TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- God and Evolution..
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by kewlness I'm saying, different people have different opinions and views on what is good and evil. However, I believe that there is an ultimate standard of what is good and evil is set by God. Where good would be whatever follows God and His will and where evil would be anything that goes against God and His will. Basically, everyone has their own standard of what is right or wrong but the ultimate standard is set by God and "wisdom" is how close and accurate your standard is compared to God. Hope that clears up my opinion.

I guess my question is this: Do you think that someone thinking that they are doing the right thing makes it the right thing? Do you think God looks at that differently?

Personally I think there is not a "driving" force, but a "choosing" force in everyones life.

But, also I see that someone might say "If you were raised as a nazi, and then given Himmler's power, would you be any different?"

It makes for an interesting conversation at least hehe. I think someone might have said something similar already.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax shut up bitch

Concession accepted.

What an interesting thread.

Chew on this:
When you are playing golf, you will look at the slopes around the path to the whole, and base how you hit the ball on those slopes to get your desired outcome. Say something out there did want to create the universe, with no mental limitations could you not agree that every desired event for all time could be calculated down to an interaction of subatomic particles?

Would you agree that if you knew the exact stage of everything in the universe, you could predict every single event to come for all time? Some of these ideas are hard to comprehend. In simpler terms, you push a ball toward another ball straight on, on a frictionless surface, no angle of incline, air resistance ignored, you know exactly what is going to happen to the other ball when they come in contact. If the conditions never change, and the ball is always rolled the exact same, the result will never change. They ways an organism react due to a certain stimulus are vastly complex and are based one thousands of conditions. BUT, could you not agree it can be calculated? Every single thing in the universe can be traced back to its origin through calculation, possibly converging on a single point in time and space, to a single event on a molecular level?

Such an event is 'god'.



(Just something a little different to throw into the mix)

quote:

Originally posted by moth What an interesting thread. Chew on this: When you are playing golf, you will look at the slopes around the path to the whole, and base how you hit the ball on those slopes to get your desired outcome. Say something out there did want to create the universe, with no mental limitations could you not agree that every desired event for all time could be calculated down to an interaction of subatomic particles? Would you agree that if you knew the exact stage of everything in the universe, you could predict every single event to come for all time? Some of these ideas are hard to comprehend. In simpler terms, you push a ball toward another ball straight on, on a frictionless surface, no angle of incline, air resistance ignored, you know exactly what is going to happen to the other ball when they come in contact. If the conditions never change, and the ball is always rolled the exact same, the result will never change. They ways an organism react due to a certain stimulus are vastly complex and are based one thousands of conditions. BUT, could you not agree it can be calculated? Every single thing in the universe can be traced back to its origin through calculation, possibly converging on a single point in time and space, to a single event on a molecular level? Such an event is 'god'. (Just something a little different to throw into the mix)

You're basically talking about determinism. I don't understand enough about quantum physics to comprehend the arguments about whether or not the universe might be deterministic.

Whether or not this requires a "first cause" is a matter of complex debate in itself, usually begging the question "what caused the first cause?"

Ultimately though, it is too vague a definition of "god" to be of any practical value. Even if such a "god" did exist, we wouldn't be able to derive any more information about it merely from that definition - certainly not any kind of moral code. Because the term "god" has such a dogmatic connotation, I don't think it would be a good choice of terminology when referring to the general idea of a "first cause".

Cheers,

Arbiter

we are all here not through adaptation or evolution


but by determinism

We were detailed out..as part of a big scheme..and someone is looking down on us all...








Also non-god believers...wut do u think about life? after we die..we decompose and rot and insects eat our corpse up?

arent yall scared that life is just a bag of feelings and memories gather togethered to later be dumped into a heap of soil for eternity. All feelings and memories to be destroyed?

human beings and life scare the shit outta me...i cant understand it

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec we are all here not through adaptation or evolution but by determinism We were detailed out..as part of a big scheme..and someone is looking down on us all... Also non-god believers...wut do u think about life? after we die..we decompose and rot and insects eat our corpse up? arent yall scared that life is just a bag of feelings and memories gather togethered to later be dumped into a heap of soil for eternity. All feelings and memories to be destroyed? human beings and life scare the shit outta me...i cant understand it

Let me give you a.. suggestion. In europe, almost less then 10% is active on some kind of religion, and even less then that in this board. All I can say is that you will get even more confused with the many posts or opinions that people have. Lots of atheists, and lots of everything. And Trust me. Atheists will always find a loophole.. and hence the fact that everything related to god, is got to deal with faith.. and that you build upon studying the Bible or by just been righteous. There's an afterlife, I believe in God, and Im sure that if you follow the commandments and do as God has layed out for us to on how to live right.. then you shouldn fear.. You need a testimony, and faith.. thats all I can say from my part. I dont suggest you sticking here though for thoughs.. varies too much, and like I said, you'll get more confused. .. All in Good Faith.

I was just looking at spiderwebs outside. Crazy shit. Did you know that all webs are asymmetrical, but spiders will weave a perfect web in space? (they took spiders up and tested it)

pretty neat huh

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax shut up bitch, when did you enter this conversation? Oh right, just now. Fuck off, k thanks. Haha, you dumb bastard, I rag on you once, and you get all "sided" dont think I dont know how your little brain works.

Orbax, you may want to look up "ad hominem" before making yourself sound even more stupid. I hope he was kidding about you wanting to be a lawyer, because this post is just ridiculous. No offense.

P.S. I fully expect some sort of ridiculous, poorly constructed, and woefully written flame in response. Don't disappoint...

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec we are all here not through adaptation or evolution but by determinism We were detailed out..as part of a big scheme..and someone is looking down on us all...

And that right there is everything ELSE I hate about religion (other than hypocrisy and hierarchy). The unsubstantiated platitudes (mec, have you just ignored the first hundred posts in this thread?), and the anthropomorphism (if you are to believe there is a God, what is this "scheme", what is this "looking down on us"... if you don't know what God is, how can you possibly make these claims?)

Yecch... preaching.

quote:

Also non-god believers...wut do u think about life? after we die..we decompose and rot and insects eat our corpse up? arent yall scared that life is just a bag of feelings and memories gather togethered to later be dumped into a heap of soil for eternity. All feelings and memories to be destroyed? human beings and life scare the shit outta me...i cant understand it

And there you have it. Religion is born out of fear. Not necessarily in every case, but to answer my previous philosophical question (why are people so attached to their religious beliefs as opposed to other beliefs), it is fear. In particular, fear of the unknown. That's what gets so many people to swallow the religious pill, and what constipates them later on when it's time to drop it off at the proverbial pool.

Who's to say what happens after I die... reincarnation in a spiritual sense (not in the Kabbalah or second-coming sense) might be believable. Heaven and hell? Meh... some religions don't even believe in a hell. And in the grand scheme of the universe, even this Earth, one person's lifetime is just a speck - what kind of sick-minded God, if we are to believe that He exists in some anthropomorphic sense, would damn someone to eternal suffering for that tiny speck?

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX And Trust me. Atheists will always find a loophole..

It's interesting you say this, because religious groups expend so much effort finding "loopholes" (I think you just mean holes) in scientific theories like evolution, and under most circumstances those holes turn out not to be holes at all (the probability studies does not take into account natural selection and has been debunked hundreds of times).

And yet, nothing I've ever read plugs the holes I see in most religion. How ironic.

quote:

There's an afterlife

Opinion.

quote:

I believe in God, and Im sure that if you follow the commandments and do as God has layed out for us to on how to live right.. then you shouldn fear..

Acceptable, but why should we fear otherwise?

quote:

I dont suggest you sticking here though for thoughs.. varies too much, and like I said, you'll get more confused.

Guess that depends on whose posts you read...

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217 Orbax, you may want to look up "ad hominem" before making yourself sound even more stupid. I hope he was kidding about you wanting to be a lawyer, because this post is just ridiculous. No offense. P.S. I fully expect some sort of ridiculous, poorly constructed, and woefully written flame in response. Don't disappoint...

Well, since you asked for it...

See, heres basically where I am coming from. I was drunk, and taking the piss, and you get all cry baby. Speaking of Ad Hominem, you're a dumbshit too. Let's see what pearls of wisdom you've dropped on us thus far:

quote:

I haven't been following this thread in its entirety

indeed, there are 6 pages of shit before your first post. You jump in, and try make judgments on the postings when you haven't even read them. Thats what cute little bears do.

quote:

If you had instead been born into a family which followed a different religion, would you have followed that religion as devoutly? If you answered "no" to this question, then most likely you're either lying to yourself or you aren't reasoning well

im glad you stressed LIKELY in this because that makes it a statistical fact.

quote:

. An objective truth holds for everyone,

objective:Having actual existence or reality.

truth: Reality; actuality.

"A wise man speaks when he has something to say, a fool speaks when he has to say something" next time try to be as intelligent as you are, not as intelligent as you would like to be. You end sounding like a complete dumbshit.

quote:

It isn't wrong in itself to adhere to principles which one knows not to be objective. But while it undoubtedly helps people in their personal lives, it cannot be a fulfilling solution for intelligent men and women who care to actually understand the world around them.

heh...ok, if you say so.

quote:

I didn't mean for this to be a treatise on religions

trea�tise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trts)
n.
A systematic, usually extensive written discourse on a subject.

no fear of you falling under that definition

quote:

I'm curious as to what this "Science versus Religion" thing is all about.

your last post, yet you had been jumping all over the topic before. You're either lying, or a dumbshit, and either way why are you debating the philosophy of morality and religion? We have very obviosuly been using science to support AND disprove religion, so there are very obviously multiple angles at this thing. Also, if you arent familiar with the evolution vs creationism debate which could very succintly be put into a science V religion debate, you REALLY shouldnt be here.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And there you have it. Religion is born out of fear. Not necessarily in every case, but to answer my previous philosophical question (why are people so attached to their religious beliefs as opposed to other beliefs), it is fear. In particular, fear of the unknown.

I think there is that motivation deep down in a lot of people. It can turn into drugs, alcohol (man alcohol isnt a drug!), promsicuity, anything basically. Religion too. This is me being random but maybe religion can be seen to be just as much an addiction as drugs when its used for escapism.

But, there are also moderate drinkers, pot smokers, and solid monogamous sexual practices (sometimes referred to as serial monogamy with people who cant keep relationships up hehe).

I guess my point is, is that while some people will use just about anything as an escape, there are just as many people who have gotten there through other channels. I went through about a year period recently where I totally thought I had found a contradiction in the Bible that was so severe, I couldnt morally accept Christianity. Later on my brother basically gave me the answer to my problems with it.

I have gone through period of disbelief, angst, and outright dislike of my religion and other religions.

So all in all i guess im sayin, dont judge everyone by the insecure zealots hehe.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Well, since you asked for it... See, heres basically where I am coming from. I was drunk, and taking the piss, and you get all cry baby. Speaking of Ad Hominem, you're a dumbshit too. Let's see what pearls of wisdom you've dropped on us thus far:

Haha yep, pointed criticisms are surely the sign of a cry baby.

quote:

indeed, there are 6 pages of shit before your first post. You jump in, and try make judgments on the postings when you haven't even read them. Thats what cute little bears do.

Awwwww. You called me a cute little bear. I'm flattered! Good thing I wasn't "making judgements" on the postings, since otherwise your statement would have some merit.

quote:

im glad you stressed LIKELY in this because that makes it a statistical fact.

Funny, I never meant it to be a statistical fact. But I'm glad you took it as such.

quote:

objective:Having actual existence or reality. truth: Reality; actuality.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_truth
"An objective truth is a statement of inherent reality. It is something that is true independently of the question of its truth, or the opinions or observations of thinking beings."

I apologize if my compound words are too complex for you. "Objective truth" is a commonly-debated topic in comparative religion. Perhaps next time you'll want to do some research before responding.

quote:

"A wise man speaks when he has something to say, a fool speaks when he has to say something" next time try to be as intelligent as you are, not as intelligent as you would like to be. You end sounding like a complete dumbshit.

Try to be as intelligent as I am? Funny... I thought I was as intelligent as I am. How could one be otherwise? And I think we all agree, I am the one who sounds like a dumbshit.

quote:

heh...ok, if you say so.

Indeed I do!

quote:

trea�tise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trts) n. A systematic, usually extensive written discourse on a subject. no fear of you falling under that definition

Again, right-o! I myself do not fall under the category of "a systematic discourse on a subject." I bet that would feel weird! But who needs to use good english anyway? Let's leave that to the educated. Either way, good attack.

But I think I liked your drunk attack better. At least that one had fun words like "bitch," "fuck," and "bastard." Thanks for the good reply though! You certainly didn't disappoint

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217

aww you called me a highschooler. Unfortunately that was the cleverest part of your reply. Try harder next time, and keep tryin on the originality!

Wow ... this thread got really entertaining over the weekend . Anyway, I'm going to stay away from the main battle royale but I'd like to address a few points:

quote:

Originally posted by Dmatrox Yeah dolphins are smart. What i was trying to say is that, there isnt another really smart organism that is smart enough to cause interspecific competition. Anyways, i believe evolution to a certain extent, certainly more than stories that men make up and call it god's werd.

There were other organisms that were smart enough to cause interspecies (was that the word you meant?) competition. Neanderthals were a distinctly different species from cro-magnum modern humans and were either killed off by humans or were absorbed through interbreeding (yet their interbreeding had no impact on the overall gene pool of the human race):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/694467.stm

But even so, it should not be much of a surprise that other competing species became extinct over time, because we ourselves almost became extinct as a species over 70,000 years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Wow ... this thread got really entertaining over the weekend . Anyway, I'm going to stay away from the main battle royale but I'd like to address a few points: There were other organisms that were smart enough to cause interspecies (was that the word you meant?) competition. Neanderthals were a distinctly different species from cro-magnum modern humans and were either killed off by humans or were absorbed through interbreeding (yet their interbreeding had no impact on the overall gene pool of the human race): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/694467.stm But even so, it should not be much of a surprise that other competing species became extinct over time, because we ourselves almost became extinct as a species over 70,000 years ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm

Good call, most people arent aware of the fact that all human-like creatures arent exactly the same species hehe.

PS it got entertaining because it got boring hehe

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Neanderthals were a distinctly different species from cro-magnum modern humans and were either killed off by humans or were absorbed through interbreeding (yet their interbreeding had no impact on the overall gene pool of the human race)

I disagree its obvious that Neanderthal interbreeding has had a serious negative impact on select few in the human race. Haven't you read any of Orbax's post? His slow witted Neanderthal logic (or lack there of) is a clear indicator that he's a direct decenent of Neanderthal interbreeding.

People should really be taught about logical fallacies in school. It occurred to me reading this thread that a lot of people haven't been educated on the topic (not knowing the meaning of straw man, ad hominem, etc.) It's interesting to note the extreme number of fallacies present in creationism and other religious dogma (Warning, long post!):

Appeal to Tradition ("X" must be true because it's been around for a long time) - Christianity/Catholicism/Judaism has been around for thousands of years and survived, so its beliefs must be true.

Appeal to Belief ("X" must be true because most people believe it) - Most people believe God exists, so God must exist.

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief (If good/bad things come as a consequence to "X", then it must be true/false) - My religion has helped [me/all believers] to lead a better life, so its beliefs must be true.

Generalization (If a small sample has a certain characteristic, then the entire thing must have it) - all the atheists I've met are immoral people, so all atheists must be immoral and need religion to teach them how to be righteous.

Relativist (Truth "X" is not objective because it's not true for me) - maybe YOU think the story of Noah's Ark is impossible, but you just have to believe.

False Dilemma (A and B can't both be true [the fallacy is that they can both be true], and A is/isn't true, therefore B isn't/is true) - either God created the universe or life evolved on Earth, and life didn't evolve on Earth. So God must have created the universe.

Straw Man (presenting a distorted version of someone's argument and knocking that version down) - Evolution is impossible. It's theorized to happen very slowly and gradually, but we can't find any transient species, so the theory must be wrong. (This would still be fallacious even IF there were no transient fossils).

Ad Hominem - (using irrelevant information about the person presenting an argument to try and prove the falseness of his/her argument - does not have to be abusive but often is). How many times have we seen that in this thread alone?

Appeal to [insufficient] Authority ("X" must be true because person "Y" says it, even though "Y" isn't an expert on the subject "X" pertains to) - Mr. X, [my priest/an evangelist/a Christian scientist], says that the big bang couldn't have happened, and he's an expert on religion, so he must be right.

Circular reasoning (use of precept "X" to prove precept "Y" which is in turn used to prove precept "X") - God must exist, because the Bible says he exists, and we must believe the Bible because it was handed down from God. (This is the big one, and is used practically as a definition of cirular reasoning!)

Composition (assuming that what is true for parts of something must be true for the entire thing) - organic life is structured, therefore the entire universe is structured (which is then used to start the "Creation implies Creator" argument).

Speaking of the above: Inductive Fallacy ("X" has characteristic "Y", and "Z" is related to "X", so "Z" must have characteristic "Y") - Most complex things [i.e. a watch] do not occur naturally, and Life on Earth is complex, therefore someone must have created it.

Post Hoc (assuming that "X" happening before "Y" implies that "X" is actually the cause of "Y") - My life was in shambles, then I turned to God and the Bible and prayed, and now I've turned my life around. God must surely have helped me.

Deductive Fallacy (If "X" is true, then "Y" is true. "Y" is true, so "X" must be true) - The Bible says that God created man in his own image, intelligent and free-willed. People are intelligent and free-willed. Therefore, God created them.

Oh, almost forgot the classic Burden of Proof fallacy - God exists because you can't prove he doesn't.

Wowie, for all the intelligent people out there, doesn't this get frustrating to deal with on an almost daily basis? I can't remember the last time I met a "believer" who didn't try to use at least one of these!

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217 I'm curious as to what this "Science versus Religion" thing is all about. All "science" is is a set of methods by which we deduce things by observation. It's not some hairy monster looking to prove or debunk anything. It has no personality, and yet people constantly try to anthropomorphize it. Science isn't fighting with anything, but when people try to suppress our powers of reasoning in favor of spoonfed precepts... well, what's an intelligent man to say? At what point does it become advisable to give up one's ability to reason?

I've always supported scientific inquiry over blind faith. And I'm definitely not a creationist. But these days arguing about various things with Postmodernist philosophy students has certainly stopped me from saying things like "science is objective" or unbiased or "science has no personality"... However I still maintain (much to their annoyance) that science is relatively objective.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut People should really be taught about logical fallacies in school...

Nice post, I�ll be the first to admit I�ve never taken a class in logic and wasn�t aware of most terminology u listed, but I'm always open to learning new things.

But, I'd say there are a lot of ppl (especially religious types) who fear questioning church teachings would either be a sin or undermine their faith and intern destroy their purpose in life. It�s kind of like in the movie the Matrix; it�s easier to live in the bliss of ignorance than face the cold hard truth of reality.

My point is some ppl aren't open to your ideas not because you aren't making a clear and believable arguement. Because it's their life is built upon faith-based facts laid out by their religion.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Also non-god believers...wut do u think about life? after we die..we decompose and rot and insects eat our corpse up? arent yall scared that life is just a bag of feelings and memories gather togethered to later be dumped into a heap of soil for eternity. All feelings and memories to be destroyed?

I -agnostic- love life. When I die, I wish I could go to some heaven and have an infinite afterlife. That would indeed be really nice, but I am not placing my bets on it. Yes, I will die, decompose and that's it.

The idea is that my thinking that after I am dead there it's over, makes me strive harder when I am here. I want to have children who will remember me and I want to leave the planet a better place for them than it was now. The only way to 'immortality' is through achievement. If I do something extraordianry, I might end up in a history book and some 500 years from now, people will read my name, just like they read Christopher Columbus' name today.

Anyhow, if there is an afterlife, then I will be more than happy, but I will not take my chances by assuming there is one. I have this one chance at life and I better do well at it.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax objective:Having actual existence or reality. truth: Reality; actuality.

The concept os one absolute truth has disappeared over the last few centuries in all but the minds of the most ignorant. So now there can exist a multitude of truths... (or even a heirarchy of truths). Certain things may be "objectively true" (eg. "this is a table") other things may be subjectively true (eg. "it is wrong to do x"). This distinction is common in philosophical discussions (esp. existentialism) or debates of "science v religion". However more modern philosophy undermines teh certainty even of such distinction as even statements like "this is a table" lose much of their objectivity when we realise that even a word like "table" is constructed and has no absolute meaning.

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 The idea is that my thinking that after I am dead there it's over, makes me strive harder when I am here. I want to have children who will remember me and I want to leave the planet a better place for them than it was now. The only way to 'immortality' is through achievement.

Or stealing someone else's, i.e. Christopher Columbus!

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy The concept os one absolute truth has disappeared over the last few centuries in all but the minds of the most ignorant. So now there can exist a multitude of truths... (or even a heirarchy of truths). Certain things may be "objectively true" (eg. "this is a table") other things may be subjectively true (eg. "it is wrong to do x"). This distinction is common in philosophical discussions (esp. existentialism) or debates of "science v religion". However more modern philosophy undermines teh certainty even of such distinction as even statements like "this is a table" lose much of their objectivity when we realise that even a word like "table" is constructed and has no absolute meaning.

Don't want to be pissing anyone off here, but I've always thought of existentialism as a lot of bollocks. I mean, the idea itself has some merit, but it's been twisted and distorted far too often in order to qualify unprovable theories or notions using the relativist fallacy.

The word "table" may be a human creation, but no matter what you call it, it's still a table in the physical sense. Changing its name doesn't change what it is.

Science may be full of "subjective" definitions and terms, but it's still based on observable behaviour, and that behaviour doesn't change no matter how the science is applied. One might say that the birth of quantum physics proved classical physics "wrong", but that's not correct; classical physics still perfectly explains physical behaviour on a macro scale, which is exactly what the science was intended to do. Quantum mechanics just explains how classical mechanics work on a subatomic level, it doesn't show up classical mechanics as "subjective" or prove it to be any less "true."

Maybe that example seems irrelevant, but my point is, it's easy to get caught up in semantics about truth, but simply stated, the difference between objective and subjective truth is exactly what you'd expect: objective truth is based on the object, subjective truth is based on the subject (i.e. yourself). I think it's stretching it a bit to say that only the most ignorant people think an objective truth exists.

Deeply philosophical topics are supposed to be debated with accepted logical principles, not used to trivialize them. Unfortunately, certain topics seem to exist for the sole purpose of defying common logic...

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Science may be full of "subjective" definitions and terms, but it's still based on observable behaviour, and that behaviour doesn't change no matter how the science is applied. One might say that the birth of quantum physics proved classical physics "wrong", but that's not correct; classical physics still perfectly explains physical behaviour on a macro scale, which is exactly what the science was intended to do. Quantum mechanics just explains how classical mechanics work on a subatomic level, it doesn't show up classical mechanics as "subjective" or prove it to be any less "true."

well, isn't that the scientific method. One tries deduce rules about behavior. These based on observations and verified using repeatable experiments. Nowadays one might have to add that these experiements are repeatable within the same reference frame (remembering that tunnel/ train question a while ago), but that doesn't change the underlying principle.

The problem is just that there is a limit to science. What are subatomic particles made of? Wouldn't you say that there is a point, where science does not have the answers - yet? That is where belief begins and that is where god belongs, imho.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.