Do you believe in evolution through natural selection?

[StormingWynn]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What the F(_)CK happened to this thread?

 

[searun]

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?

People have also been killed in the name of secular philosophies, such as Marxism or communism. Stalin and Mao tse Tung were quite effective butchers.

And many would argue that alot of people have been slain in the name of oil in the middle east or in the name of diamonds in Africa.

God or no God, people will continue to kill each other. Always have and always will.

 

[SireSpanky]

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.

👎 argumentum ad populum

 

[Lokhtar]

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?

No, atheists predate Darwin. The primary objection to theology (and God) is philosophical anyway. It's full of fallacies.

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.

As above, that's Argumentum ad populum. And many philosophers (and non philosophers) were Atheists long before Darwin.

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.

No, because like a scientist, I can say the words 'I don't know.' I do not need to make up hypothetical beings to fill the gaps in my knowledge. Predating evolution, I would simply say that I don't know how organisms came to be how they are. Just like before we knew what lightning bolts were, I would not have assumed that Zeus threw them down - just that I didn't know what they were.

 

[WashMe]

No, atheists predate Darwin. The primary objection to theology (and God) is philosophical anyway. It's full of fallacies.



As above, that's Argumentum ad populum. And many philosophers (and non philosophers) were Atheists long before Darwin.



No, because like a scientist, I can say the words 'I don't know.' I do not need to make up hypothetical beings to fill the gaps in my knowledge. Predating evolution, I would simply say that I don't know how organisms came to be how they are. Just like before we knew what lightning bolts were, I would not have assumed that Zeus threw them down - just that I didn't know what they were.

This is a very... agnostic statement, when you think about it. There's no proof in support of religious claims, except for relics created a posteriori to uphold the claims.

 

[SireSpanky]

Just like before we knew what lightning bolts were, I would not have assumed that Zeus threw them down - just that I didn't know what they were.

This is a very... agnostic statement, when you think about it. There's no proof in support of religious claims, except for relics created a posteriori to uphold the claims.

Not at all. It would be agnostic had he stated that he didn't know what they were and never could. Lokhtar's statement is more of an example of implicit atheism.

 

[Lokhtar]

This is a very... agnostic statement, when you think about it.

I think of agnosticism is not being able to know if there is a God.
Atheism is not accepting the existence of God until there is proof.

I would be the latter, but it's all in the definitions I suppose. I wouldn't mind being put in either category. I believe in God about as much as most religious people believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns. If you consider them 'agnostic' about Invisible Pink Unicorns, then I'd be agnostic. But I think most people would consider them 'atheist' with regards to Invisible Pink Unicorns, which is what I would be with regards to God.

EDIT: SireSpanky beats me again. Damn you! 😛

 

[Zona Pellucida]

God FTL.

 

[SireSpanky]

Invisible Pink

👍 Worthy of an Ig Nobel Prize...that pesky non-visible, visible light 😀

 

[Lokhtar]

👍 Worthy of an Ig Nobel Prize...that pesky non-visible, visible light 😀

Don't be glib heathen! She has revealed herself to me! We are merely not capable of understanding it.

 

[boaz]

...

As above, that's Argumentum ad populum. ....

Fine, so you want to say that all the atheists who are debating theists are a bunch of idiots simply wasting their time.

No, because like a scientist, I can say the words 'I don't know.' I do not need to make up hypothetical beings to fill the gaps in my knowledge. Predating evolution, I would simply say that I don't know how organisms came to be how they are. Just like before we knew what lightning bolts were, I would not have assumed that Zeus threw them down - just that I didn't know what they were.

You mean "I don't know whether or not a God exists"?

 

[niblet]

You mean "I don't know whether or not a God exists"?

In the same way he doesn't know whether or not the aforementioned invisible pink unicorns exist.

 

[Lokhtar]

Fine, so you want to say that all the atheists who are debating theists are a bunch of idiots simply wasting their time.

No, because a belief in religion is harmful to society, so we do what we can.

You mean "I don't know whether or not a God exists"?

That was to the question of what would I say about how species came to be before evolution (e.g, I wouldn't know how, and I would say I don't know). And I can't disprove God, and I can't disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn. That doesn't mean I believe in them. Until someone provides proof, I don't believe in either.

So yes, I don't know whether God exists. I don't know whether there are small midgets (too small to detect by our present instruments) that move the atoms around so they will form molecules. I don't know whether the spaghetti monster personally came to Earth 3.5 billion years ago, and had a gladiatorial amino acid death match to decide which 20 would form the basis of all life from then on. But until I see evidence that shows if any of those are true, I won't randomly believe in those.

 

[randombetch]

No, because a belief in religion is harmful to society, so we do what we can.





That was to the question of what would I say about how species came to be before evolution (e.g, I wouldn't know how, and I would say I don't know). And I can't disprove God, and I can't disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn. That doesn't mean I believe in them. Until someone provides proof, I don't believe in either.

So yes, I don't know whether God exists. I don't know whether there are small midgets (too small to detect by our present instruments) that move the atoms around so they will form molecules. I don't know whether the spaghetti monster personally came to Earth 3.5 billion years ago, and had a gladiatorial amino acid death match to decide which 20 would form the basis of all life from then on. But until I see evidence that shows if any of those are true, I won't randomly believe in those.

We can detect atoms with our present instruments buddy. Here's a bad example:
http://www.omicron.de/results/stron...0_2_pt_110_an_stm_dft_investigation_1_300.jpg

See here:
http://www.nisenet.org/publicbeta/articles/seeing_atoms/index.html

They actually made a breakthrough recently to see at a much better resolution, but I don't have the pics available. My organic chemistry professor showed us earlier.

 

[Lokhtar]

Not really because the midgets are smaller than a proton, and can turn invisible when you look for them. Disprove that.

 

[EulerianCircuit]

No, because a belief in religion is harmful to society, so we do what we can.

So European/American society must be worse than African, Polynesian, and Chinese society right?

 

[BBender716]

Not really because the midgets are smaller than a proton, and can turn invisible when you look for them. Disprove that.

But can you prove that you can't disprove the invisible midgets?

 

[randombetch]

Not really because the midgets are smaller than a proton, and can turn invisible when you look for them. Disprove that.

Right, but that would contradict a ton of the organic chemistry principles that we know are factual.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

So European/American society must be worse than African, Polynesian, and Chinese society right?

Africans and Polynesians have no religion?

 

[Lokhtar]

Right, but that would contradict a ton of the organic chemistry principles that we know are factual.

Yea, but those principles are 'guided' by the midgets. They don't happen on their own. Plus when you make 'macro' molecules, it can't happen by just a bunch of 'micro' molecules, there is a special midget glue that they have to use.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Right, but that would contradict a ton of the organic chemistry principles that we know are factual.

uh..... get with the program here

 

[EulerianCircuit]

Africans and Polynesians have no religion?

As far as I can tell they don't believe in a god, spirits and demons maybe, but I don't think there is a god in those religions.

 

[searun]

You guys seem to be avoiding the problem of evil. Is evil relative? How can you say anything is evil? Do you really think that religion is the cause of evil, as some of you have suggested. If you were born a pedophile, and that is your sexual orientation, is that evil? Or is there really no evil? Good and evil is relative? Or there is no good and there is no evil. That is a false intellectual construct. How do you decide? And if you decide as an individual what is good and evil, isn't that just your personal opinion, no more or less valid that someone else's personal opinion? Who may operate in a completely opposite moral universe so what right do you have to make moral judgments on the behavior of anyone else?

 

[Lokhtar]

You guys seem to be avoiding the problem of evil. Is evil relative? How can you say anything is evil? Do you really think that religion is the cause of evil, as some of you have suggested. If you were born a pedophile, and that is your sexual orientation, is that evil. Or is there really no evil. How do you decide?

Not avoiding it at all.

What do you mean by 'evil'? If you mean evil as in the judeochristian sense, then no, there is no evil. If you mean the basis of morality, that's easy. Human beings live in society, if they didn't follow some basic principles, they wouldn't have a functioning society. To say the a bunch of people didn't know that murder was wrong until God gave them a tablet and told them to 'cut that **** out' is ridiculous. They would never have gotten anywhere without such principles of organization.

To further answer your question, religion is not the basis of morality. Slavery was justified using religion, and then religion was used to discredit it. Same with interracial marriage. Eventually, it'll happen with gays and lesbians. As society moves on, it finds whatever it needs in religion to justify its actions.

The Golden Rule and other principles have existed for a long time, with and without religion. We, as rational beings, can figure out what we need to have for a functional happy society without having to resort to mythical beings.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

As far as I can tell they don't believe in a god, spirits and demons maybe, but I don't think there is a god in those religions.

lolwowlol

the post you were previously referring to was speaking of religion. is it your view that spirits and demons can't constitute religion?

 

[searun]

Not avoiding it at all.

What do you mean by 'evil'? If you mean evil as in the judeochristian sense, then no, there is no evil. If you mean the basis of morality, that's easy. Human beings live in society, if they didn't follow some basic principles, they wouldn't have a functioning society. To say the a bunch of people didn't know that murder was wrong until God gave them a tablet and told them to 'cut that **** out' is ridiculous. They would never have gotten anywhere without such principles of organization.

To further answer your question, religion is not the basis of morality. Slavery was justified using religion, and then religion was used to discredit it. Same with interracial marriage. Eventually, it'll happen with gays and lesbians. As society moves on, it finds whatever it needs in religion to justify its actions.

The Golden Rule and other principles have existed for a long time, with and without religion. We, as rational beings, can figure out what we need to have for a functional happy society without having to resort to mythical beings.

And what is the basis of the Golden Rule? And why is that morally correct? I am not arguing for a theistic view, I am just curious as to why you would say that it is morally correct. Why? On the basis of what?

 

[Lokhtar]

And what is the basis of the Golden Rule? And why is that morally correct? I am not arguing for a theistic view, I am just curious as to why you would say that it is morally correct. Why? On the basis of what?

Because if we want to live in a functional, productive, happy society - it's a good principle to base law on.

 

[EulerianCircuit]

Because if we want to live in a functional, productive, happy society - it's a good principle to base law on.

Why? I'd be much more successful if I took what I wanted when I wanted it without giving a thought to society.

 

[Lokhtar]

Why? I'd be much more successful if I took what I wanted when I wanted it without giving a thought to society.

Because if we made that legal, society would collapse. So we have to come together and for a society where we can all decide on rules that benefits us all, which would include making illegal things such as what you suggest.

 

[BBender716]

Some people are misanthropic and want none of those.

Then again, I just want to check in and make sure everyone realizes that nothing is going to be solved in this thread and that any debate that takes place takes place for entertainment purposes and for its own sake, right?

Btw, for searun and the ensuing discussion there, see Nietzsche.

 

[searun]

Why? I'd be much more successful if I took what I wanted when I wanted it without giving a thought to society.

Precisely, Stalin and alot of Russians were very happy with his decisions. Gheghis Khan and his followers will quite pleased with the results of their slaughter. Some people are always happy, some not so much. The Golden Rule, naive crap.

 

[EulerianCircuit]

Because if we made that legal, society would collapse. So we have to come together and for a society where we can all decide on rules that benefits us all, which would include making illegal things such as what you suggest.

And why do I care about society? It doesn't benefit me because I'm smarter and stronger than the majority. I could take whatever I wanted.

 

[Lokhtar]

Precisely, Stalin and alot of Russians were very happy with his decisions. Gheghis Khan and his followers will quite pleased with the results of their slaughter. Some people are always happy, some not so much. The Golden Rule, naive crap.

People didn't have a say in what Stalin or Genghis did - it wasn't a social contract that people actively participated in. And in the end, both of those societies proved very unstable. The reason democracies have tended to be more stable over the past several hundred years has had nothing to do with religion.

To think that society is based on principles of religion that are eternal ignores history and quite naive and ignorant. Best example, you just have to see slavery.

And why do I care about society? It doesn't benefit me because I'm smarter and stronger than the majority. I could take whatever I wanted.

Because if society let you, there would be others doing the same, and again, it would be anarchy. So collectively we make it illegal for you.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

And why do I care about society? It doesn't benefit me because I'm smarter and stronger than the majority. I could take whatever I wanted.

that would make you an amoral d-bag. what does that have to do with the present discussion

 

[rockaction]

EulerianCircuit, are you only moral because your religion tells you to? Is your Holy Book your recipe for moral living? If so, you're not really moral because you're only doing things because God is telling you to. It's not like you're actually doing any good for the sake of being good (the definition of altruism).

 

[EulerianCircuit]

that would make you an amoral d-bag. what does that have to do with the present discussion

But I don't care if I'm an amoral d-bag and I love anarchy because that's better for me.

 

[Lokhtar]

But I don't care if I'm an amoral d-bag and I love anarchy because that's better for me.

Right but what you're suggesting would be illegal in a secular society because while it may be to your benefit, it's not to the benefit of a collective society. So we would make it illegal for you.

It's simple basis of functional societies, which is what most democratic societies are based on.

 

[rockaction]

But I don't care if I'm an amoral d-bag and I love anarchy because that's better for me.

No it's not. Life expectancy is not long in anarchy. But life expectancy is quite stable in functioning society. It's called the social contract, man! Plenty of secular thinkers figured this out.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

But I don't care if I'm an amoral d-bag and I love anarchy because that's better for me.

and i'm an angry gorilla but i don't know who to lend my anger to.

 

[EulerianCircuit]

No it's not. Life expectancy is not long in anarchy. But life expectancy is quite stable in functioning society. It's called the social contract, man! Plenty of secular thinkers figured this out.

After I've reproduced, what scientific purpose does longer life have? If I have more descendents in anarchy (and I would because I am hypothetically stronger and smarter than average), I should like anarchy. Only weak and stupid people would go for society. Everyone else has no basis for it.

 

[Lokhtar]

After I've reproduced, what scientific purpose does longer life have? If I have more descendents in anarchy (and I would because I am hypothetically stronger and smarter than average), I should like anarchy.

You should. But the rest of us wouldn't, so we stop you by creating a society where its hard for you to do that. That comes from the social contract. This is not a new thing in philosophy.....

 

[rockaction]

After I've reproduced, what scientific purpose does longer life have? If I have more descendents in anarchy (and I would because I am hypothetically stronger and smarter than average), I should like anarchy. Only weak and stupid people would go for society. Everyone else has no basis for it.

If you're making some big vague metaphor for social darwinism, spare us. If you're saying morals only come from religion, spare us. If you're saying life only has meaning if there's an invisible man upstairs, spare us. I'm seriously sorry that you believe these things.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

If you're making some big vague metaphor for social darwinism, spare us. If you're saying morals only come from religion, spare us. If you're saying life only has meaning if there's an invisible man upstairs, spare us. I'm seriously sorry that you believe these things.

what to expect from a person who believes that it's only religion if you believe in a single god.

 

[EulerianCircuit]

You should. But the rest of us wouldn't, so we stop you by creating a society where its hard for you to do that. That comes from the social contract. This is not a new thing in philosophy.....

BOOM! Where did that come from.

Alright, I give up. Y'all need to take a logic class.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

BOOM! Where did that come from.

Alright, I give up. Y'all need to take a logic class.

lol@unintentional irony

 

[strummin]

As far as I can tell they don't believe in a god, spirits and demons maybe, but I don't think there is a god in those religions.

Because, of course, all Africans prescribe to a single religion/belief system. And Africa is also a country divided into North, South, East and West. Isn't it?

 

[rockaction]

BOOM! Where did that come from.

Alright, I give up. Y'all need to take a logic class.

You're the one making leaps and bounds from "a world without monotheism" to "anarchy is fun!!"

 

[searun]

You should. But the rest of us wouldn't, so we stop you by creating a society where its hard for you to do that. That comes from the social contract. This is not a new thing in philosophy.....

Social contract? So your idea of truth is what some old white guys in Great Britain thought about in the 18th and 19th century - that is your reality? Sweet!

 

[EulerianCircuit]

Because, of course, all Africans prescribe to a single religion/belief system. And Africa is also a country divided into North, South, East and West. Isn't it?

Don't put words in my mouth. My point was that the European/American societies have the most science, technology, and, disputably, art. Having a Christian history has not hurt these societies. They are the most successful in the world. I know the post I was originally answering talked about religion in general, but the focus of this thread has generally been Christian Creationism versus Evolution.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Social contract? So your idea of truth is what some old white guys in Great Britain thought about in the 18th and 19th century - that is your reality? Sweet!

and this is wrose than what old jewish guys thought 3000 years ago?