pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 22,394
- 5,004
- 136
Except the science isn't the problem. Their lack of understanding isn't coming from the fault of science, its coming from a willful ignorance. Effectively what it is saying is that religion has so poisoned the well of human logic, that it has made a large portion of the population unable, or at least unwilling, to use logic properly. They might see the rampant excessive flaws in logic by full blown religion and thus less supportive of it, but they're still indoctrinated in that type of thinking, so they might change their beliefs, but the way they approach those beliefs is still the same. They never actually learned it, they just learned to believe it.
Also, there's tons of evidence on this forum alone of people picking and choosing what science they believe. I think that stems from what people learn. Take for instance, we have more than a few people on here, that are perfectly fine learning and accepting the logic of computers (even in depth stuff like programming), but don't believe in evolution because they've never really learned the logic behind it. Or they've been taught the bastardized logic of creationists, and aren't willing to change that. Computers is something they often got started learning on their own or with friends while growing up. They often didn't really learn it in an official capacity through school (or if they did it was simpler stuff, and the things that fueled their actual understanding was sort of rebellious, like learning how to install Doom so you could play it in typing class, or something like that). The important thing is that they learned it in a different manner than they learned most things, which is why they're accepting of it. Most people don't have that experience with biology and evolution (and fewer still have any desire for that). Its easier to just accept what they were taught (for even practical reasons, that learning, especially as you get older becomes time consuming and often doesn't pay off meaningfully - it won't help you advance at work, it'll take time from playing games/dating/etc).
For some people there is a need for Him to be there. And this is such a big "question" that it would throw their entire life into chaos just questioning it, because so much of a lot of peoples' lives is based around this mental construction. And that's for people that just grew up religious, and not people who it is all consuming in their lives.
Also for these people, its not them adding this entity, its you trying to remove it needlessly. If it doesn't matter, then why are you so adamant about taking it away? That's how the logic was constructed for them, and you trying to change that little piece from that situation requires them fundamentally changing their belief and logic structure for everything.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,435
- 11,585
- 136
That wasn't an opinion. If you think it was you don't understand evolution.
I'd argue that thats a "want" not a "need".
1prophet
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 5,313
- 534
- 126
As long as man creates god in his own image he will always be limited and flawed no different than his human creators.
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 22,394
- 5,004
- 136
Oh I know what evolution is and I agree with it.
I believe that it is by design that God used / uses evolution as a method for creation. The two are not mutually exclusive.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,435
- 11,585
- 136
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 22,394
- 5,004
- 136
deustroop
Golden Member
- Dec 12, 2010
- 1,915
- 354
- 136
In this thread the words are meant exclusively and putting them together, like you do, saying a god uses evolution, (as improbable as that sounds,) muddies the water with what is just another god story .
It's obvious in many minds that evolution is the best evidence that there is no god.
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 22,394
- 5,004
- 136
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Why would that be improbable? It is impossible to ignore evolution, unless you are really stupid.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,848
- 6,385
- 126
Evolution is not evidence that there is no god. However, it shows there is no need for a god to explain the diversity of Life.
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,284
- 1,998
- 126
Not necessarily. The human brain is hardwired to seek patterns and order, that's built into our BIOS. We do have a primitive, subconscious need to understand things around us. People will often try to find patterns where there are none and attribute coincidence to fate. There is a genetic predisposition to demand explanation for unknowns, that's almost certainly why mankind invented invisible men in the sky in the first place. We (or at least many of us) truly need to have answers and would rather cling to answers that are completely false rather than accept chaos and the unknown. It's the same rationalization that allows a child to believe their dog was sent to live on a farm. Deep down they kinda know it's dead, but the lie is comforting, so it's better not to peek behind the curtain. I want answers too. I'd love to know where the universe came from. But I need real answers and I'm not willing to accept a lie just because it's better than no answer at all. And that is ultimately the difference between intelligence and faith. Intelligence looks for what is true and faith accepts what it wants to be true.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,435
- 11,585
- 136
So as long as you're clear on the difference between personal opinions and facts we are good!
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,978
- 31,534
- 146
that's not an opinion. Evolution has no goal. Do you understand how this can not possibly be an opinion?
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,978
- 31,534
- 146
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,978
- 31,534
- 146
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 22,394
- 5,004
- 136
What was I thinking. I forgot that you are always right. Darn it. /s
Evolution didn't have a goal. God did.
Sorry to inform you, but you don't have all the answers. Can you prove god didn't use evolution as a tool? No, of course you can't, no more than I can prove that god did.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,435
- 11,585
- 136
I dont know about all the time but he's certainly right here. Evolution is a process thats ongoing, it doesn't have an end goal.
There is a absolutely no need to add God into the mix to make evolution work. And it's pretty easy to prove God didnt use anything because you haven't shown him to exist yet. We don't tend to put unproven entities with no evidence of their existence and no effect on a process into the explanation for that process.
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 22,394
- 5,004
- 136
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,738
- 16,049
- 146
BudAshes
Lifer
- Jul 20, 2003
- 14,009
- 3,395
- 146
That's fine as long as you also acknowledged that the bible has nothing more to do with the word of god than a lord of the rings book.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,978
- 31,534
- 146
Yes you did, right here:
You propose:
1: God uses evolution as a tool
2: evolution has no goal
3: God has a goal
therefore....evolution didn't have a goal but god did...therefore....you aren't making any sense. If God created and used a tool to expressly arrive at the goal that god wanted, then the tool obviously has a goal. The logic is airtight, but you both make the argument, dismiss your argument in one sentence, then claim it brilliant, regarldless, and call me a fool for realizing how stupid you sound.
Anyway, if you believe evolution to have no goal (which you don't) there is no purpose for God. Certainly not one that gives a shit about you or me, anyway. ...in which case, why bother believing in such a god?
You simply can't have "an opinion" of how evolution works. Do you argue that the function of gravity is dependent on the strength of your opinion? How about the wavelength of indigo? Is that beholden to your opinion?
Make no mistake: I really have no problem with a belief in God or Cthulu or Pan or whatever makes you happy. I actually think these things are pretty cool. But don't be foolish enough to confuse empirical evidence with faith-driven belief, and wantonly decide when you can mix the two to support some barely-cogent system of belief that you clearly don't understand.
Last edited:
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,284
- 1,998
- 126
Yet you state the invisible man in the sky does have a goal.
Try to wrap your head around a little logic. I know it's going to hurt your brain, but maybe you'll be better off.
If the invisible man has a goal he would not or could not turn evolution loose without knowing what's going to happen.
If the invisible man is controlling it it's not evolution.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,598
- 997
- 126
This is seriously the most idiotic thing I've read in a while. You don't have to understand science to believe it. I don't have to understand particle physics to believe that research done at CERN is real and/or useful.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,082
- 136
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,284
- 1,998
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter