Forums - General Discussion - What is your take on creationism/creationists?

Athiesm isn't a religion. There is no set of beliefs or morals that athiesm puts forward. All atheism is, is a lack of religion or disbelief in it. It makes no statements other then that the divine doesn't exist. And considering the burden of proof is on the religious, you could hardly call it a faith based viewpoint.

Conversly Science is something that cannot support faith because faith is a belief held without evidence. Science requires empirical evidence that can be observed, measured and tested and retested with consistent results. Religious belief requires only faith, cannot be tested and presides in a realm outside of the natural universe.
Saying Science is a religion is a bit of a stretch.
My morals don't come from my disbelief in God or my support of Scientific theory. I have morals because of the way I was raised and because of the society I live in. I don't need God to tell me that killing a person is wrong.


Around the Network

It is simplifing things to call evolution and other theories a religion. Although, I do agree many that claim them do have enough belief in their ideals that it is close enough.



yo_john117 said:

Actually I was just stating a fact that most people don't know about.  A religion is basically a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...sounds like evolution to me...

Its just rather funny that atheists say they don't believe in religion yet most believe in evolution which is basically a religion.


No, you're simply bending the words way beyond their breaking point.

Religion is not merely having any point of view about faith and gods, just as being a cynic doesn't mean having any point of view about how common desires shape our life.

Religion is a set of beliefs that strictly affirms the existence of gods/spirits/trascendental but personal forces that interact with the world in some way.

As to evolution being a religion, that's nonsense. Evolution through natural selection is a working theory that as all great scientific works has explained complex phenomena in simple, consistent terms, and has withstood the challenge of other theories and further evidence.

Scientists are ready to ameliorate and change the working theory if a better one comes along, even though most people are not knowledgeable enough to participate in that process.

When I was 15 I knew the fundamental theorem of algebra, but I could not perform its formal proof. Still, I assumed it was true and performed my calculations in consequence of that hypothesis. That was not a religious faith statement, merely the kowledge that a lot of people have formally proved it before and that in some conditions that's a correct block to stand on to perform further useful work. Or even that I would be one day able to prove it myself if I wanted.

Even though most people won't know the details of the supporting evidence for natural selection, their trust in people who know because of a self-improving scientific process is fundamentally different from blind faith in people who declare they know because of an opaque revelation. Can't you see the difference between conditional, temporary results and absolute beliefs?



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Well considering that scientific data is about as manipulated by the Elite as religions today I dont see how any of you can justify your answers when both are propagated. Look what they did with man made global warming for example. It came out in the media last year that the University that the U.N had hired had been manipulating the data they were providing to make it appear as if the Earth was getting warmer when in fact temperatures had been cooling in the past 10 years.  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ (There's alot more sites to look into if you google "climate Gate")


Lol, you do realise that article is over 6months old? Heres the follow up "investigation" released in april this year:

The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods.

 

Also while admitedly scientific data can be manipulated, in the vast majority it is unbiased fact.



yo_john117 said:
im_sneaky said:
yo_john117 said:

Another thing most people don't realize is that atheism and evolution are in fact religions


Do explain. Why? Because I am not an evolutionary biologist, I can only assume that the people who are are correct? and because of that, I am putting the same faith in them that religious people put in the bible? I could see how that would make sense, but it isn't really relevant and if your trying to use that as an argument against atheism/evolution then  you've failed from the get go.

Actually I was just stating a fact that most people don't know about.  A religion is basically a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...sounds like evolution to me...

Its just rather funny that atheists say they don't believe in religion yet most believe in evolution which is basically a religion.

Also evolution and atheism are not religions. Don't see how they can be misinterpreted for one either. One is a scientific theory, with many strands of corroborating evidence. The other is simply an acceptance there is no god.



yo_john117 said:
im_sneaky said:
yo_john117 said:

Another thing most people don't realize is that atheism and evolution are in fact religions


Do explain. Why? Because I am not an evolutionary biologist, I can only assume that the people who are are correct? and because of that, I am putting the same faith in them that religious people put in the bible? I could see how that would make sense, but it isn't really relevant and if your trying to use that as an argument against atheism/evolution then  you've failed from the get go.

Actually I was just stating a fact that most people don't know about.  A religion is basically a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...sounds like evolution to me...

Its just rather funny that atheists say they don't believe in religion yet most believe in evolution which is basically a religion.

Atheism is a religion in the same sense that walking is a brand of automobile.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Easily proven wrong.

Intelligent design is even more hillarious since it doesn't have the image benefit of being made up in an age when people knew next to nothing. Can be fun though.



LuStaysTru said:

Okay if creationism is just a stupid idea then how was the universe created?

The standard theory that's now widely accepted is the Big Bang Theory... Most people don't realize however that Georges Lamaitre, a Belgian physicist AND Roman Catholic priest came up with the theory. Also it was widely criticized by secular scientists of the time in favor of the Solid State Universe because they viewed the BBT as being too biased yet hardly any reputable scientists supports Solid State over Big Bang anymore.

To put it simply, religion answers all the questions science CAN'T.

Until such a time as science can answer those questions.

I'm not saying it's evil to be religious, or that any sort of belief in God is wrong. Faith is a good thing. There are a lot of things which science hasn't (yet) explained, and if you want to use God to explain those, go ahead.

I only have issue with those who reject scientific theory in favour of something which, quite frankly, breaks all of the laws of physics. Interesting note: Charles Darwin wasn't an atheist. You don't have to be an atheist, or a satanist (Yes, I know DannyW is joking) to accept science.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

gamrReview - Arthur Kabrick | My All-Time Top 50 | 2013 Metascores

                                        

Kantor said:
Dioxinis said:

Personally i believe in a creator but i also believe in science

The scientific evidence is strong but at the same time Chance and the complexity of the universe dictates the possibilities to be so minute that there HAD to be a guiding force.

 

natural selection is great in some ways but at some point it dosnt make sense. there are MICRO organisms LET alone Humans or Animals that have parts so complex that its impossible for NATURAL selection to have created it ... the parts by themselves would have been useless and would have been selected OUT rather then kept until it became useful. in this particular instance i am thinking of an organism that has a tail that works as a motor to push it along but it needs EVERY part to work and if just one part is missing the whole thing is worthless therefor natural selection would have simply removed those parts rather then them getting more and more till it worked.

 

people need to learn that science and god really go hand in hand rather than ONLY one or the other is truth

I actually agree with that definition of God- a guiding force in the Universe. But I don't think we can really personify it, because it's not human. It shouldn't be worshipped, any more than gravity or electromagnetism.

That's just my view.

Test.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

gamrReview - Arthur Kabrick | My All-Time Top 50 | 2013 Metascores

                                        

Around the Network
alekth said:

Easily proven wrong.

Intelligent design is even more hillarious since it doesn't have the image benefit of being made up in an age when people knew next to nothing. Can be fun though.

Loving that video

So God created more Fusion like makers that appeared to be millions and even billion of years away from Earth, and so created before the first creation at 4004 BC. This was confusing

Had a good laugh at this