Crosswords0 min ago
Was Darwin just following God's evolution rules?
33 Answers
Should the question be science or belief?
http://www.theanswerb...y/Question822670.html
If you disagree with some of the arguments stated please add your comments.
http://www.theanswerb...y/Question822670.html
If you disagree with some of the arguments stated please add your comments.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. 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.
As an adjunct to my earlier post, if Islam "filched" some of it's ideas from the Greeks the exact same could be said of Darwin, who "filched" a lot of "his" ideas from one of his contempories, did he not?
To further the example, Alec Issigonis was a brilliant engineer, but he invented nothing (except perhaps "Hydrolastic" suspension) the Mini had no new technology in it, there was nothing on the Mini that hadn't been done before (apart from, maybe, conical rubber suspension) but he was the first to put it all together.
He was the first to join all the dots.
The human mind does not exist in a vacuum, it is influenced by any number of extraneous circumstances and events, this does not lessen in any way shape or form the brilliance of such reasonings.
One should not seek to dismiss the advances of a culture (or science) as irrelevant because it built on what went before.
To further the example, Alec Issigonis was a brilliant engineer, but he invented nothing (except perhaps "Hydrolastic" suspension) the Mini had no new technology in it, there was nothing on the Mini that hadn't been done before (apart from, maybe, conical rubber suspension) but he was the first to put it all together.
He was the first to join all the dots.
The human mind does not exist in a vacuum, it is influenced by any number of extraneous circumstances and events, this does not lessen in any way shape or form the brilliance of such reasonings.
One should not seek to dismiss the advances of a culture (or science) as irrelevant because it built on what went before.
Everton. I don't dismiss advances of a culture (or science) as irrelevant because it built on what went before. There's nothing wrong in building upon what went before - in fact it's vital to do so - as Darwin, in some instances, did. However, I do dismiss claims of new discoveries that aren't, in fact, new, and where no acknowledgement of the original source of that information is given. Credit where credit is due. As I said, we have had this conversation before, and despite Keyplus's continuing objections, it was clearly and positively demonstrated that much of what Islam claims as its own came originally from earlier civilisations, so let's not throw this interesting thread off track by going over old ground.
Why do you disagree with 'the contention that religion wants people to stay stupid?' As Lazygun says, the Roman Catholic church has now said that Catholicism is not compatible with evolution, so it doesn't appear its aim is to educate, and that is borne out by its take on Aids and the use of condoms, particularly in Africa. That alone confirms that it 'wants people to stay stupid'.
Why do you disagree with 'the contention that religion wants people to stay stupid?' As Lazygun says, the Roman Catholic church has now said that Catholicism is not compatible with evolution, so it doesn't appear its aim is to educate, and that is borne out by its take on Aids and the use of condoms, particularly in Africa. That alone confirms that it 'wants people to stay stupid'.
Actually the Pope has recently accepted Evolution but takes the line that it was designed by God as a mechanism to implement His plan. He realised that further denial of something so obvious would ultimately lead to the church looking stupid even in the eyes of the believers. This philosophy is now on the rise among the faithful.
As I pointed out in my first post on this thread there is no need to design evolution because it is inherently embodied in any process of replication where there is potential for variation and a competitive environment.
Galileo's insight was recognised after a four centruies, Darwin after just 150 years. They could possibly manage to acknowledge the connection between HIV and unprotected sex in just a few decades.
As I pointed out in my first post on this thread there is no need to design evolution because it is inherently embodied in any process of replication where there is potential for variation and a competitive environment.
Galileo's insight was recognised after a four centruies, Darwin after just 150 years. They could possibly manage to acknowledge the connection between HIV and unprotected sex in just a few decades.
Exactly, Beso. Evolution is acknowledged, but with conditions attached, and therefore the church's aim is not to educate, but to maintain its archaic doctrine despite the undeniable advance of science. The Anglican church tried the same ploy with its apology to Darwin.
The Catholic church is well aware of the connection between HIV and unprotected sex, which makes its stance on it all the more evil.
The Catholic church is well aware of the connection between HIV and unprotected sex, which makes its stance on it all the more evil.
Network timeouted me!
Bloody AB!
I seem to remember a programme on T.V earlier this year that stated quite clearly that the Church's view on evolution was different 150 years ago and that it was quite accepting of it.
The Catholic church has it's own view on the solution to H.I.V which is abstinence.
One cannot argue if we all (with the exception of bereavement) had only one sexual partner for life and if nobody shared needles (or drugs all together) then H.I.V would largely disappear within 100 years, no?
The safe sex (condom) fraternity are diametrically opposed to abstinence fraternity and vice versa.
The sooner these two camps stop choking on their own dogmas and focussing on the solution (because they are both right) the sooner we start to defeat the problem.
All you're expressing is your opposition to the Catholic church.
Bloody AB!
I seem to remember a programme on T.V earlier this year that stated quite clearly that the Church's view on evolution was different 150 years ago and that it was quite accepting of it.
The Catholic church has it's own view on the solution to H.I.V which is abstinence.
One cannot argue if we all (with the exception of bereavement) had only one sexual partner for life and if nobody shared needles (or drugs all together) then H.I.V would largely disappear within 100 years, no?
The safe sex (condom) fraternity are diametrically opposed to abstinence fraternity and vice versa.
The sooner these two camps stop choking on their own dogmas and focussing on the solution (because they are both right) the sooner we start to defeat the problem.
All you're expressing is your opposition to the Catholic church.
Everton, how can the church really be ‘quite accepting of it’? Of course it states that its view is different now, but only because it is being shunted into a corner by reality and has no option. The problem is that whilst it is forced to admit that evolution is a fact, it is essential to the survival of religion for it to cling to the dogmatic doctrine that has for centuries instilled the ‘fear of God’ into its followers and in the process has controlled and blighted the lives and the intellect of millions - hence the conditions the church imposes upon its supposed acceptance of evolution.
Yes, if we all stuck to one sexual partner for life, and if no one shared needles, then HIV/Aids would indeed eventually be eradicated. However, since that solution fails to acknowledge human nature and human needs, it is completely unrealistic. The church’s obsession with abstinence from sex didn’t begin with HIV/Aids, but now that this terrible disease is a fact of life for many, rather than address it in a practical manner, the church clearly prefers people to suffer and die unnecessarily, and to accept that babies will be born infected. Frankly, in my opinion, on this count alone, the church should hang its head in shame.
Whilst I abhor not just the Catholic church, but all religion, my reason for mentioning the church’s stance on the use of condoms was to give you an obvious example of its opposition to education, which you say is non-existent.
Yes, if we all stuck to one sexual partner for life, and if no one shared needles, then HIV/Aids would indeed eventually be eradicated. However, since that solution fails to acknowledge human nature and human needs, it is completely unrealistic. The church’s obsession with abstinence from sex didn’t begin with HIV/Aids, but now that this terrible disease is a fact of life for many, rather than address it in a practical manner, the church clearly prefers people to suffer and die unnecessarily, and to accept that babies will be born infected. Frankly, in my opinion, on this count alone, the church should hang its head in shame.
Whilst I abhor not just the Catholic church, but all religion, my reason for mentioning the church’s stance on the use of condoms was to give you an obvious example of its opposition to education, which you say is non-existent.
If it was not for religion generations of children would not have seen the inside of a school, including my own family (dockers and sailors on my Father's side, draymen, drivers and farmers on my Mother's) ask yourself, how many schools have been founded in the third world on a secular model in comparison to a religious one?
Have a browse through the news section to see just how caring many of the atheists are to the world's poor and unfortunate.
Of course I'm forgetting, atheists are all individuals and act individually whereas believers are mindless drones told what to believe from day one.
As contentious as it will sound to some, I honestly believe that religion (to use atheist parlances) is the lesser of the two evils.
For every zealot that is produced ad hom by the atheists, there's a thousand (a hundred thousand) believers doing nothing but good in the world, I can't say that for the atheists.
I work with the public, the worst people I meet are (without fail) all atheists.
Off track, am pissed. :-)
Have a browse through the news section to see just how caring many of the atheists are to the world's poor and unfortunate.
Of course I'm forgetting, atheists are all individuals and act individually whereas believers are mindless drones told what to believe from day one.
As contentious as it will sound to some, I honestly believe that religion (to use atheist parlances) is the lesser of the two evils.
For every zealot that is produced ad hom by the atheists, there's a thousand (a hundred thousand) believers doing nothing but good in the world, I can't say that for the atheists.
I work with the public, the worst people I meet are (without fail) all atheists.
Off track, am pissed. :-)
Everton, Why assume non-believers don't help the world's poor and unfortunate? Try googling humanist organisations. You may be pleasantly surprised.
Yes, religion has provided education for many children, and still does, although what that education encompasses is, in my opinion, debateable. How many children have been mentally abused and afflicted for life by the indoctrination that they are born sinners, by unfounded guilt for uncommitted and imagined 'sins', and by fear of the terrible punishment that this horrendous God has in store for them? How many texts and books has religion burnt or banned? Google that too and you'll find the list includes works by some of the world's greatest thinkers.
cont...
Yes, religion has provided education for many children, and still does, although what that education encompasses is, in my opinion, debateable. How many children have been mentally abused and afflicted for life by the indoctrination that they are born sinners, by unfounded guilt for uncommitted and imagined 'sins', and by fear of the terrible punishment that this horrendous God has in store for them? How many texts and books has religion burnt or banned? Google that too and you'll find the list includes works by some of the world's greatest thinkers.
cont...
...cont
In your opinion, religion is the lesser of the two evils? Now that's confusing. Since by your own admission, atheists are all individuals and act individually, how do you reach the conclusion that atheism is a collective evil? OK, forgetting the historical evils of religion like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the hanging of witches, and the burning of heretics, etc, etc, and moving instead to more recent times, without religion the holocaust wouldn't have happened, the twin towers would still be standing, and the world wouldn't be witnessing the utter madness that it is currently witnessing and will no doubt continue to witness for years to come. Just imagine how humanity might have progressed and integrated, and learned to live together if religion had never been invented, and if there had never been the notion of a chosen people and a Promised Land. The price this world has paid, and is still paying for the belief in your God is high indeed. And the most ridiculous thing about it is that you all believe in the same God. If your determination to live your life by the tenets of medieval doctrine didn't have such an appalling impact on the rest of us, one could almost find it amusing. Sorry, Everton, but speaking as one of those uncaring atheists who, with religion prevalent on this earth, can only dream of abiding in a peaceful world where man lives in harmony with his fellow man, it makes no sense to me at all.
You work with the public and the worst people you meet are all atheists? Gosh, that's a sweeping statement. I have to wonder how you gather your statistics to reach such a conclusion. Just out of
curiosity, what do you do when people get on your bus? Grill them verbally, or ask them to fill in a questionnaire?
I hope you aren't suffering a hangover today. See, when we try, we atheists really can be very caring. :o)
In your opinion, religion is the lesser of the two evils? Now that's confusing. Since by your own admission, atheists are all individuals and act individually, how do you reach the conclusion that atheism is a collective evil? OK, forgetting the historical evils of religion like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the hanging of witches, and the burning of heretics, etc, etc, and moving instead to more recent times, without religion the holocaust wouldn't have happened, the twin towers would still be standing, and the world wouldn't be witnessing the utter madness that it is currently witnessing and will no doubt continue to witness for years to come. Just imagine how humanity might have progressed and integrated, and learned to live together if religion had never been invented, and if there had never been the notion of a chosen people and a Promised Land. The price this world has paid, and is still paying for the belief in your God is high indeed. And the most ridiculous thing about it is that you all believe in the same God. If your determination to live your life by the tenets of medieval doctrine didn't have such an appalling impact on the rest of us, one could almost find it amusing. Sorry, Everton, but speaking as one of those uncaring atheists who, with religion prevalent on this earth, can only dream of abiding in a peaceful world where man lives in harmony with his fellow man, it makes no sense to me at all.
You work with the public and the worst people you meet are all atheists? Gosh, that's a sweeping statement. I have to wonder how you gather your statistics to reach such a conclusion. Just out of
curiosity, what do you do when people get on your bus? Grill them verbally, or ask them to fill in a questionnaire?
I hope you aren't suffering a hangover today. See, when we try, we atheists really can be very caring. :o)
I'm sur there are many great humanist organisations, but if you were to do a head count of who helps the most people, religious organisations would come out on top.
The Nazis and the Communists banned and burned thousands of titles.
What I asked you (anyone) to do is read through the news section, all it is is a never ending repition of bloody foreigners taking our money and shagging our women, no wonder my benefits are so low.
The final section of your first part (I've gotta go out) deals with curriculum, nobody can agree on curriculum for our own secular state schooling system.
These schools are funded by charitable donation, the people who donate this money donate it to charities that promote their view on the world.
There is nothing wrong with that, is there?
Many people won't donate to various cancer charities because they test on animals, you don't seriously wish to deny people the choice of whom they donate to, or influence the policies they espouse do you?
Or at least not unless they agree with you? ;-)
The Nazis and the Communists banned and burned thousands of titles.
What I asked you (anyone) to do is read through the news section, all it is is a never ending repition of bloody foreigners taking our money and shagging our women, no wonder my benefits are so low.
The final section of your first part (I've gotta go out) deals with curriculum, nobody can agree on curriculum for our own secular state schooling system.
These schools are funded by charitable donation, the people who donate this money donate it to charities that promote their view on the world.
There is nothing wrong with that, is there?
Many people won't donate to various cancer charities because they test on animals, you don't seriously wish to deny people the choice of whom they donate to, or influence the policies they espouse do you?
Or at least not unless they agree with you? ;-)
"Highlighting the the other people do or have done is no defence", then surely it's no offense either?
Burning witches etc, of course the same could then be said for Macarthyism, The Cultural Revolution and NazismI fully accept that all people are individuals and this were perhaps I and atheists differ.
Atheists seem unable to accept that people who possess belief can act independently and of their own free will, if they choose to ascribe to the views of a preacher whose opinions are abhorrent to you or I how much different is it to supporting various different political ideologies or leaders?
You pays ya money ya takes ya choice, would you donate money to an organisation whose aims and objectives you question?
No of course you wouldn't, that's democracy.
9/11 was a religious attack?
That's a new one on me, it was an attack on America in response to various problems with western foreign policy.
There is no atheist utopia (never has been) they tried in the U.S.S.R, they tried it in the P.R.C and they tried it in Cambodia. In the U.S.S.R it created a society so devoid of charm or character that even the buildings crushed and oppressed the mind, in the P.R.C it resulted in a variety of petty pogroms and score settling in which thousands died and lost property and as for Cambodia noone needs reminding of that.
Many people of faith wear items of clothing that denote it, never given me a minutes trouble and unless the local Muslim converts that throw stones at the buses on a regular basis on the understanding we're all adulterers then I can only blame the Presbyterians for it.
I've always worked in large depots, I've always covered all the shop floors (body men, fitters etc) the most intolerant, homophobic, xenophobic and violent opinions have always (without fail) been voiced by atheists.
I accept that not all atheists are like that, but then not all believers are zealots, are they?
Burning witches etc, of course the same could then be said for Macarthyism, The Cultural Revolution and NazismI fully accept that all people are individuals and this were perhaps I and atheists differ.
Atheists seem unable to accept that people who possess belief can act independently and of their own free will, if they choose to ascribe to the views of a preacher whose opinions are abhorrent to you or I how much different is it to supporting various different political ideologies or leaders?
You pays ya money ya takes ya choice, would you donate money to an organisation whose aims and objectives you question?
No of course you wouldn't, that's democracy.
9/11 was a religious attack?
That's a new one on me, it was an attack on America in response to various problems with western foreign policy.
There is no atheist utopia (never has been) they tried in the U.S.S.R, they tried it in the P.R.C and they tried it in Cambodia. In the U.S.S.R it created a society so devoid of charm or character that even the buildings crushed and oppressed the mind, in the P.R.C it resulted in a variety of petty pogroms and score settling in which thousands died and lost property and as for Cambodia noone needs reminding of that.
Many people of faith wear items of clothing that denote it, never given me a minutes trouble and unless the local Muslim converts that throw stones at the buses on a regular basis on the understanding we're all adulterers then I can only blame the Presbyterians for it.
I've always worked in large depots, I've always covered all the shop floors (body men, fitters etc) the most intolerant, homophobic, xenophobic and violent opinions have always (without fail) been voiced by atheists.
I accept that not all atheists are like that, but then not all believers are zealots, are they?
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.