The Creation vs Evolution debate thread...

Tolerence is for weaklings.

Sensitivity "Training" (Indoctrination) is to create controlable weaklings that reject their own thought process.

[sharkbit]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

The one thing missing from this entire debate is...... Tolerance.

I accept that what you believe in is truth. Your truth. You can live your life according to your truth, or faith, and I will not interfere with your right to do so.

At the same time, please accept my truth the same way and don't try and convince me that your beliefs are the only truth.

Even though we may not believe in the same god, or lack of god, doesn't mean that we can't be friends and live together in peace.

Winner!

Unfortuneately, tolerance has been sadly lacking through the centuries in religion.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Tolerence is for weaklings.

When perceived in the other from a radical fundamentalist perspective - no matter what ideology - then yes. Radical fundamentalists tend to interprete any offer by another side as a sign of weakness. And they tend to use the opportunity and exploiting it.

To be tolerant can also show strength - because you must be strong enough to afford tolerance. But only as long as it knows limits defining what is to be tolerated - and what not. For doing so you need a strong own identity. the EU is pressing hard to neutralise and negate grown identities of people in europe, and replacing them with bureaucratic orders of proper behaviour so that all places are nicely uniform. Very attractive.

Beyond these limits, tolerance indeed is a weakness. In an European context, Western unlimited tolerance for Islam is just preadvancing (=vorauseilend) obedience, appeasement, perfect dhimmitude. we brought it to perfection, which is not wonder with over 40 years of experience in falling back.

Sometimes the EU's ideal society reminds me of that peaceful idyll good ol' Stallone had to wake up in in "Demolition Man". Poor dog.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

The beauty part is that God does not require you to believe or understand.

How do you know that? If you're going to discount the bible, how could you claim to know anything about god at all?

To read anything more into it is to miss the greater truth.

What greater truth?

It's seems as if you're attributing characteristics to god, yet as soon as soon as some of the many problems with the concept are pointed out, you put god back in the realm beyond human understanding, so the old "it's not supposed to make sense" defense can be trotted out.

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

...so the old "it's not supposed to make sense" defense can be trotted out.

So lets just skip to the chase then. I don't think that anyone, and that includes atheists, understands the concept of God beyond the most visceral terms. It is the acme of mans arrogance that he believes he can either define, or dismiss, with authority the existence of something with the power to create the universe.

But on the other hand a book, written by men, sometimes centuries after the events they talk about, that has been translated many times, is obviously not going to be very reliable as a history textbook, but it does and has had for centuries held a strong value as a guide to life.

Is "Treat others as you want to be treated" really that bad a concept?

[antikristuseke]

No it isn't, but stoning people to death because they work on Sunday is. Both are proposed in the bible.

All religious texts contain some good ideas, but none point to any evidence for a creator. While a gods existance is possible there is no reason to assume that to be true because there is no evidence for it.

[August]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

No it isn't, but stoning people to death because they work on Sunday is. Both are proposed in the bible.

Which testament?

there is no reason

No reason? I hardly call a worldwide human institution that has survived for thousands of years and that still has over two billion adherents without reason.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

So lets just skip to the chase then. I don't think that anyone, and that includes atheists, understands the concept of God beyond the most visceral terms.

It sounds like you're assuming that the concept has some truth to it right from the get go. And if no one understands the concept, why did you tell us what god does or does not require, and say that he has given us free will. How do you know that?

It is the acme of mans arrogance that he believes he can either define, or dismiss, with authority the existence of something with the power to create the universe.

Is it arrogant to expect that the god claim stand or fall on its merits? And if it does fall, is it arrogant to take the position, that until further evidence or reasoning can be provided, the claim can be dismissed, just as the claim regarding the existence of an orbiting tea kettle or the dragon in your garage?

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

No reason? I hardly call a worldwide human institution that has survived for thousands of years and that still has over two billion adherents without reason.

Democratic fallacy FTW!

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

It sounds like you're assuming that the concept has some truth to it right from the get go

And it sounds like you're assuming that it doesn't. Is there a difference?

Is it arrogant to expect that the god claim stand or fall on its merits? And if it does fall, is it arrogant to take the position, that until further evidence or reasoning can be provided, the claim can be dismissed, just as the claim regarding the existence of an orbiting tea kettle or the dragon in your garage?

Look if you really believe in your flying tea kettle or garage dragon then that's your business. The "God claim" as you call it has not fallen and several billion people on the planet and the countless billions that came before them believe it does indeed have merit. Who are you to say they're wrong?

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

Which testament?

The first idea is from the new testament and the other from the old testament, unless my memory fails me. Regardless both are in the Bible.

No reason? I hardly call a worldwide human institution that has survived for thousands of years and that still has over two billion adherents without reason.

Just because a lot of people believe in something does not make it true. Evidence is what you need to establish the validity of a claim not the faith of billions.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

And it sounds like you're assuming that it doesn't. Is there a difference?

I'm not assuming it doesn't. I'm saying examine it, then decide what position to take on the matter until further evidence comes in. You seem to be assuming it's valid before it's been examined, and then when it fails that examination, you call the recognition of that failure arrogant.

Look if you really believe in your flying tea kettle or garage dragon then that's your business. The "God claim" as you call it has not fallen and several billion people on the planet and the countless billions that came before them believe it does indeed have merit. Who are you to say they're wrong?

Again, that's the democratic fallacy. How many hundreds of millions for how many millenia believed in witches? How many still do even to this day? I guess that must mean witches exist, right? Millions upon millions believe in UFOs. They must be true as well.

If only the truth of a claim could be decided by how many people adhere to it. Life would be so much simpler.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

It is the acme of mans arrogance that he believes he can either define, or dismiss, with authority the existence of something with the power to create the universe.

I'm not as hardcore as some here, but I do have to argue with that conception. I used to be a strong believer, but one of the things that slowly dragged me away was my own reason (such as it is). I'm not an atheist as to me that would also require belief.

The problem I have with the statement "something with the power to create the universe" is that I see no real evidence that the universe was created. Yes, there is order, but that order itself is not necessarily proof that some hand made it so. We can rationalize it that way, but as far as I can see we just don't know, and have no way of finding out.

The Bible is indeed a good guide to life, at least the wisdom parts, but then so are the teachings of Buddha, and the Golden Rule is possibly the best advice ever given, but it has been espoused in essentially the same form by some wise man or another from just about every civilization that has been.

I neither believe nor deny, because I simply don't know; and I have come to distrust people who say they do.

As to the original topic, science for the most part supports evolution, and no science has yet been found that supports any of the ancient Creation stories.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'm not an atheist as to me that would also require belief.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and as such is not a position of faith. Most atheists I have met are agnostic atheists like myself, lack belief in gods, but do not claim that no god can exist and in the face of evidence would change position.
Then there are gnostic atheists, they not only lack belief in gods but make the claim that no god is possible and as such are in a position of faith.

[THE_MASK]

As i said to Stephen Hawking one day " energy = mass x god " . The christmas spirit is flowing .