Anyone else have a hard time believing in evolution?

BU Medical Sciences
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
But why even assign the "first cause" to God? That's just a whimsical explanation.
 
The only thing I have trouble understanding are how the eyes came to be, but beyond that, no.
 
I don't see how atheists can explain bananas.
 
my opinion is that we should be tolerant of everyone
 
Whatyousay said:
You mean:
0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png
?

I'm just not interested in arguing about semantics, when the real issue at hand is a matter of content.
Click to expand...

Eh, arguing semantics is basically all I'm good at. 🙁

Elpenor said:
I don't see how atheists can explain bananas.
Click to expand...

Or Peanut butter.
 
Truzzi said:
The only thing I have trouble understanding are how the eyes came to be, but beyond that, no.
Click to expand...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+of+the+eye

But forget eyes, it is far harder to comprehend how many biochemical pathways came about. It blows my mind that a non-guiding force could do all that. And yet, I know that I don't have any significant comprehension of the timescale involved in evolution. Fifty full years (longer than you will practice medicine) of bacterial natural selection in an agar plate (basically all we have directly observed so far I believe) is hard enough. Something eight full magnitudes more than that? Forget actually being able to understand what that means.
 
first cause argument has the logic of a 5 year old.

brb everything needs a cause...it can't just always be there!
brb god doesn't need a cause...he was always there!


trollface.jpg
 
OnDemond said:
All right, guys. Can we please stop this discussion? This is not the place for a theological discussion, and since all of you commenting are not about to change their opinions one way or the other, we're all just wasting our time. Anyway, the OP was just being a major troll.
Click to expand...
evolution is a theological discussion now?
 
A thread full of Burnett's Law accusations and juvenile stereotypes about the southern states? Pre-allo just being pre-allo, I guess. I hope these SDNers don't act/argue this way IRL.
 
KinasePro said:
A thread full of Burnett's Law accusations and juvenile stereotypes about the southern states? Pre-allo just being pre-allo, I guess. I hope these SDNers don't act/argue this way IRL.
Click to expand...

No kidding. The intolerance on this thread blows my mind. Predictably, more from the evolutionists than from the intelligent-design-ists. Seems like some pre-meds ought to reconsider before entering the "med" phase.

Can we please, please end this theological discussion thread for once and for all?
 
OnDemond said:
No kidding. The intolerance on this thread blows my mind. Predictably, more from the evolutionists than from the intelligent-design-ists. Seems like some pre-meds ought to reconsider before entering the "med" phase.

Can we please, please end this theological discussion thread for once and for all?
Click to expand...

The use of bold, italics, and underlining in your final sentence confused me.
 
GooseWing said:
No. They cannot coexist. People like to think they can, but science completely undermines religion. In every way possible.
The fact that you believe in both simply means that you haven't thought about one or the other hard enough. If you do this, you will stop being religious.
Click to expand...

This is pure, unadultereted arrogance. First of all, trying to assign limitations to an omniscient being is an inherently flawed process. If God does exist, then he can do whatever the hell he wants. This is along the same lines as people who claim you can "disprove" God. No, you can't. It is both arrogant and futile to try and yet some of the greatest minds in this world spend their entire lives trying to do just that. Imagine how much more good guys like Dawkins could be doing if they just shut the hell up and let people live as they choose.

Second, you clearly have no idea how many religious people, especially in the western world, also accept evolution. There are men and women far smarter than you with far more experience who believe in both. This goes back to my first point, but if God does exist why could he not use evolution as his mechanism for creating life? Religious texts are so vague in their creation stories. The bible speaks of seven days, but does that mean seven literal days or is it symbolic of a process that occurred over billions of years? You don't know, I don't know, so why don't we all just accept each other and argue about things we can know and use to help people?
 
rentedmule said:
As far as your Dawkins/atheist argument, that's like saying how could a psychiatrist understand the mindset of an insane person without being insane. You don't have to believe in something in order to understand it. Your argument is the weak one, not Dawkins'.
Click to expand...

That example still goes to prove my point: a psychiatrist has only a superficial understanding of the disease. A psychiatrist understands the symptoms, maybe even the molecular basis for the disease, and can prescribe medication to alleviate those symptoms, but he doesn't understand how the patient views the world. I'd say that most atheists really even aren't all that familiar with religion (usually Christianity since that's what they have the biggest hard on for). You can see this exactly in the points most atheists seem to think are the ultimate weaknesses of religion/Christianity. Most of these problems were addressed by theologians centuries ago.

I'm guessing that most of the people that are saying "lol religion" probably 1) never grew up in the church or whose only experience with religion is forced attendance without ever actually believing in anything taught in church, 2) have probably read only some of the Bible and read it strictly literally, 3) read about atheism on Wikipedia and/or read Dawkins, and 4) profited. Most common arguments against religion launched by atheists really aren't seen as serious problems for more educated believers. If you were to ask a random Christian on the street to explain away the problem of evil, they would probably give an unsatisfactory answer that would be laughable. But then again, a random Christian on the street likely hasn't read the rigorous philosophical and theological works that undergird the faith they practice/believe in.

My point in all of this is that, as others have said (and seemingly ignored or parried with a "burden's on you lol"), religion and science aren't at odds as people here are presuming them to be, including the theory of evolution. Rejecting the general theory of evolution because of religious beliefs is silly. You can't be a scientist and entirely reject the theory of evolution. That said, there are many people in academia that are fervent religious believers. Are there people that are herpaderps and ignore science and steadfastly believe in irrelevant/incorrect religious beliefs? Of course. But this isn't the majority, and attacking those beliefs in an attempt to make all religion look stupid is misguided.
 
rentedmule said:
They can't.

[YOUTUBE]qq7LXn4KSrM[/YOUTUBE]
Click to expand...

While funny, taking people like this and using them to generalize all religious individuals is unfair and intellectually dishonest. Most christians would laugh at this guy.
 
40%Edit:38% of Americans are unfortunately similar to this guy and staunch atheists are a bit tired of being around nonsense like this, so maybe cut them some slack because such a generalization fits for a huge number of people. But yeah, I definitely agree that most atheists attack religion from a point of view where it is obvious that they themselves cannot comprehend what it is like to either 100% believe things written in religious texts or 100% believe you've had a religious/spiritual experience, and therefore they make no headway with their arguments. Both sides end up bashing their heads against a wall while the 40% of America who easily manage to believe in a god but reconcile their beliefs within the context of scientific findings stand by and facepalm.
 
Last edited:
NickNaylor said:
That example still goes to prove my point: a psychiatrist has only a superficial understanding of the disease. A psychiatrist understands the symptoms, maybe even the molecular basis for the disease, and can prescribe medication to alleviate those symptoms, but he doesn't understand how the patient views the world. I'd say that most atheists really even aren't all that familiar with religion (usually Christianity since that's what they have the biggest hard on for). You can see this exactly in the points most atheists seem to think are the ultimate weaknesses of religion/Christianity. Most of these problems were addressed by theologians centuries ago.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true. A psychiatrist does not only treat the symptoms, but also looks at scientific research that tries to create an overall picture of how the patient's world view is related to the condition and vice-versa-- leading to a less superficial treatment. Plus, a psychiatrist can understand (to a degree) how the patient views the world by simply asking the patient.

To use your own approach, doesn't a believer only have a superficial understanding of faith and god that is based on his/her subjective experience? Consequently, in light of this relativity, how can that individual Ever assume that what they believe trumps (as most of the 'ol faithful do) other people's (other denominations, faiths, nonbelievers) beliefs without rigorous, reproducible evidence/observation. And no, you can't just use the "faith is faith, science is science, they cannot be held to the same standards, na na na na I can't hear you over how awesome I am" excuse. The "you just don't understand faith" argument is equally laughable, IMO, because it provides this magical immunity to believers while you become the Spanish Inquisition all of a sudden when questioning their beliefs.

On a related note, I happened to read a piece by Feuerbach in my Religion and Society course that hits the nail on the head: He argues that God is simply a projection of self and each individual (who believes in Him) has a unique projection of what God is. Also, there is a reason why this omnipotent being who exists outside the confines of the known universe seems to only have human characteristics-- because man created God then God created man. 😉 Interesting read, nevertheless.
 
Suncrusher said:
40% of Americans are unfortunately similar to this guy and staunch atheists are a bit tired of being around nonsense like this, so maybe cut them some slack because such a generalization fits for a huge number of people.
Click to expand...

87.4% of all internet statistics are made up. I can promise you though that nearly half of America doesnt think like that. There are a lot of ignorant religious people, but even many of them can recognize the silliness in that video. A more accurate example would be the number of people who use the "irreversible complexity" argument to try and disprove evolution, which in all fairness is a tough issue to understand for someone without an education in the sciences.

But yeah, I definitely agree that most atheists attack religion from a point of view where it is obvious that they themselves cannot comprehend what it is like to either 100% believe things written in religious texts or 100% believe you've had a religious/spiritual experience, and therefore they make no headway with their arguments. Both sides end up bashing their heads against a wall while the 44% of America who believe in a god but reconcile their beliefs within the context of scientific findings stand by and facepalm.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced there are three kinds of atheists based on my experiences...

1: The atheist who hates religion and thinks it is evil and bashes it at every opportunity (usually academic snobs)

2: The atheist who doesnt believe in God but has no problem with those who do (the only truly logical thing for a true atheist to believe IMO)

3: The atheist who spends their life talking down religion because they are desperately trying to hide their own doubt and convince themselves that God doesnt exist (your everyday "religion is dumb" guy)

I see a lot of #1 on the internet, whereas #2 and #3 are the norm in the real world
 
BA11 said:
While funny, taking people like this and using them to generalize all religious individuals is unfair and intellectually dishonest. Most christians would laugh at this guy.
Click to expand...
It was not intended as such, obviously. It would be tantamount of using Westboro as a representative of all believers.

Plus, you can't expect talk of bananas to involve intellectual discourse.
 
BA11 said:
87.4% of all internet statistics are made up. I can promise you though that nearly half of America doesnt think like that.
Click to expand...

It's not a made-up internet statistic. Read the earlier pages in the thread, kthxbye. 38% of Americans polled by Gallup in December 2010 stated that their beliefs were that a god created life in pretty much their present forms less than 10,000 years ago. That statement isn't exactly a bunch of ignorance about artificially-selected domesticated bananas, but it outright rejects decades and decades of scientific findings which is similar enough...which is why I only used the word similar. Do you really think that a huge number of those 38% of Americans who are young-earth creationists are going to maintain their anti-scientific beliefs yet disagree with the banana vid..? I'm sure they're pros with regards to cognitive dissonance, but that stretches credulity.
 
BA11 said:
87.4% of all internet statistics are made up. I can promise you though that nearly half of America doesnt think like that. There are a lot of ignorant religious people, but even many of them can recognize the silliness in that video. A more accurate example would be the number of people who use the "irreversible complexity" argument to try and disprove evolution, which in all fairness is a tough issue to understand for someone without an education in the sciences.



I'm convinced there are three kinds of atheists based on my experiences...

1: The atheist who hates religion and thinks it is evil and bashes it at every opportunity (usually academic snobs)

2: The atheist who doesnt believe in God but has no problem with those who do (the only truly logical thing for a true atheist to believe IMO)

3: The atheist who spends their life talking down religion because they are desperately trying to hide their own doubt and convince themselves that God doesnt exist (your everyday "religion is dumb" guy)

I see a lot of #1 on the internet, whereas #2 and #3 are the norm in the real world
Click to expand...


4. The atheist who understands that what people believe influences how they act as well as what policies and laws are in place and that backwards religious thought can stifle social, economical, and scientific progress.

[youtube]kUwnMX8ht3U[/youtube]
 
flatearth22 said:
4. The atheist who understands that what people believe influences how they act as well as what policies and laws are in place and that backwards religious thought can stifle social, economical, and scientific progress.
Click to expand...

This is a fancy way of dressing up #1. That line of thinking ultimately leads to...

1: The atheist who hates religion and thinks it is evil and bashes it at every opportunity (usually academic snobs)
Click to expand...

And believe it or not, there are atheists who oppose stem cell research, just as there are atheists who oppose abortion. Opposing stem cell research has more to do with an ignorance of the process than religious affiliation. Many unscientific people, both religious and not, still think we're killing babies and sucking their brains out for those things.
 
Suncrusher said:
It's not a made-up internet statistic. Read the earlier pages in the thread, kthxbye. 38% of Americans polled by Gallup in December 2010 stated that their beliefs were that a god created life in pretty much their present forms less than 10,000 years ago. That statement isn't exactly a bunch of ignorance about artificially-selected domesticated bananas, but it outright rejects decades and decades of scientific findings which is similar enough...which is why I only used the word similar. Do you really think that a huge number of those 38% of Americans who are young-earth creationists are going to maintain their anti-scientific beliefs yet disagree with the banana vid..? I'm sure they're pros with regards to cognitive dissonance, but that stretches credulity.
Click to expand...

I was raised in a strong protestant home, went to church every sunday and would bet I have known as many young earth creationists in my life as anyone here. It took me years to convince my parents using science that evolution does exist and that this rock we're on has been here for more than 4 billion years.

That being said, they would have thought that video is ridiculous. Most like that that I've known would as well. There is no substance to it. Just because you believe God created everything in its current form doesnt mean you can't believe the reasoning one uses is silly.
 
BA11 said:
That being said, they would have thought that video is ridiculous. Most like that that I've known would as well. There is no substance to it. Just because you believe God created everything in its current form doesnt mean you can't believe the reasoning one uses is silly.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't think they deserve a pat on the back for rejecting Kirk Cameron's silly reasoning in favor of a different antiscientific reasoning that is only slightly less silly.

I always am careful to differentiate between the 38% of Americans who are young-earth creationists who reject scientific findings and the 40-ish% of Americans who are religious but reconcile their beliefs with scientific findings. But young-earth creationists who aren't quite silly enough to go along with Kirk Cameron don't get some sort of free pass out of the first group, in my mind. Again, which is why I used the word similar.
 
Suncrusher said:
Frankly, I don't think they deserve a pat on the back (or less heated criticism) for rejecting Kirk Cameron's silly reasoning in favor of a different antiscientific reasoning that is only slightly less silly.
Click to expand...

I try to not fault those without a scientific background for being duped by propaganda that, on the outside, sounds reasonable. Like I said earlier, something like irreversible complexity makes a lot of sense if you don't know a lot about biology and evolutionary principles.
 
BA11 said:
This is a fancy way of dressing up #1. That line of thinking ultimately leads to...



And believe it or not, there are atheists who oppose stem cell research, just as there are atheists who oppose abortion. Opposing stem cell research has more to do with an ignorance of the process than religious affiliation. Many unscientific people, both religious and not, still think we're killing babies and sucking their brains out for those things.
Click to expand...


4 and 1 aren't the same thing at all. Your whole argument is that the only "correct" atheist is the one who doesn't care what religious people believe. Wrong. There are legitimate reasons to hate on religion that aren't fueled by snobbery or doubt.
 
BA11 said:
I try to not fault those without a scientific background for being duped by propaganda that, on the outside, sounds reasonable. Like I said earlier, something like irreversible complexity makes a lot of sense if you don't know a lot about biology and evolutionary principles.
Click to expand...

yes, but I have never found any propaganda of young-earth creationists that has been even so much as reasonable-sounding (it usually involves statements like dinosaur bones being placed on earth to tempt humans into disbelieving God's Holy and Perfect Word), which is why I differentiate them from people who desperately want to fall for the nonsense of intelligent design (who are often in the group that is trying to reconcile their religious beliefs within a framework of largely accepting things like evolution and the age of the universe, but they do not themselves have an excellent scientific background and therefore can be duped, as you said). Falling for the bad science of intelligent design is completely different from the willful rejection of science that the 38% of young earth creationists engage in
 
flatearth22 said:
4 and 1 aren't the same thing at all. Your whole argument is that the only "correct" atheist is the one who doesn't care what religious people believe. Wrong. There are legitimate reasons to hate on religion that aren't fueled by snobbery or doubt.
Click to expand...

I didnt say correct, I said logical. As an atheist, if you believe there is nothing after this life and what we do ultimately has no eternal consequences, what do you care what others believe? To say we should oppose religion because it halts scientific progress seems valid on the outside, but scientific progress is ultimately halted by the declining public school system in this country moreso than by religion. If religious people were all given a crash course in stem cell research, fewer would oppose it. Period. It's easy to oppose something when you believe it involves murdering babies.
 
Suncrusher said:
yes, but I have never found any propaganda of young-earth creationists that has been even so much as reasonable-sounding, which is why I differentiate them from people who desperately want to fall for the nonsense of intelligent design (who are often trying to reconcile their beliefs within the framework of largely accepting things like evolution and the age of the universe, but do not themselves have an excellent scientific background and therefore can be duped, as you said). Falling for the bad science of intelligent design is completely different from the willful rejection of science that the 38% of young earth creationists engage in
Click to expand...

It ISNT reasonable to you, but as someone who was a young earth creationist until the end of high school I can say that it does make sense when you are ignorant. Now nothing sounds more silly in my mind, but once upon a time I was in that boat. And that goes back to my comments about the school system, if you educate people their thinking will change.
 
BA11 said:
I didnt say correct, I said logical. As an atheist, if you believe there is nothing after this life and what we do ultimately has no eternal consequences, what do you care what others believe? To say we should oppose religion because it halts scientific progress seems valid on the outside, but scientific progress is ultimately halted by the declining public school system in this country moreso than by religion. If religious people were all given a crash course in stem cell research, fewer would oppose it. Period. It's easy to oppose something when you believe it involves murdering babies.
Click to expand...


Not-sure-if-trolling-or-just-stupid.jpg



Because I live in a world with other people and their beliefs influence their actions, many of which have repercussions on me?
 
BA11 said:
I didnt say correct, I said logical. As an atheist, if you believe there is nothing after this life and what we do ultimately has no eternal consequences, what do you care what others believe? To say we should oppose religion because it halts scientific progress seems valid on the outside, but scientific progress is ultimately halted by the declining public school system in this country moreso than by religion. If religious people were all given a crash course in stem cell research, fewer would oppose it. Period. It's easy to oppose something when you believe it involves murdering babies.
Click to expand...

I agree that a few religious people, if given a crash course on stem cell research, would not oppose it. But just the fact that they are religious, makes it almost unacceptable for them to look into this information. Strictly and strongly religious people refuse to acknowledge anything that opposes their point of view as truth and it is at this point that poop hits the fan.

I dated a strictly religious girl who was against abortion. I asked her what she would do if she got raped and had to give birth to the child of the person who raped her and live by seeing the face of her rapist in her son throughout her life. She just refused to look at this scenario and just kept repeating that you can't murder babies. Many strictly religious people refuse to acknowledge the other side of the argument and hold on to their religious views based on "faith" rather than try and understand the other side of the argument. And that is why, some atheists believe religion is unnecessary and holds back the progress of science and society in general.
 
BA11 said:
I didnt say correct, I said logical. As an atheist, if you believe there is nothing after this life and what we do ultimately has no eternal consequences, what do you care what others believe? To say we should oppose religion because it halts scientific progress seems valid on the outside, but scientific progress is ultimately halted by the declining public school system in this country moreso than by religion. If religious people were all given a crash course in stem cell research, fewer would oppose it. Period. It's easy to oppose something when you believe it involves murdering babies.
Click to expand...
School boards in Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, and other lovely states would beg to differ.
 
BA11 said:
It ISNT reasonable to you, but as someone who was a young earth creationist until the end of high school I can say that it does make sense when you are ignorant. Now nothing sounds more silly in my mind, but once upon a time I was in that boat. And that goes back to my comments about the school system, if you educate people their thinking will change.
Click to expand...

So your middle school and high school taught evolution so badly/so little that young-earth creationist propaganda seemed less silly to you than evolution? Yikes... 👎 I knew some schools teach the sciences really badly, but I had no idea it could ever be so bad that young-earth propaganda would seem less silly than the science. That's scary and sad.
 
Last edited:
XklusivGuy said:
I agree that a few religious people, if given a crash course on stem cell research, would not oppose it. But just the fact that they are religious, makes it almost unacceptable for them to look into this information. Strictly and strongly religious people refuse to acknowledge anything that opposes their point of view as truth and it is at this point that poop hits the fan.

I dated a strictly religious girl who was against abortion. I asked her what she would do if she got raped and had to give birth to the child of the person who raped her and live by seeing the face of her rapist in her son throughout her life. She just refused to look at this scenario and just kept repeating that you can't murder babies. Many strictly religious people refuse to acknowledge the other side of the argument and hold on to their religious views based on "faith" rather than try and understand the other side of the argument. And that is why, some atheists believe religion is unnecessary and holds back the progress of science and society in general.
Click to expand...

I consider myself pretty religious and fully support stem cell research. I also oppose abortion for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. I believe it is wrong to end a human life just because you don't feel like having a kid right now. I find it morally objectionable in the same way you find murder morally objectionable. The rape/incest subject is a special instance that should be accounted for, but laws cannot be framed based on an exceedingly rare sample. We can make exceptions, but we shouldnt give irresponsible people free reign to end lives simply because a few have a real reason for it.

My main point here is that education can relieve religious ignorance while allowing religion to still exist, and many "moral" issues are simply that, moral issues. Morality does not exist only in the minds of religious people. As I said, many atheists oppose abortion. It isnt as simple as "religion is the only reaosn people are against abortion".
 
rentedmule said:
School boards in Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, and other lovely states would beg to differ.
Click to expand...

I went to school in Texas and was never deprived of knowledge because of religion. I was deprived of knowledge because teachers are often subpar, the curriculum is poorly conveyed, tests are too easy and too many kids arent there to learn. I was taught about evolution in high school biology, it was just taught very poorly.
 
BA11 said:
I consider myself pretty religious and fully support stem cell research. I also oppose abortion for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. I believe it is wrong to end a human life just because you don't feel like having a kid right now. I find it morally objectionable in the same way you find murder morally objectionable. The rape/incest subject is a special instance that should be accounted for, but laws cannot be framed based on an exceedingly rare sample. We can make exceptions, but we shouldnt give irresponsible people free reign to end lives simply because a few have a real reason for it.

My main point here is that education can relieve religious ignorance while allowing religion to still exist, and many "moral" issues are simply that, moral issues. Morality does not exist only in the minds of religious people. As I said, many atheists oppose abortion. It isnt as simple as "religion is the only reaosn people are against abortion".
Click to expand...

Religion is not the only reason people are against abortion. I was just giving an example. But religion is a major reason people are against a lot of civil matters - and that includes abortion, gay marriage, teaching evolution in schools etc. As long as people use religion as a means of explaining their point of view, religion continues to play a role in hindering society.

Again, I am not saying all religious people are like that or you are like that. I am saying, many (if not majority of the strictly religious), use it as an explanation.
 
Suncrusher said:
So your middle school and high school taught evolution so badly/so little that young-earth creationist propaganda seemed less silly to you than evolution?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Ever seen the south park evolution episode?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRbM2f2InM0

I was essentially taught that I came from a gay fish-frog having buttsex with a ******ed squirrel.
 
rentedmule said:
That's not entirely true. A psychiatrist does not only treat the symptoms, but also looks at scientific research that tries to create an overall picture of how the patient's world view is related to the condition and vice-versa-- leading to a less superficial treatment. Plus, a psychiatrist can understand (to a degree) how the patient views the world by simply asking the patient.

To use your own approach, doesn't a believer only have a superficial understanding of faith and god that is based on his/her subjective experience? Consequently, in light of this relativity, how can that individual Ever assume that what they believe trumps (as most of the 'ol faithful do) other people's (other denominations, faiths, nonbelievers) beliefs without rigorous, reproducible evidence/observation. And no, you can't just use the "faith is faith, science is science, they cannot be held to the same standards, na na na na I can't hear you over how awesome I am" excuse. The "you just don't understand faith" argument is equally laughable, IMO, because it provides this magical immunity to believers while you become the Spanish Inquisition all of a sudden when questioning their beliefs.

On a related note, I happened to read a piece by Feuerbach in my Religion and Society course that hits the nail on the head: He argues that God is simply a projection of self and each individual (who believes in Him) has a unique projection of what God is. Also, there is a reason why this omnipotent being who exists outside the confines of the known universe seems to only have human characteristics-- because man created God then God created man. 😉 Interesting read, nevertheless.
Click to expand...

Well now we're going in a direction that wasn't really what I was saying. I agree with your implication that the variety of religions is a problem. It also leads to a bigger issue when you consider the hypothetical ramifications of two people praying for opposite outcomes and only one "request" is granted. I think this is more an issue of errant understanding of God rather than a problem with religion itself. Same goes for the relativism you speak of. I'm not disagreeing with your arguments, but those arguments still don't somehow "disprove" religion - it just points out the ridiculousness of organized religion. I have no doubt that there are fundamental religious truths that can be known through reason, and, in that way, religion/faith does fall under the traditional definition of science.
 
XklusivGuy said:
Religion is not the only reason people are against abortion. I was just giving an example. But religion is a major reason people are against a lot of civil matters - and that includes abortion, gay marriage, teaching evolution in schools etc. As long as people use religion as a means of explaining their point of view, religion continues to play a role in hindering society.

Again, I am not saying all religious people are like that or you are like that. I am saying, many (if not majority of the strictly religious), use it as an explanation.
Click to expand...

I still believe that many issues stem from inherant bias linked to ignorance and upbringing (for instance, a "real" christian wouldnt hate gay people because the bible tells them to love everyone and not judge) or just plain academic ignorance. Regardless though, we DO live in a country where everyone of every belief should be able to live without fear of persecution from anyone else. That includes religious peple and atheists. That isnt the reality, but that is what millions have fought and died for.
 
Disregarding everything Kirk Cameron and company suggest is sound logic. srs.

Disregarding everything Drs. Wells and Hebe say, is also fairly sound logic.

Thinking Evolution in its current form and accepted definitions is 100% proven and set-in-stone shows how little of a science background a person has.

Referring to Evilution as two parts, ie Macro and Micro components, shows a firm delusion and no understanding of the processes and mechanisms involved.

/thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
  • Question Question
EC Advice for the time I have left?
Replies
4
Views
435
ilovemangoes13
I
B
Anyone have any suggestions for finding research after Undergrad?
Replies
1
Views
224
TheRealBibFortuna
TheRealBibFortuna
Wilted
Research Assistant role in a field I have no interest in or wait for a role in a lab that I am interested in?
Replies
9
Views
504
Anthodite
Anthodite
C17H21NO4
Is it necessary to have a "narrative" or cohesive EC's in your application?
Replies
6
Views
1K
C17H21NO4
C17H21NO4
aloegarten
Should I participate in research at my school or else where?
Replies
2
Views
502
dimplesage
dimplesage
Top