Why isn't evolution in the Bible?

[Quagmire]

Neither of those qualify as the central claim of what we refer to as religion.

ah, so now there's only one. That makes it easier.

The central claim is the existence of something supernatural, usually in the form of a god or gods, often in the form of some kind of afterlife, and generally used to motivate/bully people into living a certain way.

There usually is no "the central claim" of any given religion (much less religion as a whole). All religions revolve around an ideological axis comprised of any number of core beliefs or "central claims", the emphasis on the importance of of each varying from sect to sect and denomination to denomination.

That said it can be justifiably claimed that:

the "central claim"of Buddhism actually is that life is suffering (or that it's a struggle, depending on the translation).

the central claim of Taoism is the importance of emptiness.

the central claim of Christianity is the forgiveness of sins.

the central claim of Hinduism are the principles of is Dharma, Samsara, Karma, and Moksha.

Many of these are philosophical principles rather than any description of claim about the nature of reality, so pointing to the lack of any empirical evidence to back them up is a bit ridiculous.

 

[jarofthoughts]

ah, so now there's only one. That makes it easier.
There usually is no "the central claim" of any given religion (much less religion as a whole). All religions revolve around an ideological axis comprised of any number of core beliefs or "central claims", the emphasis on the importance of of each varying from sect to sect and denomination to denomination.
That said it can be justifiably claimed that:
the "central claim"of Buddhism actually is that life is suffering (or that it's a struggle, depending on the translation).
the central claim of Taoism is the importance of emptiness.
the central claim of Christianity is the forgiveness of sins.
the central claim of Hinduism are the principles of is Dharma, Samsara, Karma, and Moksha.
Many of these are philosophical principles rather than any description of claim about the nature of reality, so pointing to the lack of any empirical evidence to back them up is a bit ridiculous.

I think you are mistaking central claim with central teaching, which is different.
The central claim of what we call religion is the existence of the supernatural.
Remove the supernatural aspect and what you have is a philosophy, not a religion.

 

[Quagmire]

What makes you think you are qualified to pass judgement on anything?

I'm not the one making claims (that's why we're talking about you).

Let's say you don't like eating fish (I don't know if this is the case or not, but that is also irrelevant).
How can you claim this without having tried every dish involving fish that exists in the world?

I think most people would be sharp enough to realize that if someone says "I don't like fish" they're saying "I've eaten fish before and didn't like it".

On the other hand, if someone says something like "All fish tastes the same and they all taste bad" obviously this person is making a few ignorant asumptions.

Well, if you have tried a reasonable sample and based on that sample concluded that you didn't like the taste of the fish involved, then it is not an unreasonable assumption to make that you probably won't like other dishes involving fish either.

Taste is a subjective thing. Saying "I don't like the taste of fish" is merely expressing a personal dislike based on that persons limited personal experience. That much would be taken as a given by anyone sensible person the statement was directed at.

But again, if that person said something to the effect that "All fish tastes the same and they all taste bad" anyone listening would be well within their rights to dismiss that person as unreasonably closed minded.

This is even allowing that all religions resemble each other as closely as the taste of all species of fish resemble each other, which is just another narrow assumption.

As for my above claim, I pretty sure I would have heard of it if some religious text actually spurred some scientific breakthrough.
That's world class international news, after all.

"I'm pretty sure" isn't the most compelling argument.

Haven't seen much in the way of sceptical investigation when it comes to religion's central claim,

Certainly not from yourself.

at least not by those who subscribe to it.

why would it have to come from them?

The "few" involving at least all the five largest religions in the world as well as a few that are not on that list.

Ah good, at least you're bothering with disclaimers now. It's a start.

Sure.
The central claim is the existence of something supernatural, usually in the form of a god or gods, often in the form of some kind of afterlife, and generally used to motivate/bully people into living a certain way.
If you remove the supernatural aspect 'all' you are left with is a philosophy that, while sometimes useful, has little reason to claim absolute truth, which is a very common feature when it comes to religion.

Addressed this in my last post.

I'm going to assume that was a joke.

Why would you assume that?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm not the one making claims (that's why we're talking about you).

I think most people would be sharp enough to realize that if someone says "I don't like fish" they're saying "I've eaten fish before and didn't like it".

On the other hand, if someone says something like "All fish tastes the same and they all taste bad" obviously this person is making a few ignorant asumptions.

Taste is a subjective thing. Saying "I don't like the taste of fish" is merely expressing a personal dislike based on that persons limited personal experience. That much would be taken as a given by anyone sensible person the statement was directed at.

But again, if that person said something to the effect that "All fish tastes the same and they all taste bad" anyone listening would be well within their rights to dismiss that person as unreasonably closed minded.

This is even allowing that all religions resemble each other as closely as the taste of all species of fish resemble each other, which is just another narrow assumption.

"I'm pretty sure" isn't the most compelling argument.

Certainly not from yourself.

why would it have to come from them?

Ah good, at least you're bothering with disclaimers now. It's a start.

Addressed this in my last post.

Why would you assume that?

Right.
All I see now is a condescending attempt at avoiding substantiating your attempt at a refutation and I'm done playing that game.
I think I have made my statement abundantly clear.

Can you or can you not refute my claim that no scientific breakthrough has come from religious texts or not?

 

[Father Heathen]

Evolution is a scientific fairy story. The scientists weren't there when things happened. Just in case you think scientists always get things right, you should know that they had a fairy tale about mass migrations of cultivists from Asia to Europe but DNA is proving that never happened.

It takes a lot of willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty to deny the insurmountable mountain of evidence and logic that confirms evolution.

 

[Quagmire]

I think you are mistaking central claim with central teaching, which is different.
The central claim of what we call religion is the existence of the supernatural.

"We" meaning you and anyone who agrees with you I take it.

Remove the supernatural aspect and what you have is a philosophy, not a religion.

So UU, Pantheism, Pan-deism, Scientology, Discordianism, Taoism, RSF, and Confusionism aren't religions then?

 

[idav]

Neither of those qualify as the central claim of what we refer to as religion.
The central claim is the existence of something supernatural, usually in the form of a god or gods, often in the form of some kind of afterlife, and generally used to motivate/bully people into living a certain way.

Buddha wasn't a fan of supernatural claims.

Jesus may had some supernatural beliefs but wasn't the purpose of what he was trying to say. His claim was that we needed saving and that he was the light, the way. Like that slogan we see everywhere "Jesus Saves". Thats the central claim.

 

[Quagmire]

Right.
All I see now is a condescending attempt at avoiding substantiating your attempt at a refutation and I'm done playing that game.

You see what you want to see.

I think I have made my statement abundantly clear.

More so than you probably intended.

Can you or can you not refute my claim that no scientific breakthrough has come from religious texts or not?

LOL! That's cheap. I told you I was looking for something in the Vedas and that it was going to take a while.

Anyway, that's not where we started, this is:

There is not a single example of a religious text providing scientific insight before science itself arrives at that conclusion and all claims that they do are always after the fact and based on loose allegories that can mean anything at all.

So basically all I have to do is show you one example of any claim made by any religious text that was later validated by science. Like I said, I'm working on that.

Feel free to nag all you want in the meantime.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Buddha wasn't a fan of supernatural claims.

Jesus may had some supernatural beliefs but wasn't the purpose of what he was trying to say. His claim was that we needed saving and that he was the light, the way. Like that slogan we see everywhere "Jesus Saves". Thats the central claim.

As mentioned above, that is confusing central claim with central teaching.
Many already consider Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion, but the claim about reincarnation is definitely a supernatural one.
And seeing as the way "Jesus saves" is by promising you a place in heaven, that is also most certainly a supernatural claim.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You see what you want to see.

*Shrug*
It may be that your intention was different, but that was very much the impression I got.

LOL! That's cheap. I told you I was looking for something in the Vedas and that it was going to take a while.
Anyway, that's not where we started, this is:
So basically all I have to do is show you one example of any claim made by any religious text that was later validated by science. Like I said, I'm working on that.
Feel free to nag all you want in the meantime.

Just replying to your posts mate.
And sure, provide me with that example.
Remember to avoid that very important "this-is-so-vague-so-it-can-mean-pretty-much-anything" trap.

 

[jarofthoughts]

"We" meaning you and anyone who agrees with you I take it.

"We" meaning the dictionary definition.
From the Online Oxford Dictionary:
Religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods.

So UU, Pantheism, Pan-deism, Scientology, Discordianism, Taoism, RSF, and Confusionism aren't religions then?

I guess that would depend on the individual practitioner and whether they include the supernatural as part of their beliefs.

 

[Quagmire]

"We" meaning the dictionary definition.
From the Online Oxford Dictionary:
Religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods.

"superhuman" and "supernatural" aren't necessarily synonymous. The laws of physics could be considered "superhuman".

I guess that would depend on the individual practitioner and whether they include the supernatural as part of their beliefs.

Yes, it depends on their opinion of whether of not their religion qualifies as a religion, not yours.

 

[idav]

As mentioned above, that is confusing central claim with central teaching.
Many already consider Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion, but the claim about reincarnation is definitely a supernatural one.
And seeing as the way "Jesus saves" is by promising you a place in heaven, that is also most certainly a supernatural claim.

I'm not sure the claim for reincarnation can be attributed to coming from the teachings of Buddha. Anyhow his central claim was to have a way to eliminate suffering since life is essentially suffering.

In the same way the claim as to "Jesus Saves" from what exactly is debateable especially when considering his central teaching of love for your neighbor and the self. There is a lot of emphasis on a claim that there is a heaven but a useless claim without the central claim that Jesus was the light, the person to emulate.

 

[jarofthoughts]

"superhuman" and "supernatural" aren't necessarily synonymous. The laws of physics could be considered "superhuman".

But gods ARE by definition supernatural and so are the notions of an afterlife, be it in the form of a place in heaven or through reincarnation.
Look, if all these religions stuck to simply what we know about the physical universe, then that would be fine.
But they don't, and I doubt they would have much clout if they did.
A lot of people apparently like a good comforting fairytale.

Yes, it depends on their opinion of whether of not their religion qualifies as a religion, not yours.

Errr... no. People don't get to invent their personal meaning of words.
But all of this is still beside the point we're actually discussing, and it is also irrelevant.
What I have a beef with are the claims about the supernatural.
Not what people call themselves or not.

 

[lunamoth]

If the Bible's story Genesis was about how God created mankind, why isn't Evolution in the Bible?

Because the Bible is not a science textbook.

Genesis is about our relationship with God, Creation, and each other.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm not sure the claim for reincarnation can be attributed to coming from the teachings of Buddha. Anyhow his central claim was to have a way to eliminate suffering since life is essentially suffering.

And as mentioned, many people regard Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion, which, when you remove the claims about reincarnation or don't attribute anything supernatural to what Buddhist call "Buddha nature", I'm perfectly fine with.
The thing I'm having a beef with isn't so much what people call these things.
It's the claims about the supernatural that I'm attacking.

In the same way the claim as to "Jesus Saves" from what exactly is debateable especially when considering his central teaching of love for your neighbor and the self. There is a lot of emphasis on a claim that there is a heaven but a useless claim without the central claim that Jesus was the light, the person to emulate.

That still doesn't change the fact that the central claim of Christianity is that there is a god.

 

[otokage007]

Becase the Bible was written long before Darwin's "The Origin of Man"

 

[idav]

That still doesn't change the fact that the central claim of Christianity is that there is a god.

I'd figure that was a big factor for you but belief in god isn't religion.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'd figure that was a big factor for you but belief in god isn't religion.

Religion can of course be a lot of things, but you have to agree that the belief in something supernatural tends to be a focal point.
Again, remove the supernatural aspect and all you have is basically a philosophy.

 

[idav]

Religion can of course be a lot of things, but you have to agree that the belief in something supernatural tends to be a focal point.

Yeah I can agree with that.

Again, remove the supernatural aspect and all you have is basically a philosophy.

Perhaps but a philosophy you live by and practice regularly would be a religion. You can take away the existence of god and heaven and people are still practicing religion. Taking away the reason doesn't take away from the practice.

To some heaven is a motivating factor but if that is their reason then it is a rather selfish motivation and most likely against teachings. Just like doing things just cause god said so is a false sense of morality and also likely against teachings. At least those things are against my understanding of christianity.