Which is more plausible Evolution or Creationism

Posted by: uahshdyy

Vote
63 Total Votes
1

Evolution

45 votes
9 comments
2

Creationism

13 votes
2 comments
3

Both

5 votes
1 comment
4

Alternative Evolution

0 votes
0 comments
5

Alternative Creationism

0 votes
0 comments
6

All of The Above

0 votes
0 comments
7

None of The Above

0 votes
0 comments
8

Other (Comment Below)

0 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T14:41:58.7534403Z
"I just hope one day we'll be RELIGION-LESS" By definition any alternative to 'religion' (i.E. Evolution etc.) is a religion. Being religion-less would be inhuman.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T14:42:36.9424851Z
It wouldnt be free thought ... It would be free-from-thought.
TBR says2015-07-31T15:03:24.8100842Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Why are you so vested in the word religion? No, if you don't adhere to dogma, and a supernatural, it is NOT religion. Playing with the word is fine, but when people say "evolution IS religion" are just playing with definitions. Some religious can make evolution work in their minds with the existence of a god, but it is still apart from God, or any religion.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:09:08.2306856Z
Its an element of them. Believing in evolution, as youre putting it, is not just that ... Its believing in evolution AND not believing in god ... Or any variation in between. Fact is there is always going to be that part that evolution cant explain and it will have to be filled with something. If you cant fill it ... That doesnt automatically make the theory complete ... It means the theory is just as (if not more) incomplete or baseless as a religious one.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:10:30.6772141Z
Its like when people try to say atheism isn't a religion. How at all does that make any sense? Youre still trying to make a statement about creation anytime you mention god ... Whether you think hes there or not or whatever ... Youre still just making guesswork.
TBR says2015-07-31T15:12:27.7827032Z
Again, I think this highlights an importation difference between the believer and non-beleiver. Any "holes" that exist, I am willing to accept as incomplete knowledge, and work to solve those riddles. The flip-side is to take an irrational God and shove it into every gap in blissful ignorance. I am just fine saying 'well, we are just going to have to work to find that answer".
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:15:01.0893475Z
I agree its very plausible, evolution, but its not any more complete in its explanation. Religion actually attempts to cover so much more than what we can just prove locally. I think when you try to use the theory of evolution to extend the span you are able to even test to (say beyond the oldest skeleton ever found on record or whatever) everything beyond that is just theory again. Evolution is not total fact ... It will always have holes outside of where we can get testable proofs and truths from. Alot of assumptions still have to be made for it to 'work'.
TBR says2015-07-31T15:17:56.7308734Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - We can - and I do disagree - about your characterization of the completeness of evolution theory, but that does not address the bulk of my comment to you. Why try to fill the gap with an irrational god?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:20:01.5160733Z
"The flip-side is to take an irrational God and shove it into every gap in blissful ignorance." Im not even saying the "god did it its out of our hands" factor. You can use traditional religions to trace how moral consequences played out and how they continue to play out. You can make broad statements about the trend of humanity based on very little and still be very right a majority of the time just by using religion as a guide. Neither set is 100% but there is most certainly valuable data to be attained from the progression of society on in the mental/social/ethical sense as much as there is from the material sense that is evolution.
TBR says2015-07-31T15:31:55.0334471Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Well, now you seem to want to mix sociology into evolution. We can talk about what part sociology comes from evolution, but the study of evolution has nothing to do with sociology. Let me put it this way, I will not look to evolution theory to determine when we will become irreligious, at its heart biological evolution has no care if we ever do become irreligious, but it would be a tool in talking about the patterns of any species as it evolves.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:36:07.9890686Z
It speaks plenty about sociology. The evidence of what exists now versus what used to exist or died of quickly speaks worlds about what types of interactions were more prevalent at that time. Creatures even evolve around what social interactions can be made. I think that we would not have evolved into the beings we are today if that were not true.
TBR says2015-07-31T15:37:15.3347003Z
I think you are a sane religious guy. I don't think you are being insincere when you think about your God. The God you think exists is a catch-all. That becomes an issue when talking between the groups. That is, when I (we) are talking evolution, it is very common for the religious to start talking big-bang, or other parts of cosmology. The need, the connection to them is, all of these are covered under the umbrella - God. Covered I might add, in one "book" of the bible taking place over a handful of pages. To us, and part of the problem, this is a vast amount of very different stuff. There are "holes" in the knowledge big enough to park a couple billion stars. OK, that's cool with us, just so long as we keep working on the answers, and not ignore them for sake of a "God did it" solution.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:37:21.3407388Z
If we aere still built for hunting and survival ... If our world was about that ... Youd see it in our genetic makeup.
TBR says2015-07-31T15:39:32.8693635Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Well, we are, it is, and you can see it. I may not understand what you were trying to get at with that last bit.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:40:48.5880673Z
I dont think religious types "ignore" them. If that were the case we wouldnt have ever exited ancient eras where religion was at an all time high. And our general knowledge of the universe wouldnt have characteristically spiked around those times either.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:41:18.0722563Z
Being religious didnt stop these guys from exploring.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:42:45.5108168Z
"Well, we are, it is, and you can see it. I may not understand what you were trying to get at with that last bit." We are this way because of social interaction ... We would not be the way without it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:43:56.4912718Z
And apparently there is no room for not having had social interaction ... Since our neanderthal cousins all died off or were evolved out of existence.
reece says2015-07-31T15:44:00.1174871Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality But it slows us from exploring . It might of been a safe thing back then, but it isn't now.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:46:53.8488087Z
Religious governments are the middle man with that though. Funding could be driven towards seemingly ridiculous exploits when you use religion. Its actually the opposite of an inhibitor in some regards. Thinking you already know the answers and not leaping ... That comes from the non religious side of things.
reece says2015-07-31T15:52:20.7353103Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality "Thinking you already know the answers and not leaping ... That comes from the non religious side of things." What? You could blow the budget in a thousand different directions if you went on that train of thought.
TBR says2015-07-31T15:56:11.7551850Z
Hmmm... I think we are talking a left turn somewhere. I am not saying that scientific advancement can not take place while religion exists. It does however take place in-spite of it. There were some awfully clever scientists that were religious, no doubt. Some even credit their religion for the inspiration for their research. It still happens, as I say, in spite of the religious dogma. If I were trying to drive this conversation back on course I might want to say, the God of the gaps dwindles because of the discovery's of good scientists both religious and non-religious. It, the science - the reasearch, has no care for religion. If in the end, you choose to make that fit with your personal interpretation of what a god is, that is your business. I can call it nonsensical, but regardless the god in this discussion, the gaps in knowledge it was filling, get filled with more complete knowledge.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:58:44.8077661Z
"What? You could blow the budget in a thousand different directions if you went on that train of thought." You could ... And they did ... And they struck gold several times. What kind of investment was a state sponsored scientist at the time? It was like having a court wizard that would pull out a discovery every once in a while that would totally save everyone's asses.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:59:21.1715992Z
Im sure if you analyzed what they were studying before hand you would have thought the guys to be a bad investment.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T15:59:50.6869884Z
Sail 3 ships to the presumably end of the world.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:00:16.2555523Z
Boats were expensive back then you know.
reece says2015-07-31T16:03:45.9479196Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality You can't run a government off luck. There needs to be research cunducted, etc. Btw science isn't about saying whats true, it's about saying whats more likely.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:05:55.9009295Z
" the God of the gaps dwindles because of the discovery's of good scientists both religious and non-religious." I think that's relative really since we only occupy and make discoveries in such a small window of the universe, space and time. If god ever was a solution to the rest of it, it would surely envelop such a massive portion that evolution doesn't begin to cover the scope of things. Our universe is not so small that the scientific discoveries have even met half of what the bible suggests to know about creation.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:06:36.7731915Z
And i dont even believe it. But just its concepts though ... I can grasp the all encompassing nature of.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:10:43.4887730Z
If we could truncate beliefs as you say TBR, then sure, as its own belief ... God not withstanding ... It is more plausible. Since you intend to say that it as a theory does not imply or deny the existences of things in those holes. But at that alone it would be useless. You need to be able to infer things from the theory and extend beyond its bounds for it to be of any worth. Towards exploring further.
TBR says2015-07-31T16:12:58.0708357Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - I don't disagree that we have a lot to learn. Putting our fingers in our ears is not the way to learn anything. I hate to use such on obvious example, but Galileo illustrates the point nicely. He was plenty 'religious'. His work was in-spite of the religion, and the negative influence religion had. Eventually, his work would be accepted, and Gods roll in the universe diminished ever so slightly - at least from the perspective of a great number of believers. I have no care that he was a believer, his discovery's stand on their own. If he thought (personally) that he was driven by God, well good for all of us. The flip side, he was oppressed by the very religion he adhered to.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:14:13.2165174Z
"You can't run a government off luck." You can if youre lucky. No one will know the difference until the day your luck runs out. All governments have had and will have that day. I presume then that they are all actually luck based under the guise of thinking they know whats going on and being scientific about it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:17:06.0812255Z
"The flip side, he was oppressed by the very religion he adhered to." He was oppressed by individuals running it maybe, but if he was truly being repressed by the religion itself he would not claim to have been religious.
TBR says2015-07-31T16:19:34.8905794Z
To the last comment. Well, evolution theory is very vital to working biologists. It would be naive to think otherwise. Yes, it has "holes" and what I say is, the hole needs to be researched. What the believer says is, ~"God, good enough". That is the problem. As to, again "worth" of these theory's, if they had NO predictive value, they still have worth. Lets say I make some discovery that is simple a static bit of information. That bit of information is tossed in the bin on knowledge, and may at some point BE the critical bit of information I need? 42?
reece says2015-07-31T16:19:40.8186174Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality You presume wrong. Now i'm off to check if warframe has been updated yet
TBR says2015-07-31T16:22:22.0456509Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Your last comment I could agree with completely, if not for the reductive nature of it. The religion is the whole, not the individual. He may have been fine with his religion, but what is the religion if not the whole? You talk of the social impact and necessity of the religion. His was a clear example where that worked counter to the advancement of knowledge.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:23:46.6761934Z
Im not saying there isnt corruption there. Nowhere though is god personally staunching a scientists pursuit of discovery (except maybe when they are truly wrong and off base with something ... But that might be god ... Might not be).
reece says2015-07-31T16:27:15.9515349Z
But whats more likely?
reece says2015-07-31T16:30:28.8779716Z
'He might of killed her... Or he might not of killed her *ignores all the evidence*'
TBR says2015-07-31T16:31:15.3818697Z
Just a flat out question then. If the religion (the people the make up the body, the dogma etc.) were wrong or corrupt about Galileo is acceptable, why resist Darwin? I would be happy if Darwin went to his grave with a bible in his hand saying "Yup, I am right, but God did it all" if only to drag a few more believers along for the ride.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:35:09.6641715Z
A universal description of the universe driven solely by the concept of Evolution is not as plausible as a universal description based on Religion. As standalone concepts, evolution wins it. As far as predictive value goes (thanks TBR for wording it better) religion takes the cake. Religion has a much broader high level scope than evolution and therefore confers more data, even if some of it is off a bit. There is much more to learn in the metaphysical than in the physical.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:49:30.4776895Z
'He might of killed her... Or he might not of killed her *ignores all the evidence*' I wouldnt ignore the evidence ... I would in fact take that evidence and note that I apparently should not do that thing that killed her or I will be punished for it, by death. Then it begs me to look into what it was specifically that the universe had a problem with that it had a negative reaction to her doing, etc. etc. Then you end up coming to gods conclusion ... Gods law on what that thing is.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:51:51.1905915Z
@TBR I dont know why they dont believe it. I can say that everyone will eventually. Maybe the only reason it made any waves is because it was such a big thing all at once? People generally are opposed to change, creatures of habit.
reece says2015-07-31T16:52:29.2303427Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality What god? The bipolar one? I wouldn't trust him with his morality.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T16:55:49.2949178Z
And its like you said ... Apparently Evolution and Religion can be viewed as mutually exclusive things. So why would it be weird that people would not immediately accept a discovery like that? I know plenty of non religious people who are still against the idea that we evolved from monkeys. They dont like the idea that the theory belittles the idea of what a Human is, god or no god. Some even turn to alien theories and such to preserve the idea that we came from something higher, not lower. Fear over this type of discovery is not surprising to me, really.
TBR says2015-07-31T16:57:48.3860812Z
Fair enough. It is interesting that Galileo was suppressed for ~100 years. Darwin is dead now about the same. Who knows when the bulk of religion will get on board, but it is of note that the Cathloic church seems to turned the corner. Another note. I had to go look this guys name up. "Nicole Oresme". Who knows of him? His work predated Galileo by a couple hundred years. He was... Well a little bit of everything, but ALSO a bishop. His work predicted the exact results that Galileo would go on to prove. He, the forgotten Oresme, said "God must decide if the earth resolves around the sun." Can you see why that is determent thinking? The guy had it. He had it right hundreds of years before Galileo, but was too subservient to God to just say so.
reece says2015-07-31T17:00:10.7203119Z
Apes, we evolved from apes. Well we're apes too, but the point is monkeys are our 5-6th+ cousins i think.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T17:01:02.0769228Z
And turns out his god was right in the timing of it all. Had Galileo tried to unveil it any sooner it might not have taken. Who knows really. I cant argue with the timing of things really. Too many variables to consider to say that things would have gone better 100 years earlier.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T17:02:39.9051499Z
Or even ... What if he had waited too? Strategic unveiling can really have an impact. Ask any corporation out there.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T17:03:51.8840113Z
"but the point is monkeys are our 5-6th+ cousins i think." I think you got my point though.
TBR says2015-07-31T17:05:33.0539873Z
That I have to say is an interesting concept. I am sitting her smiling a bit at the thought. We must somehow temper our intellectual progress with a strategy for market acceptance. Like a trickle campaign. OK, I am laughing at it, but its not entirely without merit.
reece says2015-07-31T17:06:24.2033877Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality That people who think that aliens created us are as bad as the religious? Yeah, i get it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T17:08:38.0366456Z
If you had to look at this whole thing from the outside which does it really matter? You follow one belief that says you are built from the bottom up ... Another belief that you come from the divine and are built from the top down. How does it matter really. Generally I would think there is a motivation that comes for some people when they think they are made from something better than themselves ... That why religion works for them. Others like the idea that we rose from nothing and that hard work and persistence can get us farther ... That works for them too. Whatever motivates you in the right direction at the end of the day is all I really care about ... You can be as ridiculous as you want in your beliefs.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T17:10:31.3089717Z
"That people who think that aliens created us are as bad as the religious? Yeah, i get it." And are equally on par as atheists. In fact alien believers are often self proclaimed atheists.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T17:11:45.8306494Z
"We must somehow temper our intellectual progress with a strategy for market acceptance." Sounds like the natural cost of living with other humans to me.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T17:12:28.7153243Z
A completely natural form of restraint.
TBR says2015-07-31T17:36:26.7923353Z
Let me ask one more flat out question. Its going to be hard to phrase, but let me give it a shot. If I have one system that is self correcting, another that has a bedrock of resistance to change. We lay these over a populous that must be taken into account, that is to say, they have "sociological needs", or "mental stability" or... Well, this is where I am getting muddled. The thrust is, it could be argued that the population would live "healthy" with the static, and unstable with the former. Would you still prefer the later? OK. I know that is... Diluted, but I am trying to get at something, and I think you can read it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T17:43:41.1953273Z
I believe both of them to be necessary for a 'healthy' existence. Religion too is self correcting ... Just historically in a violent way. In what way does the other side correct itself? Does it ever? It always only seems like an infinite progression. It never has hit it's "wall" of sustainability as of yet ... So its hard for people to say things about it ... Yet everyone voices concern over what negative things come from it. They know the wall exists just ahead somewhere. How do you see it correcting? It has no experience having hit such a wall before. We might find the result at that extent much more violent than the religious alternative.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T17:46:09.4430776Z
Maybe even irreparable. Maybe that is the lesson to the whole timing thing. Maybe thats the reason why it helps to have a certain percentage of religious restrainers amongst us to keep things honest and make sure we arent over reaching.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T17:54:03.5925170Z
I dont personally think of them as restrainers ... But I think you get the idea. That there must be two sides working synonymously like that ... Both geared toward explaining things from both perspectives. It adds another dimension altogether to things. And they happen to be describing the same things ... Which makes them even better when you can find areas where the two relate ... Thats where real discoveries are made.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T18:00:09.5240627Z
Quite honestly, putting evolution on a pedestal like this side by side with religion doesnt make much sense. Its almost trying to make a religion out of something that you even made example to having existed in all men already. Galileo didnt need a scientific theory to get behind to justify his need to explore and break the bounds of his religious views ... It was already there. Theres no reason to get behind it and support that feeling religiously. Religion is about promoting ideas that arent necessarily inherent to all people. To educate. No one needs an education of breaking the norm and thinking outside of the box ... Most do that naturally. At least I hope no one needs that. Maybe we have become institutionalized enough to where thats necessary ... Maybe thats why people get behind theories like this.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T18:04:26.8165120Z
"How would living things be magically created by one being?" Thats the million dollar question right? How would living things be magically created from one explosion in the universe (or being if you want to call it that)? Idk. Lets explore.
TBR says2015-07-31T18:07:46.7317935Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Please don't call it an "explosion". That is rhetoric that keeps conversations like this sounding stupid from the "God Believers".
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T18:15:09.5406320Z
Oh you dont want them in the fold?
TBR says2015-07-31T18:20:53.5228370Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - I don't think I get the last comment. What I am saying is, when you use words like "explosion" it starts people from a scientific background into thinking you know nothing, and gives the wrong picture to the believers. It would be like me saying.... I don't know, "magic carpenter". It is, unless the intent is to insult and confuse, wrong.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T18:37:06.2670725Z
Well to be fair I was sort of adjusting it to meet gabep's description of "magically creating" life.
TBR says2015-07-31T18:46:24.6570519Z
I see. Above in the votes. OK.
TBR says2015-07-31T18:48:16.2913675Z
I should say, I am not above making mocking statements about religion. I do it all the time. I don't do it when I am talking with a reasonable debate partner, and that's the point, right? When the conversation slides, it slides for both sides.
briantheliberal says2015-07-31T20:37:31.1343911Z
I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. One is a theory of how organisms emerge and adapt overtime, while the other is a story (mythological) of how the world, or universe was created. Do they overlap? Yes. However, they both deal with different issues, but it is indisputable that evolution is fact, and creationism is myth with little evidence to support it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-31T20:40:57.6982282Z
Idk ... It seems like creationism can be construed to having been supported by literally everything all the time. I dont know how you could call that "little evidence". Theres a reason creationism has stayed relevant throughout the centuries.
briantheliberal says2015-07-31T20:54:43.2604920Z
It stayed relevant this long because the institutions that promote it have become very powerful over thousands of years and their influence is still very much present in modern times. It doesn't take much to get millions of people to believe something, even without evidence for it, especially something as convoluted as creationism. It is essentially a man-made story used to explain what science has yet to determine. And popularity is not really a measure of accuracy.
TBR says2015-07-31T21:45:30.5091338Z
Supported by everything? That is just a statement - same could be said of all evolution.
Ferare says2015-08-01T10:56:06.4410152Z
Freedombeforeequality, if people are so emotionally invested in the concept of evolution, that they would not change their belief when new material and theories becomes available you are correct. And it's not religious to be an atheist, just like it's not a hobby to not collect stamps.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T11:06:09.7646019Z
"It doesn't take much to get millions of people to believe something, even without evidence for it, especially something as convoluted as creationism." Oh it doesn't? Its a wonder you or I aren't in power then.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T11:08:01.3521172Z
"Supported by everything? That is just a statement - same could be said of all evolution." Not all. I thought we had established already that evolution can not be applied to everything, only to its narrow proven scope of things. If you go and try to apply it to everything, even the unproven, it becomes no different than a religion again.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T11:10:25.2474396Z
And it would be wrong in a great many things. People could come to some pretty insane conclusions about the world if Creationist type religions never existed and Evolution was the only truth they were ever exposed to. In fact Creationist type religions would be one of those conclusions, ironically.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T11:14:11.8544922Z
"And it's not religious to be an atheist, just like it's not a hobby to not collect stamps." -Farare If you are specifically outlining a course of action to go around having collected a stamp over your lifetime then you have made a hobby of not doing it, yes. If you just weren't doing it without acknowledgement, then sure. Atheism is not that way. It exists in light of its alter ego, Religion, and therefore cannot be believed in without acknowledgement of the former.
briantheliberal says2015-08-04T11:23:59.1202567Z
"Oh it doesn't? Its a wonder you or I aren't in power then." - I meant for those in power. They already have the ability to influence millions and have been doing so for centuries. (And by they I mean the church)
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T11:35:47.0839949Z
I was just confused as to why you think what they are pulling 'Isn't much'. Its quite an undertaking really. And if it was totally baseless it would have fallen long long ago, like so many other uprisings. Theres something about an institution that quite literally predates known human history, that has to mean something. I notice a common argument among religion bashers is they seem to presume religion as a whole as some type of fad or phase that humans of the past went through. There is no conceivable start or end to it, so I dont know how that could be viewed as some kind of phase or mistake that we'd just outgrow one day. Its not going to go away.
briantheliberal says2015-08-04T11:53:37.2976552Z
It's not really "undertaking" at this point. As I said before, they have been doing it for centuries. Religion is not as uniform as most people believe. Many of the things that were commonplace in the church a few centuries ago never survived, people split and started their own sects, eliminated things they disagreed with and so on. Yet, after all of this conflict from within, the institution still stands. Why? Because they use their power to their advantage. They indoctrinate their followers with what they want them to believe and follow, and one of those things remained consistent throughout history, the concept of creationism. It is fundamental, but slowly being debunked by scientific innovations and discoveries. And the more science debunks, the less power it has. And saying this doesn't make me a "religion basher" because it's true, but that also doesn't mean I believe the institution itself will simply go away. People will always be dismissive of the facts and continue to fall victim to indoctrination. Humans simply aren't perfect.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T12:14:55.5854493Z
"They indoctrinate their followers with what they want them to believe and follow, and one of those things remained consistent throughout history, the concept of creationism." I think this is a 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg" type argument. People have used god to explain life/natural laws well before anyone was in a seat of power wielding god's law.
briantheliberal says2015-08-04T13:04:32.9581349Z
"People have used god to explain life/natural laws well before anyone was in a seat of power wielding god's law." - Sorry, what does this have to do with church and creationism?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T13:17:07.9469183Z
Because someone else most assuradely thought up creationism before there was a Roman Catholic church out there pushing it as a teaching. In fact it took so well because people already had and do have the inclination to believe something created them as no better an explanation for it exists anywhere else. Youre blaming an institution for what people were already thinking.
reece says2015-08-04T14:22:20.9244083Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality One of the qualities of humanity is self projection. When we don't have enough information, we tend to look towards ourselves for the answer. You can use a sensory deprivation tank as an example.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T15:09:31.9481488Z
Sure, and barring an answer to the meaning of life (which there isn't one per se) we have no reason to expect people to think otherwise and equally we have no reason to expect religion will ever go away.
reece says2015-08-04T15:33:00.8171524Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality The meaning of life is just a small part of a much larger process. I say the meaning of the universe is complexification. The More answers we find and the more information we're able can keep and share, the faster religion will fade. I expect if to go away.
TBR says2015-08-04T15:38:31.2478525Z
Jumping back in. Why is it so necessary for there to be any meaning? What I am asking is, the more we attempt to, or the more we assume that there is some meaning, the more we wish for these fantasy explanations. I have no problem living a (micro) meaningful life knowing that the grand-sum is nothing.
reece says2015-08-04T15:44:10.2712560Z
...More information we're able to* keep and share...
reece says2015-08-04T15:48:17.5016408Z
@TBR meaning changes over time. Like all things, it evolves.
TBR says2015-08-04T15:54:29.1428231Z
@reece - The meaning is only what we add. We are a clever bunch. We can do that. Its not delusional to think that my life has meaning to my son, or my dog. It does. That is micro. The question to the meaning "of it all" might just as well be 42 because it is meaningless. If that spot, the spot filled by "42" is God... Well, then, it is just as much wish fulfillment as 42. Makes no difference in a universe that is utterly indifferent to... Anything.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T15:59:52.0804932Z
"I have no problem living a (micro) meaningful life knowing that the grand-sum is nothing." I would ask why you would be okay with that then? And you'd answer me with a meaning of life in some form. There is no right answer there really.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T16:00:43.6700239Z
Why or how* I should say.
reece says2015-08-04T16:02:41.0607764Z
If you didn't know 42 is the Japanese meaning for death. Correct me if i'm wrong. But anyway, adding knowledge is still an evolution. The universe is dynamic (We're the the universe )
TBR says2015-08-04T16:03:05.0849304Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - I see an obsession from religion, trying to "make sense of it all". I scratch my head and wonder how childish can you be? Do you have a dog? Does it like to go for walks? OK then, all good. Go out for a walk, enjoy yourself a bit, but don't dilute yourself into thinking any of this has some scheme.
TBR says2015-08-04T16:05:33.1610796Z
@reece - These axioms "we are the universe" are as worthless as "God wants us to...". Say we "are the universe" so what? Why project meaning, why think that statement has meaning.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T16:08:22.1257627Z
Thats not very motivating, at least not to do things outside of my own little bubble.
reece says2015-08-04T16:10:14.3684822Z
@TBR There is a difference between giving meaning to something and saying r=the meanings absolute.
reece says2015-08-04T16:10:37.8778329Z
That*
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T16:15:06.9171575Z
"Why project meaning, why think that statement has meaning." So that we all still wake up and decide life is worth living. So that we make choices to prolong our existence. If there was nothing to struggle for ... Why get out of bed in the morning.
TBR says2015-08-05T23:39:05.1425904Z
Its micro though. I struggle for the comfort of my wife, son, dog and cat. I have a good time sometimes, and that is more than enough "meaning".
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-06T19:11:12.4558769Z
If that is enough meaning then I wonder why you'd advocate that I care for other people through socialist programs. There is no grand design. Why should I help them. I have zero motivation to do so under your model. How can any leftist claim to be atheist if their core belief drives people away from promoting civilization and the human race.
TBR says2015-10-01T19:57:46.5489041Z
Because helping others helps me enjoy more of my life.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.