Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by exodus 31315, Apr 28, 2012.
haha...what did your last pic say at the bottom ?
YAH did, wut you gunna do ?
interesting, Coup, you view atheism as a religion?
cover your ears G
yes...they have to believe away the truth with a belief that life came from rocks
Nah, the "don't see it, don't hear it, don't know if it exists, don't question the bible or loons behind it ~ yet you must believe, just 'cause" tactics won't work on me.
When you say that we're (atheists) unable to understand your life ideologies, you're simply correct. What we as humanity understand is only a fraction of what exists, so why should we believe in or understand something that doesn't?
its funny to me that religious people use the word 'religion' to insult atheists. it's also funny that it works.
on an unrelated note, recently stumbled on the fact that coup's old evolution bit was basically his best kent hovind impression. feel like a fool tbh.
never considered this, but there is some validity to it
i mean at least using the textbook definition of religion i suppose evolutionists could be painted as such. maybe not strict atheists who have no further beliefs pertaining to origins of life, just the belief that no god exists but if we agree that evolution presents a belief as to the origins, cause, purpose and nature of life and in the process establishes certain "rituals" or practices such as study of evolutionary biology it isn't far fetched to call it religious. though this would require an extremely modern definition of rituals too. and if you consider an obsequious or even dogmatic following by those who subscribe to the theory i suppose yeh. however i don't think too many evolutionists would agree to it because it's almost a prerequisite of evolutionists to hate religion, to some extent. so good luck getting any of them to say, yeh it's a religion as one of i suppose their desires and achievements is being polarized with religion
do you honestly believe what you just typed?
i don't believe or disbelieve it. just trying to rationalize Coup's opinion. i mean if you ask me are evolutionists religious i would answer no. even more of a no to atheists. but given some of the stuff i've read from Coup, the conspiratorial nature of his ideas regarding evolution and the offense it presents to his motivation, i can understand his opinion. and if we wanted to use semantics and reach a little, one could even argue the veracity of his claim. but wholeheartedly i don't subscribe to it, don't really care much for it either. but i don't completely disregard it
i assume you share similar sentiments to Galatea. quite understandable. i try to see all sides of every argument and like to try get inside the minds of others to see how and why they think as they do
i think i'd also assume that if we asked a dozen theists if they concur with Coup, you might get a majority affirmation. contrarily if we asked a dozen atheists, i think we'd get a unanimous rejection. such is the subjective bias and motivational influences we're all subject to
but what i'm actually wondering is whether you see a distinction between religious faith and scientific ideas. cause to me atheism is much more of a religion than evolution is. i generally don't argue with people if they say atheism is a religion. cause atheism is actually taking a stance on a religious topic. its semantics imo. but scientific ideas are not religious in any sense of the word. i too can understand why coup needs to demonize science to carry on in his beliefs, but that doesn't make his depiction valid. evolution is no more a religion than general relativity. just because it raises issues that concern religious people does not mean it's religious, and the theory of evolution also has nothing to say about the big bang, cosmology, origins of life, etc. he projects those branches of science onto evolution like his hero kent hovind so that he can have one comprehensive boogeyman to attack.
God made Man from the dust of the earth.
And God said let the Earth bring forth life.
These seem to say we... well, came from rocks, as it were; the second implies evolution. If you're so big on being a Hebrew/Israelite, why do you have 0 knowledge and understanding of Talmud and Kaballah?
This is going to get good.
most definitely. i'm a bit of a physics enthusiast and can discern between religiosity and science. admittedly, as previously mentioned, i know very little of evolution and the field it belongs to. the absence of such education is probably indicitive of my rationale regarding Coup's opinion here
first i had to ask myself what constitutes religiousity? so i looked it up:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
here's where my uneducated self most probably faulted. i make the assumption that evolution posits factors in the first definition above whilst incorporating Coup's assertions regarding lack of evidence etc. so i assumed the theory of evolution comprises of theories regarding the cause of life, nature and purpose. though this requires interpreting "universe" above as "life" so even semantics doesn't help too much here
you're probably right about atheism being the better or more acceptable candidate for religion here. though atheism only requires the belief that there is no god. which, looking at the definition above, actually works. so i suppose, apart from that, i feel the most acceptable position is that maybe some evolutionists, and atheists, but more so the former might posssibly be considered religious. at least in that some people, i know a couple myslef, are avid believers of evolution. yet since recently talking to them about it, they know absolutely nothing of it. just accept that it's the general consensus and it can't be wrong. so it's almost a religious zeal that they have. and they incorporate further beliefs in to evolution, wrongly i'm guessing you say but nonetheless they do. such as well the universe started as a result of the big bang. fast forward to planetary collision resulting in earth landing in the habitable zone. oceans eventually become home to microbial bacteria which in time evolve in to amphibious organisms, mammals, reptiles, birds, homo erectus and us. so they establish further beliefs that compound their initial belief in evolution
i agree that scientific ideas don't consitute religion but where someone can't really take einstein's general theory of relativity and use it to formulate beliefs pertaining to our origins, nature and purpose, people can or do with the theory of evolution. and i don't know enough about evolution to correct people or determine where it starts and ends regarding the big bang, cosmology or origins of life, only the assumptions i made as mentioned earlier. i don't know who kent hovind is but i can see how creationism proponents would desire involving evolution with external factors to effect a religious assault. but i don't see the importance of trying to establish it as a religion. unless simply a non conventional method to try approach someone on the topic in hopes of proselytizing. i don't think Coup's mendacious in his approach though, passionate certainly but mendaciousness doesn't become him and would fly in the face of his faith
interesting Scriptural analogy. i'm guessing those first 2 sentences come from Genesis
i'm sure i've asked, apologies if you answered already, but would you describe yourself as a theistic evolutionist?
if i'm interpreting you correctly, then well put... even abiogenesis which is an idea that deals with a theoretical beginning of life, or the big bang theory which deals with the beginning of the known universe, don't postulate any sort of higher religious purpose. there is a very distinct difference between studying cause and effect and claiming to have a conversation with god. i think the only reason we consider certain topics intrinsically religious is because religion went there first, before there was any such thing as science.
the fact that people accept the scientific consensus without investigating it themselves says nothing about the science itself being a religion. when you think about that for a second it should become obvious pretty quickly how wrong that line of reasoning is, since pretty much every area of science has this phenomenon where laymen blindly trust 'experts.' science has become so specialized that you couldn't possibly keep up with all of it in its entirety. the only reason this trust is reasonable is because we all know that other experts would give an arm and a leg to prove them wrong. that's how careeers are made. but i won't deny there are those who blindly accept any scientific sounding ideas without any skepticism or scientific literacy. the key difference of course is that people choose to go this route rather than put the work in to learn it. in the case of actual religion, you've no choice but to accept it on faith or not at all. when you really think about it, using your argument i could make just about any ideology sound like a religion.
1) people use quantum mechanics to push all sorts of unfounded spiritual stuff. is quantum physics considered a religion because of this?
2) it's important for them to paint evolution as a religion so that they can drag it down to their level. you see, a lot of people won't respond well if you issue a full frontal assault on science, which is what would be required to support their view. so instead they attach every aspect of science they dont like onto one specific theory and then attribute it to satan. and voila, just like that you've gone from a raving lunatic attacking all of science to a man of god rebuking the devil.
Separate names with a comma.