TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Your Worldview?? (Poll)
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Your Worldview?? (Poll)

out of curiosity, which worldview/opinion of the world do you hold to?

Naturalist - Atheist/Evolutionist/Agnostic/Secularist

Theism - Monotheistic Religions(Mostly)

Pantheism - Belief in Brahman/Buddhism/Hinduism/The Divine Essence

I am an Atheist I can't see why people even believe in god or an afterlife.

Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: out of curiosity, which worldview/opinion of the world do you hold to? Naturalist - Atheist/Evolutionist/Agnostic/Secularist

Surely you can believe in evolution and be secular and still believe in God(s)?

Anyway, I disproved the existence of God in the chill out room so after everyone's read that nobody will be able to chose anything other than a!

Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Surely you can believe in evolution and be secular and still believe in God(s)?

evolution does not have any belief in a god. if someone says they believe both, they are fooling themselves.

Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: evolution does not have any belief in a god. if someone says they believe both, they are fooling themselves.

When you say that you mean a belief in your image of God

Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley When you say that you mean a belief in your image of God

no, i mean, a belief in a creator/diety of any image. some people want to believe in a middle ground that isnt there. there is no provision about god or a god in the evolution theory. if so, show me where it is.

the opposite is true for a theist. there is no theistic religion that believes evolution.

you're either on one side or the other.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: no, i mean, a belief in a creator/diety of any image. some people want to believe in a middle ground that isnt there. there is no provision about god or a god in the evolution theory. if so, show me where it is. the opposite is true for a theist. there is no theistic religion that believes evolution. you're either on one side or the other.

Er...

No you're still using the Christianity model (you dont seem to be able to see outside of it)

Why cant somebody believe in a God and the theory of evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with God, it merely states that animals evolved from previous animals. Why cant somebody believe in a God and that? Maybe 'God' was the one that mixed the green slime up?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Er... No you're still using the Christianity model (you dont seem to be able to see outside of it) Why cant somebody believe in a God and the theory of evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with God, it merely states that animals evolved from previous animals. Why cant somebody believe in a God and that? Maybe 'God' was the one that mixed the green slime up?

i can think outside of it.

i never said one person cant believe in a god AND evolution. some people do. but in the evolution theory, there is no provision for a god. a god, any god. ive never read in a science textbook, "god mixed the green slime up" ive never even seen that "god could have mixed it up" in any textbook. ive never even seen the word "god" in any textbook unless to mention the ID theory and alien theory in one vague paragraph.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: i can think outside of it. i never said one person cant believe in a god AND evolution. some people do. but in the evolution theory, there is no provision for a god. a god, any god. ive never read in a science textbook, "god mixed the green slime up" ive never even seen that "god could have mixed it up" in any textbook. ive never even seen the word "god" in any textbook unless to mention the ID theory and alien theory in one vague paragraph.

Why would they?!?!?!?!?!?!? Fuck's sake! Have you ever seen God mentioned in a maths book? No so does that mean mathemeticians have disproved God?! JESUS!! Evolutionists say animals evolved from other animals - they do not say animals evolved from other animals therefore God does not exist. The objective of the evolutionists was not, as you seem to mistakingly believe, to disprovew the existence of God, it was merely to find out the truth of our origins, just like every other single scientific theory is a search for truth

God has nothing to do with evolution!!!

Evolution states that animals evolve from previous animals. The theory therefore disproved CHRISTIANITY as told by the Bible. You cannot think outside of the box because to you Christianity = Religion. Therefore, because evolution disproved CHRISTIANITY you assume it must also claim to disprove religion (ie God) It doesn't and makes no such claim.

You're just having a complete mare comprehending what "God" actually means

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Why would they?!?!?!?!?!?!? Fuck's sake! Have you ever seen God mentioned in a maths book? No so does that mean mathemeticians have disproved God?! JESUS!! Evolutionists say animals evolved from other animals - they do not say animals evolved from other animals therefore God does not exist. The objective of the evolutionists was not, as you seem to mistakingly believe, to disprovew the existence of God, it was merely to find out the truth of our origins, just like every other single scientific theory is a search for truth God has nothing to do with evolution!!! Evolution states that animals evolve from previous animals. The theory therefore disproved CHRISTIANITY as told by the Bible. You cannot think outside of the box because to you Christianity = Religion. Therefore, because evolution disproved CHRISTIANITY you assume it must also claim to disprove religion (ie God) It doesn't and makes no such claim. You're just having a complete mare comprehending what "God" actually means

your missing the point entirely. u cant be one or the other. as you said yourself, god(any god) has nothing to do with evolution. evolution doesnt believe in a creator god. if there is no creator god, there is no god, hence, u cant believe in a god and evolution at the same time.

if u think evolution is science, and u believe in science whole-heartedly, then u know mainstream science does not recognize a god of any kind. or any deity. so i dont know why you think belief in both a god and evolution at the same time is a plausible notion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: your missing the point entirely. u cant be one or the other. as you said yourself, god(any god) has nothing to do with evolution. evolution doesnt believe in a creator god. if there is no creator god, there is no god, hence, u cant believe in a god and evolution at the same time. if u think evolution is science, and u believe in science whole-heartedly, then u know mainstream science does not recognize a god of any kind. or any deity. so i dont know why you think belief in both a god and evolution at the same time is a plausible notion.

Oh my god!!! listen to what he just said, then think about it 10 more times and perhaps you will understand.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: your missing the point entirely. u cant be one or the other. as you said yourself, god(any god) has nothing to do with evolution. evolution doesnt believe in a creator god. if there is no creator god, there is no god, hence, u cant believe in a god and evolution at the same time. if u think evolution is science, and u believe in science whole-heartedly, then u know mainstream science does not recognize a god of any kind. or any deity. so i dont know why you think belief in both a god and evolution at the same time is a plausible notion.

Who is this Mr Evolution?!

Anyway - the sun is a God, I believe in the sun, and I believe in the theory of evolution

Until you can convince me that only one of evolution or the sun exists, then STFU!!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: evolution doesnt believe in a creator god.

The theory of evolution says nothing about the possible existence of Gods nor does it say anything about the origin or creation of life. You, like a number of fundamentalist Christians, seem to be very confused about what evolution actually is (your personification of the theory of evolution as something that "believes" in certain concepts gives me a pretty good indication of that) and therefore what it is you're arguing against.

Although I would consider God an unnecessary plurality with regards to the emergence and gradual speciation of life on this planet, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that necessitates that:

1) God does not exist.
2) God did not create the universe.
3) God did not create the life on this planet.
4) God did not directly influence the speciational evolution of life on this planet.

The reason for this is simple: God is a scientifically untestable hypothesis and therefore cannot be included in scientific theories such as those of evolution and natural selection. This is not to say that the evolutionary theory precludes any possibility of God existing (though it does render him, in certain capacities, as unnecessary) or that the theory of evolution and the theories of God are mutually exclusive (that is, they are in direct contradiction so logic dictates that you can only believe in one or the other), just that God does not fall under the scope of the scientific method and cannot, therefore, be included in any scientific discussion about the origin and nature of life on this planet.

Ya dig?

TvD, evolution and God are certainly not incompatible. Many Christians (I'm only using them as an example because I'm familiar with many of them, and I can refence to their holy text with some knowledge) believe that Genesis is simply an allegory of evolution. They think that God started things cooking, and then let the universe run its course. Until physics advances so that we can work out what happened in the first quarter second of the universe (and before), then God cannot be totally ruled out.

Also, how did life first begin? We haven't managed to synthesise organic life even in laboratories yet, but when we do, the way we do it will need to have been doable naturally when in the conditions before life on earth. Otherwise, we may start having to reconsider God as getting the life started, even if he's not doing much now. Of course, he may have repeated this process on countless other planets, but this doesn't have much to do with it...

So, although evolution, with our current level of understanding does not require any gods, one would certainly be rather useful to it, and is, as ever, a possibility.

I myself have always been a commited atheist, but, I am not totally ruling out the possibilty of a God who helped things get going, but now sits around doing sod all, letting things happen. What I don't like is the possibility of a God who 'loves' me. Any God that really loved me wouldn't make the world such a difficult place. I'm of the thinking that the Chrisitian God is a comfort zone, for desperate people worried about dying, but that a God could exist. If that makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Larkin Also, how did life first begin? We haven't managed to synthesise organic life even in laboratories yet, but when we do, the way we do it will need to have been doable naturally when in the conditions before life on earth. Otherwise, we may start having to reconsider God as getting the life started, even if he's not doing much now.

We haven't been able to generate life in under laboratory conditions that replicate the atmosphere of early Earth, but we have been able to create organic monomers (amnimo acids etc.) that are, quite literally, the building blocks necessary for the emergence of life:

quote:

Monomers combine chemically with each other to form long complex chains of molecules (polymers) that are used to build living cells. Oparin hypothesized that on the early earth, in the absense of oxygen, abiological physical processes would produce simple carbon-containing compounds. This hypothesis was tested in 1953 by a very famous experiment performed by Stanley Miller in the laboratory of Harold Urey, an expert on the early composition of the earth's atmosphere. Using a combination of gasses thought to represent the early atmosphere, in a glass refluxing system, they created a minerature ocean-atmosphere system energized with an electrical spark. The reaction of the gasses in the sparking chamber produced a number of simple amino acids when the water �ocean� was later analyzed.

http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/2.html

The chemical synthesis of these monomers (over the course of millions of years) would have given rise to polymers which are very complex molecules that could, given time, synthesise to give rise to single-celled organisims.

However, the criticism that we cannot, at the moment anyway, create life in a laboratory under the conditions that existed in early Earth is probably unfair. The most important factor in the development from monomers (which we can create) to polymers, to life itself is the factor of time. The emergence of monomers to the emergence of polymers may have taken hundreds of millions of years. The transition of polymers into complex, living single-celled organisms may have taken hundreds of millions of years more. The evolution of single-celled organisms into multicellular life did, based on the fossil evidence, take hundreds of millions of years. Put simply, the immense amount of time required to replicate abiogenesis cannot be produced under laboratory conditions, so I'm not sure why the "synthesis of organic life in laboratories", as you put it, would be necessary to demonstrate the possibility or likelihood of life emerging without interference from a deity.

In any case, as I've always maintained, the emergence of something as chemically quantifiable as life from chemicals that were and are common on Earth is much easier to justify logically than the emergence of something as complex and powerful as God from nothing. God just isn't an adequate explanation for the emergence of life on Earth - it's an inherently more complex, convoluted theory than that of scientific abiogenesis. If theists try to tell me that the emergence of life from nothing (which isn't actualy true - as I said, all the chemical elements were already there) is less believable than the emergence of an omniscient, omnipotent being from nothing, who then, using magic that cannot be explained or in any way quantified scientifically, created life on a back-water planet for his own amusement, then I can only laugh. God is an unnecessary plurality that poses more questions than it solves.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The theory of evolution says nothing about the possible existence of Gods nor does it say anything about the origin or creation of life. You, like a number of fundamentalist Christians, seem to be very confused about what evolution actually is (your personification of the theory of evolution as something that "believes" in certain concepts gives me a pretty good indication of that) and therefore what it is you're arguing against. Although I would consider God an unnecessary plurality with regards to the emergence and gradual speciation of life on this planet, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that necessitates that: 1) God does not exist. 2) God did not create the universe. 3) God did not create the life on this planet. 4) God did not directly influence the speciational evolution of life on this planet. The reason for this is simple: God is a scientifically untestable hypothesis and therefore cannot be included in scientific theories such as those of evolution and natural selection. This is not to say that the evolutionary theory precludes any possibility of God existing (though it does render him, in certain capacities, as unnecessary) or that the theory of evolution and the theories of God are mutually exclusive (that is, they are in direct contradiction so logic dictates that you can only believe in one or the other), just that God does not fall under the scope of the scientific method and cannot, therefore, be included in any scientific discussion about the origin and nature of life on this planet. Ya dig?

Please read this thorougly, :TranceVanDyk:. We've been over this again and again. What is your deal here? You pop up every few months with the same regurgitation as if we have never covered this topic before. Why have you not at least attempted to understand the most basic simple underlying concept that Renegade here has outlined?

Once again you are stating that naturalism = evolution = atheism, which we have gone over and over and fucking over again so many times in the past it makes our heads spin. Get it through your head, alright? Why the hell are you so damn threatened by science?

I'm truly sorry if for some reason the concept of evolution threatens your literal interpretation of Biblical history, but please cease attempting to corner evolution as the fucking beezlebub to your literal beliefs that hold no merit in the classroom.

Evolution gives two shits about a God in the EXACT same manner that math or physics or the fucking science of basket weaving gives two shits about God. It only involves the natural because it only can test and validate the natural. Until God or any other supernatural being can successfully show up in the natural for validation, it and any other science on the block will continue to be unconcerned with the supernatural. And as Renegade points out yet again, that DOES NOT eliminate the possibility of the supernatural - it just simply means it cannot test it.

Therefore they can coexist, but perhaps not in the manner of your literal fundamentalist beliefs. So rather than attack evolution or any other science that's unconcerned with God, do you not think it's time to maybe question your literal fundamental beliefs? Do you not think it's time to perhaps hold them under the same microscope that you continue to put evolution under again and again?

And please make sure to clean the lense when you finally decide to do that.

This is fucking getting old.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Please read this thorougly, :TranceVanDyk:. We've been over this again and again. What is your deal here? You pop up every few months with the same regurgitation as if we have never covered this topic before. Why have you not at least attempted to understand the most basic simple underlying concept that Renegade here has outlined?

Not saying TvD is a Creationist, but this is the way evolution-deniers always operate on usenet -- they make their claims, then disappear, refusing to respond to mountains of evidence and/or reappear at random times saying the same, tired old things.

It's really best not to try to force evolution-deniers to observe scientific reason. When you feel tempted, just cite the first couple links:

God and Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

From usenet:
news:talk.origins @ Google:
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins?lnk=lr&hl=en

Talk Origins newsgroup website:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

For the rest of us:
Arguments against Creationism -- including "What is Creationism?"
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/...eationists.html


Requisite Reading List

Introductions

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Evolution and Philosophy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html


Biology

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...to-biology.html

Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Fossil Hominids FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by TheNobleEu Not saying TvD is a Creationist

Well, he is a creationist...

quote:

but this is the way evolution-deniers always operate on usenet -- they make their claims, then disappear, refusing to respond to mountains of evidence

...although, in fairness, he usually responds to criticisms of his posts and sticks around for the majority of the debate...

quote:

or reappear at random times saying the same, tired old things.

...even if he does just rehash the same old Biblical literalist apologetics time and time again.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Worldview?? (Poll)

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Well, he is a creationist...

My point was to post the links, not label TvD -- I don't know him or his posting habits, so I couldn't so didn't say whether he was a Creationist.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Words are very unnecessary: they can only do harm.

DM4Eva!

-N

well, yea i do believe in creationism.

but what u guys are saying as i understand it to be is this::

evolution niether supports or denies the existance of a god.

correct me if im wrong.

guys im just defending what i believe. im not "attacking evolution" as some of you are saying. i may not be as knowledgable about physical/life science as some of you may be, but i do have an above average knowledge about it. if im wrong, go ahead and argue, your arguements just dont brush right over my head. i do think long and hard sometimes. ive spent hours sometimes working on one single post in a debate, though i no longer have the time to do so.

concerning the amino acids made the laboratory, i can recall that they were non-essential, or were incapable of supporting any type of life??

and basically, the original arguement that got going was my statement that it is not feasable to believe in both evolution and a god. unless you invent some new psuedo-god, when many people refer to god starting evolution, they are refering to the christian god, and for that assumption, they are already wrong. as creationism and evolution are pretty much christian vs. secular camps. genesis was written in hebrew, and the hebrew word used for "day" literally meant a 24 hour time period as it is used other times in the old testament to refer to a 24 hour time period. night and day do not last thousands or millions of years.

anywho, i started the poll as my mind was curious of what the numbers were of everyone's general worldview.

who here is the pantheist?

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: well, yea i do believe in creationism. but what u guys are saying as i understand it to be is this:: evolution niether supports or denies the existance of a god.

that is correct. theres an obvious relationship, but there is nothing in evolutionary theory that argues one way or the other. stephen hawking (a brief history of time) discusses the existance of god a bit. interesting. though prob more interesting for ppl smarter than me

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: and basically, the original arguement that got going was my statement that it is not feasable to believe in both evolution and a god.

this is not a matter of opinion, you are very wrong on this count. read above posts or read what various scientists say on the mysteries of the universe. there are plenty of bible-toting scientists. einstein said that the more he studied the universe the more he believed in a higher power.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: genesis was written in hebrew, and the hebrew word used for \"day\" literally meant a 24 hour time period as it is used other times in the old testament to refer to a 24 hour time period. night and day do not last thousands or millions of years.

i hate to break this to you, but genesis was written in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, mainly thumbing its nose at other religious doctrine of its time. for instance in (roman, greek?) mythology the various gods would battle the 'sea monsters' for control. in genesis it mentions god creating the sea monsters.

i think its hugely problematic to rely on an ancient text where the context of the time it was written in has disappeared. imagine if 1000 years from now people were looking at GW Bush's speeches as an idea for how the world existed for us

back to the point though, it is normally christians that rule out evolution because of god, rather than scientists ruling out god because of evolutionary theory. the two can quite easily co-exist, until scientists discover a means of disproving/proving god's existence

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: evolution niether supports or denies the existance of a god.

Correct

quote:

and basically, the original arguement that got going was my statement that it is not feasable to believe in both evolution and a god. unless you invent some new psuedo-god

I asked earlier so I'll ask again anyway...is it possible to believe in the Sun and the theory of evolution?

quote:

as creationism and evolution are pretty much christian vs. secular camps.

As I pointed out above, why do you think secularism = aetheism? Secularism simply means a separation of the state from religion.

quote:

genesis was written in hebrew, and the hebrew word used for "day" literally meant a 24 hour time period as it is used other times in the old testament to refer to a 24 hour time period. night and day do not last thousands or millions of years.

You wanna discuss whats written in the Bible?! Again?! Bring it on!

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: and basically, the original arguement that got going was my statement that it is not feasable to believe in both evolution and a god. unless you invent some new psuedo-god,

Wait ... you mean a God who is less psuedo than the Christian God???? Wow, I'm surprised you have a whole classification scheme for "legitimate" and "psuedo" Gods. Care to elaborate on what distinguishes the two?

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