• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

of darwenism and god

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
science is at odds with god here,but it Does not have to be.
Why? Simply because the best explanation of why we are here is unlikely to be inconsistent with how we got here. It is just that our tools for getting that answer are not the same ones we use to determine where we are. Science has always been preoccupied with the how questions. Religion has focused on the why questions. We spiritually and intellectually need workable answers to both, or this debate would have no purpose.

We may as well consign ourselves ,to a workable relationship with god.
Religions have failed us miserably.and science has not been able to answer the why questions.

Tap yourself directly into god,We do not need religion,Religion needs us
 
Last edited:

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If God weren't a mythological piece of fiction, and I actually met Him, I'd make sure to kick him in the balls over and over and over. It's odd to have such a hatred for a fictional charcter, but...yup, he tends to do that in me.

God needs to shave, and lookie...I got the perfect razor for him!

 

ddoyle00

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Location
3000 miles east of you
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Hey Canuck,

Go buy a used college level biology book and explain why a pig, a human and a lemur fetus at the same periods of development look exctly the same. Explain why a human fetus has gills, a more pronounced tail bone and webbed hands and feet. Wonder why a chimpanzee and a human share over 97% the same genetic makeup and a commen mouse and a human share over 70%? I expected better from a socialist canadian.
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Canuck said:
science is at odds with god here,but it Does not have to be.
Actually, it pretty much does. The more that science discovers, the more doubt is cast on religion.

Canuck said:
Why? Simply because the best explanation of why we are here is unlikely to be inconsistent with how we got here. It is just that our tools for getting that answer are not the same ones we use to determine where we are. Science has always been preoccupied with the how questions. Religion has focused on the why questions. We spiritually and intellectually need workable answers to both, or this debate would have no purpose.
Why do you think that there must be a reason? That is just an anthropocentric point of view. People think that they are so important that there must be a reason for them to be here. That is the same thinking that made people think that the earth was the center of the universe. We thought that the earth was the most important thing in the universe. This is no different, it's just saying that people are the most important thing in the universe.

Canuck said:
We may as well consign ourselves ,to a workable relationship with god.
Religions have failed us miserably.and science has not been able to answer the why questions.
Why must there be any relationship, working or not, with the mythical? True, religions have failed, so why should we invest anything in them. They tend to prey on people who feel a need to be part of something greater than themselves.

Again, why must there be a reason? Just because people think that they are the most important thing in the universe?

Canuck said:
Tap yourself directly into god,We do not need religion,Religion needs us
If we don't need religion, why should you "tap yourself directly into god"?

Dieties are a construct of religious belief. Belief is not the construct of dieties. If belief is the construct of dieties, then there should only be one religion that has ever been. The different religious beliefs that mankind has had should be seen as evidence that there isn't any diety. If there is a single diety, then why have there been so many polytheistic beliefs. If there are more than one diety, then why are most people now following a monotheistic system?
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
MrFungus420 said:
Why do you think that there must be a reason? That is just an anthropocentric point of view. People think that they are so important that there must be a reason for them to be here. That is the same thinking that made people think that the earth was the center of the universe. We thought that the earth was the most important thing in the universe. This is no different, it's just saying that people are the most important thing in the universe.
You have an interesting viewpoint. The problem with it is that everything in the universe serves a purpose therefore has a reason for it's existence. Why would humans be exempt? We tend to think of ourselves as the most important things in the universe because we don't know of any other being as highly developed as ourselves..which is sad lol. The only real question is why does the universe exist, which of course will never be answered with any semblence of certainty.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Technocratic, unfortuntaley the Occam's Razor principle doesn't work for your viewpoint. All things being equall, the simplest explaination tends to be the right one ie the explaination involving the lowest number of variables tends to be the right one. Religion only needs 1 variable..science requires an infinite number of variables.
 

ddoyle00

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Location
3000 miles east of you
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
We can wax philosophic all day, but in the end its science with the facts. I agree with the anthropocentric point of view, so here is a quote I like.
"Our sun is one of 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Our galaxy is one of billions of galaxies populating the universe. It would be the height of presumption to think that we are the only living things in that enormous immensity."

-Wernher von Braun

Religon was dictated by physical forces. Ancient Egypts religon offered an afterlife and was appealing to the poor people because they were protected by a desert and were rarely attacked. Thus, they were allowed to evolve socially faster. When the Jews were cast out during the diaspra, they fled to Rome but were not allowed into their religon which was only offered to rankig members of the party or the military. The Jews being schrewd folks they are, spread their religon to the poor people of Rome by offering an afterlife and setting their holidays with Roman pagan holidays. Christmas is on the pagan holiday of Mithras. I know this is kinda scattered, but this is not a term paper. Im just trying to give examples of how physical and social causes dictated the beginnings of religon.
 

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Default Re: of darwenism and god
Technocratic, unfortuntaley the Occam's Razor principle doesn't work for your viewpoint. All things being equall, the simplest explaination tends to be the right one ie the explaination involving the lowest number of variables tends to be the right one. Religion only needs 1 variable..science requires an infinite number of variables.


Simple-minded is not the same thing as simplest. You are misunderstanding Occam's Razor. It's not the most simple-minded that is likely correct, rather the one that multiplies the fewest entites and makes the fewest unnecessary assumptions (AKA, those that have no facts or logic to support them).

Occam's razor does work for me, fortunately, since all things aren't equal. 'God" did it isn't a mechanism for anything, and it is unfalsifiable, therefore worthless as an explanation. Occam's razor automatically shaves away unfalsifiable entities as a possible equation because Occam's Razor can only work effectively on two equally forceful, backed-up theories.

At least we know that, giving the right conditions, the basic units of life can come together and assemble self-replicating chains. We know this exists--God? We got no evidence of him. Life more likely formed via abiogenesis as chains of life's building blocks began to sequence. It could easily have occured due to natural laws governing biology.
 
Top Bottom