|
God and Evolution.. (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orbax |
dig, I was answering that way cuz I thought you actually wanted to know. You were looking for something to attack. Anyways. Read C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity". it doesnt talk about even god until 3/4 way through the book. That combined with "The Abolition of Man" (also CS Lewis) are the two most influential books Ive ever read for deciding on God in my life. More influential than the Bible included in that.
I almost went to a private Christian Uni last winter because they offered a religous studies with an emphasis on C.S. Lewis. THan I decided on Law School, because I do have to live in this world hehe.
Anyone else read these? Your thoughts?
for those who havent its a treat. CS Lewis is a very intelligent man, and its a fun read regardless of your beliefs.
PS: Lewis tends to blow the entire "morality is taught to us" thing out of the water.
interesting note: WHy in all of human history has not 1 culture praised the greedy man, the selfish man, or the man who runs away in battle? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
dig, I was answering that way cuz I thought you actually wanted to know. |
Huh? Your answers didn't say anything, that's why I "attacked" them.
I don't know where the guys from the political forum went, but it's too frustrating for me to continue to debunk the same straw-man arguments and circular reasoning in every post. How can people be so bloody persistent in their fallacies? It's gotten stale, anyone else want to give it a shot or have you given up?
Incidentally, that CS Lewis book has been known for turning devout Christians away from Christianity, so I'm surprised you're using it as a source.
link |
|
|
| sherman |
I have been following this thread for a few days, and felt like i had something to add.
I think that a basic point that many of you are assuming is that all churches and church leaders personify a religion, and whatever they do or say is what that religion is all about. I find this to be quite untrue. You assume that just because there have been religious wars makes religion bad. Also not true. This just means that people who started the wars are fighting in that religion's name, but that does not make what they are doing right. They assume what they are doing is right, and so fight in that religion's name. Just because they are doing this doesn't mean that they should be fighting and killing in thier religion's name. This seems to be a big problem in society today. People make decisions about religions based on the words and actions of the members of these religions. This is a bad idea, mostly because no one is perfect and cannot consistantly do a good job representing thier religion. To really find out about a religion, I think it is a much better idea to actually learn about a religion's ideas and its stands on issues from its religious writings, such as the Bible, and from reliable sources such as books that have been painstakingly researched and crosschecked by many reliable people, such as The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. I just don't see how people can make life changing decisions about their or other people's religions just from what they heard from one or two people and take it as reliable fact.
Another thing, it was commented how Christianity didn't start until hudreds of years after Christ's life. This is not true at all. Christianity started spreading quite quickly after Christ's death, and the first churches were started only a few years later, so the points made about Jesus being "forgotten" for a few hundred years and then his followers "playing a bit of broken telephone" has no real basis.
Just my two cents. |
|
|
| Flyboy217 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
interesting note: WHy in all of human history has not 1 culture praised the greedy man, the selfish man, or the man who runs away in battle? |
Because all of these things are directly detrimental to the well-being of the society as a whole. Such traits are frowned upon by societies, not by individuals. Plenty of people are selfish, greedy, and cowardly. As noted above, given sufficient intelligence, an individual can in fact generate any value system he wants purely by willpower. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Huh? Your answers didn't say anything, that's why I "attacked" them.
I don't know where the guys from the political forum went, but it's too frustrating for me to continue to debunk the same straw-man arguments and circular reasoning in every post. How can people be so bloody persistent in their fallacies? It's gotten stale, anyone else want to give it a shot or have you given up? |
How many times do I have to say im not debating you? im not used to people asking questions for the sole purpose of finding everything wrong with them. You keep couching your questions as a "Why do you believe?" and then I answer, and you say "straw man".
All this you read on the internet, still doesnt prove anything DN, not a damn thing. If there has been ANYTHING conclusive itd be on the news "Christianity Debunked!". You arent the first one to think of anything youve said.
If I say here is why "I" believe, its because i dont feel like writing a ing book on everything attached to it. You keep asking for falsifiable things. The whole point, is that everything swirls back to GOD as a nexus, which isnt falsifiable. In science classes im sure youve heard the teacher say "We arent going to use God as an answer because we cant prove it / disprove it". Science is a different realm. Sure Religion and Science overlap and mix in a lot of places. But there are some polar opposites on both sides that are non-falsifiable at this point. Science isnt the only thing out there with something to prove.
So why dont you quit the agressive bull, get off your high horse of "Where are my political forum chums ho ho?" and get with the program. If you go through life talking to people like you respond to things on this forum, youre gonna have a rough life. People find that constantly probing, searching, attacking mindset pretty ing annoying. And other people have already mentioned you seem to think you are the only one with answers worth responding to.
Personally, I would find it fascinating to learn about the gaps in evolution. But too many times i find the "if its far enough back in time and small enough in size, anything can happen" theory. Im a cynic by nature, but i like learning why PEOPLE believe in stuff. Not why a person quotes a website. I very much doubt that the websites being posted were the original reason why you came to believe. They were in the first 3 responses by GOOGLE.
Anyways. I doubt very much that anyone would ever be able to present a full life choice case over the internet, because that would require writing at least 1 book. There are so many things that come into play, and many are hard to verbalize. If a question is answered in one way, there is another way to attack it. This ever-revolving sphere of attacks is annoying.
so all in all, im gonna say if you have personal reasons to believe in stuff, thats worthy of discussion. Anything else is a stale vomit that has been staining the rug of humanity for a lot longer than we've been alive.
edit** any of us except neo |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by sherman
Another thing, it was commented how Christianity didn't start until hudreds of years after Christ's life. This is not true at all. Christianity started spreading quite quickly after Christ's death, and the first churches were started only a few years later, so the points made about Jesus being "forgotten" for a few hundred years and then his followers "playing a bit of broken telephone" has no real basis. |
The problem with this argument is that the reference for this 'timeline' is the same reference that I was discrediting as a historical source (the bible). I do not believe that historical records actually confirm this, however I could be wrong so I won't try to say that I'm 100% certain on it. It's too hard to google that info because there's too many pro-Christian sites out there to sift through, so I'll just retract that argument unless somebody else wants to back it up. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
How many times do I have to say im not debating you? im not used to people asking questions for the sole purpose of finding everything wrong with them. You keep couching your questions as a "Why do you believe?" and then I answer, and you say "straw man".
All this you read on the internet, still doesnt prove anything DN, not a damn thing. If there has been ANYTHING conclusive itd be on the news "Christianity Debunked!". You arent the first one to think of anything youve said.
If I say here is why "I" believe, its because i dont feel like writing a ing book on everything attached to it. You keep asking for falsifiable things. The whole point, is that everything swirls back to GOD as a nexus, which isnt falsifiable. In science classes im sure youve heard the teacher say "We arent going to use God as an answer because we cant prove it / disprove it". Science is a different realm. Sure Religion and Science overlap and mix in a lot of places. But there are some polar opposites on both sides that are non-falsifiable at this point. Science isnt the only thing out there with something to prove.
So why dont you quit the agressive bull, get off your high horse of "Where are my political forum chums ho ho?" and get with the program. If you go through life talking to people like you respond to things on this forum, youre gonna have a rough life. People find that constantly probing, searching, attacking mindset pretty ing annoying. And other people have already mentioned you seem to think you are the only one with answers worth responding to.
Personally, I would find it fascinating to learn about the gaps in evolution. But too many times i find the "if its far enough back in time and small enough in size, anything can happen" theory. Im a cynic by nature, but i like learning why PEOPLE believe in stuff. Not why a person quotes a website. I very much doubt that the websites being posted were the original reason why you came to believe. They were in the first 3 responses by GOOGLE.
Anyways. I doubt very much that anyone would ever be able to present a full life choice case over the internet, because that would require writing at least 1 book. There are so many things that come into play, and many are hard to verbalize. If a question is answered in one way, there is another way to attack it. This ever-revolving sphere of attacks is annoying.
so all in all, im gonna say if you have personal reasons to believe in stuff, thats worthy of discussion. |
This is bloody ridiculous. We're attacking your logic because every single one of your posts is preachy and completely illogical.
I'm not even gonna waste time on that nexus bull. For anything to constitute a proof, it needs to be falsifiable to the contrary, and you just said that's impossible (thus, it is a catchall argument), so why can't you just admit that you can't prove it and say you believe? Nobody said you had to prove it. Just don't PREACH!
Science does not have anything to "prove", which is why many of us are pissed off with religious dogma. It always seems to come around to saying that science is there to prove God DOESN'T exist, well science is about discovery, it doesn't have any inner motivation!
Do you even know what a straw-man argument is?
Oh, and my favourite quote:
| quote: | | Anything else is a stale vomit that has been staining the rug of humanity for a lot longer than we've been alive. |
Basically explains all of my objections to your arguments. Frankly, I think Christian Evangelism is a stale vomit that has been staining the rug of humanity for a lot longer than we've been alive. |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
Orbax you make some good points..
You never get anywhere with topics of science vs religion vs god. Its like discussing whether Palestine or Isreal is right, it doesnt get anywhere and people start getting mad and attacking people's opinions. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dmatrox
Orbax you make some good points..
You never get anywhere with topics of science vs religion vs god. Its like discussing whether Palestine or Isreal is right, it doesnt get anywhere and people start getting mad and attacking people's opinions. |
We never get anywhere because certain people don't acknowledge our arguments... |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
We never get anywhere because certain people don't acknowledge our arguments... |
Why should they, if everyone did, everyone would think alike, no use for that. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dmatrox
Why should they, if everyone did, everyone would think alike, no use for that. |
No, there's a difference between agreeing with arguments and acknowledging them.
Disagreement is fine, lack of acknowledgment only goes to prove one's own stubbornness and ignorance. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Rather than attacking any specific person, I'm simply going to post this for those who don't know:
| quote: |
A Straw Man Argument is a statement a person makes if they want to more easily attack an opposing position.
Let's take the following position: "Evolution has been the main engine of speciation throughout natural history."
A person using a Straw Man against that position will intentionally make a ridiculous caricature of evolution, one that only the most ignorant might believe. These are the steps they might use to try to "disprove evolution".
Steps used in creating and using a straw man argument:
Step 1: Build the Straw Man: "Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant!?"
Step 2: Knock down the Straw Man by any means necessary: "How could a mouse evolve into an elephant? There would have to be billions of changes for that to occur, and nobody has ever seen speciation anyway!"
Step 3: Connect the original position to the Straw Man:"So it's silly...who has ever seen a mouse evolve into an elephant? Nobody!!"
Step 4: Claim to negate the opposing position by the connection in 3. "Therefore, evolution must be false!"
|
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html
And yes, I got it from google, sorry for taking the "easy way out" but at least I'm linking to an easily-viewable site, not telling people to go read a book. |
|
|
|
|
