Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. 21 Mar '06 17:19 / 3 edits
    Think about this for a minute. If atheists are right, there is no God. THerefore, religion is merely a natural evolutionary development. If it were not, why do the religous outnumber the atheists? Why do we have religion at all? It seems to me that evolutionists should be embracing religion as such and not condeming religion. From an evolutionists perspective, it seems to be a much needed coping mechanism.

    In terms of Christianity, there are Christians I know who support both their faith and the theory of evolution. I do not happen to be one of them, however. Their beleif is that God created everything. He may just have used evolution as a means of doing it.
  2. 21 Mar '06 17:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yes.

    You're welcome.
  3. Standard member DoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    21 Mar '06 17:25
    Originally posted by whodey
    Is evolution and religion compatible? What does it mean for a singular entity to be compatible?
  4. Standard member scottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    21 Mar '06 21:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    Think about this for a minute. If atheists are right, there is no God. THerefore, religion is merely a natural evolutionary development. If it were not, why do the religous outnumber the atheists? Why do we have religion at all? It seems to me that evolutionists should be embracing religion as such and not condeming religion. From an evolutionists persp ...[text shortened]... beleif is that God created everything. He may just have used evolution as a means of doing it.
    Evolution is the only current scientific explanation for the current diversity of life on earth.

    Provided that religion doesn't contradict proven fact, it can do whatever the hell it likes, I care not.
  5. Standard member XanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    21 Mar '06 21:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    Think about this for a minute. If atheists are right, there is no God. THerefore, religion is merely a natural evolutionary development. If it were not, why do the religous outnumber the atheists? Why do we have religion at all? It seems to me that evolutionists should be embracing religion as such and not condeming religion. From an evolutionists persp ...[text shortened]... beleif is that God created everything. He may just have used evolution as a means of doing it.
    Evolution is incompatible with the (incorrect) belief that the only way to interpret the first book of the bible is a literal interpretation based on a translation.

    Anyone with a brain can tell you that it just doesn't work. Expressions change, meanings vary slightly and a small translation change can make all the difference in interpretation.

    Surely if someone wants to take the bible word for word those words should be the original ones.
  6. 21 Mar '06 21:57
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    Evolution is incompatible with the (incorrect) belief that the only way to interpret the first book of the bible is a literal interpretation based on a translation.

    Anyone with a brain can tell you that it just doesn't work. Expressions change, meanings vary slightly and a small translation change can make all the difference in interpretation.

    Surely if someone wants to take the bible word for word those words should be the original ones.
    Duly rec'd.
  7. 21 Mar '06 22:33
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Is evolution and religion compatible? What does it mean for a singular entity to be compatible?
    evolution and religion are not the same thing. they are perhaps the same kind of thing. because they both seek to fill the same void in understanding they have similar roles, but their internal structure and methodology is entirely different. i'm not saying this about you, doc, but it seems to me that almost anytime someone argues against evolution they are doing so from their ignorance of evolution. people do not understand difficult concepts or are unable to grasp the vast amounts of time involved and so fail to see how evolution could work. perhaps the same could be said for people that argue against religion, but i don't see any evidence that followers of religion have a much better grasp of their religion than do the critics.
  8. Standard member DoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    21 Mar '06 22:39 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by nomind
    people do not understand difficult concepts
    The concept that the subject of an interrogatory beginning with a singular verb must be a single entity is not a difficult one. The phrasing indicates that the interrogator holds "evolution and religion" to be one entity capable of having properties, such as being "compatible," whatever that means in a non-relative sense.
  9. 21 Mar '06 23:09 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    The concept that the subject of an interrogatory beginning with a singular verb must be a single entity is not a difficult one. The phrasing indicates that the interrogator holds "evolution and religion" to be one entity capable of having properties, such as being "compatible," whatever that means in a non-relative sense.
    ah, i see. that slipped past me though, as i'm sure all can tell that grammer is not my strong point.
  10. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    21 Mar '06 23:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    Think about this for a minute. If atheists are right, there is no God. THerefore, religion is merely a natural evolutionary development. If it were not, why do the religous outnumber the atheists? Why do we have religion at all? It seems to me that evolutionists should be embracing religion as such and not condeming religion. From an evolutionists persp ...[text shortened]... beleif is that God created everything. He may just have used evolution as a means of doing it.
    Religion was a natural evolutionary development. Mankind could not explain the natural phenomena occuring around him and so invented religion to help make sense of things. It is not surprising that he did so. But religion's usefulness is waning year by year. Mankind no longer has any real need for it, but keeps it around because he's gotten used to it.

    Your mistake is in thinking that evolution has stopped with the advent of christianity. It has not. Mankind's religious beliefs will continue to evolve and may even die out one day.

    I like to compare the present time to the Roman world, where christianity was slowly supplanting paganism. Except now, secularism is slowly supplanting religion. It seems a very slow process now, but there will come a time when the advent of secularism will reach a critical mass and accelerate dramatically.

    In the Roman world, you still had pockets of paganism out in the countryside long after christianity had won the day. The present conversion will be similar with the urban, first world centers becoming more secular and the rural, third world areas retaining their religious beliefs the longest.
  11. 22 Mar '06 01:28
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Religion was a natural evolutionary development. Mankind could not explain the natural phenomena occuring around him and so invented religion to help make sense of things. It is not surprising that he did so. But religion's usefulness is waning year by year. Mankind no longer has any real need for it, but keeps it around because he's gotten used to it.

    ...[text shortened]... more secular and the rural, third world areas retaining their religious beliefs the longest.
    yeah, and the huge cultural and religious clashes that we are having now are the typical sort of reactionary response that always accompanies dramatic change. while it is undeniably getting more christian in here, this trend is a backlash against a larger, longer trend towards secularism. we may have to teach genesis as science for a few years, but i have faith that in the long run, reason will replace superstition. then again, there is a lot of evidence that supports the idea that enlightenment runs in cycles. we may be on a down-turn now.
  12. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    22 Mar '06 01:39
    Originally posted by nomind
    yeah, and the huge cultural and religious clashes that we are having now are the typical sort of reactionary response that always accompanies dramatic change. while it is undeniably getting more christian in here, this trend is a backlash against a larger, longer trend towards secularism. we may have to teach genesis as science for a few years, but i have f ...[text shortened]... vidence that supports the idea that enlightenment runs in cycles. we may be on a down-turn now.
    Two steps forward, one step back. Nobody ever thought paganism would die out back then. But it did. So will christianity. As it finds itself increasingly irrelevant to a modern world, it will either have to evolve itself or die out entirely.

    Never use the word 'faith.' It only emboldens the enemy.
  13. 22 Mar '06 01:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Two steps forward, one step back. Nobody ever thought paganism would die out back then. But it did. So will christianity. As it finds itself increasingly irrelevant to a modern world, it will either have to evolve itself or die out entirely.

    Never use the word 'faith.' It only emboldens the enemy.
    i was hoping that a faithful one would take that bait! i wouldn't say that paganism is dead. there is quite a lot of it around here, and i'm in the midwest. granted, it is probably a far cry from the original pagans, but what wouldn't change over so much time? i too find it illuminating to compare modern america with rome at its height of power. there is no doubt that america is the current seat of that continuous empire. i believe that we are in a contraction phase, western culture will shrink as asia expands. this is asia's century. as we contract we will sink into moral decay and fascism. power and wealth will disappear and the state will fragment. the western world will go into a modern dark age. what the west doesn't learn at school is the dark ages weren't dark everywhere. china had invented moveable type, gunpowder, water clocks, repeating cross-bows, advanced astrological equipement and sundry other advances long before the west. maybe we've peaked for now.
  14. 22 Mar '06 02:55
    Originally posted by whodey
    Think about this for a minute. If atheists are right, there is no God. THerefore, religion is merely a natural evolutionary development. If it were not, why do the religous outnumber the atheists? Why do we have religion at all? It seems to me that evolutionists should be embracing religion as such and not condeming religion. From an evolutionists persp ...[text shortened]... beleif is that God created everything. He may just have used evolution as a means of doing it.
    Nope sorry, didn't catch a single logical argument. Could you explain why atheists should accept christianity?
  15. 22 Mar '06 08:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    It seems to me that evolutionists should be embracing religion as such and not condeming religion. From an evolutionists perspective, it seems to be a much needed coping mechanism.
    Evolution does not imply that all developments are beneficial. In fact many are not. Also since man has evolved culturally far faster than he is evolving biologically, it would be difficult to know whether religion is "much needed".

    The desire for understanding is one of the causes of religion. However there are other ways to fullfil that desire. Education is one.

    We are not slaves to evolution and dont necessarily need to follow its dictates. If having 20 children each make us evolutionarily fitter should we all do that?