Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Reach

Logic without emotion is not useless at all. You've just set up something conveniently impossible, because these are relative meanings and subjective perceptions.

True, but I'd hoped you would have realized this was the point. You seem to be a smart person, so I'm not going to play games with you.

You say logic without emotion is not useless, at which my my question is "what use is logic without emotion"? You propose any use, any use at all, and you're naturally stating a value judgement. We return to the supremacy of emotion and perspective over logic, necessarily, in all conceivable circumstances.

[slipstrike0159]

So... if all scientists are atheists and if all scientists and atheists are smart then how come they are not smart enough to realize that some of the standards (regardless of the supposed "prize of eternal salvation") provides a better way, generally speaking, to live on this earth? From my experience every single atheist i know has been a prideful prick who thinks that they are too smart for religion.

[RPGFREAK]

Question: Why is it that people are overly obscessed with the creation of the universe?

Is it really that hard to consider something always was?

Must everything have a beginning?

If the unverse began as a giant explosion, what caused it? If it had a cause, what caused that cause? And so on and so forth.

If evolution doesn't exist how does one explain the differences between people, races etc...?

Is it not possible that Adam and Eve looked different than we do now?

If something hasn't or cannot be proven, does that mean it doesn't exist?


People need to understand that not everything is required to be known or understood. If something doesn't seem logical to you or if it conficts with your beliefs, you don't need to poke holes in it. Not everyone needs to believe the same things. If you have irrefutable PROOF, and a person still doesn't believe you, let them wallow in their own ignorance. If you have a really strong belief in something, You don't need to force people to believe the same as you. Wars can be started over ideas.


If you have a belief and you're not open to the possibility that that belief is wrong, you're an idiot. Why? Because it is something you do not know as a fact.

Addressing the video, it was kinda dumb to compare the world to a watch. A more accurate comparison would be to a computer program. Unlike a watch which is designed to function one way, a program can be designed to adapt.

*Off Topic*
I can imagine a sci-fi based on this.
The one who we refer to as God would be a programmer making a mini-universe for a project. The seventh day would've been for debugging purposes. Eventually, the program would go running w/o any known intervention. All those unexplained constants in physics and chemistry were there for the purposes of keeping the program too random. It'd be pretty interesting in my opinion.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by W_I_N_N_E_R

>Reason is a synonym of logic, cognition is knowledge through perception, so when i say COGNITIVE REASONING, i mean knowledge and conclusions that are reached through logic.<

This is a non-standard understanding of what reason is.

Delusions can follow logical patterns, yes, but rarely does someone jump into a delusion using logic, or with a stable mind.

yes, and? I'm seeing a lot of "rarely's" being thrown around.

When i said agnostics tend to be intelligent i reached it through a quasi-logical fallacy, i recognize that. I used more gate-logic: logic = intelligence = atheists (on the grounds that they deny religion through logic, and not because they hate rules). My statements were meant in general terms, of course there are examples that work against my statements, i know many people who are definitively intelligent yet are strongly religious.

Which is a problem, because you're trying to compensate for flaws in deductive reasoning by randomly throwing in inductive reasoning.

I meant intelligence in a cognitive sense, not in a knowledge sense... I should have defined that better, but i wanted to try to say alot in less words, rather than being FORCED like this to defend my presuppositions.

You could have avoided a lot of this mess simply by defining key terms and stating your arguments in a more conditional rather than rigid form.

to ignore logic for one aspect is a logical fallacy and would prevent someone from approaching life, as a whole, through logic.

In this case it's impossible for someone to approach life as a whole through logic, because not all aspects of reality can be observed in any measure substantial enough to definitively analyze. Regardless, the basis of any two logical approaches can be radically different, just as the basis for any two mathematical systems can be. There are different, equally mathematically sound models of our galaxy, of our universe, of this that and the other, but it's only when we can check against something objective that we can confirm the copernican model of our galaxy rather than the ptolemaic model. With unobservable things like God, we can make no judgements, so in order to be scientific we have to refrain from making statements, except those of a conditional nature.

"There is currently no evidence for the existence of God", would be such a statement. "There is currently no evidence of the existence of God, therefore we should not waste time praying to God", would be a statement with logical basis driven by a dominating value judegment. "There is currently no evidence of the existence of God, therefore we should not waste time praying to God, iff the benefit of belief does not trump the cost of belief, however it does frequently, therefore praying to God is fine anyways", is taking the dominance of values and laying them throughout the statement as well as at the base of its drive.

etc. etc.

[Oceanus]

Originally Posted by W_I_N_N_E_R

I said truly logical, to be religious you must have faith, faith is best described as casting out logic in favour for emotion and willing to believe, which isnt bad, its just not logical. That is what im referring to, i never said religious people are pure illogic, i have many friends whom i adore who are very VERY christian. I have alot of respect for them for other things.

Furthermore, your statement of requiring disproval is odd, because what kind of proof do u require? Stats showing religion if often more of a detriment to society? Or do u mean the proof of "no god", which is next to impossible... Or do u require proof of the bible being false?

I do respect ur choices, but u must understand why i say the things i do.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html proof religion occasionally causes societal detriment
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm proof of jesus most likely not have even existing
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html check this list for any scientific proof u need that u think creationists have over evolution. Its a good site for referencing when doubting evolution, or even science for that matter. talkorigins rulez.

No, I see past my own faith when it comes to seeing things logically. If someone were to prove something that was said otherwise in the Bible, then I would believe that, only if I was truly convinced if it were true, otherwise I'd acknowledge it's possibility, and proceed with what I believe in, but not completey shun it from my mind, to do that would be foolish. Also, like Guido said, some of the greatest thinkers were Christian. Infact most scientists back in the 1800s were Christian and many were in the 1900s and there are still Christian scientists today, but not as many.

It bothers me to hear you say that Christians don't think with complete logic because it interferes with their faith. Even if it does, it does not mean that some of us don't. It's whether we choose to let it influence our faith that matters.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

So... if all scientists are atheists and if all scientists and atheists are smart then how come they are not smart enough to realize that some of the standards (regardless of the supposed "prize of eternal salvation") provides a better way, generally speaking, to live on this earth? From my experience every single atheist i know has been a prideful prick who thinks that they are too smart for religion.

From my experience anyone who is capable of putting themselves through a program in any of the sciences tends to be fairly over the edge, excessively, assertive, and inconsiderate, but despite this I'm not sure what the point of your statement is. How do you determine what way of living on this earth is best? This strikes me as a pretty prideful way of thinking. Science provides things like microwave ovens and cell phones, which are measurable and which I'm sure you would agree generally provide a better way of living on this earth. Religion provides a general set of suggestions about how we should conduct our interpersonal behavior, something which varies dramatically from culture to culture but under many forms of subjective analysis can be said nonetheless to "provide a better way of living on this earth".

Anyways, I don't think being a jerk and being useful are mutually exclusive.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by RPGFREAK

Why is it that people are overly obscessed with the creation of the universe?

Natural curiosity.

Is it really that hard to consider something always was?

Apparently for some people. In fact Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle used this natural disinclination of theirs to consider this possibility in order to form the teleological argument for the existence of a God.

Must everything have a beginning?

No, everything must not have a beginning. This is the flaw of the teleological argument.

If the unverse began as a giant explosion, what caused it? If it had a cause, what caused that cause? And so on and so forth.

Scientists are working on that, and the phrasing of the question is based on ignorance.

If evolution doesn't exist how does one explain the differences between people, races etc...?

There are plenty of ways. However, opponents of evolution often (fallaciously) claim microevolution is sound but speciation is unsound.

Is it not possible that Adam and Eve looked different than we do now?

Absolutely. It's also possible they never existed.

If something hasn't or cannot be proven, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Nope. It just means that interactions with the unobservable object in question have to be viewed based on information we can work with; on the observable effects of this interaction. For instance, if religion has social benefit it is certainly tolerable, and if it causes massive social detriment then perhaps it is less so.

People need to understand that not everything is required to be known or understood.

That's no reason not to make an effort.

If something doesn't seem logical to you or if it conficts with your beliefs, you don't need to poke holes in it. Not everyone needs to believe the same things.

True. However, some beliefs are certainly less subjectively good than others. Besides, poking holes allows us to find the weaknesses of our arguments and gives us the possibility of overcoming these weaknesses.

If you have irrefutable PROOF, and a person still doesn't believe you, let them wallow in their own ignorance. If you have a really strong belief in something, You don't need to force people to believe the same as you. Wars can be started over ideas.

True. I don't think you would argue that the war between Nazi germany and the Democratic Republic of the USA was of undesirable outcome, or that Nazism is a tolerable set of beliefs.

If you have a belief and you're not open to the possibility that that belief is wrong, you're an idiot. Why? Because it is something you do not know as a fact.

I agree. In fact that's why I like to argue.

[slipstrike0159]

First of all, I'm pretty sure that "anyways" is not a word.
Second of all, i was merely suggesting that living in a better way would be in living for others instead of yourself. This is considering that generally on this earth the person who is nice to everyone and has good morals lives a more meaningful life than one who thinks they are superior to everyone and who takes pride in having more earthly knowledge than another person. Also, you cant say that life is that much better now than it was back when everyone was farmers. Back then everyone knew the meaning of hard manual labor which generally promoted more humility. Along with this, morals were higher, modesty was a must, and the media didnt drive most aspects of daily life. If anything came with new entertainment technology it was pride. The biggest thing i can see that science has accomplished for the benefit of man is the advancements in the medical field.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

First of all, I'm pretty sure that "anyways" is not a word.

Well tough, it is now. Roll with it.

Second of all, i was merely suggesting that living in a better way would be in living for others instead of yourself.

Ok. That's a reasonable starting position. If we made this the central point of our discussions we could make a lot more valid judgements about the claims in contention a lot quicker.

This is considering that generally on this earth the person who is nice to everyone and has good morals

Subjective, needs further definitions.

lives a more meaningful life

Subjective, needs further definitions.

than one who thinks they are superior to everyone and who takes pride in having more earthly knowledge than another person.

How would we determine this? You've just said "People who do X and have Y end up doing Z, therefore these people > than people who think A and take pride in B".

Please solve this algebraic sentence you've just given us.

Also, you cant say that life is that much better now than it was back when everyone was farmers.

Sure I can.

Back then everyone knew the meaning of hard manual labor which generally promoted more humility.

This is a subjective valuation. Many people would prefer our current labor structure, with its social effects. As an example, this would include feminists, as womans rights from anthopological understanding has grown out of the progress of new forms of production and economy.

Along with this, morals were higher

What do you mean, specifically?

modesty was a must and the media didnt drive most aspects of daily life.

Why are these things bad? Also, this second part can easily be taken issue with.

If anything came with new entertainment technology it was pride. The biggest thing i can see that science has accomplished for the benefit of man is the advancements in the medical field.

Medicine is surely something most people value. I'm also not sure why your mind went straight to entertainment technology.

[RPGFREAK]

Kilroy, some of those questions did not need answers or the answers were painfully obvious. Or it was there to mostly inspire thought. You seem like an intelligent person, (I can't say for sure because I don't know you nor do I believe intelligence can be measured) but judging by your responses, and I'm most likely wrong, it seems you have get a lot of pleasure out of destroying peoples' points.

Also, you didn't comment on my sci-fi idea.

Originally Posted by Kilroy x

Scientists are working on that, and the phrasing of the question is based on ignorance.

That was merely to point out that if everything must have a beginning/cause, the cause must have a cause and therefore one must logically conclude that there is no beginning.

*I sense many spelling and grammer mistakes which will go uncorrected*

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by Reach

You're not biased at all ;o

Actually, if you must know, I'm theistic. I just happen to understand where the atheists are coming from and not hold it against them.

In addition, it has been my experience in threads like these that the agnostics look the least stupid, largely because they do not try to "disprove" religion with science or "disprove" science with faith.

Anyway I figured the "Also lol this topic" would've given away that I wasn't taking this discussion seriously at all (and will continue to do so) because frankly it doesn't deserve it.

EDIT: Also, agnostics are the best at avoiding threads like this altogether, which is another sign that they're smarter than the rest of us.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by RPGFREAK

Kilroy, some of those questions did not need answers or the answers were painfully obvious. Or it was there to mostly inspire thought.

If it was there to inspire thought I don't see why I shouldn't share my thoughts, and rhetorical questions generally aren't good writing because there is always a way to answer them.

but judging by your responses, and I'm most likely wrong, it seems you have get a lot of pleasure out of destroying peoples' points.

I like staying sharp, but I would also like it if conversations actually accomplished something by the way of changing people's ways of thinking.

Also, you didn't comment on my sci-fi idea.

Sorry?

That was merely to point out that if everything must have a beginning/cause, the cause must have a cause and therefore one must logically conclude that there is no beginning.

Actually if you examine the history of philosophy you'll find at least a thousand years of dominant beliefs weighed in the opposite direction. As I said before, Aristotle found the concept of infinite causes "intellectually repulsive", so he proposed the need for a "Prime Mover". Basically a naturally existing all powerful entity.

[RPGFREAK]

...rhetorical questions generally aren't good writing because there is always a way to answer them.

Sorry. I'm the first to admit I'm not a good writer. The main reason they're there is to open the mind of the reader. It just seems like there is a lot passion behind the arguements, as if there is something to gain from changing someone's mind or that no one has ever heard the cliche "let's agree to disagree." There is a small leap between someone's beliefs being challenged and that person feeling their beliefs are being attacked.

People who think scietifically are usually close-minded towards concepts that are not based on logic or proof.
People who are religious tend to be close-minded towards ideas which conflicts with the things they were taught growing up.

I'm going to stop right now because I'm like 5 seconds from qouting Star Wars and The Matrix.

btw. I really wish I had the focus to read the works of Aristotle and other philosophers. It really sounds like a great read.

[Kilroy_x]

Actually I haven't read that much text Philosophy. I've read Socrates/Plato, and I've read bits of Neitzsche, but the larger part of my understanding of philosophy comes from random things I remember from the one Philosophy class I took, and from second hand sources and conversations/debates.

[RPGFREAK]

Neitzsche, is that Russian or German? Or is it some obscoure third language which translates to overuse the letter Z?

Also, no offense to Russians, Germans, or letter Zeebophiles

[Kilroy_x]

German

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Well tough, it is now. Roll with it.



Ok. That's a reasonable starting position. If we made this the central point of our discussions we could make a lot more valid judgements about the claims in contention a lot quicker.



Subjective, needs further definitions.



Subjective, needs further definitions.



How would we determine this? You've just said "People who do X and have Y end up doing Z, therefore these people > than people who think A and take pride in B".

Please solve this algebraic sentence you've just given us.



Sure I can.



This is a subjective valuation. Many people would prefer our current labor structure, with its social effects. As an example, this would include feminists, as womans rights from anthopological understanding has grown out of the progress of new forms of production and economy.



What do you mean, specifically?



Why are these things bad? Also, this second part can easily be taken issue with.



Medicine is surely something most people value. I'm also not sure why your mind went straight to entertainment technology.

Oh goodness... i cant believe that you claim to be adept in the areas of logical thought but you still need almost literally EVERY WORD or PHRASE spelled out for you.

Ill put it simply for you, the person who doesnt go around swearing and sleeping with everyone generally ranks higher in the minds of any random person than a person who does. This is purely because they show that they have more self control and when you ask a person who knew the first person they will most likely give you a nice report of how their actions were at least somewhat inspiring, and in contrast the other person would be described as a person that no one liked because they did not have any self control. Therefore, higher morals = more self control = bigger impact through being an example, also, lower standards = more prone to losing self control = bad influence and poorer evaluations of character. So if both people have equal accountability, then Person A > Person B considering person A was a good influence on the community that surrounded them which showed a more meaningful life because his actions affected a lot of people in a positive way. This lifestyle can bring unmeasurable forward progress of the community while the other lifestyle brought only temporal and self pleasure which only helped one person. I dont really know how to better describe it than that.

On to the next problem, you cant say that life is better now because you havent lived back then to make the proper comparison.

Also, you would normally say that when you have to work hard that you generally become at least a little more humble would you not? Sure some people would prefer working today rather than working back then but medicine aside, i believe hard manual labor works out better on a persons ego giving them reason to be more humble. Dont forget to take into consideration that with the new styles of work comes many more and different types of stresses.
Being specific, morals were higher because there was less opportunity to do horrible things such as cheating, lying, stealing, etc. namely because there wasnt much of a way to do it. Children didnt have the opportunity to cheat because they didnt go to school in the first place. Parents couldnt cheat easily because their neighbor lived really far away and they didnt have much of transportation assurances. Stealing was also more difficult because there wasnt a store on every corner or a house you could rob that was really close. Point is, with less opportunity comes less crime which brings higher morals.
Modesty is important because dressing immodestly promotes immoral thoughts bringing motive to go through with things like rape and prostitution. Enough said.

I went straight to entertainment and media technological breakthroughs because for the most part i see them as being the most pointless. The level of expectation constantly grows everytime someone sees something cool in a movie because they expect it to get better. I can almost certainly say that back then most of the general public was fine with black and white movies because it was new for them and they didnt think it would get much better.

[RandomPscho]

Slip,
A good influence and a bad influence are both subjective.
Good morals and bad morals are both subjective.
Not sleeping with everybody and swearing reflects being more conservative, in my mind, than having more self control. Sex is normal, too. You are equating having sex as being immoral. I do not agree with this, so does that make me a terrible person morally? It is entirely subjective. I think you are also basing your own moral values on those provided by the bible. Not everyone agrees with these.

You are trying to describe YOUR ideal person, and that perfect image changes dramatically from person to person. Besides, you are using morals solely to judge a person. I hate that.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

Oh goodness... i cant believe that you claim to be adept in the areas of logical thought but you still need almost literally EVERY WORD or PHRASE spelled out for you.

Actually you're just a bad speller.

Ill put it simply for you, the person who doesnt go around swearing and sleeping with everyone generally ranks higher in the minds of any random person than a person who does.

This much may be true, however this doesn't make this value judgment non-subjective, it just makes it popular.

This is purely because they show that they have more self control and when you ask a person who knew the first person they will most likely give you a nice report of how their actions were at least somewhat inspiring, and in contrast the other person would be described as a person that no one liked because they did not have any self control.

The perception is of self-control, yes, among other things. This isn't particularly relevent to the subjective nature of the value judgements though, it just explains the reasoning behind the judgements.

Therefore, higher morals = more self control = bigger impact through being an example, also, lower standards = more prone to losing self control = bad influence and poorer evaluations of character.

You're defining morals entirely as popular ways of behaving then? That seems sort of silly. I'm not sure there is such a thing as lower standards, there isn't a hierarchy of standards, just a variance of standards. Being an example isn't really neccessary if the vast majority of people already know and value the way of behaving that is being exhibited.

You've come face to face with your own value judgements as the basis for your evaluations, but it seems you refuse to accept that they are just value judgments, not objective concrete things rooted in external reality.

So if both people have equal accountability, then Person A > Person B considering person A was a good influence on the community that surrounded them which showed a more meaningful life because his actions affected a lot of people in a positive way.

Subjectively

This lifestyle can bring unmeasurable forward progress of the community while the other lifestyle brought only temporal and self pleasure which only helped one person. I dont really know how to better describe it than that.

That's a fair enough description, however I'm not sure it's accurate. As I've stated before, scientists actions create plenty of things which improve quality of life, including medicine, technology, etc. And these things do so on a lasting basis. Even if selfishness is the drive of these scientists it can still be said they have made lasting contributions.

On to the next problem, you cant say that life is better now because you havent lived back then to make the proper comparison.

In that case I guess you can't say one lifestyle is better than another because you haven't experienced them all. By the way, this way of thinking would make the study of history, society, theology, and many others pointless.

I can make a comparison based on available information, personal and professional interpretation, and subjective valuation, and this is good enough for me in this or any subject in contention because it's all anyone could possibly have.

Also, you would normally say that when you have to work hard that you generally become at least a little more humble would you not?

Actually, I think working is often a great way to build a sense of self rather than selflessness, although it can likely do either.

Sure some people would prefer working today rather than working back then but medicine aside, i believe hard manual labor works out better on a persons ego giving them reason to be more humble. Dont forget to take into consideration that with the new styles of work comes many more and different types of stresses.

People seem willing to tolerate these stresses though because they subjectively judge the benefits of the work to outweigh the cost of the type of work.

Being specific, morals were higher because there was less opportunity to do horrible things such as cheating, lying, stealing, etc. namely because there wasnt much of a way to do it.

People were too busy to do wrong, then? That's your argument? This is less hard labor specific and more generally about work and dedication of any sort. "Idle hands are the devils plaything". It doesn't matter if you're reading or farming, if you're busy you probably won't have an opportunity to do things which are subjectively wrong.

Children didnt have the opportunity to cheat because they didnt go to school in the first place. Parents couldnt cheat easily because their neighbor lived really far away and they didnt have much of transportation assurances. Stealing was also more difficult because there wasnt a store on every corner or a house you could rob that was really close. Point is, with less opportunity comes less crime which brings higher morals.

Interesting. I imagine the most efficient way to have high morals then would be to die, since that wouldn't allow you the chance to do anything. Beyond that I suppose you could sit in a hospital in a coma.

Modesty is important because dressing immodestly promotes immoral thoughts bringing motive to go through with things like rape and prostitution. Enough said.

I somehow doubt manner of dress alone has any causitive effect on rape or prostitution.

I went straight to entertainment and media technological breakthroughs because for the most part i see them as being the most pointless. The level of expectation constantly grows everytime someone sees something cool in a movie because they expect it to get better. I can almost certainly say that back then most of the general public was fine with black and white movies because it was new for them and they didnt think it would get much better.

At the same time, entertainment surely keeps people busy. People can't commit crime when they're doing something else, after all.

[W_I_N_N_E_R]

Considering something good is subjective. But if you take the word good as something that causes beneficial outcomes, then defining good it easy and desirable. Even animals practice reciprocal altruism, and live to help eachother to survive, and we see it as "good" because it results in beneficial results to many. Wiki it. If we rate things by how helpful it is in total, often good morals are derived. Such as my refusal of alcohol, i see it frivelous and damaging in many areas, i dont like that it kills me, that it embarasses those im with (if drunk), and that i have the possibility of losing control or becoming dangerous or insulting. Therefore i derive being sober as "good" because its a helpful thought process. I come with these conclusions through logic. Because i ignore the emotional need to fit in with my friends if they were all to drink, not because i hate them for it, i just dont see the point.

i mean societies FAR from the bible from its conception were highly moral and "good" as one would call them. Not because a book written by a deity said it, but because someone can understand beneficial outcomes through reasoning through situations, aiming for the most beneficial outcome. There are setbacks to this tho...

Random, you saying that to slip only reinforces my point. Slips views are derived to his own personnal thoughts, which dont match yours, because you derived your moral systems from other areas. Perhaps slip was subject to knowing someone who whored around and it caused serious unhealth in this person, so now he notices that rampant sex is dangerous, therefore detrimental, ergo "BAD". Much like you probably saw that people who had sex alot seemed happier or something, and so you saw it as "good" because "good" things came from it.