Evolution vs. Creationism
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
I put a lot of faith in my ability to reason about my feelings. My Ti is actually more developed than my Fe.
Duty, while I appreciate your side of the argument, I find it very irritating that everything I say is disregarded as "special pleading."
Firstly, I'm not pleading anything. I don't need to "plead" anything. There is no pleading. In fact, I could give really care less if you ever come to see eye-to-eye with me or not; it's just that I think it's very pretentious of you that you think that you can totally disregard this part of human nature, with all the people taking part of it and all it's flaws and benefit that, whether or not SHOULD be part of society, still IS. It seems pompous; it seems holier-than-thou; and it seems very one-track-minded.
Secondly, this is not "special." If you've read my past posts on different topics of spirituality, you would know that it is not solely for you or this argument that I say spirituality is a personal venture. It's not that I don't have evidence for it; it's that it's not concrete, it's not a visual phenomenon or a kinetic thing. And just as you said it gets irritating for you that people scoff at you because you say things that aren't religious, I live in a world when I'm scoffed at when I don't have proof via experimentation, previous expert opinions, and careful research, and it gets DAMN annoying. There is more to this world than just quantifiable things, and it makes it really hard to function trying to explain such an abstract thing to a concrete world.
As for the "prerequisites" -- I think that might be true. You have to have a basis is science before you can debate theoretical physics. You have to have a basis in religion and spirituality to do the same. I'm not saying that you don't know anything about religion -- don't accuse me of that -- but I am saying you have to come from the sense of your SPIRITUAL basis rather than your scientific one for what I was describing. Yes, it takes a whole different mindset to "feel" spirituality. And yes, with the major topic of evolution vs. creationism, it's perfectly good to come from a scientific viewpoint; but if you want to understand the how and why of creationism, you do have to shift gears. I could explain it to you; I could give you all the evidence. But I'm not going to; I don't have that sort of time or the will to go through and find sources and citations. The higher spirituality and the feelings and phenomenon associated ARE something you're going to have to do yourself, especially because it is more than just something that can be explained; it is personal.
Sorry if this sounds pretentious or elitist, but I've been searching and developing that spiritual side of myself for years, and I have so much other research and papers to write about that it's too much of a hassle to compile all of that for you.
But that's off topic. Back to my original intentions: the reason I argue for creationism is not because I'm for it myself. In fact, I've got a rather personalized philosophy that I think completes the cycle better than any other theories (for myself, at least; I don't care to make philosophies for others). However, I think it is incredible pretentious that the scientific community points fingers at the religious community for being ignorantly stubborn when many of them have such strong issues taking social contexts into account themselves. I've seen it many times, and it's somewhat hypocritical. It's completely polarized, with each side denouncing the other.
But what I really mean is, it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. The religious community is not all wrong; the scientific community is not all right. That's what I set out against. There are only a few in the religious community that completely denounce science; sure, some go against evolution, but they have their reasons, and, I mean c'mon, does it matter? Does it apply to them? We all bitch and moan about this stuff and get so serious, but I think of it as a way of improving my ability to think outside my own ideas; practice seeing from a different prospective. It wouldn't hurt to come from as many angles as possible, regardless of what is "right" or "wrong." Understanding different sides is the key.
In other words, who cares if the general public understands or believes in evolutionary paths or theoretical physics? They go with what they need to, and they're not hurting anyone by going with their own beliefs on things in the less concrete areas.
Furthermore, it is really irritating that religion has to be part of ethics and politics. But that's probably not going to change; or, if it does, it will be a long time. Religion has played a MAJOR part of all of that from almost the dawn of rational thought; only recently has this began to change. There is a lot wrong with religious train of thought and how it effects people that aren't religious. However, rebelling for the sake if it doesn't help; if you really want to make a difference, understand the others' viewpoints and change them from the inside out. You can do a LOT by calmly, patiently, and gently taking an established idea, researching it, and bringing a new interpretation to it. You can influence people this way; I've done it myself. You can NOT influence people by saying they are ignorant or scoffing at their ideas. And the new generations are becoming a lot more open to this sort of religious argument; people are okay with change if you guide them rather than force them. THAT'S where the big issues stem from -- not the religion itself, but by the blunt friction between the different systems and ideals.
Religion is not going to go away; it's not going to stop being a part of society. If you're having so much friction with the people around you because of it...well, it's probably because someone's approaching something wrong. And since I doubt the whole of society will change so easily, you'll have to make due with what you have. I'm not trying to blame you or tell you you're wrong; trust me, my views are quite different from mainstream society. However, being able to relate to both the scientific, religious, and agnostic sects has helped me so that I'm not bitter towards the entire group as a whole. Just the few extremist idiots. The rest really aren't that awfully irrational.
Okay, I'm going to stop being so hardcore into this thread, I think; I spend way too much time responding to it. Just understand that I'm not for or against your side; it's just that there really is no black and white, and eventually you have to realize that you can do more by trying to relate to a different side than by simply going against it. Religious zeal isn't new, and it probably will not go away; in fact, we're probably more rational now than most periods in history, by far. The media really over-blows everything, but the scientific community really has a lot of sway. But anything that has to do with people and social topics, including politics, will have social connotations, and religion happens to be one of the biggest. It is, was, and probably will be hard to avoid.
Duty, while I appreciate your side of the argument, I find it very irritating that everything I say is disregarded as "special pleading."
Firstly, I'm not pleading anything. I don't need to "plead" anything. There is no pleading. In fact, I could give really care less if you ever come to see eye-to-eye with me or not; it's just that I think it's very pretentious of you that you think that you can totally disregard this part of human nature, with all the people taking part of it and all it's flaws and benefit that, whether or not SHOULD be part of society, still IS. It seems pompous; it seems holier-than-thou; and it seems very one-track-minded.
Secondly, this is not "special." If you've read my past posts on different topics of spirituality, you would know that it is not solely for you or this argument that I say spirituality is a personal venture. It's not that I don't have evidence for it; it's that it's not concrete, it's not a visual phenomenon or a kinetic thing. And just as you said it gets irritating for you that people scoff at you because you say things that aren't religious, I live in a world when I'm scoffed at when I don't have proof via experimentation, previous expert opinions, and careful research, and it gets DAMN annoying. There is more to this world than just quantifiable things, and it makes it really hard to function trying to explain such an abstract thing to a concrete world.
As for the "prerequisites" -- I think that might be true. You have to have a basis is science before you can debate theoretical physics. You have to have a basis in religion and spirituality to do the same. I'm not saying that you don't know anything about religion -- don't accuse me of that -- but I am saying you have to come from the sense of your SPIRITUAL basis rather than your scientific one for what I was describing. Yes, it takes a whole different mindset to "feel" spirituality. And yes, with the major topic of evolution vs. creationism, it's perfectly good to come from a scientific viewpoint; but if you want to understand the how and why of creationism, you do have to shift gears. I could explain it to you; I could give you all the evidence. But I'm not going to; I don't have that sort of time or the will to go through and find sources and citations. The higher spirituality and the feelings and phenomenon associated ARE something you're going to have to do yourself, especially because it is more than just something that can be explained; it is personal.
Sorry if this sounds pretentious or elitist, but I've been searching and developing that spiritual side of myself for years, and I have so much other research and papers to write about that it's too much of a hassle to compile all of that for you.
But that's off topic. Back to my original intentions: the reason I argue for creationism is not because I'm for it myself. In fact, I've got a rather personalized philosophy that I think completes the cycle better than any other theories (for myself, at least; I don't care to make philosophies for others). However, I think it is incredible pretentious that the scientific community points fingers at the religious community for being ignorantly stubborn when many of them have such strong issues taking social contexts into account themselves. I've seen it many times, and it's somewhat hypocritical. It's completely polarized, with each side denouncing the other.
But what I really mean is, it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. The religious community is not all wrong; the scientific community is not all right. That's what I set out against. There are only a few in the religious community that completely denounce science; sure, some go against evolution, but they have their reasons, and, I mean c'mon, does it matter? Does it apply to them? We all bitch and moan about this stuff and get so serious, but I think of it as a way of improving my ability to think outside my own ideas; practice seeing from a different prospective. It wouldn't hurt to come from as many angles as possible, regardless of what is "right" or "wrong." Understanding different sides is the key.
In other words, who cares if the general public understands or believes in evolutionary paths or theoretical physics? They go with what they need to, and they're not hurting anyone by going with their own beliefs on things in the less concrete areas.
Furthermore, it is really irritating that religion has to be part of ethics and politics. But that's probably not going to change; or, if it does, it will be a long time. Religion has played a MAJOR part of all of that from almost the dawn of rational thought; only recently has this began to change. There is a lot wrong with religious train of thought and how it effects people that aren't religious. However, rebelling for the sake if it doesn't help; if you really want to make a difference, understand the others' viewpoints and change them from the inside out. You can do a LOT by calmly, patiently, and gently taking an established idea, researching it, and bringing a new interpretation to it. You can influence people this way; I've done it myself. You can NOT influence people by saying they are ignorant or scoffing at their ideas. And the new generations are becoming a lot more open to this sort of religious argument; people are okay with change if you guide them rather than force them. THAT'S where the big issues stem from -- not the religion itself, but by the blunt friction between the different systems and ideals.
Religion is not going to go away; it's not going to stop being a part of society. If you're having so much friction with the people around you because of it...well, it's probably because someone's approaching something wrong. And since I doubt the whole of society will change so easily, you'll have to make due with what you have. I'm not trying to blame you or tell you you're wrong; trust me, my views are quite different from mainstream society. However, being able to relate to both the scientific, religious, and agnostic sects has helped me so that I'm not bitter towards the entire group as a whole. Just the few extremist idiots. The rest really aren't that awfully irrational.
Okay, I'm going to stop being so hardcore into this thread, I think; I spend way too much time responding to it. Just understand that I'm not for or against your side; it's just that there really is no black and white, and eventually you have to realize that you can do more by trying to relate to a different side than by simply going against it. Religious zeal isn't new, and it probably will not go away; in fact, we're probably more rational now than most periods in history, by far. The media really over-blows everything, but the scientific community really has a lot of sway. But anything that has to do with people and social topics, including politics, will have social connotations, and religion happens to be one of the biggest. It is, was, and probably will be hard to avoid.
Last edited:
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
You have no idea what special pleading is. Go read up on it.
So we should just "feel" our way through finding truth, making just political decisions, and figuring out the world? There is no truth in feelings, they are all based on subjectivity, so why do religions claim truth, and further, try to impose this on others and demand equal attention with reason when trying to teach truth to others.
Will finish later, cafe closing.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
There is NOTHING wrong with feeling our way through decisions, or subjectivity. We all do that on a day to day basis. I know for a fact I would be a grossly unhappy person if I were not allowed to base my decisions on how I feel. Of course, I do use fact and such for making decisions, you need to. Everyone uses both whether or not they like it. For the last time, not everything has a truth to it! BLARG!
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Here is an interesting thought. What if both views are correct?
What if all life is actually evolving into a God who will then one day create a new universe by dying off in a big bang and the life that eventually results from his death will evolve into a God once again, over and over forever. Then the whole argument is reduced to a chicken or egg paradox where people wonder which came first, the God or life, but which has no answer discernible by the parameters of human conception.
What if all life is actually evolving into a God who will then one day create a new universe by dying off in a big bang and the life that eventually results from his death will evolve into a God once again, over and over forever. Then the whole argument is reduced to a chicken or egg paradox where people wonder which came first, the God or life, but which has no answer discernible by the parameters of human conception.
I truly enjoy discussions such as this. 
There are some points I'd like to throw some clarification on before wading into the fray....
There is discussion on the word myth. Myth derives from: New Latin mȳthus, from Late Latin mȳthos, from Greek mūthos, which means story or word. What must be remembered here is that most knowledge was not passed on throught written language, but through speech. The framing of knowledge into a narrative format was the best way for those learning to remember it. These narratives of Creation, regardless of the religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, Greek, Polynesian, or Aztec were spoken; told to the crowd of listeners in ways they would understand the foundational concepts and remember them.
There are an inconceivable amount of Creation narratives as there are tribes or groups of peoples. I would wager that most of the Creation narratives are lost to history as there are no written records of them.
On to the specific Creation narrative of Judaism/Christianity, Genesis...
The title of Genesis in the Hebrew-Aramaic, the scribal language of the Jewish people, is actually Breetah, which means Creation.
The word day, which seems to be a crux of contention, is a mistranslated word which was originally Yumeh, which means cycles, more specifically, eons or ages.
These facts on Genesis are selected from this on-going translation project.
Science vs. Spirituality/Religion...
Events in both Science and Spirituality stem from the experience of a single individual, therefore they both originate subjectively.
The experiences of Newton, Galileo, Niels Bohr, Max Planck, etc.
The experiences of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.
Granted, these individuals build from the paradigms currently present in their age.
Planck built on Boltzmann, Kirchhoff, and Faraday.
Jesus built on Moses and Abraham.
Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) more than likely built on Jainism. (...though this is not proven)
Galileo built on Copernicus.
The Scientist attempts to explain and prove the personal experience within the framework of Science.
The Mystic attempts to explain and prove the personal experience within the framework of Religion.
The major focus of the framework of Science attempts to answer questions concerning the what, when, where, and how of phenomena, whether seen or unseen utilising its specific language idioms and paradigms and previous experience.
The major focus of the framework of Religion attempts to answer questions concerning the why of phenomena, whether seen or unseen utilising its specific language idioms and paradigms and previous experience.
Neither framework is complete or perfect. They are in constant transition and revision.
In Science, consider the model of the atom from Greek times up until present day. This model has altered several times.
In Religion, consider monotheism. It is not exclusively Judea-Christian-Islamic. There are many singular all-encompassing deities throughout human history in various areas and time. Native American narratives speak of a singular Great Spirit: Wakan Tanka among the Sioux and Gitchi Manitou in Algonquian.
There was Aten during the reign of Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten as well as Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrianism.
Each individual, whether Scientific or Religious/Spiritual, attempts to translate the subjective personal experience into a more objective universal explanation. Both fail and face opposition when they utilise the current paradigms of their age. They must create new paradigms, new frameworks. As examples, Galileo in Science and Jesus in Religion/Spirituality.
The discussion between Religion/Spirituality and Science as to who is right or wrong is fruitless as each approaches the Mystery which is Existence from different avenues, different focal-points, and different experiences.
The individual experience of the Scientist is focused externally and the tangible, whereas the individual experience of the Mystic is focused internally and the intangible. Each attempts to explore terra incognito and acquire knowledge and revelations from the experience. Both individual approaches and their resulting experiences are valid.
Metaphorically, it is like two individuals standing on opposite sides of a wall where one side is rough like concrete and is illuminated by light, and the other side is smooth like glass and is dark as night.
Which one is correct?
Which one states the "truth"?
These are but two general approaches to the same ends, the Reality of Existence. Co-operation instead of confrontation would render clearer results.
There are some points I'd like to throw some clarification on before wading into the fray....
There is discussion on the word myth. Myth derives from: New Latin mȳthus, from Late Latin mȳthos, from Greek mūthos, which means story or word. What must be remembered here is that most knowledge was not passed on throught written language, but through speech. The framing of knowledge into a narrative format was the best way for those learning to remember it. These narratives of Creation, regardless of the religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, Greek, Polynesian, or Aztec were spoken; told to the crowd of listeners in ways they would understand the foundational concepts and remember them.
There are an inconceivable amount of Creation narratives as there are tribes or groups of peoples. I would wager that most of the Creation narratives are lost to history as there are no written records of them.
On to the specific Creation narrative of Judaism/Christianity, Genesis...
The title of Genesis in the Hebrew-Aramaic, the scribal language of the Jewish people, is actually Breetah, which means Creation.
The word day, which seems to be a crux of contention, is a mistranslated word which was originally Yumeh, which means cycles, more specifically, eons or ages.
These facts on Genesis are selected from this on-going translation project.
Science vs. Spirituality/Religion...
Events in both Science and Spirituality stem from the experience of a single individual, therefore they both originate subjectively.
The experiences of Newton, Galileo, Niels Bohr, Max Planck, etc.
The experiences of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.
Granted, these individuals build from the paradigms currently present in their age.
Planck built on Boltzmann, Kirchhoff, and Faraday.
Jesus built on Moses and Abraham.
Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) more than likely built on Jainism. (...though this is not proven)
Galileo built on Copernicus.
The Scientist attempts to explain and prove the personal experience within the framework of Science.
The Mystic attempts to explain and prove the personal experience within the framework of Religion.
The major focus of the framework of Science attempts to answer questions concerning the what, when, where, and how of phenomena, whether seen or unseen utilising its specific language idioms and paradigms and previous experience.
The major focus of the framework of Religion attempts to answer questions concerning the why of phenomena, whether seen or unseen utilising its specific language idioms and paradigms and previous experience.
Neither framework is complete or perfect. They are in constant transition and revision.
In Science, consider the model of the atom from Greek times up until present day. This model has altered several times.
In Religion, consider monotheism. It is not exclusively Judea-Christian-Islamic. There are many singular all-encompassing deities throughout human history in various areas and time. Native American narratives speak of a singular Great Spirit: Wakan Tanka among the Sioux and Gitchi Manitou in Algonquian.
There was Aten during the reign of Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten as well as Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrianism.
Each individual, whether Scientific or Religious/Spiritual, attempts to translate the subjective personal experience into a more objective universal explanation. Both fail and face opposition when they utilise the current paradigms of their age. They must create new paradigms, new frameworks. As examples, Galileo in Science and Jesus in Religion/Spirituality.
The discussion between Religion/Spirituality and Science as to who is right or wrong is fruitless as each approaches the Mystery which is Existence from different avenues, different focal-points, and different experiences.
The individual experience of the Scientist is focused externally and the tangible, whereas the individual experience of the Mystic is focused internally and the intangible. Each attempts to explore terra incognito and acquire knowledge and revelations from the experience. Both individual approaches and their resulting experiences are valid.
Metaphorically, it is like two individuals standing on opposite sides of a wall where one side is rough like concrete and is illuminated by light, and the other side is smooth like glass and is dark as night.
Which one is correct?
Which one states the "truth"?
These are but two general approaches to the same ends, the Reality of Existence. Co-operation instead of confrontation would render clearer results.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
I do like what you propose, and I can understand how you can grant creationism validity on that. I suppose people discount the validity of religion then because they assume it doesnt change, when in fact spirituality is the action of religion which continues to evolve in the same way that science does. Therefore we can probably define the following:
Religion: is a fixed or set of fixed doctrines
A scientific theory: is a fixed doctrine or set of fixed doctrines
Spirituality: is an action in which spiritual principles are compared and applied to the real world to test the application of a spiritual doctrine
Scientific Method: is an action in which scientific principles are compared and experiments done which to validate or invalidate a scientific doctrine (or theory).
Creationism is therefore a religious doctrine which has evolved out of both the principles of spirituality and scientific method. However it may be replaced in the future just as old scientific theories are updated to match applications of the scientific method to them.
If the other thing you propose is that the content from the bible was just 'misinterpreted', then who's to say that you can't just 'make shit up' and word it very vaguely so that it can be interpeted in any number of ways? Nostradamus did it and it worked, after all -- so do most clarivoyants and psychics.
Still the idea of using scientific principles to explain religion, and of using religious principles to explain science IS appealing...
Religion: is a fixed or set of fixed doctrines
A scientific theory: is a fixed doctrine or set of fixed doctrines
Spirituality: is an action in which spiritual principles are compared and applied to the real world to test the application of a spiritual doctrine
Scientific Method: is an action in which scientific principles are compared and experiments done which to validate or invalidate a scientific doctrine (or theory).
Creationism is therefore a religious doctrine which has evolved out of both the principles of spirituality and scientific method. However it may be replaced in the future just as old scientific theories are updated to match applications of the scientific method to them.
If the other thing you propose is that the content from the bible was just 'misinterpreted', then who's to say that you can't just 'make shit up' and word it very vaguely so that it can be interpeted in any number of ways? Nostradamus did it and it worked, after all -- so do most clarivoyants and psychics.
Still the idea of using scientific principles to explain religion, and of using religious principles to explain science IS appealing...
These are good definitions. I would contemplate them awhile longer, but at first glance, they seem valid.
No arguement here.
Actually, I said mistranslated; though on the misinterpreted thought, to me, any 'interprtation' by one other than the mystic is a misintepretation, especially concerning mystic experiences. A mystical experience is distinctly personal and interior and can only be 'interpreted' by the one who experienced the event. How the mystic interprets one's own experience and what paradigm utilised, whether current or newly-consructed, is for the mystic to decide.
I think that there can be a 'cross-over' of terms and theories if each party approaches from a position of acquiring knowledge and insight and not from a position of proof/disproof.
Yeah, I have a feeling that something is a little bit 'off' about the definitions, but it's the closest I can get to expressing my thoughts at the time.
Yes, but keep in mind that a translation that is worded abstractly must still be interpreted, as most abstractions must. Which is why most legal definitions are worded without use of abstractions (unless the abstractions are defined), hence the reason why they're so long and boring. Look at the word eons for example, even this can be defined in a number of ways. I'm not saying that the idea of referring to an abstract translation and reexamining it is wrong, i'm simply saying that the probability is higher simply because the same trick of using abstract wording is employed by charlatans because of the malleability of using abstractions.
I like this because its similar to how brainstorming is used to create unique and helpful ways of dealing with things.
One of the methods in which one uses to brainstorm is to simply create the ideas first -- the idea of proof and disproof is never employed in the idea generating process for the very reason that disproving an idea stops new ideas from being created, and thus hinders the final outcome, because one of these ideas (even if flawed) may be used to generate another idea which is more elegant than its predecessor.
This is why I don't think its useful to be too critical of someone's spiritual ideals and one of the reasons why the concept of proof/disproof can be detrimental to ones spiritual self -- just as it can be to ones creative self. In other words, i'm just being long winded when I say I agree with you on that point.
Last edited:
I don't need specific definitions for everything; a phrase like special pleading doesn't really mean much to me, especially not in any special way. Special pleading, whether has a certain context YOU were going for, to me just sounded very belittling.
Remember that everything you say is interpreted by someone. Yeah, I have no idea what the defined phrase "special pleading" is, and I have never even heard or come across it before. So before you assume I have, you might want to consider how I might define that myself if I haven't
I looked it up, and I could see what you were arguing. However, I still don't care very much. Sorry :B
Duty said:
There are some things where, yes, you should. There is really no "truth" in anything. Nearly every truth we have as human beings is not really a truth at all. Going around claiming truth to certain things will get you nowhere, especially because truth is also subjective, like everything else, because it has to be interpreted by a person.
And truth is still a ongoing philosophical debate. You cannot give a definition to truth that will satisfy everything. I suggest you get out of that rut there.
However, there are times where it would be better to go with a different angle. You don't have to just feel blindly through everything; there's a reasonable way to feel just like there is a reasonable way to analyze. Locking up the emotional or spiritual side, though, just limits the ability to see from different sides. It limits how objective you can be, because you're only seeing a single side of an issue. That doesn't mean be "emotional," but knowing how to use and understand emotions and social things related (which is almost everything social) is a very good skill to have.
Yeah, I have no idea what the defined phrase "special pleading" is, and I have never even heard or come across it before. So before you assume I have, you might want to consider how I might define that myself if I haven't
I hadn't seen that phrase before either. Whenever I use possibly obscure terms like that, I just link a wiki page in the text for the curious. (For those who don't already know how, you use: [ url = insert URL here ] insert text here [ / url ] without the spaces.)
If religion is so personal, internal and intangible, why do we let it have so much influence over the external and tangible world? You wouldn't like it if people started doing crazy shit in the name of the flying spaghetti monster would you? If people were made to feel guilt and shame for doing natural things like eating food (because the flying spaghetti monster said food before marriage is a sin) I bet you would rally against it because it makes no sense! So many people live repressed lives because of religion, I wish they would get their morals from philosophy, religion is irrelevant to everything. I'm tired of seeing widespread guilt, i'm tired of hypocrites, i'm tired of religious wars, I'm tired of people sticking to morals which harm those in the "out" group and i'm tired of people blowing themselves and others up in the name of the flying spaghetti monster (aka god).
Stick to your subjectivity, do whatever the spaghetti monster tells you, don't care anymore.
/rant
Stick to your subjectivity, do whatever the spaghetti monster tells you, don't care anymore.
/rant
I like this. Science concerns itself with what can be measured. But it can't do much with things that can't be measured. Current physics seeks new ways to measure things (which is why they build those billion dollar particle accellerators) but I think there are things you can't measure.
Can you measure love for example? I don't think it would be possible to put together a machine that would tell you how much love someone has for you. I think we all use our feelings to do that on an everyday basis. You can tell the "truth" if someone loves you or not with your feelings. This is a skill we learn as babies.
Re: the topic, Darwin's theory remains impressive and should be taught as science. Evolution can be measured, as far as I know. I would just leave it up to individual communities to decide if alternatives should be taught as well -- but of course, religion can't be taught in schools, at least in the US, due to the first amendment. Gov't already says that religion has no place in public school curricula. that's why these school boards cloathe GEnesis in science. That's inappropriate. if they have a problem with that, they should challenge the first amendment.
on the other hand, if you have a real alternative to Darwin that is not just religion, even if it may superficially resemble some creation theory, i'm not sure what the problem is.
And this is why I'm no longer going to reply to you until you make a sensible point of view. You're just ok with making logical fallacy after fallacy, and then demanding that your viewpoint...which is completely unreasonable...should be shown respect or is in any way relevant. Your viewpoint by definition is unreasonable because it is in complete violation of logic. This is like trying to play a game of Scrabble with someone who thinks "DOPRodopeed" is a word because it feels fine to them for it to be a word, and then refuses to accept the Scrabble dictionary as having any authority whatsoever.
Yes, I realize this sounds unnecessarily crappy, but if you're just ok with making fallacious, irrelevant arguments, then your point of view just isn't relevant and conversation is irrelevant.
Is not love as such that has tremendous influence on our external world?
I dare say I hate it not when love picks a flower to hand to another. I dare not say anything against one whose love has them to fall on their knees in a moment of thanksgiving. Repressed lives are from those that fall short of finding that they search for; hearing the limb crack under foot, only to crawl back to the safety of the tree trunk. The fruit is out on the limb. We hold onto an overhead limb and reach with one hand while stretching one foot as far as we dare. We hear the cracking and stretch yet that last three inches to the fruit we seek. What a joy it is when we have it in our hand. It is no burden. It is joy.
As for the things of the flesh; hate, envy, and the likes: is it not these things that cause that which you hate and grow weary of? It certainly is not love.
Last edited: