's just what humanists do.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 9:27 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or it could simply be a cop out  - you don't know what to think so you make up some lame cross-breed of beliefs that seems to suit yourself.

Yet, even this is better than believing in 3000 year out of date goat herder myths...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:28 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or it could simply be a cop out  - you don't know what to think so you make up some lame cross-breed of beliefs that seems to suit yourself.  


Gup, thank you once again for validating my sterotypical opinion of the religous devout.  Also, I see you have yet to make a point that does not revolve around my religous leanings.  Nice that you would try and sink to an ad hominem attack on me because my beliefs aren't the same as yours.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 12:30 AM on April 26, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The God who created the universe and set the Natural laws in motion also created your spirit and set the Spiritual laws in motion.  

DEMON: Yet, even this is better than believing in 3000 year out of date goat herder myths...

The Bible doesn't need to be changed or revised because God inspired it and he 'got it right on the first try'.  Your interpretation is not needed to make it right or wrong.  
It's like arguing the meaning of Shakespeare's Sonnets with William Shakespeare himself and telling him he is wrong in his interpretation.   God created this universe... and space and time itself... he created the natural and spriritual laws of the universe... he doesn't need you to come up with your own version of who and what he is, and truth is not up to you.  

You guys are trying to give the impression that just because the Bible originated from ancient time, that it is somehow out of date - this is true of all man-authored text.  However the Bible was authored by God (penned by man).  The same God who created the law of gravity.  

He not only created natural laws, but also spiritual laws of the 'universe' as well.  The guidelines for such are in the Bible.  Those spiritual truths never change.  

A humanist can try to claim he can believe whatever they would like - but it doesn't change truth.  Like I said, it's like arguing the meaning of Shakespeare's sonnets with Shakespeare himself.  The one who created the universe and spirituality knows best how it works.  

As to being an 'ad hominem' attack, I would suggest you don't understand the nature of an ad hominem attack.  Properly understood, it consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong because of something about the person rather than about the argument.

However, in this case, you tried to use a personal trait as the argument.  Responding to YOUR argument by default is responding to your personal trait.  

For example - an ad hominem attack example would be:

If George w Bush says "we need to attack iraq" and you argue by saying that is wrong because George W Bush is a republican.  You are responding to argument with an attack on the person or their traits rather than the argument itself.  

In this case, you argued that you were agnostic, and that meant that you were open minded without being arrogant (the implication being that people who have a formal religion are).  I argued that this was a cop-out ... that you were not being open minded, but that you were avoiding making a real decision.  To that you cry ad hominem.  

If you are going to bring up personal characteristics as an argument, you can't claim ad hominem when those personal characteristics are discussed.  

Ad hominem is making arguments like "nothing you say is valid because you are a creationist" or perhaps like saying "nothing you say is valid because you are a religous devout" - or arguments such as "that evidence isn't valid because it came from a creationist".  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:10 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup, try coming back to reality here.  Who asked about religous beliefs?  Hmm, let me see... why, it was you!  Who ridiculed said beliefs?  Hmmm, why, it was you again!  Who is using my personal beliefs as a personal attack because they don't have a leg to stand on?  Why looky here, you again!  

Get back to an actal topic, and for the last time, evolution does not equal humanism.  Maybe in your little world, but not in reality.  Use your head for something besides a hat rack already


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:32 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Who asked about religous beliefs?  Hmm, let me see... why, it was you!

Eh... /me looks to see the tile on the topic thread - says "Evolution is a religion!" by TQ.  We are discussing whether evolution can be considered a religious belief, a topic thread which you started my friend.  

Who ridiculed said beliefs?  Hmmm, why, it was you again!

Agnosticism is basically atheism without directly stating 'there is no God'.  My comments an accurate portrayal of your argument - statedly that you were an agnostic.  You claimed that the Bible was incorrect for centuries (an attack on my religion, BTW), to which I responded saying you must be a humanist or an atheist.  You offered that you were an agnostic (technically I didn't ask, but I stated my assumption).  My comment indicated that I was basically correct in assuming you were an antheist as agnosticism is a relaxed form of atheism (all the values without the committment).  To which you began belloring AD HOMINEM!!

You didn't even touch on the fact that you use ad hominem arguments all the time.  Perhaps I should be more prudent in bringing such arguemnts to your attention when they rear their head.

TQ: Get back to an actal topic, and for the last time, evolution does not equal humanism.

As I said before humanism ALWAYS = evolution, and evolution was born out of a humanist.  The two are inseparably linked whether you like it or not.  Good luck finding somone who professes to be a humanist who doesn't believe in evolution.  There may be those (such as an agnostic who 'can't commit to the faith' of humanism) who can view evolution as science without claiming to be a humanist.  Examples would be agnostics such as yourself, or theistic evolutionists, or progressive creationists.  However all this is, as we have discussed before, is a humanistic undermining of an original belief.  Once the humanistic idea has taken root, you are free to vary a great deal while remaining true to the "prime directive" of humanism which is that God and the Bible (genesis and creation) are no longer primary, authoritative, and true.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:56 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. We were discussing whether or not evolution is a religion.  It is not.  We were not discussing my religious beliefs.
2.That's nice if that's what you think.  It doesn't make it true.  As for me stating the bible is incorrect on a great many things, that's not an attack, it's the truth, as we have demonstrated in numerous threads.
3.humanism may equal evolution, but evolution does not equal humanism.  No matter how many times you say it, evolution is not a religion.  All you do when you state that evolution is humanism is show your ignorance and arrogance.  You are basically stating that anyone who does not believe exactly as you is not a christian, or they are "confused".


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:01 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: 3.humanism may equal evolution, but evolution does not equal humanism.  No matter how many times you say it, evolution is not a religion.

Well... christianity is not a religion.  Some would make it so, bit in it's 'fundmentalist' form, it is a relationship - a personal and real relationship - with the creator of the universe.  Would you accept this?

TQ: All you do when you state that evolution is humanism is show your ignorance and arrogance.

Well lets look at this logically -

1.  Darwin was a humanist.  
2.  Darwin wanted to create a 'big picture' of how it may be possible for the world to come about naturally, thereby aleviating the need for God and the Bible (create an origin theory that agreed with humanistic doctrine).
3.  Darwin drafted Origin of the Species.  
4.  Origin of the species is the basis for the evolutionary paradigm.  
5.  The basis of the evolutionary paradigm is a document who's purpose is to explain the origin of life under a humanistic framework.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C my friend.  In fact, the Theory of Evolution is completely influenced by humanistic doctrine.  The fact that the only true unalienable part of the ToE is that everything came about natually and without supernatural influence demonstrates that very clearly.  

Evolution is humanism.  I am not being arrogant, I am being logical and absolute.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:06 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, let's look at this:

2.  Darwin wanted to create a 'big picture' of how it may be possible for the world to come about naturally, thereby aleviating the need for God and the Bible (create an origin theory that agreed with humanistic doctrine).

Nope.  Darwin extensively studied various species and came to the conclusion that they were the result of descent and modification.  He did not invent the ToE to "create an origin theory that agreed with humanistic doctrine".

3.  Darwin drafted Origin of the Species.

I'm proud of you gup!  You got one right finally!

Origin of the species is the basis for the evolutionary paradigm.

No, but it is the basis for the ToE

The basis of the evolutionary paradigm is a document who's purpose is to explain the origin of life under a humanistic framework.

no,no,no,no,no.  Get it yet?  The ToE is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth.  That is all.  The only conclusion I can come to regarding your continued insistence that it is a humanistic tool to undermine your faith is that you suffer severe paranoia.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C my friend

First off, never refer to me as your "friend".  My friends have integrity and morals, and I don't want you dragging them down with you.  Secondly, your equation doesn't work when A doesn't equal B and B doesn't equal C.  Once again, just because you say it don't make it so.

I am not being arrogant, I am being logical and absolute.

You may want to research the definition of logical again.




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:21 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it's interesting how Gup20, true to form, twists the facts and ignores the obvious in order to support his ludicrous notions.

1.  Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe
In evolution, the 'creator' is Nature and Natural Causes.  Natrual process 'created and governs' the universe.  Evolutionists definately have a reverence for Nature.


OK, first of all belief has nothing to do with evolution, as stated numerous times, evolution is accepted based on the evidence, no belief involved.  Evolution fails your first test for a religion.  Evolution attributes nothing to supernatural power or powers, so it fails your second test for a religion.  As to reverence for nature, I'll grant you most scientists look at nature with awe and wonder, but is this the same as the reverence members of a religion look upon their gods with?  Most definitely not!  As you have shown, fundamentalist christians can not question God's will, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it".  Compare that to scientists who dig into nature, probe it, force it to give up it's secrets.  The reverence religious worshippers show their gods is distinctly different from the 'reverence' scientists show nature.  So by your own definition, when viewed logically, evolution is not a religion!

2.  The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A religious order is a subdivision of a religious group.  In the case of Evolution, I would say the religous group is humanism.


Well, your changing your definitions, are you now claiming evolution is not a religion, just a subdivision of humanism?  Regardless, as shown above, evolution doesn't fit the definition of religion, so we can reject this definition.

3.  A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
Darwin was a humanist.  He is the 'father of evolution'.  I would say this description fits.


Darwin said nothing about the 'spirit' so he fails your definition of a spiritual leader.  Do scientists accord the same level of respect to Darwin that you do to Jesus?  Of course not, they have torn into his theories, reformed them, tested them, corrected them, when is the last ime you tested and corrected the Bible?  So I would say this description does not apply to Darwin.

4.  A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I would say that describes evolutionists (at least the ones I have encountered here and elsewhere) very well.


But it also describes Star Trek fans, coin colectors, anyone who is dedicated to their job, atheletes, the list goes on and on.  So this is really not a good definition of religion in the context we are discussing.

Let's look at your list...

Evolutionists Diety = Nature, man

Since a deity is supernatural by definition, this is incorrect, evolution has no deity.

Evolutionists worship = Darwin Day Celebrations

No worship involved, merely a day to commemorate a great man.  Do we worship Colombus because we have Comumbus day?  Do we worhsip a groundhog because we have a Groundhog day?  I accept evolution and I don't even know when Darwin day is!

Evolutionists Priests = evolutionary scientists and theorists (such as Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagin, etc)

Let's look at what a priest is, From here:Priest

"noun  (plural priests)

1. ordained person: an ordained minister, especially in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox churches, responsible for administering the sacraments, preaching, and ministering to the needs of the congregation
2. minister of non-Christian religion: a spiritual leader or teacher of a non-Christian religion
3. descendant of family of Aaron: somebody descended from the family of Aaron of the tribe of Levi, appointed as priests in the Hebrew Scriptures"

Scientists administer no sacraments and do not administer to the needs of the congregation, so they are not priests...
Scientists don't worry about spiritual matters, so scientists are not priests...
Most scientists are not descended from the tribe of Levi, so scientists are not priests.

Evolutionists Sabbath = earth day, darwin day, etc

As pointed out above, this is not true, I, an evolutionist, have no idea when Darwin Day or Earth Day occur.

Evolutionist commandments = laws of nature (such as laws of thermodynamics, gravity, etc)

Definition of commandment:
divine proscription: a command from God, especially one of the Ten Commandments.

Evolution makes no such claim, all facts in science are based on the latest evidence to support them.  Because science takes nothing on faith, has no dogma, nothing in science is a commandment, only Christianity does this.

Evolutionist inerrant doctrine = man created in present form by nature and chance not the God of the Bible

Evolution says nothing about inerrancy, just the opposite, if you have evidence for a better explaination than evolution, present it.  Evolution says nothing about God creating man, only that man arose by natural means.  If you're trying to say evolution ONLY looks at nature for explainations, then that statement applies to all science.

Evolution is constantly undergoing revision - glad to see you guys admit that.  (I recently read 'another' poster on this board claimed that there would be revisions to the laws of gravity before there would be revisions to the ToE.  )

Evolution is a scientific theory, it changes to reflect new data, new discoveries, this is the scientific method!  It is science's greatest strength, why do try to insinuate that this is a failing?  And while laws and theories do not match up in science, we do understand the theory of evolution much better than we understand the THEORY of gravity, I would say that there will be many major revisions to the theory of gravity before there ever is a major revision to the theory of evolution.

It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles - Macro-evolution is a miracle.  It cannot be observed or duplicated.

This is an out and out lie, we hav observed macro-evolution, it is not a miracle, no supernatural components to macroevolution.

No penalties for unbelief - oh yeah?  Tell that to the countless creation scientists who are ostracized and denied research grants (or remain unpublished) because they espouse a Young Earth creation model.

Those 'countles' creation scientists don't do science!  The young earth creation model has been disproven!  This is the same reason there aren't any astronomers who support a flat earth!  Or why there are no medical doctors who espouse the theory that demons cause disiease!

Carries no promises of reward - Live your life the way YOU want... persue immorality and selfish pleasure - do whatever makes you feel good - after all, there is No biblical authority - there is no absolute right and wrong because we are just a result of random chance, time and chemistry.

Evolution says no such things, this is merely your faulty extrapolation!


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:23 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon -

Not all religions are Hebrew religions.  I would grant you that Evolution is not a Hebrew religion, which is the ONLY thing your post really proves.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:49 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gup, give it up.  Demon used the exact same points you used to "prove" that the ToE is a religion, and refuted them all.  Now you want to change the playing field?  Face it, your point is bogus.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:09 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you look at my original post, my comparrision of evolution to hebrew religion was meant to be something 'fun' and 'interesting'... to show some paralellism and the religious overtones of evolution.  

My main point - that evoltuion fit with the dictionary's definition of 'religion' was completely ignored.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:06 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you look at my original post, my comparrision of evolution to hebrew religion was meant to be something 'fun' and 'interesting'... to show some paralellism and the religious overtones of evolution.  

My main point - that evoltuion fit with the dictionary's definition of 'religion' was completely ignored.

And gup lies again!  Let's look at the actual first post now, shall we?

Gup:
You have demonstrated that Evolution is not a "Hebrew" religion.


Already we have proven gup a liar.  In his post he states: "my comparrision of evolution to hebrew religion was meant to be something 'fun' and 'interesting'... to show some paralellism and the religious overtones of evolution. "

But he never presented a comparison with hebrew religion.  In fact, he stated right out, before posting any comparison "You have demonstrated that Evolution is not a "Hebrew" religion".

Gup:
Dictionary.com states the definition of 'religon' is :

1.  Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2.  The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.  A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4.  A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Let's measure Evolution to see if it fits any of those descriptions:

So, he presents a dictionary definition, and proceeds to post ways in which evolution matches this.  Demon, Kronus and myself proceed to destroy this comparison, showing that by gup's "rules of religion" any hobbyist or american worships at the altar of their hobby or their country.  In reaponse, what does he say?

My main point - that evoltuion fit with the dictionary's definition of 'religion' was completely ignored.


Oh, to be young and foolish


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:28 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fortunately, not everyone here has the reading comprehension of a kindergarten student.  


You will note the following phrase in my original post -

By the way - just fun the fun of it - lets analize your quote:

You repeatedly call me a liar, but you have yet to actually demonstrate a sigle, credible  example of where I lied.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:18 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have demonstrated that Evolution is not a "Hebrew" religion.

Thanks

"my comparrision of evolution to hebrew religion was meant to be something 'fun' and 'interesting'... to show some paralellism and the religious overtones of evolution. "

But you never compared evolution to hebrew religion.  You said that I had demonstrated that evolution was not a hebrew religion

My main point - that evoltuion fit with the dictionary's definition of 'religion' was completely ignored.

Then what did Demon, Kronus and I spend the rest of the thread refuting?

I'll accept your apology now

(Edited by TQ 4/28/2004 at 7:54 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:27 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: But you never compared evolution to hebrew religion.

Actually, I said in my first post of this thread that, 'congradulations you proved that evolution wasn't a hebrew religion' referring to the following babbeling:

How so? It has no deity. No worship. No priests. No sabbath. No commandments. No inerrant doctrine-- it is constantly undergoing revision. It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles. It has no penalties for unbelief. Belief in evolution carries no promises of reward. It is acceptable for any deity, including Jehovah, to be inserted in the forefront, taking credit for the progression of evolution.


Lets take a logical look at the progression here - something you have not done TQ:

1.  You gave a list of religious characteristics that are consistent with Hebrew based religions.
2.  You list of religious characteristics and compared evolution to Hebrew based religions.
3.  You tried to argue that Evolution was not a religion because it did not compare to a Hebrew based religion.
4.  I agreed that evoltion is not a hebrew religion.
5.  I told you that you compared evolution to a hebrew religion, but that this was not the definition of religion.  I gave you the 'dictionary.com' definition of religion, and described how this compared to evolution (how evolution fit the definition of 'religion' point by point).  
6.  I satirically compared evolution to hebrew religion (haveing already stated it wasn't a hebrew religion, and stating the listing would be 'interesting' and 'for fun')  This was after I had already presented my real argument - the fact that evolution fits with multiple definitions of 'religion'.  
7.  Everyone completely ignored the real facts and tried to argue with my satirical list comparing evolution to Hebrew religion.
8.  I pointed out that everyone had ignored the real argument and attempted to argue with the levities of my comparrison of evolution to hebrew religion (which I had repeatedly stated evolution was NOT a hebrew religion).
9.  TQ says that Demon, Kronus and himself has 'spent the rest of the thread refuting' my main point.  However, upon taking a look through the thread I have discovered that NO ONCE DID ANY OF YOUR POSTS EVEN ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS OR EVEN TOUCH ON MY MAIN POINT.   Even after repeatedly stating that the main point was how evolution fit the dictionary.com definition of religion.

TQ, Demon, Kronus - you guys continue to request apologies from me.  But you guys have YET to prove or even credibly implicate me in any wrong doing.  But has that stopped you guys from openly calling me a liar?  No.  Has that stopped you guys from attacking me personally (trying to call me a fundamentalist, or a devout - which is to try to pigeon me into a stereotype so that my arguments can be dismissed ad hominem)?

You guys are like the wolf who puffs and puffs but can't blow down the brick house.  In this case it's a ravenous pack of wolves with no rational arguments.  You guys can go to dictionary.com and look up ravenous.  While you are there, you can look up the word 'religion'.  You'll find that the evolutionary paradigm matches on all points.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:10 AM on April 29, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

9.  TQ says that Demon, Kronus and himself has 'spent the rest of the thread refuting' my main point.  However, upon taking a look through the thread I have discovered that NO ONCE DID ANY OF YOUR POSTS EVEN ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS OR EVEN TOUCH ON MY MAIN POINT.   Even after repeatedly stating that the main point was how evolution fit the dictionary.com definition of religion.

You are seriously dellusional!  You say your main point is "how evolution fit the dictionary.com definition of religion".  I posted the dictionary.com definition and proceded to show you how evolution DOESN'T fit the definition for religion!  Let's do it one more time....from here: DictionaryCom

Religion:

1. a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

From my original post:
"OK, first of all belief has nothing to do with evolution, as stated numerous times, evolution is accepted based on the evidence, no belief involved.  Evolution fails your first test for a religion.  Evolution attributes nothing to supernatural power or powers, so it fails your second test for a religion.  As to reverence for nature, I'll grant you most scientists look at nature with awe and wonder, but is this the same as the reverence members of a religion look upon their gods with?  Most definitely not!  As you have shown, fundamentalist christians can not question God's will, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it".  Compare that to scientists who dig into nature, probe it, force it to give up it's secrets.  The reverence religious worshippers show their gods is distinctly different from the 'reverence' scientists show nature.  So by your own definition, when viewed logically, evolution is not a religion!"

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

Since evolution is not a religion, see above, it does not fit this definition.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

"Darwin said nothing about the 'spirit' so he fails your definition of a spiritual leader.  Do scientists accord the same level of respect to Darwin that you do to Jesus?  Of course not, they have torn into his theories, reformed them, tested them, corrected them, when is the last ime you tested and corrected the Bible?  So I would say this description does not apply to Darwin."

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

"But this applies to Star Trek fans, coin collectors, anyone who is dedicated to their job, atheletes, the list goes on and on.  So this is really not a good definition of religion in the context we are discussing."

The dictionary.com definition of religion says nothing about 'Hebrew' religion, it applies to all religions.  

However, upon taking a look through the thread I have discovered that NO ONCE DID ANY OF YOUR POSTS EVEN ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS OR EVEN TOUCH ON MY MAIN POINT.   Even after repeatedly stating that the main point was how evolution fit the dictionary.com definition of religion.

I touched on your main point, I posted the definition of religion you used, I refuted your claim that evolution fits the definition of religion.  By stating "NO ONCE DID ANY OF YOUR POSTS EVEN ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS OR EVEN TOUCH ON MY MAIN POINT.", after I did just that, makes you a liar, again.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:47 AM on May 3, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Faith is defined as belief in something with little evidence to support it. When faith is embraced to espouse macroevolution, this becomes religion.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 4:54 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 4:54 PM on May 6, 2004 :
Faith is defined as belief in something with little evidence to support it. When faith is embraced to espouse macroevolution, this becomes religion.



Except for two things.  First of all, faith does not equal religion.  For example, I have no concrete evidence that my wife loves me, nothing that would stand up in a lab; I just take it on faith.  That doesn't make my relationship with her a religion.

Secondly, there's more than enough evidence for evolution that faith isn't a prerequisite for belief.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:05 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Except for two things.  First of all, faith does not equal religion.  For example, I have no concrete evidence that my wife loves me, nothing that would stand up in a lab; I just take it on faith.  That doesn't make my relationship with her a religion.***

See your point. But what does the word religion mean? It just means we practice something ritually or over and over. Seems to me that when this is coupled with faith, we are at least defining a religion.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:14 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This entire thread disproves the idea that evolution is a religion.  Read it over and see


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:15 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From dictionary.com:

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

In short, it's not just faith, it's faith in one or more dieties that make a religion.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:17 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***In short, it's not just faith, it's faith in one or more dieties that make a religion.****

That's not a very good definition. Bhuddism doen't have any deities. But I don't think anyone would argue with me its not a religion.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:22 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But it does have a spirtual leader, doesn't it?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:30 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***But it does have a spirtual leader, doesn't it?***

You mean one like Richard Dawkins? ;)

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:31 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That was incredibly weak.  Please explain to me how Richard Dawkins is a spiritual leader, especially since I've never read any of his work


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:33 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 5:22 PM on May 6, 2004 :

That's not a very good definition. Bhuddism doen't have any deities. But I don't think anyone would argue with me its not a religion.



Good point.  Buddhism is sometimes described as an athiestic religion.  Let me back off from diety, and go back to the original supernatural power.  Buddhism does believe in transmigration of the soul and Nirvana, along with some "system" for making sure souls end up in the right place.  I think that qualifies as a supernatural power, even if it isn't personified.

 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:38 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***That was incredibly weak.  Please explain to me how Richard Dawkins is a spiritual leader, especially since I've never read any of his work***

Possibly a little weak, but we can at least consider it. Don't you think he richly infuences Neo-Darwinism and secular humanism?

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:40 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

once again, secular humanism is an oxymoron, and since most scientists are christian (or subscribe to another religion), the point is moot anyways.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:47 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Possibly a little weak, but we can at least consider it. Don't you think he richly infuences Neo-Darwinism and secular humanism?


Well, I've never read any of his work either.  I don't think he "richly influences' anything.  My impression is that he writes mostly popular books.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:52 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***once again, secular humanism is an oxymoron, and since most scientists are christian (or subscribe to another religion), the point is moot anyways.***

Many are, but I doubt most. And we also need note there are scientists who do not accept Darwinism. You are aware of the 101 scientists who signed the petition on the PBS special on evolution, aren't you?

And I have many friends in academia who do feel nearly as strongly as some think they do that man arived on the scence via speciation.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:55 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  Secondly, there's more than enough evidence for evolution that faith isn't a prerequisite for belief.

There is more than enough evidence to support the flood, we don't have to take the Bible's word for it either.  But that doesn't help to convince someone who is firmly set against believing it BECAUSE it's in the Bible.  

JDB:  That's not a very good definition. Bhuddism doen't have any deities. But I don't think anyone would argue with me its not a religion.

I would agree.  Natural Pantheism is a world recognized religion that worships nature and the universe as gods in and of themselves.  

[/i]TQ:  But it does have a spirtual leader, doesn't it?[/i]

How can you forget the greatest spiritual leader of them all - Charles Darwin, a humanist.  Evolution is called 'Darwinism' or 'Neo-Darwinism'.  

Darwin is God and Richard Dawkins is his prophet!!  Praise Darwin!  

Kronus:  Good point.  Buddhism is sometimes described as an athiestic religion.  Let me back off from diety, and go back to the original supernatural power.  Buddhism does believe in transmigration of the soul and Nirvana, along with some "system" for making sure souls end up in the right place.  I think that qualifies as a supernatural power, even if it isn't personified.

Natural Pantheism worship nature and the universe as gods, and it is a religion.  Evolution could be construed to be a humanistic view of natural pantheism.  

JDB: Possibly a little weak, but we can at least consider it. Don't you think he richly infuences Neo-Darwinism and secular humanism?

Indeed.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:58 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***How can you forget the greatest spiritual leader of them all - Charles Darwin, a humanist.  Evolution is called 'Darwinism' or 'Neo-Darwinism'.***

Opps..forgot about him.  
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 6:02 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And I have many friends in academia who do feel nearly as strongly as some think they do that man arived on the scence via speciation.


I agree, I am in academia, and I don't know anyone who doubts man arrived on the scene via speciation.  And most of them are Christians.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:03 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis:  I agree, I am in academia, and I don't know anyone who doubts man arrived on the scene via speciation.  And most of them are Christians.

Humanism has been mankind's greatest enemy since the garden of eden, when Satan used it to decieve Adam and Eve.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:08 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps enemy is the wrong word - Deception is better
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:09 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***I agree, I am in academia, and I don't know anyone who doubts man arrived on the scene via speciation.  And most of them are Christians.****

Actually I hate to disappoint you, but I left off the "not" after the "did" What I meant to say is I don't know many who still subscribe radically to Darwinism.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 6:12 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.