Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#376
#376
rjd970 said:
What we know, for an absolute fact, is it is indeed possible on some level for life to arise. Period.
Click to expand...


Are you saying naturally? Because, either you are making the unneeded statement that life exists, or you are begging the question that life arose naturally. In other words, your statement is "Obviously life can arise naturally, because life arose naturally."

"Period."

There's that anthropic principle, right? Life exists, so it is self-evident that the universe must produce life.

Very scientific and not tautological at all.

rjd970 said:
Given the assumptions going into the actual calculation itself...arguing random, metaphysical, or supernatural origins is useless at this juncture.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen this problem discussed by many-- the idea being that it is so incomprehensible that it's difficult to even create the formula. There are so many things to take into account, it's hard to get them all in there. The more you add, the smaller the number gets. That's why so many people who list the probability start it with: "Even being generous..."

rjd970 said:
And if you believe it is supernatural, why you would want to argue the math/science is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Obviously.
 
#377
#377
FLVOL_79 said:
So because someone can point to the sky and show you thousands of suns, many with their own planets, it doesn't mean the chance of life out there, amongst the octillion's of planets, could be true.

However someone can tell you a story about a person you have never met and that no living person has met or seen and you are cool with accepting that for fact..

Having faith is fine but it seems that being dismissive of probability and potential of anything else is, well, kind of like being a dick.
Click to expand...

Have you done any research on what it would take for life to spontaneously begin? Have you studied the chicken/egg paradox of its occurrence? Have you searched out why it is that so many people are grasping onto the mutiverse infinity to explain it?

Because, the more we learn about it, the more impossible it becomes. Statistically, you can not multiply "impossible" by a billion and get statistics. You still get "impossible".

You either need to get another force of nature that makes it happen, or it can't happen. You're much better saying, "We'll find that organizing force soon enough" than to claim that the universe we know can do it. It would be a "God of the gaps", but it would be better than saying, "Obviously, if you give enough time, space and chance, the impossible can happen." That's not how statistics work.
 
#378
#378
Orange_Crush said:
Have you done any research on what it would take for life to spontaneously begin? Have you studied the chicken/egg paradox of its occurrence? Have you searched out why it is that so many people are grasping onto the mutiverse infinity to explain it?

Because, the more we learn about it, the more impossible it becomes. Statistically, you can not multiply "impossible" by a billion and get statistics. You still get "impossible".

You either need to get another force of nature that makes it happen, or it can't happen. You're much better saying, "We'll find that organizing force soon enough" than to claim that the universe we know can do it. It would be a "God of the gaps", but it would be better than saying, "Obviously, if you give enough time, space and chance, the impossible can happen." That's not how statistics work.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Spontaneous life does sound impossible. When you read about the big bang you can see how matter was formed etc..But what caused the big bang? What was there before the big bag? Nothing? How is that possible? There is a paradox there.

I can see a multi-verse as being a possibility. I have not searched out as to why it is gaining more momentum nowadays.

Are you saying that you believe in a multi-verse universe and that a supreme being creates life at will?
 
#379
#379
FLVOL_79 said:
I agree with you. Spontaneous life does sound impossible. When you read about the big bang you can see how matter was formed etc..But what caused the big bang? What was there before the big bag? Nothing? How is that possible? There is a paradox there.
Click to expand...

Thus discussions of the supernatural even in that. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

FLVOL_79 said:
I can see a multi-verse as being a possibility. I have not searched out as to why it is gaining more momentum nowadays.
Click to expand...

It is an unscientific, unprovable metaphysical theory that has drawn much fire from other scientists, which tries to explain your above paradox, as well as the existence of life.

FLVOL_79 said:
Are you saying that you believe in a multi-verse universe and that a supreme being creates life at will?
Click to expand...

I am not.

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#380
#380
Orange_Crush said:
Are you saying naturally? Because, either you are making the unneeded statement that life exists, or you are begging the question that life arose naturally. In other words, your statement is "Obviously life can arise naturally, because life arose naturally."

"Period."

There's that anthropic principle, right? Life exists, so it is self-evident that the universe must produce life.

Very scientific and not tautological at all.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is life has arisen. So any notion that you keep harping back to it being "impossible" is stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#385
#385
FLVOL_79 said:
I never knew that people actually took the Bible for literal fact and not as a metaphoric riddled parable. Hell as a child I knew better. To each their own, it's Amurica
Click to expand...

Yep. I had the same experience as a kid going to church. I assumed people understood the Bible as a bunch of stories meant to make a point, but I slowly started realizing people were reading it as a history textbook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#386
#386
MercyPercy said:
Yep. I had the same experience as a kid going to church. I assumed people understood the Bible as a bunch of stories meant to make a point, but I slowly started realizing people were reading it as a history textbook.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

I recently had a discussion with my upstairs neighbor about the Bible. I knew she was a pretty devout Christian, but she seriously takes everything as literal fact and questions none of it. It blew my mind.
 
Last edited:
#387
#387
VOLatile said:
Bingo.

I recently had a discussion with my upstairs neighbor about the Bible. I knew she was a pretty devout Christian, but she seriously takes everything as literal fact and questions none of it. It blew my mind.
Click to expand...

How can you not take the story of a dude getting eaten by a fish and staying alive for days as anything other than fact???
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#391
#391
GoBigOrangeUT said:
How can you not take the story of a dude getting eaten by a fish and staying alive for days as anything other than fact???
Click to expand...

You were there right? You know it didn't happen right? Because you are a non believer it automatically means it didn't happen? Good Lord sometimes you people are pure comedic gold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#393
#393
GoBigOrangeUT said:
How can you not take the story of a dude getting eaten by a fish and staying alive for days as anything other than fact???
Click to expand...

Like that story...I knew it was parable. Albeit I grew up in the 80's and we studied science and biology so I knew it was impossible to be swallowed by any living creature and survive for 3 days without being digested. Well, unless it was cold blooded and it wasn't getting warmth from the sunlight to aid in digestion. The simple folk of ancient times didnt have an understanding of digestion hence the idea of being swallowed by a whale and being puked out a few days later seemed totally feasible. The probably thought sailing off the earth was a possibility as well..

I knew most of the bible was just a guide book to try and lead a good life, filled with allegories and parables chocked full of life lessons as a 10 year old. Caveat..I grew up Lutheran/Methodist. I think some of the southern protestant churches might be a bit more extreme in belief.
 
#394
#394
BigOrangeTrain said:
It makes me feel sorry for people like you who believe that kind of nonsense.
Click to expand...

Some people tend to think religion is just a way to control people and rationalize their existence. The idea that when you die you cease to exist and that is that is pretty hard for most people to accept. Without a fear of not going to the right after life we would probably be embroiled in chaos 24/7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#395
#395
FLVOL_79 said:
Some people tend to think religion is just a way to control people and rationalize their existence. The idea that when you die you cease to exist and that is that is pretty hard for most people to accept. Without a fear of not going to the right after life we would probably be embroiled in chaos 24/7.
Click to expand...

No expectations of an afterlife seems to work just fine for a lot of people.

We've already had countless wars over who's after life is the correct one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#396
#396
VOLatile said:
No expectations of an afterlife seems to work just fine for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Atheism worked wonders, pertaining to respect for human life, in Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, China, Vietnam, etc... I've seen estimate between 80 and 100 million people killed by the USSR alone.

The thing about these comparisons is, you can point to the teachings of Christianity and see that if someone kills in its name, it killing against its teaching. With atheism, if someone kills, where is atheism's objective moral standard to say that killing was wrong?

For that matter, where is your objective moral standard that states jihad is wrong?
 
Last edited:
#397
#397
Orange_Crush said:
Atheism worked wonders, pertaining to respect for human life, in Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, China, Vietnam, etc... I've seen estimate between 80 and 100 million people killed by the USSR alone.

The thing about these comparisons is, you can point to the teachings of Christianity and see that if someone kills in its name, it killing against its teaching. With atheism, if someone kills, where is atheism's objective moral standard to say that killing was wrong?

For that matter, where is your objective moral standard that states jihad is wrong?
Click to expand...

So when non believers commit genocide it's because they have no moral compass, but when Christians do it, they aren't really Christians. Gotcha. Sometimes bad people are just bad, mmmkay?

The ethic of reciprocity was a moral concept that predates Christianity by a longshot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#398
#398
Orange_Crush said:
Atheism worked wonders, pertaining to respect for human life, in Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, China, Vietnam, etc... I've seen estimate between 80 and 100 million people killed by the USSR alone.

The thing about these comparisons is, you can point to the teachings of Christianity and see that if someone kills in its name, it killing against its teaching. With atheism, if someone kills, where is atheism's objective moral standard to say that killing was wrong?

For that matter, where is your objective moral standard that states jihad is wrong?
Click to expand...

It's amazing these comparison still get used.

Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, China, Vietnam...etc, people were killed not for atheistic reasons or because atheism resulted in less respect for human life. People were killed for social, racial, and political dogmas. The fact that these were godless countries is irrelevant.

On the other hand, when christian, islamic, etc groups have committed atrocities or waged war...chapter and verse is quoted and the reasons are specifically religious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#399
#399
Septic said:
So when non believers commit genocide it's because they have no moral compass, but when Christians do it, they aren't really Christians. Gotcha. Sometimes bad people are just bad, mmmkay?
Click to expand...



Answer my questions instead of sidestepping. Christianity states what its beliefs are. You can judge an action by its teaching. Love your enemy. Do good for those who use you. Pray for those who spitefully persecute you. Side-step all you want. My point stands.

What does atheism offer? Answer the questions. It's the atheists who made the smarmy comment, so stand behind them.

What, inherent to atheism, drives an atheist to be a good person?

Natural selection? The survival of the fittest? Might makes right? Leaving the most offspring?

Is morality a societal definition? That means that the mass killings in USSR and Nazi Germany were moral?

Answer the questions. You guys brought it up.

Septic said:
The ethic of reciprocity was a moral concept that predates Christianity by a longshot.
Click to expand...

That's a red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with my questions. Stop diverting and step up to the microphone.

There is an objective code that one can judge a supposed Christian's behavior by and see if they are acting like a Christian. Tell me the objective code that atheism has that supposedly impels someone to be a good question.

Tell me where it comes from.

Tell me how you have any right whatsoever to say whether what anyone does is moral and/or ethical.

Go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#400
#400
Orange_Crush said:
Answer my questions instead of sidestepping. Christianity states what its beliefs are. You can judge an action by its teaching. Love your enemy. Do good for those who use you. Pray for those who spitefully persecute you. Side-step all you want. My point stands.

What does atheism offer? Answer the questions. It's the atheists who made the smarmy comment, so stand behind them.

What, inherent to atheism, drives an atheist to be a good person?

Natural selection? The survival of the fittest? Might makes right? Leaving the most offspring?

Is morality a societal definition? That means that the mass killings in USSR and Nazi Germany were moral?

Answer the questions. You guys brought it up.



That's a red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with my questions. Stop diverting and step up to the microphone.

There is an objective code that one can judge a supposed Christian's behavior by and see if they are acting like a Christian. Tell me the objective code that atheism has that supposedly impels someone to be a good question.

Tell me where it comes from.

Tell me how you have any right whatsoever to say whether what anyone does is moral and/or ethical.

Go.
Click to expand...

....and here we go!

What is an atheist? Why is the term needed? What special word do we have for non-alchemists, or non-astrologers? What special namesakes do we have for non-believers in anything else?

To answer the moral question one would have to assume that all "atheists" have some standard dogma they revert back to. The answer could be different for each one, and what they actually believe about the cosmos or anything else could be different. "Atheism" is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. The big moral items like murder, adultry, theft, perjury, etc..basically amount to common sense and have been standard rules for any successful society. Even in ancient Rome, with all the barbaric crucifixations and gladiator games, you couldn't just walk up to a person on the street and kill them, and punishments were carried out for stealing.

I disagree with the entire premise of the question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top