Is Evolution a religion?

[mr.guy]

Yes, well, while that may be releveant somehow, how can one have a religious belief
towards evolution? You leave a sandwhich to go stale. Eventually it grows fungus, and turns green, and evolves into a huge pile of mould.

How anyone can base evolution as a religious belief has really struck me.

Oh it's easy...you leave a sandwhich to go stale. Watch it grow fungus, turn green, and evolve into a huge pile of mould. Then you worship it...or would the religion just be the mouldy sandwhich?

 

[Majikthise]

Oh it's easy...you leave a sandwhich to go stale. Watch it grow fungus, turn green, and evolve into a huge pile of mould. Then you worship it...or would the religion just be the mouldy sandwhich?

:biglaugh: :biglaugh:

 

[greatcalgarian]

michel--

I cannot prove anything beyond all doubt. However, I have a lot more confidence in well-evidenced claims than completely unevidenced claims, and I can provide overwhelming evidence that NASA's Apollo missions happened (not the least of which would be the lunar samples the astronauts brought back, which you could confirm came from the Moon by taking their electromagnetic spectrum/chemical composition and comparing it to the spectrum of the Moon). One of the main problems I find with religious faith is that it is inconsistent: why believe some unevidenced claims/ancient stories while rejecting others as fantasy?

(edit: Another quick note about the Moon missions: the claim "we went to the Moon" and NASA's/physicists/engineers' explanations of how it can be done are consistent with known science. It is not a relatively extraordinary claim. However, if the Moon missions DIDN'T happen, one would need to somehow explain ALL the evidence for those missions....these kind of conspiracy theories are indeed extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary evidence to back them up, but thus far there has been zero compelling evidence that the Moon rocks, the Moon landing videos, etc. are all hoaxes.)

At any rate, I think pretty much all of us can agree that evolution is not a religion. Sunstone said he has not had an answer to his questions, but I think he has: the answer is that belief in evolution is not religion, but it is cast as such by those who have a political agenda to make evolution legally equivalent to creationism, thereby opening the door for teaching their religion in schools.

Even if you send Michel on a moon trip, he may still argue with you that "That was a dream" "I did not go to the moon and came back":jiggy:

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone said he has not had an answer to his questions, but I think he has: the answer is that belief in evolution is not religion, but it is cast as such by those who have a political agenda to make evolution legally equivalent to creationism, thereby opening the door for teaching their religion in schools.

I have to agree with you, Mr. Spinkles. After more than 150 posts in this thread, I can find no compelling evidence that evolution is a religion. I also must agree with you that, based on what I've observed elsewhere, there is a shameless political agenda to calling evolution a religion. I suppose this thread might go on for some time, but unless someone introduces compelling evidence that evolution is a religion, the topic is settled so far as I'm concerned.

 

[JerryL]

You guys get even MORE pissed off when I talk about the fact that you have been proven wrong. Get a grip. YOU HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE. It's not a sin. I HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE TOO. But, I have far more faith in God and in the evidence that surrounds me.

Yes, I have fath that there is a reality and I have fath that my senses are generally accurate.

As I pointed out before, you are using "faith" in a manner which makes literally everything faith. As such, it makes the word itself meaningless.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Oh it's easy...you leave a sandwhich to go stale. Watch it grow fungus, turn green, and evolve into a huge pile of mould. Then you worship it...or would the religion just be the mouldy sandwhich?

A religion would be making a habit of watching sandwiches groe old and fungus..how would you worship something like that? :biglaugh:What God would be involved?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Please NetDoc, speak for yourself, or if you mean to accuse Pah or anyone else of doing such things, address him directly. You talk at length, and often, about all the sinister things "we" or "they" do, but you avoid taking responsibility for your comments. If you mean Pah, or anyone else, say so. Otherwise, say "I" instead of "we" and do not pretend to speak for others.

By we, I mean ALL of us. I am not speaking for you, but about you. WE often think of God as some cosmic Bellhop that should only do things FOR us, like life is an entitlement. That is MY OPINION, and as much as you may dislike MY OPINION, unless it violates the TOS, I will keep expressing it, regardless of your OPINION.

 

[Pah]

Pah,

you surprise me. History is NOT repeatable. However, religious faith is definitely repeatable and it has been repeated millions of times.

It surprises me too - I don't even remember speaking of "history". Science, NetDoc, I spoke of science.

Millions of times eh? I don't see it even repeatable within one person let alone the multitude that would be required to produce the same result from the same starting conditions with the same reagents. I sure hope we're not hung up on words again.

Why, I actually do, Pah. We want the mountains majesty without the earthquakes, we want balance while trying to wipe out the phylum insecta. We take for granted the gifts that God provides and then rail against him if we don't get our "due".

I'm not talking about what we want, NetDoc. I'm talking about what god provides. If you use one facet of nature, your argument must include all facets of nature. But here again, I make an assumption - that Katrina (sp?), for example, must have some other "glory of god" for you than it does for me.

 

[mr.guy]

A religion would be making a habit of watching sandwiches groe old and fungus..how would you worship something like that? :biglaugh:What God would be involved?

Obviously, that depends entirely on how much mayo you used.

 

[michel]

TO:- mr.guy, Mr_Spinkles, and GreatCalgarian.

O.K guys; I know when I am beat - I was 'cluching at straws' - even though I thought, from the point of view of sheer 'Scientific proof'that the argument could be made; I know Damn well the Moon has been walked on - GreatCalgarian took me up there in a dream just the other night...................:biglaugh:

I guess it's hard for you guys to understand the sheer frustration of the theist who has no way of proving his point; of course we clutch at any tangential straw that we see - wouldn't you, in my position ?.I would love to invite God to appear in front of you one evening; but somehow, I know he wouldn't, because that isn't the way he works. He works on Faith, and of course, faith is a million miles away from science and logic.

It is very sad for me that there is no proof I can offer; I suppose I just have to be thankfull for the fact that I need no solid proof, because if I did, I'd be sitting on your side of the fence.

 

[mr.guy]

.

O.K guys; I know when I am beat - I was 'cluching at straws' - even though I thought, from the point of view of sheer 'Scientific proof'that the argument could be made;

There was nothing wrong with your argument. You just didn't complete it (sorry to ruin the ending for you). Where you're "cluching at staws" is to assume that "Scientific proof" is thought to be absolute. That would make it absurd, like God, faith, kittens and ice cream.

.I guess it's hard for you guys to understand the sheer frustration of the theist who has no way of proving his point; of course we clutch at any tangential straw that we see - wouldn't you, in my position ?.I would love to invite God to appear in front of you one evening; but somehow, I know he wouldn't, because that isn't the way he works.

No one is asking (on this thread) for proof of God. Faith has no means (or reason) to demand proof. But science doesn't require faith. It's a collection of bare bones presuppositions and critical methodology. Subject God to this if you want (or can), but even the hypothetical results have little bearing on faith and ultimately are irrelevent and poorly related. But i think your getting that idea.

. He works on Faith, and of course, faith is a million miles away from science and logic.
It is very sad for me that there is no proof I can offer; I suppose I just have to be thankfull for the fact that I need no solid proof, because if I did, I'd be sitting on your side of the fence.

I think that sums it up, no?

 

[michel]

There was nothing wrong with your argument. You just didn't complete it (sorry to ruin the ending for you). Where you're "cluching at staws" is to assume that "Scientific proof" is thought to be absolute. That would make it absurd, like God, faith, kittens and ice cream.

No one is asking (on this thread) for proof of God. Faith has no means (or reason) to demand proof. But science doesn't require faith. It's a collection of bare bones presuppositions and critical methodology. Subject God to this if you want (or can), but even the hypothetical results have little bearing on faith and ultimately are irrelevent and poorly related. But i think your getting that idea.


I think that sums it up, no?

yes, I think it does; but you have now aid something which I in turn can't understand......

......................"Where you're "cluching at staws" is to assume that "Scientific proof" is thought to be absolute. That would make it absurd, like God, faith, kittens and ice cream."...................

Why isn't scientific proof 'absolute' ?

 

[mr.guy]

Why isn't scientific proof 'absolute' ?

Because nothing that needs verification can be. Scientific methodolgy permits fallibility of any given theory at any given time, providing adequate proof is available. Outside of thermodynamics, no scientific theory is canon (some our more knowledgeable online members can better expand/correct me on that). An 'absolute' (indisputable) has and needs no proof, and is unscrutinizable by scientific methods.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By we, I mean ALL of us. I am not speaking for you, but about you. WE often think of God as some cosmic Bellhop that should only do things FOR us, like life is an entitlement. That is MY OPINION, and as much as you may dislike MY OPINION, unless it violates the TOS, I will keep expressing it, regardless of your OPINION.

Sorry, but I do not think of God as some cosmic Bellhop....etc. In my opinion, your opinion about my opinion is way off.

I guess it's hard for you guys to understand the sheer frustration of the theist who has no way of proving his point; of course we clutch at any tangential straw that we see - wouldn't you, in my position ?

I know exactly what I would do in your position, because I was once Christian myself: I would experience profound frustration trying to prove my point, then I would try to shut it out of my mind and keep telling myself that the point I'm trying to prove is true, and then I would realize that perhaps the problem is not in my ability to prove things, but in the point I'm trying to prove.

 

[mr.guy]

... and then I would realize that perhaps the problem is not in my ability to prove things, but in the point I'm trying to prove.

but Mr.sprinkles, what's to be said of one's motivation to prove faith?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Pah,

We were discussing the landing on the moon, which is now in the realm of history and not science. Jesus performing miracles is in the same realm.

As for Katrina... terra forming happens. It's what drives the forces that form the earth we live on. We want the earth to "stay the same"... and that it does by changing, sometimes in what we perceice as a catastrophic way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We were discussing the landing on the moon, which is now in the realm of history and not science. Jesus performing miracles is in the same realm.

No more so than is Apollonius of Tyana.

 

[Pah]

Pah,

We were discussing the landing on the moon, which is now in the realm of history and not science. Jesus performing miracles is in the same realm.

As for Katrina... terra forming happens. It's what drives the forces that form the earth we live on. We want the earth to "stay the same"... and that it does by changing, sometimes in what we perceice as a catastrophic way.

NetDoc,

You may have been discussing history as an example of faith but I went to your definition of faith and contrasted it with science. Science is repeatable - religion is not (at least you have not shown where it is completely repeatable or even partially repeatable).

I'll attempt to make it more plain becuase you have not addressed this point yet. I also went to your evidence of faith and showed that if you accept the bounty of nature as god's work, then you must accept the destruction of nature as god's work.

Please respond to these points directly.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Science is repeatable

Sorry, but not all the time. Paleontology is science, and yet it quite often does not repeat itself. So is sociology. So is archeology.

then you must accept the destruction of nature as god's work.

Pah, I will make this INCREDIBLY SIMPLE FOR YOU, as I have answered three times. I have NO PROBLEM with destruction as a part of God's work. Nada, zilch, squat. You seem to have that problem, but not me.

 

[Scuba Pete]

and then I would realize that perhaps the problem is not in my ability to prove things, but in the point I'm trying to prove.

[joke]So, you're still having that same problem, eh Spinks???[/joke] :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: