Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

A forum created specifically for polls.
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by mikeinie »

Robert J;1263170 wrote: At least amuse us with something creative.


We are a small planet in a massive universe and we think that we are so important.

God, if there is one, is most likely up there looking at us fighting our wars and polluting our planet and convincing ourselves that we actually ‘evolved’ from anything at all and then thinking that we were created in his image....

I say he and all of his angels are rolling around laughing their holy arses off at us.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by gmc »

Have a listen to this both sides putting their case. the sound quality sucks, unfortunately.

Debate - Hitchens, Harris, Dennett vs Boteach, D'Souza, Wright

YouTube - richarddawkinsdotnet's Channel

Biggest issue is not that non believers want to ban religion or stop people worshipping as they please it's rather that the religious seem hell bent (no pun intended) on insisting their beliefs get taken seriously and are not questioned in any way and would go back to a time where everyone was forced to conform whether they believe or not.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

mikeinie;1263289 wrote: We are a small planet in a massive universe and we think that we are so important.

God, if there is one, is most likely up there looking at us fighting our wars and polluting our planet and convincing ourselves that we actually ‘evolved’ from anything at all and then thinking that we were created in his image....

I say he and all of his angels are rolling around laughing their holy arses off at us.Not bad!

i notice that in both of your posts you do suggest the existence of a creator. Is that a matter of respect for your cultural and family values and upbringing and would rather not dishonor those you love, or is it something different than that?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1263293 wrote: Have a listen to this both sides putting their case. the sound quality sucks, unfortunately.

Debate - Hitchens, Harris, Dennett vs Boteach, D'Souza, Wright

YouTube - richarddawkinsdotnet's Channel

Biggest issue is not that non believers want to ban religion or stop people worshipping as they please it's rather that the religious seem hell bent (no pun intended) on insisting their beliefs get taken seriously and are not questioned in any way and would go back to a time where everyone was forced to conform whether they believe or not.As I'm sure you must remember, in my previous existence here, I was very intolerant of religious views, especially Christianity, but the ironic thing is that since I've taken a deep and serious approach to understanding evolution, I've developed a very different and more mature appreciation to it (religion).

I now understand the concept of group selection in evolutionary terms and realize that what religious groups fear is extinction of their group, which is a very reasonable concern for the homo sapien.

The thing though is that evolution does not concern itself with the belief or non-belief in God, that must be reconciled within each individual. Theology and evolution are two very separate ideals. Ken Miller offers a wonderful and fair attitude and explanation for the differences. Miller was one of the witnesses at the Dover, Pa trial of Intelligent Design. His approach is respectful and dignified - something I sorely needed to learn.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by mikeinie »

Robert J;1263294 wrote: Not bad!

i notice that in both of your posts you do suggest the existence of a creator. Is that a matter of respect for your cultural and family values and upbringing and would rather not dishonor those you love, or is it something different than that?


Well, yes respect does come into it, however I am not so much a non-believer as a believer that anything is possible, so why box myself in to either believing or not believing.

The way I figure it (and have stated in other threads), if I live my life well, treat everyone with respect, try to leave the world a little better than I found it, raise my kids well, and generally try to be an OK kind of person, then I have all the basis covered.

If there is no afterlife, then at least I lived a good life, if there is an afterlife, then hopefully I will be judged on the quality of my life and not what church I did or did not go to.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

mikeinie;1263298 wrote: Well, yes respect does come into it, however I am not so much a non-believer as a believer that anything is possible, so why box myself in to either believing or not believing.

The way I figure it (and have stated in other threads), if I live my life well, treat everyone with respect, try to leave the world a little better than I found it, raise my kids well, and generally try to be an OK kind of person, then I have all the basis covered.

If there is no afterlife, then at least I lived a good life, if there is an afterlife, then hopefully I will be judged on the quality of my life and not what church I did or did not go to.i respect all that, Mike and see that as a dignified approach to life, but what does it have to do with evolution or creationism? We are talking about species transformation, not whether or not you're a good, peaceful person. Its unfortunate that those two completely different things cross. Evolution does not threaten theology as some believe. Why not just investigate a little and find out? The links I provided earlier are really offered in a comfortable format.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by mikeinie »

Robert J;1263300 wrote: i respect all that, Mike and see that as a dignified approach to life, but what does it have to do with evolution or creationism? We are talking about species transformation, not whether or not you're a good, peaceful person. Its unfortunate that those two completely different things cross. Evolution does not threaten theology as some believe. Why not just investigate a little and find out? The links I provided earlier are really offered in a comfortable format.


Evolution OK, it makes perfect sense to look into ourselves to try to determine where we came from and how we got here. But creationism is based in religious belief that we were created in our current form by a supreme being.

So therefore I responded ‘other’, because I do not believe that we necessarily evolved from fish, yet I find it hard to believe that a supreme being could be mess things up as badly as he/she did when creating us.

Therefore, I chose Practical Joke, because when you stand way back and take a look, you just have to have a good laugh at us because as a species we are a very bazaar bunch.


gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by gmc »

posted by robert j

Miller was one of the witnesses at the Dover, Pa trial of Intelligent Design. His approach is respectful and dignified - something I sorely needed to learn.


I've seen that referenced elsewhere what was the dover pa trial?

I now understand the concept of group selection in evolutionary terms and realize that what religious groups fear is extinction of their group, which is a very reasonable concern for the homo sapien.


I'm not so sure it's that simple-it is inherent in monotheistic religions that anything that is seen to challenge the belief has to be met with outright hostility. Being slightly cynical the "church" can't afford to have it's followers thinking for themselves
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1263320 wrote: posted by robert j



I've seen that referenced elsewhere what was the dover pa trial?Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in short, a school board in Dover,Pa attempted to sneak creationism into the science classroom disguising it as Itellegent Design, but the teachers refused to teach it based on the principle that they would be breaking their oath not to teach any known false curriculum, at which point the board commanded the school officials to read a one minute disclaimer saying that evolution was still not concrete enough as a science. Parents heard about this and filed a lawsuit, got those damn lawyers involved, got a conservative, judge presented the facts and won the trial hands down. Its worth the read. The judge, who was appointed by Bush and recommended by Rick Santorum, a very conservative, religious senator, basically said, to the school board (I'm paraphrasing), "you've got to be kidding me."



gmc;1263320 wrote: I'm not so sure it's that simple-it is inherent in monotheistic religions that anything that is seen to challenge the belief has to be met with outright hostility. Being slightly cynical the "church" can't afford to have it's followers thinking for themselvesPerhaps I'm giving an overview while your more or less talking logistics.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

mikeinie;1263303 wrote: Evolution OK, it makes perfect sense to look into ourselves to try to determine where we came from and how we got here. But creationism is based in religious belief that we were created in our current form by a supreme being. Which is why I'm attempting to make the argument (respectfully, I hope) that they are two very different 'things.' They don't belong connected to one another, but its been done due to group survival.

Religion has been able to withstand many competitors since its inception and has remained remarkably strong, and it does not want any more competitors. Its as Darwinian as it gets.

Its funny, but creationists groups and individuals are behaving exactly as Darwin would predict and indeed others today do. Its interesting.

mikeinie;1263303 wrote: So therefore I responded ‘other’, because I do not believe that we necessarily evolved from fish, yet I find it hard to believe that a supreme being could be mess things up as badly as he/she did when creating us.

Therefore, I chose Practical Joke, because when you stand way back and take a look, you just have to have a good laugh at us because as a species we are a very bazaar bunch.

No problem with your choice at all, I'm only trying to engage you.

To an anthropologist from another planet, I'm sure we would seem bazaar. :)
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
wildhorses
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by wildhorses »

Bryn Mawr;1262142 wrote: Purpose implies intent - without intent how can it have purpose?


But doesn't purpose sometimes grow out of need?
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15924
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

wildhorses;1263407 wrote: But doesn't purpose sometimes grow out of need?


In this case, whose need for what?
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by yaaarrrgg »

I was raised to believe in fundamentalist creationism. Although I noticed something unhealthy about it, at least for myself. For example, if a person is different from "the norm" those differences are necessarily bad. Since humans were "created in God's image," any deviation from that norm (whatever that average collective image is withing some religious group) is a deviation from God's image. It's a big reason the cult-like fundamentalists I grew up with where so intolerant of anything and everything that didn't fit the mold of what they believed God's image to be. If taken seriously, creationism provides less of a framework for science, than a framework of totalitarian control. People that don't fit the mold are asked to change their identity as a person, or not exist.

Whereas with evolution, differences aren't good or bad, just differences. Some of which might become the dominant set of genes in a million years.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15924
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

yaaarrrgg;1263472 wrote: I was raised to believe in fundamentalist creationism. Although I noticed something unhealthy about it, at least for myself. For example, if a person is different from "the norm" those differences are necessarily bad. Since humans were "created in God's image," any deviation from that norm (whatever that average collective image is withing some religious group) is a deviation from God's image. It's a big reason the cult-like fundamentalists I grew up with where so intolerant of anything and everything that didn't fit the mold of what they believed God's image to be. If taken seriously, creationism provides less of a framework for science, than a framework of totalitarian control. People that don't fit the mold are asked to change their identity as a person, or not exist.

Whereas with evolution, differences aren't good or bad, just differences. Some of which might become the dominant set of genes in a million years.


An excellent point - frightening when carried to extreme.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by koan »

I'll have to go with "other" as I believe the world is an illusion.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

Robert J;1263215 wrote: Most people here in the U.S. are completely unaware how easily understood evolution is. We get so much mis-direction and have been fed so many mis-conceptions on the subject that it makes heads spin. This is a wonderful site for learning what evolution is. And Here is evolution101 which links from the welcome page.


Is Ohio the only state with libraries?
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

yaaarrrgg;1263472 wrote: I was raised to believe in fundamentalist creationism. Although I noticed something unhealthy about it, at least for myself. For example, if a person is different from "the norm" those differences are necessarily bad. Since humans were "created in God's image," any deviation from that norm (whatever that average collective image is withing some religious group) is a deviation from God's image. It's a big reason the cult-like fundamentalists I grew up with where so intolerant of anything and everything that didn't fit the mold of what they believed God's image to be. If taken seriously, creationism provides less of a framework for science, than a framework of totalitarian control. People that don't fit the mold are asked to change their identity as a person, or not exist.

Whereas with evolution, differences aren't good or bad, just differences. Some of which might become the dominant set of genes in a million years.


How fitting

Although, "creationism" cannot at all be considered relevant to science
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

koan;1263490 wrote: I'll have to go with "other" as I believe the world is an illusion.


I'm interested to know what the illusion would entail in your mind. Do you feel this "world of illusion" has a purpose?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by koan »

K.Snyder;1263907 wrote: I'm interested to know what the illusion would entail in your mind. Do you feel this "world of illusion" has a purpose?


Purpose: Because it could be.

Goal: To wake up to the illusion and free oneself from it.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

koan;1263916 wrote: Purpose: Because it could be.

Goal: To wake up to the illusion and free oneself from it.


My logic tells me that if others were an illusion they wouldn't be able to harm you physically. If they did they would then have to have entered your physical world.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by koan »

K.Snyder;1263922 wrote: My logic tells me that if others were an illusion they wouldn't be able to harm you physically. If they did they would then have to have entered your physical world.


creative. most people mention being hit with bricks.

Have you never had a dream in which you felt pain?

Logic can't be used to understand the illusion. The mind is ego and wants to live. It will use anything, including spiritual endeavours to reinforce its existence.

Beyond that, there isn't much that can be said to explain it. You either come to know it or you don't.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

K.Snyder;1263904 wrote: Is Ohio the only state with libraries?Its an illogical question, K.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

Robert J;1263949 wrote: Its an illogical question, K.


I personally don't like being considered among others to not have the ability to think for themselves/myself. Anyone can educate themselves, all they need is a bit of enthusiasm.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

koan;1263925 wrote: creative. most people mention being hit with bricks.

Have you never had a dream in which you felt pain?

Logic can't be used to understand the illusion. The mind is ego and wants to live. It will use anything, including spiritual endeavours to reinforce its existence.

Beyond that, there isn't much that can be said to explain it. You either come to know it or you don't.


I've never felt physical pain when dreaming, no.

I believe that receptions from within the body feeds the mind with the impression it's the mind that wishes to live. We give far too much credit to our minds I think:thinking:. I think personality is derived simply from choices that are induced by the body. "I'm hungry" was only "said" because of the chemical reaction within your body that implied(Not "said") it needed nutrients. The decision to eat anything specific relies solely on what "your" taste buds prefer. Perhaps what "you" wish to eat is simply what "you" like in addition to in how long "your" taste buds have gone without tasting any specific food.

This is why I feel it's not possible to feel pain from dreaming. It's the body sending the pain, not the mind. The mind only receives it. I've thought, during the dream, that I would possibly be hurt physically, but it usually ends in satisfactory results.

Because physical pain is interpreted by the mind a world of illusion would have no ability to distinguish physical pain from mental pain. Without mental pain, being defined by the void left by no physical pain, there would be absolutely no recognition of ones self at all, ultimately rendering not only the thought of "creationism", but thought at all, unforeseen.

My logic.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by koan »

if that's what makes you comfortable it serves a purpose.

i have no desire to make you uncomfortable.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

koan;1264461 wrote: if that's what makes you comfortable it serves a purpose.

i have no desire to make you uncomfortable.


Yes I'm sure you wouldn't dream of making me uncomfortable. :yh_wink
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

koan;1263925 wrote: Logic can't be used to understand the illusion. The mind is ego and wants to live. It will use anything, including spiritual endeavours to reinforce its existence.vegetation wants to live too and vegetation does not have a brain. Or is your use of "mind" different than that? Every species lives to survive regardless of intellect or consciousness. Are you making the argument that the brain as an organ is an entity in itself? If so doesn't that suggest that every organ is a separate entity which deserves self recognition and contains self-awareness?

koan;1263925 wrote: Beyond that, there isn't much that can be said to explain it. You either come to know it or you don't.Honestly, this sounds like a bit of a cop out. Its like a Christian follwer saying people, although made in God's image, cannot understand the mind of God when presented with difficult questions to answer regarding life and creation. It's like saying "faith", which is fine for individual choice of labeling belief but has no basis in fact.

We all exist the same way, why then is it that certain philosophies only apply to some? I personally can't subscribe to linear idea's of much when it comes to existence.

Perhaps you care to elucidate on your theory?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

K.Snyder;1264458 wrote: I've never felt physical pain when dreaming, no.

I believe that receptions from within the body feeds the mind with the impression it's the mind that wishes to live. We give far too much credit to our minds I think:thinking:. I think personality is derived simply from choices that are induced by the body. "I'm hungry" was only "said" because of the chemical reaction within your body that implied(Not "said") it needed nutrients. The decision to eat anything specific relies solely on what "your" taste buds prefer. Perhaps what "you" wish to eat is simply what you like in addition to in how long "your" taste buds have gone without tasting any specific food.

This is why I feel it's not possible to feel pain from dreaming. It's the body sending the pain, not the mind. The mind only receives it. I've thought, during the dream, that I would possibly be hurt physically, but it usually ends in satisfactory results.

Because physical pain is interpreted by the mind a world of illusion would have no ability to distinguish physical pain from mental pain. Without mental pain, being defined by the void left by no physical pain, there would be absolutely no recognition of ones self at all, ultimately rendering not only the thought of "creationism" but thought at all.

My logic.Sound Logic(?) it is too, K. Well said. Though from my perspective, your very good explanation of separation of body and mind sounds more intuitive than logical.

Logic is heavily dependent on the mind, isn't it? But your explanations reduces dependence of the mind an refocuses it on the body. I just thought it was interesting how that works with you.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by yaaarrrgg »

This is an interesting thread :)

The thing about pain, is it is all created by the mind. (IOW, if there were no minds, pain wouldn't exist). So all pain really is mental pain.

While I don't think the world is entirely an illusion, I do admit there's no logical way to prove my assumption to the contrary. Since I can't prove the reliability of my mind using my mind (circular reasoning). I just assume that my perceptions are referencing something beyond myself.

Though by the same token, I don't think we can prove that another person or mind is an illusion either (steps outside the authority of one's experience). How do we know another mind doesn't operate on different principles or laws of physics than our own? Even if everything I see is a hallucination, I can't say the same for everyone else.

Either way, I suppose whether or not the world is an illusion (or to what degree it is) is just a starting assumption. And it's not really testable either way. What kind of observation could we make to determine which assumption is correct?

Some philosophers of science like Karl Popper will argue (and I think they might be right) that unless an idea can generate a testable prediction, the idea is not *really* saying anything at all. Grammatically, it might look like a sentence, but semantically, it's void of any concrete meaning. I wonder if such phrases in language are more like tribal identifiers, or ornaments, like tattoos. Both "the world is real" or "the world is not real."

Logic doesn't prove the assumptions, it only flows from them. The reason one set of assumptions are chosen over other usually has more to do with the simplicity of the set (Occam's Razor), or how fruitful they are in generating new ideas.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

Robert J;1264509 wrote: Sound Logic(?) it is too, K. Well said. Though from my perspective, your very good explanation of separation of body and mind sounds more intuitive than logical.

Logic is heavily dependent on the mind, isn't it? But your explanations reduces dependence of the mind an refocuses it on the body. I just thought it was interesting how that works with you.


The body is what thinks for us. Our minds lets us know how we feel. All logic is is math. 1+1 has to equal 2. The body adds 1+1 from which will always equal 2 regardless of whether the mind interpenetrates it or not.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

yaaarrrgg;1264565 wrote: This is an interesting thread :)

The thing about pain, is it is all created by the mind. (IOW, if there were no minds, pain wouldn't exist). So all pain really is mental pain.

While I don't think the world is entirely an illusion, I do admit there's no logical way to prove my assumption to the contrary. Since I can't prove the reliability of my mind using my mind (circular reasoning). I just assume that my perceptions are referencing something beyond myself.

Though by the same token, I don't think we can prove that another person or mind is an illusion either (steps outside the authority of one's experience). How do we know another mind doesn't operate on different principles or laws of physics than our own? Even if everything I see is a hallucination, I can't say the same for everyone else.

Either way, I suppose whether or not the world is an illusion (or to what degree it is) is just a starting assumption. And it's not really testable either way. What kind of observation could we make to determine which assumption is correct?

Some philosophers of science like Karl Popper will argue (and I think they might be right) that unless an idea can generate a testable prediction, the idea is not *really* saying anything at all. Grammatically, it might look like a sentence, but semantically, it's void of any concrete meaning. I wonder if such phrases in language are more like tribal identifiers, or ornaments, like tattoos. Both "the world is real" or "the world is not real."

Logic doesn't prove the assumptions, it only flows from them. The reason one set of assumptions are chosen over other usually has more to do with the simplicity of the set (Occam's Razor), or how fruitful they are in generating new ideas.


I don't believe testing ones self is important at all. It's the majority that creates "reason". If the world consisted of a majority of people that "murdered" then those that didn't would be "wrong". What would be left is a population of all murderers from which our species would become extinct. Because of this what you get is a divine destination for all choices having been made, and it's entirely where you get the definition of "morality". If this scenario played out then morality would have been successful in the same sense if it hadn't then morality would have been successful. What you end with is a divine truth that morality will always be the primary reasoning for everything regardless of how one interprets it. What this means is that one person can see God as being very generous and fair and another can see God as being the devil. It depends on the one doing the interpreting. There is only one God under this logic. And as anyone knows, there cannot be any means of competition between no more than one entity. Thus you get reasoning from the end result, not the "means".
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by yaaarrrgg »

K.Snyder;1264748 wrote: I don't believe testing ones self is important at all. It's the majority that creates "reason". If the world consisted of a majority of people that "murdered" then those that didn't would be "wrong". What would be left is a population of all murderers from which our species would become extinct. Because of this what you get is a divine destination for all choices having been made, and it's entirely where you get the definition of "morality". If this scenario played out then morality would have been successful in the same sense if it hadn't then morality would have been successful. What you end with is a divine truth that morality will always be the primary reasoning for everything regardless of how one interprets it. What this means is that one person can see God as being very generous and fair and another can see God as being the devil. It depends on the one doing the interpreting. There is only one God under this logic. And as anyone knows, there cannot be any means of competition between no more than one entity. Thus you get reasoning from the end result, not the "means".


I think you are right that what becomes known as "the truth" is a function of evolution.

Some ideas, like God, I think don't really offer anything in the way of testable prediction. For example, let's assume God exists (for the sake of argument). What testable observation, then, is this belief *incompatible* with? Meaning, assuming there is an invisible intelligent force, what should we *not* see when we look outside our window? What does it rule out?

IMO I don't think the theory of God is incompatible with anything, so we might question whether or not a statement like "God exists" or "Allah exists" or "Zeus exists" is even saying anything. Grammatically it looks like a sentence, but does it really mean anything? If it's just a tribal chant, the truth won't ever resolve itself through time, since believing in any one particular idea of God won't help or hurt a particular human's chances of survival, at any given slice of time. If it doesn't predict anything that is, it won't be bound by evolution. What happens in cases like this, I expect, is the tribal identifiers change and fracture over time, with none ever becoming the majority for long. These kinds of abstract ideas with no concrete predictions are unstable and constantly in flux.

If the world is an illusion, I also wonder what observable prediction this is asserting. What will be the difference between my perceptions if I live in a real Universe, or an illusory one? Is there a difference? If not, what does the real versus not-real distinction even mean, if both possible Universes are identical in ever observable respect?
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

yaaarrrgg;1264759 wrote: I think you are right that what becomes known as "the truth" is a function of evolution.

Some ideas, like God, I think don't really offer anything in the way of testable prediction. For example, let's assume God exists (for the sake of argument). What testable observation, then, is this belief *incompatible* with? Meaning, assuming there is an invisible intelligent force, what should we *not* see when we look outside our window? What does it rule out?

IMO I don't think the theory of God is incompatible with anything, so we might question whether or not a statement like "God exists" or "Allah exists" or "Zeus exists" is even saying anything. Grammatically it looks like a sentence, but does it really mean anything? If it's just a tribal chant, the truth won't ever resolve itself through time, since believing in any one particular idea of God won't help or hurt a particular human's chances of survival, at any given slice of time. If it doesn't predict anything that is, it won't be bound by evolution. What happens in cases like this, I expect, is the tribal identifiers change and fracture over time, with none ever becoming the majority for long. These kinds of abstract ideas with no concrete predictions are unstable and constantly in flux.

If the world is an illusion, I also wonder what observable prediction this is asserting. What will be the difference between my perceptions if I live in a real Universe, or an illusory one? Is there a difference? If not, what does the real versus not-real distinction even mean, if both possible Universes are identical in ever observable respect?


I personally like the idea of taking a face off of God.

When we do that we see that, even the suggestion of God if you like, God is in fact truth. To me truth is my God. It's the interpretations that I deem to be true that remains the question.

I find it to be much easier when coping with life because why? Because I'm never disappointed. If I'm never disappointed then I couldn't possibly disappoint others. If I do then that's their misperception. When truth is my God that means I'm not only responsible for my actions, but I inherently will deserve all of which I create. I LOVE IT COULDN'T ASK FOR A BETTER GOD THAN THE ONE TRUE GOD LOVE IT

If it's true I die, fantastic then I will honor the truth.

If it's divinely true that there is no God such would mean no purpose. But that alone would be my God because without purpose ultimately creates the purpose of not having a purpose...

SEE? NEVER DISAPPOINTED LOVE MY GOD

:wah: :yh_wink
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by koan »

Robert J;1264506 wrote: vegetation wants to live too and vegetation does not have a brain. Or is your use of "mind" different than that? Every species lives to survive regardless of intellect or consciousness. Are you making the argument that the brain as an organ is an entity in itself? If so doesn't that suggest that every organ is a separate entity which deserves self recognition and contains self-awareness?

Honestly, this sounds like a bit of a cop out. Its like a Christian follwer saying people, although made in God's image, cannot understand the mind of God when presented with difficult questions to answer regarding life and creation. It's like saying "faith", which is fine for individual choice of labeling belief but has no bases in fact.

We all exist the same way, why then is it that certain philosophies only apply to some? I personally can't subscribe to linear idea's of much when it comes to existence.

Perhaps you care to elucidate on your theory?
It's not a cop out, it's a bow out. I didn't want to turn your thread into a discussion about Buddhism.

Honestly, though, there isn't much point trying to convince someone that Buddhist ideas are correct unless they are at the level of dissatisfaction with other concepts of reality that they are willing to walk away from everything they think they know.

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.

I was just answering the question.
User avatar
Omni_Skittles
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Omni_Skittles »

Creationism, because i can't simply believe that nature got lucky.
Smoke signals ftw!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Nomad »

Why one or the other?

I nuzzle up to both.

The two can coincide if you maintain a degree of skepticism.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

koan;1264785 wrote: It's not a cop out, it's a bow out. I didn't want to turn your thread into a discussion about Buddhism.

Honestly, though, there isn't much point trying to convince someone that Buddhist ideas are correct unless they are at the level of dissatisfaction with other concepts of reality that they are willing to walk away from everything they think they know.

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.

I was just answering the question.Thank you for respecting the thread. And sorry for the misconception.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

Omni_Skittles;1264787 wrote: Creationism, because i can't simply believe that nature got lucky.Interesting statement, OS.

I'm curious though, what do you mean by nature getting lucky?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

Nomad;1264806 wrote: Why one or the other?

I nuzzle up to both.

The two can coincide if you maintain a degree of skepticism.What are you skeptical of regarding this subject?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

Depends what you mean by "creationist." I think God created it all, but via the evolutionary process.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

joey2000;1265400 wrote: Depends what you mean by "creationist." I think God created it all, but via the evolutionary process.my guess would be that not many creationists would have chosen that option even just 5 years ago. So thats evidence that the conversation is being had at more dinner tables and social gatherings and more people are educating themselves on evolution too.

Hopeful signs! Definitely forward movement.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Nomad »

Robert J;1264814 wrote: What are you skeptical of regarding this subject?


Starting with the 1st line of the Bible. The book needs some editing.
I AM AWESOME MAN
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

Or improved understanding.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

Nomad;1266037 wrote: Starting with the 1st line of the Bible. The book needs some editing.Ah! I wasn't sure what you meant by your last post.

Thanks for moving this thread back up!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

joey2000;1266040 wrote: Or improved understanding.Ya know, I think Hoppy makes very good points regarding the Bible lately. He can correct me if I'm incorrect but I think what I see in his posts is the 'respect for' issue.

Are you asking for others to read the Bible in order to understand it better or are you saying understanding others preference for religion, in this case Christianity, is key?

On one hand the evolutionist's and creationist's are in agreement that the two just don't mix. I make the claim that one is theology and the other science...I won't speak for the creationist's here, they can clarify their opinions if they choose.

OTOH its the evolutionist's and combo people that are aligned in that there is movement and a suggestion that the two are at least in close enough proximity that the internal debate is in fact taking shape.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11518
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by YZGI »

Robert J;1266042 wrote: Ya know, I think Hoppy makes very good points regarding the Bible lately. He can correct me if I'm incorrect but I think what I see in his posts is the 'respect for' issue.



Are you asking for others to read the Bible in order to understand it better or are you saying understanding others preference for religion, in this case Christianity, is key?



On one hand the evolutionist's and creationist's are in agreement that the two just don't mix. I make the claim that one is theology and the other science...I won't speak for the creationist's here, they can clarify their opinions if they choose.



OTOH its the evolutionist's and combo people that are aligned in that there is movement and a suggestion that the two are at least in close enough proximity that the internal debate is in fact taking shape.
Would they be called Convolutionists?
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by mikeinie »


Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

YZGI;1266043 wrote: Would they be called Convolutionists?Possibly! Thats a good term, is it taken?

Microsoft probably owns it.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

mikeinie;1266046 wrote:
Very cool picture but has nothing to do with evolution or creationism in the context of intention of this thread. I know it veered off for a while, but its come back home to daddy. Please let the little fella stay a while.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11518
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by YZGI »

Robert J;1266047 wrote: Possibly! Thats a good term, is it taken?



Microsoft probably owns it.
It seems to fit. It probably defines my outlook as well as any other word.

Return to “Polls, Polls, and more Polls”