Creationism destroyed in one post!

life's tough, so there's nothing positive about it? nothing spiritual, gregg? i dont follow.

Humans being animals explains many of the abhorrent behavior of humans, as humans in general behave like animals in many situations. WE still possess many traits seen in the animal world. A loving god creating everything doesn't explain all the shit in the world and the struggle of life in general, regardless of which species we are speaking of. They usually just make up bullshit excuses to give their god a free pass on all the crap and the basic way life is set up, one organism needed to kill another in order to survive.

absolutely no evidence of anything spiritual, so I make no comment on that. What some people claim to be spiritual events are nothing more than normal physiological events that they put meaning into it to be what they want, and they want to be god experience or what not
most religious traditions function much like your closing statement. for the desire of added meaning, or to pay into our righteousness, we superimpose the hand of god on whatsoever goes on in our lives. the bible, among many religious texts, doesn't fail to capture the cruelty of earth and man. i guess that's where i fail to follow your argument that cruelty negates god.

clearly you've blown the boundaries of what people see god as to fit a definitive equation which satisfies you. how many times have creationists claimed that evolution theory is more than it claims to be in an effort to debunk its basis? i would say that conclusions like your own only lend to that, for what that's worth.
 
sorry, man. its part of a thesis which grows at every evolution debate. i consistently see atheists taking up arms against theists, but using scientific grounds as their primary assault. greggs post expounds beyond my ability to do so. he elevates a theory like evolution to god status, just so that it could be worthy to combat a guy who is drawn riding clouds that cherubs hold up. a major fail where i'm concerned, and one that reveals the religious nature of some believers in science. it further indicates a no-net-loss in mysticism between atheists and god-believers, notwithstanding the contradiction that atheists live out.

as an existentialist. i see it as an indication of the greater-than-self essence which we tend to, invariably, whether through god or science or war...

Science gives us answers to question. REal answers, that lead to new technologies, new medical treatments, knowledge of the world as to what is bad for us, what is good for us, how to live longer more productive lives. A belief in god does none of those things, other than give someone some self satisfaction or sense of comfort. NOthing mystical about it, its tangible, real, addressed reality and issue that reality has, and has been proven to be factual or lead to solving of real world problems, as all the workable technology around us has shown.

What problem does religion ever solve?

i think, buddy, that you've got the answers in mind. i would add to yours a belonging to community and tradition, a cultural affinity which science has no place in offering. There's an extent technocratic atheists ascribe some of these displaced comforts to science, and you share such rhetoric, but looking at science for what it is, these projections are like mollusks on a ship hull, not the ship, science, itself.

all too often people try to whittle away at folks' faiths by undertaking an assault on religion's capacity to explain the world. for many religious people, that capacity is largely already in the domain of science. while you feel that you may be hacking at the limbs of what i might believe, in reality, you're just trimming the nails.
 
Last edited:
sorry, man. its part of a thesis which grows at every evolution debate. i consistently see atheists taking up arms against theists, but using scientific grounds as their primary assault. greggs post expounds beyond my ability to do so. he elevates a theory like evolution to god status, just so that it could be worthy to combat a guy who is drawn riding clouds that cherubs hold up. a major fail where i'm concerned, and one that reveals the religious nature of some believers in science. it further indicates a no-net-loss in mysticism between atheists and god-believers, notwithstanding the contradiction that atheists live out.

as an existentialist. i see it as an indication of the greater-than-self essence which we tend to, invariably, whether through god or science or war...

Science gives us answers to question. REal answers, that lead to new technologies, new medical treatments, knowledge of the world as to what is bad for us, what is good for us, how to live longer more productive lives. A belief in god does none of those things, other than give someone some self satisfaction or sense of comfort. NOthing mystical about it, its tangible, real, addressed reality and issue that reality has, and has been proven to be factual or lead to solving of real world problems, as all the workable technology around us has shown.

What problem does religion ever solve?

i think, buddy, that you've got the answers in mind. i would add to yours a belonging to community and tradition, a cultural affinity which science has no place in offering. There's an extent technocratic atheists ascribe some of these displaced comforts to science, and you share such rhetoric, but looking at science for what it is, these projections are like mollusks on a ship hull, not the ship, science, itself.

all too often people try to whittle away at folks' faiths by undertaking an assault on religion's capacity to explain the world. for many religious people, that capacity is largely already in the domain of science. while you feel that you may be hacking at the limbs of what i might believe, in reality, you're just trimming the nails.

YOu can get all the sense of community, tradition, and cultural affinity without any religion.
 
religious communities pack a lot of tradition, doc, being thousands of years old and all, for some. has it boiled down to a matter of there being alternatives, alone, which make religion useless? sheer preference for religion presents a convincing counterpoint, there.

then what about spirituality and soul? religions are the traditions which organize these most existential demands of humanity into a community.

i only present these to help you out, as you seem dumbfounded by why people remain religious when there's science, or while there's imperfection in the world. i dont see how these concepts really impinge on the domain of religion as ive come into it in the 20th century.

religions which try to hold 1st century or older domain to modern light may be your huckleberry.
 
religious communities pack a lot of tradition, doc, being thousands of years old and all, for some. has it boiled down to a matter of there being alternatives, alone, which make religion useless? sheer preference for religion presents a convincing counterpoint, there.

then what about spirituality and soul? religions are the traditions which organize these most existential demands of humanity into a community.

i only present these to help you out, as you seem dumbfounded by why people remain religious when there's science, or while there's imperfection in the world. i dont see how these concepts really impinge on the domain of religion as ive come into it in the 20th century.

religions which try to hold 1st century or older domain to modern light may be your huckleberry.

Like I said, absolutely no evidence of anything spiritual or of a soul other than electrochemical signaling in our brains, so I don't feel the need to state anything about something as far as I know doesn't exist.

I make those arguments about religion to point out flaws in the thinking that goes into a religion, even though all you really need to do is bring up the most obvious argument, which is the complete lack of any supporting evidence. Real, tangible experience, not someone's personal experience, which is biased and not tangible evidence IMO.
 
i think that we desire intangibles, gregg. your attempt to champion a lifestyle without them, denies an existential demand of humanity: the concepts of hope and faith help us to cope with our mortality and some of the rough edges that life can deal us. then you fit the glove of one such person who has not moved beyond this need, but has just chosen to project this faith on science. from where i stand, you deal in many intangibles in the argument which first started this discussion: that you feel evolution can account for not only our nature, but our actions. the tangibility of that link extends beyond the science of evolution, by far, to the philosophy of existentialism, then makes a faithful leap to presume that given some connections, that scope comprises the sum of factors for the human circumstance. it fails to challenge god as i understand god, but fails to connect tangibly to evolution theory as i understand that, as well.

on that same line of reasoning, isn't religion a given? is it not by virtue of our intellect that we ponder on god in the first place, either having the capacity to acknowledge that there is a god, if there is, or invent the many instances of god which we have? doesn't our conscious congregation around belief and identity indicate humanity amid the rest of the animal kingdom?

the lesser animals transact in the tangible cause-effect relationships which you condone, and our capacity for thought can certainly take this study to the next level...witness science.. what really exhibits this capacity beyond the extent of the other critters on the globe is faith, imagination, and the willing suspension of disbelief. i'm puzzled you see progress in denying that, or virtue in constraining religion, one of the major products of our nature and intellect.

what is the point, then, of your obsession with conceived tangibility and basis in fact? it certainly has it's place, and by no means is religion more capable of displacing that position, as some attempt to. that place, however, does not entirely preoccupy what we've evolved into. it leaves some fundamental capacities for thought and emotion on the table, which religion has sufficed for millenia to organize.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top