- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 9
Hm, right. I guess this is why no doctors/red cross volunteers/Teach For America workers/Nobel Peace Prize winners are atheists, right? Oh, wait...
Do you believe in evolution through natural selection?
- Thread starter xmsr3
- Start date
Hm, right. I guess this is why no doctors/red cross volunteers/Teach For America workers/Nobel Peace Prize winners are atheists, right? Oh, wait...
Am taking a moral philosophy class, don't buy that one religion has dominion of morality and human rights, am going to bed.
Night.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 9
I've taken a philosophy class.
Human rights and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
Good night.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,619
- Reaction score
- 6
Nothing compared to your genius remarks.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,619
- Reaction score
- 6
They aren't true atheists.
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,051
- Reaction score
- 4
Ahh... Another excerpt from Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue" book!!
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,051
- Reaction score
- 4
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,619
- Reaction score
- 6
Try Western Philosophy, an Anthology. Written By: John Cottingham. Nice try though.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
Even if that were true it doesn't bear any weight on the question of whether God exists or not. That belongs in a discussion of whether God is a "necessary lie" to control the masses.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,695
- Reaction score
- 861
Nonbelief in God does not imply an absence of belief in morals; do you sincerely believe that being religious is the only way to be moral?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
LOL, they're supernaturalists in disguise!
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,051
- Reaction score
- 4
Sarah Palin's funny!
Anyways, good night reasonable people and Oaklandguy. See ya'll on the dark side.
I think that you can believe in god and evolution if you say that god created evolution. The only reason I have some faith in there being something called "god" is that I have no better explanation as to how the very first "thing" ever came to be. And the god I choose to believe in has no identity, it could be anything (like some undiscovered physical force for instance), and by no means do I worship this god.
Evolution is obvious, if you are a premed and choose not to believe in evolution, that's okay. But you can do a simple experiment with plants in your backyard and prove that it does exist. Or research fossil records of your favorite animal's ancestors, or just think about it because it's very logical.
Evolution is obvious, if you are a premed and choose not to believe in evolution, that's okay. But you can do a simple experiment with plants in your backyard and prove that it does exist. Or research fossil records of your favorite animal's ancestors, or just think about it because it's very logical.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 830
- Reaction score
- 2
Didn't get too far through the thread... too much to reply to:
The Bible isn't even internally consistent.
This is incorrect. Our bodies are organized at the cost of overall increased entropy in the universe. There is no rule that entropy can never decrease, only that entropy-decreasing phenomena must be coupled with one that increases entropy overall.
I urge you to read Genesis and the rest of the Bible more carefully. It wasn't a matter of omission, it was a matter of getting the order of things both wrong and inconsistent.
People who dogmatically accept something are closed-minded by definition, so as a religious person you would have to conclude that being open-minded is a negative thing. The video says that it is irrational to accept anything of consequence without evidence, and that it is rational to be completely closed only to ideas that are not logically consistent. It would be illogical for a god to demand that people accept his existence without evidence. Therefore it is logically impossible for a benevolent god that sends people to hell for not believing in him to exist.
Religious people build and conduct their lives as if their faith is correct. What do you have to gain by not believing? Not living a lie or conducting yourself in a way consistent with the whims of ancient men.
I think you missed the other point of the video, which was that it is unreasonable to believe something without evidence, though it also says that DISbelief is only rational when the assertion is logically implausible. I'm sure I could make myself happy with false beliefs if I were able to do that, but I would still be living a lie.
It is certainly possible to be an intelligent person overall, but be selectively rational. For example, having a phobia does not make a person a *****, except with regards to specific situations involving what they are irrationally afraid of. There are few, if any, people who are rational in all ways and all situations. Then again, of course, it is possible to be a ***** in general, but that does not seem to apply to you.
It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of admitting you don't understand it instead of making up imaginary friends and pretending that fixes things that don't make sense. Inserting the supernatural into the equation does not solve it.
Some people recognize the voice in their head as their own... and others do not. We call them schizophrenics.
The Bible isn't even internally consistent.
This is incorrect. Our bodies are organized at the cost of overall increased entropy in the universe. There is no rule that entropy can never decrease, only that entropy-decreasing phenomena must be coupled with one that increases entropy overall.
I urge you to read Genesis and the rest of the Bible more carefully. It wasn't a matter of omission, it was a matter of getting the order of things both wrong and inconsistent.
People who dogmatically accept something are closed-minded by definition, so as a religious person you would have to conclude that being open-minded is a negative thing. The video says that it is irrational to accept anything of consequence without evidence, and that it is rational to be completely closed only to ideas that are not logically consistent. It would be illogical for a god to demand that people accept his existence without evidence. Therefore it is logically impossible for a benevolent god that sends people to hell for not believing in him to exist.
Religious people build and conduct their lives as if their faith is correct. What do you have to gain by not believing? Not living a lie or conducting yourself in a way consistent with the whims of ancient men.
I think you missed the other point of the video, which was that it is unreasonable to believe something without evidence, though it also says that DISbelief is only rational when the assertion is logically implausible. I'm sure I could make myself happy with false beliefs if I were able to do that, but I would still be living a lie.
It is certainly possible to be an intelligent person overall, but be selectively rational. For example, having a phobia does not make a person a *****, except with regards to specific situations involving what they are irrationally afraid of. There are few, if any, people who are rational in all ways and all situations. Then again, of course, it is possible to be a ***** in general, but that does not seem to apply to you.
It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of admitting you don't understand it instead of making up imaginary friends and pretending that fixes things that don't make sense. Inserting the supernatural into the equation does not solve it.
Some people recognize the voice in their head as their own... and others do not. We call them schizophrenics.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 25
What an ignorant and arrogant statement.
The Theory of Evolution can only give us the physical framework of what the empirical data present to us. It tell us nothing about the existence of God.
A good starting point on this issue is here.
Oh Really?! So, who are you? Pre-med?
You have read a single book and cannot think of anything new. You are not enough smart to add something new, and you try to prove that everyone, who does not believe in what you believe is ignorant.
Let me tell, you are ignorant!
Albert Einstein believed in God. Do you consider biologists smarter than him?
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 830
- Reaction score
- 2
Nevermind that's an appeal to authority... but Einstein didn't quite believe in God in the same way you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
I don`t believe in God the way others believe.
I am convinced that, God is just energy. Like I stated before,
Religion says about God :
nobody has ever created it, it cannot be destroyed or created.
Science says about Energy
nobody has ever created it, it cannot be destroyed or created
Religion says Everything was created by God
Science says
Mass(everything) came from Energy.
God=Energy
Agree?
-------------
IDK What Einstein believed.
Our paths can be different, but the final point is the same.
---------------God created everything.--------------
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 749
- Reaction score
- 47
Good morning! I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that this thread is still going strong. 
This has been a great debate and there are a lot (most anyways 😀) of intelligent people in here who are going to make great doctors! I still have my ecology exam in front of me (I still think it's not very relevant for premeds), but I'll waste my time with another response anyways. Again, I'm not trying to offend anyone or disprove opposing views, these are just my random thoughts and questions.
I still believe in both God and evolution. There is obviously irrefutable evidence supporting the ideas of evolution, but who says there is no evidence that points to a God? Say you went back in time 1000 years. If you described computers to anyone, they would probably laugh at you and talk about the impossibility you just presented. They don't see them as plausible because they don't understand how they could possibly work. Now, what if someday in the future, we could prove, using the scientific method, with physical evidence that there is a God. Would people still deny it because it seems impossible? Probably not, because now it seems plausible. I get the feeling that God is rejected because frankly, we don't understand how it could be possible! So therefore, that possibility is instantly crossed off the list because there is no way there could be a God. Just no way!
Sometimes people can work way to far out of their way to prove that their cause is the only answer and reject pertinent data that supports opposing theories. I would like to believe that I am not one of these people. However, I have yet to be presented with any data that denies the existence of God. What makes my belief in God so irrational? Again maybe its because at this point, we don't fully understand how it works and so this possibility cannot be true because there is just NO WAY!
Unfortunately, at this point in our lives, most people have their minds made up. Looking at it from the outside, people who don't believe there is a God KNOW they are correct and so they use every faculty available to convince the other party. People who do believe in God KNOW they are correct and so they use every faculty available to convince the other party. In reality, I think everyone is guilty of the same thing. All I can do personally is try to look at this from the outside, pursue the truth, and live my life accordingly. I'm not saying opposing views are wrong, I'm just saying mine might not be wrong either. Science and faith CAN and DO coexist.
This has been a great debate and there are a lot (most anyways 😀) of intelligent people in here who are going to make great doctors! I still have my ecology exam in front of me (I still think it's not very relevant for premeds), but I'll waste my time with another response anyways. Again, I'm not trying to offend anyone or disprove opposing views, these are just my random thoughts and questions.I still believe in both God and evolution. There is obviously irrefutable evidence supporting the ideas of evolution, but who says there is no evidence that points to a God? Say you went back in time 1000 years. If you described computers to anyone, they would probably laugh at you and talk about the impossibility you just presented. They don't see them as plausible because they don't understand how they could possibly work. Now, what if someday in the future, we could prove, using the scientific method, with physical evidence that there is a God. Would people still deny it because it seems impossible? Probably not, because now it seems plausible. I get the feeling that God is rejected because frankly, we don't understand how it could be possible! So therefore, that possibility is instantly crossed off the list because there is no way there could be a God. Just no way!
Sometimes people can work way to far out of their way to prove that their cause is the only answer and reject pertinent data that supports opposing theories. I would like to believe that I am not one of these people. However, I have yet to be presented with any data that denies the existence of God. What makes my belief in God so irrational? Again maybe its because at this point, we don't fully understand how it works and so this possibility cannot be true because there is just NO WAY!
Unfortunately, at this point in our lives, most people have their minds made up. Looking at it from the outside, people who don't believe there is a God KNOW they are correct and so they use every faculty available to convince the other party. People who do believe in God KNOW they are correct and so they use every faculty available to convince the other party. In reality, I think everyone is guilty of the same thing. All I can do personally is try to look at this from the outside, pursue the truth, and live my life accordingly. I'm not saying opposing views are wrong, I'm just saying mine might not be wrong either. Science and faith CAN and DO coexist.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 14
Well, talk to me in a thousand years when you find this proof of God. Until then, it's a fairy tale. No one can prove in the negative, I can't prove that it's not a unicorn that takes electrons, and manually shares them with an adjoining atom every time there is a chemical reaction. That doesn't make it OK to put down on my o-chem exam. You can't disprove that, but you can't prove it either. Until and unless you do, it doesn't make sense to believe in it.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,695
- Reaction score
- 861
Good morning! I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that this thread is still going strong.
I still believe in both God and evolution. There is obviously irrefutable evidence supporting the ideas of evolution, but who says there is no evidence that points to a God? Say you went back in time 1000 years. If you described computers to anyone, they would probably laugh at you and talk about the impossibility you just presented. They don't see them as plausible because they don't understand how they could possibly work. Now, what if someday in the future, we could prove, using the scientific method, with physical evidence that there is a God. Would people still deny it because it seems impossible? Probably not, because now it seems plausible. I get the feeling that God is rejected because frankly, we don't understand how it could be possible! So therefore, that possibility is instantly crossed off the list because there is no way there could be a God. Just no way!
Sometimes people can work way to far out of their way to prove that their cause is the only answer and reject pertinent data that supports opposing theories. I would like to believe that I am not one of these people. However, I have yet to be presented with any data that denies the existence of God. What makes my belief in God so irrational? Again maybe its because at this point, we don't fully understand how it works and so this possibility cannot be true because there is just NO WAY!
Unfortunately, at this point in our lives, most people have their minds made up. Looking at it from the outside, people who don't believe there is a God KNOW they are correct and so they use every faculty available to convince the other party. People who do believe in God KNOW they are correct and so they use every faculty available to convince the other party. In reality, I think everyone is guilty of the same thing. All I can do personally is try to look at this from the outside, pursue the truth, and live my life accordingly. I'm not saying opposing views are wrong, I'm just saying mine might not be wrong either. Science and faith CAN and DO coexist.
That's a big if.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 157
- Reaction score
- 1
Not only a big if. I'll tell you straight up: If scientific evidence ever arises to prove my the existence of my God, I will leave him. For I would know, instantly, that He does not exist. That's really not that unreasonable, if you think about it...
If you get to the root of it, Christianity--the only religion I can speak of--is built on uncertainty and the idea of placing hope in what cannot be understood fully--perhaps experienced, but not understood. I think that's what religious people call faith. ; ) So if one day we find God in a test tube, I wouldn't know what to think, really.
If you get to the root of it, Christianity--the only religion I can speak of--is built on uncertainty and the idea of placing hope in what cannot be understood fully--perhaps experienced, but not understood. I think that's what religious people call faith. ; ) So if one day we find God in a test tube, I wouldn't know what to think, really.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 2
You are pathetic. Your religion does NOT have a monopoly on morals. I am so completely and utterly offended that you think only religious people can be moral. You are the one who says people should be respectful of others' beliefs. Well you just called me and a bunch of other people amoral because we're not Christians. You are completely deluded.
Not relevant for our future profession, but relevant for our understanding of the world around us. The more you know about ecology, the more you understand environmental political issues, etc. There's more to know about this world than medicine, I think.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,028
- Reaction score
- 3
The difference is that even 1000 years ago, there are at least some parts of the 'computers are possible' idea that could potentially be testable. If you explained what logic gates were, at least someone might be smart enough to figure out that you can use a bunch of them to do more complex operations (addition, subtraction, etc). The idea of a computer would produce some testable hypotheses.
At least so far as I've seen, nobody has ever made any testable hypotheses about the existence (or lack thereof) of a god. I'd be surprised if such a thing is even possible, but that's a separate debate.
That isn't to say that a god can't exist, but it does say that it is outside of the realm of science. In science, we can only deal with things that we can test in some way or another. God does not fall into that category, so it is an 'unscientific' (though not necessarily false) belief.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 749
- Reaction score
- 47
True, I didn't intend to write off ecology as completely irrelevant to biology as a whole, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. 😀
Repost of last paragraph which was obviously proven by the responses I got:
Unfortunately, at this point in our lives, most people have their minds made up. Looking at it from the outside, people who don't believe there is a God KNOW they are correct and so they use every faculty available to convince the other party. People who do believe in God KNOW they are correct and so they use every faculty available to convince the other party. In reality, I think everyone is guilty of the same thing. All I can do personally is try to look at this from the outside, pursue the truth, and live my life accordingly. I'm not saying opposing views are wrong, I'm just saying mine might not be wrong either. Science and faith CAN and DO coexist.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 749
- Reaction score
- 47
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 749
- Reaction score
- 47
You are right learnmdabc. But I wasn't saying that it I wished it could be, or really will be possible, but rather that I think the reason a lot of people reject a God is because it's something they don't understand, or find impossible. If humanity could understand God via testable means, He would probably be accepted.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,695
- Reaction score
- 861
Same goes for other mythical creatures. Not to say that God is mythical, but your statement isn't limited to belief in God.
A good ecology course sets the foundation for epidemiology which as physicians I think would be quite relevant.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 1
the god you just described could not possibly be anything more than metaphor. in the minds of many religious people, god is a "personal god" and can have conversations with them and read their minds and answer prayers and help their team win the super bowl... i could go on but i think (read: hope) you get the point. pure energy cannot do this. if in fact god is just pure energy, what is the point in wasting time worshiping it? this is also why i am not a deist... . Albert Einstein's "god" was complete metaphor, and he has been on record numerous times saying he does not believe in a personal god, and was even chastised in his own time for holding this belief (or disbelief).
if i said energy created everything, would you worship it?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 1
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 9
Theory of evolution + logic = proof against existence of God.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 9
I think it's more sad that a whopping 10% do not believe in Evolution... That's like 10% of premeds not believe in the conservation of mass/charge/energy.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 14
Einstein did not believe in God. However, your argument goes like this:
Newton believed in alchemy (he actually spent as much time trying to turn poop into gold by heating it as he did mechanics). Do you consider yourself smarter than him because you don't?
Yes, and we call that word 'energy'. By equating it to energy, you are saying nothing. And energy (your 'God') can be created spontaneously via quantum fluctuations.
Not quite true. As long as the total energy in the universe is zero (as appears to be - remember some things can have negative energy), what we know to be matter can be created.
I thought you said energy was god. If energy is God, then energy did not 'create' anything.
Also does that make things with negative energy the devil?
Why do you feel the need to cloak scientific concepts in superstitious mythological euphemisms?
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 25
Good morning! I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that this thread is still going strong.
I still believe in both God and evolution. There is obviously irrefutable evidence supporting the ideas of evolution, but who says there is no evidence that points to a God? Say you went back in time 1000 years. If you described computers to anyone, they would probably laugh at you and talk about the impossibility you just presented. They don't see them as plausible because they don't understand how they could possibly work. Now, what if someday in the future, we could prove, using the scientific method, with physical evidence that there is a God. ....
I think it's more sad that a whopping 10% do not believe in God... That's like 10% of premeds not believe in the conservation of mass/charge/energy.
There is one common mistake amongst all of the above: the notion that the existence of God can be proven or tested. Perhaps there is a notion of God as some old man with a long white beard floating in the clouds. This sort of 'God' is taken not to exist unless proven scientifically.
There are certain areas of human thought that do not come under the purview of the scientific method. Philosophers categorize these ideas as Metaphysics. Concepts such as existence, free will, the mind, etc--all of these concern us very much, yet by definition they are not testable.
If one wants to support an atheistic view, it's best to stick to the core concepts in metaphysics. Evolution is an effective argument against literalistic interpretations of Genesis, but a VERY weak one when it comes to the existence of God as such.
Like someone before me said, the God that can be proven in a test tube is precisely the one I refuse to believe in.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,178
- Reaction score
- 8
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,178
- Reaction score
- 8
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 14
Yes, because believing in a hypothetical being is the same as empirically agreeing with data. How many of you believe in invisible pink unicorns? If everything works without the added complexity of a being such as God, it makes no sense to posit his existence. Because then that complex existence must be explained, leading to the same problem you started with - explaining complexity.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,805
- Reaction score
- 5
You cannot be serious with this post. After being able to pull this off, you should forget medicine and get paid millions to play a Stephen Colbert-esque religious fundamentalist.
If you are serious, than my have you thrown all logic out the door! There is absolutely no possible way for the Earth to be formed before the sun. And if we are to take every single word of the Bible literally then slavery should be reinstated, women should be sold, and let's not forget that we should stone people to death for "infractions" against society.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 1
Hahaha " that's because you looked it up in a book!"
lol the bibles truth may be called into question, but it's truthiness is unquestionable!
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 14
I love that pi could have had a different value several thousand years ago. Especially because other, smarter, civilizations had figured out that pi was not in fact three, and calculated it to several decimal digits.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,805
- Reaction score
- 5
So, first you say the Bible must be taken literally, and provided that you are part of a fundamentalist church, you then proceed to contradict yourself and proclaim heresy of your own faith?
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 25
What do pink unicorns have to do with God? I have no reason, whether natural or metaphysical, to believe that pink unicorns exist.
Had you lived prior to Darwin, would you have had reason to believe in the existence of God?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 1
I have no reason, whether natural or metaphysical, to believe that a god exists.
If I had lived prior to Darwin, the only reason I would have had to profess belief in god is fear of persecution by the church. other than that, no.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 25
Either you're trying to be cute, or you did not understand my point. My point is that pink unicorns exist in fairy tales that carry no weight in serious discussion. On the other hand, the existence of God is one of the weightiest philosophical subjects out there. Find me a discussion of pink unicorns like this discussion of God.
Again, very cute.
My question was directed to the previous poster who apparently implies that the hypothetical absence of the Theory of Evolution may necessitate his belief in God. If so, then I would ask him what problems there are, and how evolution solves them.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 1
Actually, I am adorable. But the idea is that there is no more evidence for a god than there is for a pink unicorn. the only reason there is such a huge debate over the existence of a god is because people continue to kill each other in the name of a god.
I dont see how the previous poster implies that. I also fail to see how this is an "either, or" type of argument. If the theory was wrong, how does that mean a god exists?
Similar threads
