Evolution vs Creation

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I like this comment very much. Nice way of thinking.

Let me ask you a question my friend, how has your "SCIENCE" answered to Death? What is after we die?

You are right, Religion is a belief that our behaviors should be ruled around a God, but it is also the belief that our actions are paid in the world after this one.

So, I would rather follow the Archaic Beliefs of my ancestors than the mediocre way of thinking we have developed nowadays.

Don't place too much faith in science! Science is the answer to this materialistic world, Religion is the answer to the World we can't see and beyond.

Science is a method and intelligence is a tool. Given a specific task, they can be found wanting as they are ultimately context dependant. In the other hand, Science was invented to be shared and communicate concepts.

Because of the reasons above it's easier to know which questions we are supposed to ask through Science.

In religion and other metaphysical beliefs the assortment of questions you can throw at the wall are so many that they can delve into literal nonsense. At some point there is a legitimate problem of whether we should expect answers to existential problems or not, and to me, religious thinking has a harder time to admit its limitations than scientific methods.

If religion has to get to the point when you need to voluntarily ignore certain things, who choses that point?

Originally posted by MythLord
YouTube video

😂

Originally posted by socool8520
If the assertion is that God is real, then bring solid evidence that there is such a being. The very fact that no one ever has actually lends more credence to the idea that there isn't a God. Someone all knowing and all compassionate should have announced itself by now with more than a book wouldn't you think?

Except he announced himself SEVERAL TIMES in the past and he was always rejected and even crucified! What makes you think it would be different today?

Furthermore, he left the Bible as a proof of his existence! Yet many like you STILL DOUBT! Why would God want someone who doesn't have faith in him? Someone who only believes because he has seen?

Originally posted by Bentley
Science is a method and intelligence is a tool. Given a specific task, they can be found wanting as they are ultimately context dependant. In the other hand, Science was invented to be shared and communicate concepts.

Because of the reasons above it's easier to know which questions we are supposed to ask through Science.

In religion and other metaphysical beliefs the assortment of questions you can throw at the wall are so many that they can delve into literal nonsense. At some point there is a legitimate problem of whether we should expect answers to existential problems or not, and to me, religious thinking has a harder time to admit its limitations than scientific methods.

If religion has to get to the point when you need to voluntarily ignore certain things, who choses that point?

I agree. Where does Science and Religion collide exactly? Religion's purpose is not to explain how and why things happen in an exact and empirical way. Religion is to prepare you for the afterlife, and for you to lead a life of morality.

Again you can see both methods don't really collide with each other.

On one side Science fails to answer what Religion does, whereas Religion fails to answer what Science does. They aren't really counterparts.

So in that aspect both methods are INEFFICIENT when alone. So, why would instead of following one way of thinking not follow both?

If you know both ways of thinking approach different aspects of our life, why won't you follow both? Who said you had to pick a side?

I am a scientific person, but am also a religious one. I don't see the logic behind those who are pure scientists and those who are pure religious.

Separating the social/individual functions of science and religion is, on the long term, shrinking the realm of religious questions that can be asked -the logic being that if scientific knowledge improves, then a question will move from one category to the other. This effectively means that religious thinking is subordinate to scientific thinking, something that by principle many religions will refuse.

^ this is a niche observation that in my opinion comes from a misunderstanding about what religious thought aims to be, you shouldn't be looking into spirituality to think about formal ideas.

In my previous post I already grazed the logic that holds atheist belief together: out of all infinite metaphysical problems you can ask religion to solve there is no set limit of when we should stop looking for answers. For all intents and purposes, the set number of questions we ask religion to solve it's arbitrary. Among the choices you can take, zero is as valid of a number as any other. If you ask religion to give you an answer to life about death why would you stop there -and by extention, why start asking questions at all.

Originally posted by Bentley
Separating the social/individual functions of science and religion is, on the long term, shrinking the realm of religious questions that can be asked -the logic being that if scientific knowledge improves, then a question will move from one category to the other. This effectively means that religious thinking is subordinate to scientific thinking, something that by principle many religions will refuse.

^ this is a niche observation that in my opinion comes from a misunderstanding about what religious thought aims to be, you shouldn't be looking into spirituality to think about formal ideas.

In my previous post I already grazed the logic that holds atheist belief together: out of all infinite metaphysical problems you can ask religion to solve there is no set limit of when we should stop looking for answers. For all intents and purposes, the set number of questions we ask religion to solve it's arbitrary. Among the choices you can take, zero is as valid of a number as any other. If you ask religion to give you an answer to life about death why would you stop there -and by extention, why start asking questions at all.

Okay you got me puzzled. What is the thing that holds Atheism together?

The need to set an arbitrary expectation from metaphysical intuition. It has to be arbitrary because there isn't any evident set of metaphysical worries. Since it's arbitrary and accepted as such, zero metaphysical expectations can be naturally held.

Originally posted by Bentley
The need to set an arbitrary expectation from metaphysical intuition. It has to be arbitrary because there isn't any evident set of metaphysical worries. Since it's arbitrary and accepted as such, zero metaphysical expectations can be naturally held.

So, let me see if i got it correct.

Atheism is held together because of the idea that since we are not influenced/affected by the metaphysical questions in a way in where they matter, they can be ignored/taken as irrelevant?

Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. It isn't, or at least shouldn't be, some sort of inherent culture or ideology of its own. So it isn't "held together" by anything, but if you want a common reason for people's atheism then it's usually a lack of compelling evidence to persuade them to adopt a religion.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Atheism is held together because of the idea that since we are not influenced/affected by the metaphysical questions in a way in where they matter, they can be ignored/taken as irrelevant?

Atheist can ask themselves metaphysical questions, many philosophers have been atheists. But if someone was to ask the minimal amount of metaphysical questions (read zero) he'd be an atheist by default. Hence atheism exists by the arbitrary nature/number of metaphysical questions that can exist.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. It isn't, or at least shouldn't be, some sort of inherent culture or ideology of its own. So it isn't "held together" by anything, but if you want a common reason for people's atheism then it's usually a lack of compelling evidence to persuade them to adopt a religion.

Yeah, that's what I originally thought however Bentley's description got me puzzled. Got the need to ask.

IMO those who believe in a creator should not be ashamed of the idea that such a creator would give rise to a creation that would continually improve itself as opposed to creating something static.

^ That's not what the Bible says, Emp. It goes against the perfect and Holy Word of God.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ That's not what the Bible says, Emp. It goes against the perfect and Holy Word of God.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
When your belief doesn't make sense, adjust it so it does.

Or just kill the people who disagree with you, Islam style.

Originally posted by Surtur
Or just kill the people who disagree with you, Islam style.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
When your belief doesn't make sense, adjust it so it does.

Well, that's actually a good thing. That's what a healthy belief systems should do. But unfortunately Christianity's way to deal with the problem is just to ignore real world facts and take the Bible as the final word on the matter. So it ignores reality. And yeah, like Surt said, Islam does that and kills anyone who disagrees. Islam is more hardcore.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
When your belief doesn't make sense, adjust it so it does.

Belief is part of the living core of intelligent beings, we know very little so we need to believe. Adjusting yourself and your beliefs is to be expected, religion is not passed down as a literal answer from all moral dilemas. At least not in christianity.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Well, that's actually a good thing. That's what a healthy belief systems should do. But unfortunately Christianity's way to deal with the problem is just to ignore real world facts and take the Bible as the final word on the matter. So it ignores reality. And yeah, like Surt said, Islam does that and kills anyone who disagrees. Islam is more hardcore.

Catholicism, the biggest branch of christianity in the world, doesn't.

uhuh

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Except he announced himself SEVERAL TIMES in the past and he was always rejected and even crucified! What makes you think it would be different today?

Furthermore, he left the Bible as a proof of his existence! Yet many like you STILL DOUBT! Why would God want someone who doesn't have faith in him? Someone who only believes because he has seen?

None of that has ever been proven outside of a story. That's the problem. Even Jesus could be written off as a well-intentioned guy with a God complex. I can't remember a passage where god legitimately showed his/her/it's true form to anyone.

Again, a book written by people that is unverifiable. That isn't proof. I could write a book about a God with a set of fables and rules if I wanted. It doesn't mean it's automatically factual.