Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Explaining creationism
Why don't creationists explain creationism with the same enthusiasm and in the same generous detail with which scientists have explained evolution for the last 150 years?
Why this obsession with attacking evolution? Do they really think that if they can find a major flaw in that science then all evolutionists will abandon reason and rush to the supernatural? If a carriage designer finds a fault in his design does he discard all his engineering and go in search of a Fairy Godmother with a pumpkin and a magic wand? If a gynaecologist fails to make a couple conceive does he tell them to go and find a gooseberry bush and a stork? Do creationists not realise that if evolution were totally discredited tomorrow it would have be replaced by something equally logical, equally rational, equally explanatory of life on this planet and equally supported by mountains of evidence? In other words it would have to be a science not a religious superstition.
So tell us about your creator. What sort of a creature is he/she/it? What does it look like, sound like, feel like? How did it go about designing a whole universe? What materials did it use and where did it get them? Did it have help?
You might start by explaining why the unknown writer of Genesis claims that the earth existed a least three days before the rest of the universe, and what light it was that was separated from the darkness on the first day, and supplied morning and evening on the first three days, when the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Come on, creationists, you've got 150 years of catching-up to do.
Why this obsession with attacking evolution? Do they really think that if they can find a major flaw in that science then all evolutionists will abandon reason and rush to the supernatural? If a carriage designer finds a fault in his design does he discard all his engineering and go in search of a Fairy Godmother with a pumpkin and a magic wand? If a gynaecologist fails to make a couple conceive does he tell them to go and find a gooseberry bush and a stork? Do creationists not realise that if evolution were totally discredited tomorrow it would have be replaced by something equally logical, equally rational, equally explanatory of life on this planet and equally supported by mountains of evidence? In other words it would have to be a science not a religious superstition.
So tell us about your creator. What sort of a creature is he/she/it? What does it look like, sound like, feel like? How did it go about designing a whole universe? What materials did it use and where did it get them? Did it have help?
You might start by explaining why the unknown writer of Genesis claims that the earth existed a least three days before the rest of the universe, and what light it was that was separated from the darkness on the first day, and supplied morning and evening on the first three days, when the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Come on, creationists, you've got 150 years of catching-up to do.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well now, that didn�t get me anywhere, did it? 11 days with not a single creationist willing to answer my two questions: why are they obsessed with attacking evolution, and why don�t they explain creationism?
Frankly I�m not surprised. The late Stephen Jay Gould said:
�There are certain rules and procedures to [the art-form of] debate which have nothing to do with establishing fact� Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses of your opponent�s position. [Creationists] are very good at that. I don�t think I could beat them at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas.� [This is a reference to the trial in which the education board of Arkansas tried to justify the introduction of �creation-science� into schools. They were soundly beaten.]
Never mind, I seem to have provided a lot of you with a platform for all sorts of views which are irrelevant to my questions. Carry on. Be my guest.
Frankly I�m not surprised. The late Stephen Jay Gould said:
�There are certain rules and procedures to [the art-form of] debate which have nothing to do with establishing fact� Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses of your opponent�s position. [Creationists] are very good at that. I don�t think I could beat them at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas.� [This is a reference to the trial in which the education board of Arkansas tried to justify the introduction of �creation-science� into schools. They were soundly beaten.]
Never mind, I seem to have provided a lot of you with a platform for all sorts of views which are irrelevant to my questions. Carry on. Be my guest.
In Defense of Fairies:
When it comes to comparing creationist theories and the theory of evolution we are definitely considering two distinct species. Evolution is deduced from observations and related to human experience. Creationism was created to sponsor wishful thinking with creativity run amuck.
Fairy Godmothers on the other hand are understood as tales told simply for the meaning they convey. (If God�s mother really was a fairy that would explain a lot; wouldn�t it?)
When is the last time a fairy got in your face and told you that you would burn in hell for not believing as they do? But then again, maybe they were, . . . �not that there is anything wrong with that.�
When it comes to comparing creationist theories and the theory of evolution we are definitely considering two distinct species. Evolution is deduced from observations and related to human experience. Creationism was created to sponsor wishful thinking with creativity run amuck.
Fairy Godmothers on the other hand are understood as tales told simply for the meaning they convey. (If God�s mother really was a fairy that would explain a lot; wouldn�t it?)
When is the last time a fairy got in your face and told you that you would burn in hell for not believing as they do? But then again, maybe they were, . . . �not that there is anything wrong with that.�
Creationists attack evolution due to the God of gaps theory, the church takes what we don't know and fills the gap in our knowledge with God's miracles. As science has filled more and more gaps such as weather and plagues.
The last great gap was also the most influential gap, creation and how everything works so well together. As scientists got better then everything made the gap more powerful, victorians saw how intricate the eye was and how symbiotic organisms worked together. The gap was getting bigger and better for the church, they could demonstrate the power and intelligence of their God by pointing out of the window or showing the latest scientific journal.
But then Darwin filled the last gap with evolution, so now the church was robbed of its strongest asset, naturally they want this back as the churches fall from significant power neatly coincides with the rise of evolution. Evolution is not as concrete as most people trhink but most believers accept that the best they ca do is accept evolution as God's mechanism for bringing about new species. they could Paley here as he states 'if we found a watch that had the ability to make smaller replicas of itslef what would this do but to increase our admiration of the watch's maker'.
The church now sticks with God created everything but then evolution went from there.
The last great gap was also the most influential gap, creation and how everything works so well together. As scientists got better then everything made the gap more powerful, victorians saw how intricate the eye was and how symbiotic organisms worked together. The gap was getting bigger and better for the church, they could demonstrate the power and intelligence of their God by pointing out of the window or showing the latest scientific journal.
But then Darwin filled the last gap with evolution, so now the church was robbed of its strongest asset, naturally they want this back as the churches fall from significant power neatly coincides with the rise of evolution. Evolution is not as concrete as most people trhink but most believers accept that the best they ca do is accept evolution as God's mechanism for bringing about new species. they could Paley here as he states 'if we found a watch that had the ability to make smaller replicas of itslef what would this do but to increase our admiration of the watch's maker'.
The church now sticks with God created everything but then evolution went from there.
But Evolution is still the biggest and most fragile target for believers who refuse to accept this compromise and want their most powerful gap back.
This is why creationists attack evolution as it is the easiest scientific target and offers the biggest reward, it is only a natural human instinct to try and get people to conform to what you think and do.
Also they don't need to explain creationism, that is its one strength and weakness. It is a matter of faith so it doesn't need explaining hence it can be advocated and promoted by anyone anywhere and it only needs one thing to make someone believe it, the person needs faith. But for scientists and empiricists this is its weakness, it can't justify itself.
Imagine scientists as dieticians advocated a strict balanced diet and healthy eating with several strong points and backing but needs willpower and commit to follow and to make you healthy. Creationists are simply eating what they want as their diet only needs one factor, to be happy with yourself and what you are doing and eating. It doesn't mean one is better than the other, some creationists could be eating a perfectly healthy diet (to extend the metsaphor) but not following the strict diet of the scientists and the scientists may have some points wrong and aren't sure about jelly but on the whole they get most things right.
This is why creationists attack evolution as it is the easiest scientific target and offers the biggest reward, it is only a natural human instinct to try and get people to conform to what you think and do.
Also they don't need to explain creationism, that is its one strength and weakness. It is a matter of faith so it doesn't need explaining hence it can be advocated and promoted by anyone anywhere and it only needs one thing to make someone believe it, the person needs faith. But for scientists and empiricists this is its weakness, it can't justify itself.
Imagine scientists as dieticians advocated a strict balanced diet and healthy eating with several strong points and backing but needs willpower and commit to follow and to make you healthy. Creationists are simply eating what they want as their diet only needs one factor, to be happy with yourself and what you are doing and eating. It doesn't mean one is better than the other, some creationists could be eating a perfectly healthy diet (to extend the metsaphor) but not following the strict diet of the scientists and the scientists may have some points wrong and aren't sure about jelly but on the whole they get most things right.
Evolution is only a theory like every other scientific theory, not concrete and doesn't explain how everything first got started just how it went from there.
Also mibn2cweus if you only believe what you can register with your perceptual faculties then how about gravity, an invisible force with no source, no gauge bosons, an infinite range and is purely dependent on force. Surely a force needs some source or soem energy or work put in to exert the force and this energy will run out. But gravity is just exerted for no discernible reason by matter and doesn't run out.
We can only perceive gravity by the fact that little things stick to bigger stuff but all the theory behind it sounds more unlikely than many other claims made by creationists or otherwise. If God is a magic godmother then gravity is at least 3 godmothers-Infinite range-No energy used-Dependent on just mass but affects light(no mass).
As newborns (physically speaking) perhaps one of the first laws of physics we grasp is gravity along with up/down; throw a block up the block comes back down, toss a ball up the ball comes down. This is a fact of reality presented to us through perception.
Our astonishment at first observing a helium filled balloon is almost universal, but as we achieve a greater understanding of reality we come to know that this too is due to gravity; denser air displaces less dense helium.
An understanding of how and why something works can help us to derive the benefits of that knowledge but does not determine whether it does indeed work. When we do finally learn the why and how we find again that �God� has nothing to do with it. If �God� can be proved to be anything it would amount to a lack of understanding, which indeed it does.
That gravity and apples exists is easily demonstrated perceptually. Our growing knowledge of gravity and apples will always be contextual and limited but �God� teaches us nothing about either accept that perhaps apples (and knowledge) are �evil�.
Our astonishment at first observing a helium filled balloon is almost universal, but as we achieve a greater understanding of reality we come to know that this too is due to gravity; denser air displaces less dense helium.
An understanding of how and why something works can help us to derive the benefits of that knowledge but does not determine whether it does indeed work. When we do finally learn the why and how we find again that �God� has nothing to do with it. If �God� can be proved to be anything it would amount to a lack of understanding, which indeed it does.
That gravity and apples exists is easily demonstrated perceptually. Our growing knowledge of gravity and apples will always be contextual and limited but �God� teaches us nothing about either accept that perhaps apples (and knowledge) are �evil�.
The existence of gravity is by no means easily perceived. The existence of a force that keeps things on the ground, a force that keeps planets around the sun is easily observed, but it is by no means an easy observation that the two are the same force, and just because stuff sticks to the Earth doesn't mean that rhere is a force, it could be a miracle. It isn't but prove there is a force.
For gravity you can't, there is no boson, no energy or work used and no equal or opposite reaction. Also why does gravity have an infinite range? How can anything? But it does.
Gravity is just our name for a phenomena that doesn't follow the normal rules for a force. Stuff sticks down is easily perceived, so is l;ightning, but derive from the spectacle the cause and it is impossible, hence yhe God of gaps for thousands of years. The arguement that science is simply an onvious perception of reality is unsubstantiated and nonsense, how many mass spectrometers or particle accelerators are there lurking in forests or growing on bushes.
Scientists need faith as well, faith that they're right. When CERN apply for billionms of euros to build a new facility they promise the EU that they will find soemthing new and beneficial, they might not but mthey and the sintists have faith that they might. Faith in something=hope that something will happen or happened. Religion is just an extension of simple hope, hope in the afterlife or a greater cause. Religion doesn't necessarliy define good/evil just a limited and contextual perception of right/wrong regarding their own faith and ideals.
Whether one is right or wrong offers little benefit if the reason for this is not understood. Does flying planes into buildings prove that one is right, or, that one does not know and understand the difference? �Faith� and �God� need to be returned to the ash heap of unreason from which they were spawned, not later . . . now.
Throwing good money in any quantity large or small after faith will not provide a better understanding of reality or of each other and if this is the basis upon which CERN is built than I can guarantee that nothing good will come of it in the end. How does faith enter into your calculation that in messin� �round with �God�s creation� you will not blow us all to �Kingdom Come�?
Faith is not an alternative to rational thinking, it is the doubt based abdication of the only path to reason, human rationality. You better get a grip on your technology or the lack of value you place on reason and the welfare of humanity will become self-evident to even the most wide-eyed and innocent of believers.
Yow would place a better understanding of relaity above morals, unity and peace.
Are you married? Do you drive a car? What's Your job? Do you have a hobby?
One of these will need returning to the ash heap of unreason. Unless of course your car offers you a better view of reality, your job tells you what the universe is or your hobby solves the meaning of the universe, assuming there is a reason. Yopur car burns fossil fuel and is doing scientifically proved damage to the planet and may put us all in danger, reason dictates that you should walk or cycle and eat organic food, use a wind turbine or possibly live in a mud hut, these would be safe from your ash heap.
What is wrong with faith? Why don't you approve of someone believing in something that doesn't nned to be proved. A piece of paper is worth five pounds no reason, people know that a disc of meatl is worth the same as a bar of chocolate, why because we know it does. Currency is a direct violation of common sense, logic and what is easily proved, a sheep can be traded for a sheep but 1/100th of a sheep in paper for 5 sheeps' worth of food, no reason just a knowledge that it is true.
Why do believers have faith? they know it is true. Burn your money on your ash heap and i will belive my paper is worth the whole heap.
i would like to point out what faith has done for us -brought us from our chimpanzee-like predecessors, we asked why the world was the way it was and although the answers were wrong they allowed us to exercise our minds and better ourselves. Faith led yto the graet technological advances throughout history. The first recoirded use of steam being used yto power a mechanical device is from Greek and Roman writers who chronicvle the use of steam machines to make water flow or to open huge doors seemingly at a whim for peasants. when the churches stated what they thought was what people naturally disagreed leading to debate and the search for proof in another theory and another way of doing it, faith was needed to motivate people to pick holes and find soemthing else. Faith to lack of faith to disagreement to arguement to progress in logic.
The Industrial Revolution was powered by young clergymen whom the church encouraged to investigate the world around them, Darwin was a clergyman and his fascination at what he saw as God's creatures and how they were so perfectly designed as to adapt themeselves led to his theory of evolution, he saw it as proof of God's power. Without faith this theory would not have come about.
My point is that creationists may have a different theory that cannot be supported by scientific reason but it doesn't need reason, if you are an empiricist then that is fine but the two can live side by side and can both believe and know the same things.
If faith was spawned from an ash heap then science and logic has risen like a phoenix. As such the two are intricately linked-more than either would admit.
So then; �God� created the chimpanzee so that scientists could say, �Look! Proof! There is a �God�!�? Sorry, but this kind of 'reasoning' does not appeal to the rules of logic that I did not invent but must apply to draw a valid conclusion.
Morality is neither beneath nor above reality. Reality is the proving ground of ones moral code. It is only when a moral code complies with the demands placed on it by reality that those choosing to live within its framework are able to maintain a peaceful coexistence and achieve genuine and sustainable progress. For this reason reality must be understood in order to design a moral code that rational people can mutually accept and choose to follow. Is this easy? No. Does it require a lot of thought and hard work? Yes. Is there an alternative? No, not if a life worth living, here on this Earth, is your goal. But then if you believe that your life�s meaning and purpose lie beyond the grave, then �what the hell, where�s my exploding vest; don�t want to keep them virgins waiting any longer�.
Money is recognized, by those who earn it, as a means of exchanging value for value with those who likewise understand and appreciate the advantages this method offers over shooting it out. Civilization is not a product of shivering savages bowing down before erupting volcanoes in fear of the wrath of �God�. Civilization evolved through the wisdom of those who appreciate the advantages of respecting an individual�s right to the products of their thoughts and labors. Peace, freedom and human rights must be understood and appreciated for the values they are for any civilization to survive.
Morality is neither beneath nor above reality. Reality is the proving ground of ones moral code. It is only when a moral code complies with the demands placed on it by reality that those choosing to live within its framework are able to maintain a peaceful coexistence and achieve genuine and sustainable progress. For this reason reality must be understood in order to design a moral code that rational people can mutually accept and choose to follow. Is this easy? No. Does it require a lot of thought and hard work? Yes. Is there an alternative? No, not if a life worth living, here on this Earth, is your goal. But then if you believe that your life�s meaning and purpose lie beyond the grave, then �what the hell, where�s my exploding vest; don�t want to keep them virgins waiting any longer�.
Money is recognized, by those who earn it, as a means of exchanging value for value with those who likewise understand and appreciate the advantages this method offers over shooting it out. Civilization is not a product of shivering savages bowing down before erupting volcanoes in fear of the wrath of �God�. Civilization evolved through the wisdom of those who appreciate the advantages of respecting an individual�s right to the products of their thoughts and labors. Peace, freedom and human rights must be understood and appreciated for the values they are for any civilization to survive.
�God� never has and never will fill in any of the gaps that exist in our knowledge and understanding. Faith may render these gaps invisible but it will not keep us from slipping between them on our way to the abyss of eternal ignorance. It is the desire to hold fast to that which we know is good and to have the best that we are capable of achieving that justify the means necessary to accomplish this; the exercising of our own rational self-interest.
While you're slipping into the abyss of eternal ignorance perhaps you should look up the meaning of faithand the term god-awful metaphor.
Rational self-interest does not aid us to hold fast to that which we know is good, it leads to a slefish, despicable scenario of humanity, much like the western world were capitalism holds full sway and Christmas lasts several months with billions of dollars exchanging hands.
You're view of fsaith as a Christian ideal is misleading, Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism jold such beliefs as karma and a csomic judgement, not a creator and not an omnipitent God who watches over us but a process, much like an action and reaction that balances the universe, just as Newton's laws of motion. Religion led to phiosophy, led to science.
I repeat faith does not need to give rational answers, or any answers if it doesn't want to, to expect it to is ignoring what it is, you are asking a spanner to lay eggs. Faith is different from religion, religions are specific sets of beliefs and values that range from a caring loving god, to a vengeful destroyer to cosmic scales, to say it is a detriment and leads to abysses or ash-heaps of ignorance is a folly to end all follies, faith defines humans and separates human civilisation from an ant hill. The ability to imagine, to project and think about whys, wherefores and what ifs led us to be able to say because, therefore and thens, faith led to human civilisation which in turn has lead to your own particular faith oif rational thought and god help us self-interest.
Faith a definition
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.
Only two of these relate to what mibn2cweus calls faith the belief in principles that are not rationally based. The other three are sets of values and principles, these can be good or bad depending on who is judging them. No where does faith give pretense to explain why things work the way they do and why things happen as they do. Faith just gives guidelines to follow if a scenario occurs, a person's faith naturally biases and affects their reactions to situations in life
mibn2cweus you have faith in rational logic and proof, a faith founded on fact but a faith none the less, it is a set of values and principles that affects what you know is true (what you believe).
The bible never said how life worked, just what you should do with it and what happens afterward. Something that defies logic (life) and somethings which evidence cannot conjecture upon (death). Faith has not crossed any scientific lines by flying in the face of logic, creationism is more logical than evolution, not scientifically correct by a long way but more rational and logical as is the bible's version of creation, I wouldn't hold it to be true for a scecond but it is more logical than everything suddenly bursting forth from nothing and exapnding into nothing, while matter condensed out of energy. More far fetched and irrational than God created it as we affect and influence bacterias growth and genetics.
Rational self-interest is the what, why and how of all that is good in human existence.
Realizing our potential to reason, that it exists and that we must us it to survive and prosper, has brought us up off our knees and out of the dark and dusty caves of our evolutionary ancestors to the dawn of an awareness that this, reason, is what distinguishes us from all other known life forms and what defines us as a species.
It is this same ability to reason that has brought us to question our right to exist and to benefit from what we are able, through our own thoughts and actions, to achieve for ourselves. The answer given to those of us who have asked this question honestly and who refuse to settle for anything less that certain truth is a resounding, �Yes�.
What is despicable is those who turn there back on this knowledge, (and all that has been required throughout history to discover it), and refuse to accept responsibility for their own life and happiness. At the same time, while denying there knowledge of this, they work feverishly to discredit those who do accept this responsibility and use their rational self interest to create products that are of immense value to us all. Guilt, and the attempt to discredit and corrupt the rational process we live by, are their tools and hatred for human achievement is their stock in trade.
continued . . .
Capitalism is nothing more than a system of government designed to protect the freedom and essential rights of individuals to the products of their own creativity, ingenuity and labor. To the extent that any given form of government maintains this ideal that country and all those who thrive under its protection are greatly benefited. Unfortunately such a system of government has seen better days and is constantly under attack from those who believe that their desire to be on equal footing with those who produce justifies their �right� to take it at will. Capitalism is not at fault; it is our failure to defend it that leads to the woes that are then blamed on �greedy capitalist pigs�.
Reality must first be considered at face value in order to proceed with a logical evaluation and analysis if there is to be any hope for understanding about what is. What one chooses to believe about what reality is, does not in any way affect what it is. Reality to be altered in a reasonable fashion must first be perceived and understood, only then can we proceed with a purposeful and meaningful process of change for the better.
If you choose faith as your guide than let the blind lead the blind to wherever they may go, but don�t think for a minute that this gives you the right to step on the toes of those whose generosity is keeping you alive one more day; even if the grave is ultimately your destination of choice.
Reality must first be considered at face value in order to proceed with a logical evaluation and analysis if there is to be any hope for understanding about what is. What one chooses to believe about what reality is, does not in any way affect what it is. Reality to be altered in a reasonable fashion must first be perceived and understood, only then can we proceed with a purposeful and meaningful process of change for the better.
If you choose faith as your guide than let the blind lead the blind to wherever they may go, but don�t think for a minute that this gives you the right to step on the toes of those whose generosity is keeping you alive one more day; even if the grave is ultimately your destination of choice.
chakka35, I find myself repeatedly wondering if this could possibly be what you expected when you said, �Never mind, I seem to have provided a lot of you with a platform for all sorts of views which are irrelevant to my questions. Carry on. Be my guest.� I know it may not appear at first glance to have any relevancy to your original question (IMO the best part of this thread) but there must be an underlying premise to the creation of creationism and my hope is that I might shed some light on it, (assuming, of course, that you have not given up and abandoned your monster child to its wayward wanderings). I have a suspicion that it may now be just Zevon and me out here in this cyber wilderness ramming heads only to enjoy another moment of dazed semi-consciousness.
Your arguement that what we believe reslity to be doesn't affect what it is and that by observation we can deduce what reality is flies in the face of rational scientific arguement, observing a system changes the behaviour of the system, by analysing the world we change it.
My arguements about the nature of faith and its underappreciated role in human history stems from the original question asking about what the creator is and asking creationists to ex[plain why they believe. They don't need a reason that is what makes science and religion diametrically opposed, one requires reason the other just faith. So I agrre with mibn that we are actiually answering the question, but like egomaniacs.
If rational self-interest allows us to question our right to exist and our right to benefit from what we achieve then surely religion is rational self-interest, religion tackles these questions much better than science does as religion can deal with the abstract. Granted science is a result of our evolution and separates us from other animals, but religion is probably what first separated us and accelerated our scientific progress. The ability to question why we were on earth led to the first religious beliefs and gave rise to more ordered communities and civilisations slowly arose while religious festivals inspired people to build pyramids etc.
Although religions don't justify themsleves and people who try with such garbage as intelligent design make my blood boil, a true believer who just accepts that God did things is fine by me and a scientist who respecrts this is hunky-dory. A scientist who tries to prove creationists wrong or vice versa causes my fists to clench as they are missing the whole point.
All I'm saying is scientists accept faith as a necessary part of human evolution that led to science and accpet that it is an integral part of the human brain to seek reason and rhyme in the world and even what is not reality such as the afterlife or what makes life (the soul) or how things first got started, maybe God just started the big bang and has only bothered with heaven since, who knows? You could believe this or any shades of grey between pure science and religion.
But the two will always exist and used properly they can be mutually beneficial.
Organised religion with doctrines came from a general faith that came from a general morality. It was this morality that made humans huamns. Can animals make judgements about whether something is intrinsically right or wrong/ No they just do what is needed to survive. Meercats don't attack their family as that would make it harder for ythem all to survive, lions eat meat because that is what is best for them to survive. If animals could make mortal judgements you would see vegetarian leopards or communal animals imposing some kind of law and punishment if something bad was done, but they don't
Whether or not you belive in a religion no is obsolete, you still have religion's founding principles ingrained in your mind, its what makes humans humans, you can judge if something is good or bad, charity is good, violence is bad. These are the true meanings of religion and faith regardless of holidays and rituals, a sense of morals is fundamental to religion and most religions share the same ideals as they are the ones that have stood the test of time.
Science may have invented the A-bomb but religion stops uys using it. Science says what can be done. Religion says what should be done.
I know there are extremists and special cases but they are judged by everyone to be bad, taking the human race as a whole and religions as their true literal incarnations, not someone's screwball interpretation.
Also mibn is right, come on soembody else get involved, I know that this is in the science section, I'm a scientist, but i felt someone had to prevent this becoming a simple slagging session. Come on body and soul section get involved!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank0 min ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Will Stonehenge Become Reform's...
News4 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.