What religion or belief system are you?

[DurzaOffTopic]

Saying that people who use the Bible to attack people aren't Real Christians and don't represent Christian values doesn't change the fact that those people exist in some capacity.

There have been many phases in my life where I simply felt uncomfortable sharing that fact that I was atheist in my community, because I'd be shunned or attcked for being immoral off the bat. I currently live in the Bible Belt and used to live in Utah, and not everyone takes such an academic view of Christianity.

They may not be Christians to you, but their values are shared and validated by their communities. You can't ignore that.

I wasn't trying to deny the existence of these people, and I imagine its a similar feeling to how I feel in my community, but I'd be willing to bet the "judgement" you feel is a lot less severe than that of those who attack christians. Let me put it this way: Somebody who believes their entire life in Jesus Christ and Christianity and genuinely tries to be a good person gets told things like:
"Most modern Christians only follow the parts of the bible that line up with their own personal agendas."
"your "belief" is nothing but mere blackmail"
"you believe in a vile and hateful book"

They're also told by many atheists or agnostics what they as Christians believe in like "christians believe that all gays will go to hell" etc. and that puts them at a moral disadvantage from the beginning.

All of these examples came from this thread on the internet on a meaningless Pokemon forum and its only worse in real life when you factor in judgement of Christian values (controversial topic of abortion, for example)

These things are regular things that Christians hear all the time even from people who may be not offensive or bad people in general. I guarantee things like this are not said to non-religious people because their "faith" can't be attacked because they just don't have one. And there's nothing wrong with that, but there isn't something to be attacked. Some judgement from people who find you "immoral" (who should treat you like any other person) pales in comparison to the belittlement of many people which Christianity is such an important part of their life.

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

I'm really enjoying this conversation and seeing how everyone feels about these things but right now it seems like y'all are primarily focusing on the bad parts. There are good things that come with religion and a lack of said religion and I think these are the things to consider when actually finding a belief system that works for you. There are religious and non-religious extremists and that is just fact. They will not agree with you, they will not look at you the same if you disagree, and they will make every attempt to convert. These people on both ends of the belief spectrum are a necessary evil when basing your life around any ideology. I don't think it is very far fetched to imagine a world where religious and non-religious coexist in a respectful manner but we got a lot of work to do in order to get there.

 

[Doctor_DraX]

I'd like to hammer it again, as it was one of my points in my post before this. his, again, has to do with my previous response that was misinterpreted.

If your posts are being misinterpreted, it could easily be because of your writing. Not everyone on this Pokemon forum is on the same level of technical understanding of religion as you are. Using convoluted language to express these ideas is for sure not the way to go.

 

[fanyfan]

I’ve got a question I’m curious about. To you Christians in this thread, what made you decide to follow God? What made you believe? I’m always interested in stories like this, even though I’m still questioning and haven’t had an experience like that myself

 

[Celticpride]

Saying that people who use Trump’s presidency to demean immigrants aren't Real Americans and don't represent American values doesn't change the fact that those people exist in some capacity.

I’ve seen many a liberal use some version of “Trump supporters don’t represent real American values” since the election, some of them presumably atheist. They also use some version of the above along with an insistence that we can make “American values” mean something again by changing them (hint: we can). Why are Christians not afforded that same luxury, the potential to actually change what Christian values are relative to what some shitty people made it seem like they were? A sufficiently large community is always going to a) have shitty people (that some will write off as “not real x” merited or not) and b) a set of values that is consistently evolving and dynamic.

 

[Asek]

i want to challenge the notion being pushed by some in this thread that church and state (or politics rather) should remain separate. i think that organised religion is in of itself political - with so many branches all over the world, often clear ranks of hierarchy resembling government and people who directly follow the word of their local religious authority, it is naive to think that this power doesn't translate into the political. these institutions such as the papacy and the ecumenical patriarch have possessed 'real' political power in varying degrees over time, but today are a lot more associated with soft power, which i believe the papacy in particular wields in a way that benefits society (pope francis has been an advocate for Mediterranean refugees rights, as well as the issue of climate change). It should also be said that many states contain explicit mentions to a god within their constitution / founding documents as well - which to me seems like divine right never really stopped existing, just changed forms from what used to be seen in the rule of monarchs to legitimise states. i cant claim to have studied Islam or the Islamic world in any real sense, but as to my knowledge, caliphates act(ed?) as both head of state and head of religion for subjects, being a much more real tie in of faith and government. im bringing these examples forward to point that its unrealistic for the two to exist in separate realms, historically and presently being tied together because religion is political. it often provides a framework for so called secular state laws and norms, a large revenue stream which can be used to fund what it deems in its interests and possess direct influence over states and followers through public statements in means such as encyclicals - what are these things that are inherent in organised religion if not political?

instead of being unrealistic and thinking the two should exist in separate realms, it would be more prudent to hope that these institutions use their significant influence to promote followers and states act in ways that are conductive to further humankind.

just as an aside, and im sure to the overwhelming stem crowd on smogons chagrin, i think scientific 'rational' work can be used to justify terrible things in an equal if not worse manner than religion can - look at phrenology historically and 'the bell curve' by charles murray in modern contexts as some examples used by 'race realists' which dress up racism in a way that makes it look justified and credible. obviously not everyone who believes in the scientic method will subscribe to these findings, but i think we should be wary of treating science as some kind of illuminating object that will lead to a perfect rational society.

 

[Blazade]

I’ve seen many a liberal use some version of “Trump supporters don’t represent real American values” since the election, some of them presumably atheist. They also use some version of the above along with an insistence that we can make “American values” mean something again by changing them (hint: we can). Why are Christians not afforded that same luxury, the potential to actually change what Christian values are relative to what some shitty people made it seem like they were? A sufficiently large community is always going to a) have shitty people (that some will write off as “not real x” merited or not) and b) a set of values that is consistently evolving and dynamic.

Did I ever call out Trump supporters like this? I don't recall being that grossly generalistic or attempting to bring politics into this.

Either way I was mainly making a point about how individuals are easy to ignore as not representative of the faith, but subcommunities are far trickier. Clearly they all agree on what the values are and the insular nature of the community perpetuates that. To the point where writing off the ones that disagree is a bit short sighted of the problem.

I actually do think, however, that after the whole militant atheism thing and its pretty swift rise into the public consciousness that the reaction and rebranding of Christianity as a tradition is a good direction for it to go. As far as I understand, I think you're right in that a lot of people who think seriously about the subject have noting but good intentions when talking about changing values and being role models for the community at large.

 

[Blazade]

i want to challenge the notion being pushed by some in this thread that church and state (or politics rather) should remain separate. i think that organised religion is in of itself political - with so many branches all over the world, often clear ranks of hierarchy resembling government and people who directly follow the word of their local religious authority, it is naive to think that this power doesn't translate into the political. these institutions such as the papacy and the ecumenical patriarch have possessed 'real' political power in varying degrees over time, but today are a lot more associated with soft power, which i believe the papacy in particular wields in a way that benefits society (pope francis has been an advocate for Mediterranean refugees rights, as well as the issue of climate change). It should also be said that many states contain explicit mentions to a god within their constitution / founding documents as well - which to me seems like divine right never really stopped existing, just changed forms from what used to be seen in the rule of monarchs to legitimise states. i cant claim to have studied Islam or the Islamic world in any real sense, but as to my knowledge, caliphates act(ed?) as both head of state and head of religion for subjects, being a much more real tie in of faith and government. im bringing these examples forward to point that its unrealistic for the two to exist in separate realms, historically and presently being tied together because religion is political. it often provides a framework for so called secular state laws and norms, a large revenue stream which can be used to fund what it deems in its interests and possess direct influence over states and followers through public statements in means such as encyclicals - what are these things that are inherent in organised religion if not political?

instead of being unrealistic and thinking the two should exist in separate realms, it would be more prudent to hope that these institutions use their significant influence to promote followers and states act in ways that are conductive to further humankind.

just as an aside, and im sure to the overwhelming stem crowd on smogons chagrin, i think scientific 'rational' work can be used to justify terrible things in an equal if not worse manner than religion can - look at phrenology historically and 'the bell curve' by charles murray in modern contexts as some examples used by 'race realists' which dress up racism in a way that makes it look justified and credible. obviously not everyone who believes in the scientic method will subscribe to these findings, but i think we should be wary of treating science as some kind of illuminating object that will lead to a perfect rational society.

Of course rational logic can be used to justify terrible things, even if applied correctly a person can have bad assumptions or values. Rationality is at best and worst, completely impersonal.

That doesn't mean dogmatic logic is in any way better. Figuring out what we should care about is a problem for the philosophers and theologists. Figuring out how to collectively optimize for that (this includes morality) and giving us the tools to check our work is firmly in the purview of science. You can debunk race realism, it just takes longer to do properly than relying on your beliefs.

 

[sandshrewz]

Re: separating politics/governance with religion. It all depends on what is the goal or direction the country wants to take. To me, ideally every country should be harmonious and blind to people'a beliefs, colour, etc. However, that is nearly impossible in this day and age for many countries, where some religion is the majority for a long time.

Religion will be an inherent conflict of interest to governance for those aiming to be a fully blind/fair/whatever it's called country. By itself, it is not impossible for countries to do it. It is literally realistic for governance to be done not based on religion, when it has already been done lol. No naivety or whatever nonsense involved. But, this kind of governance has to be done from the start for the most part. Countries that already have religion rooted into the system would probably never be able to change it significantly such that it becomes independent of it.

Objectively, religion is not inherently political. It is the power given by the people and the constructs that give rise to their political presence. Organisations, clans, all these lead up to the power they hold.

As mentioned, it is hardly unrealistic nor naive to separate the two. But the condition depends on how ingrained it is in governance. Some are, some aren't. Also depends on the goals of the country.

 

[JALMONT]

That doesn't mean dogmatic logic is in any way better. Figuring out what we should care about is a problem for the philosophers and theologists. Figuring out how to collectively optimize for that (this includes morality) and giving us the tools to check our work is firmly in the purview of science. You can debunk race realism, it just takes longer to do properly than relying on your beliefs.

Who in this thread is making this claim and what exactly does this have to do with Asek's post?

Why can't science dictate "what we should care about" (climate change isn't a philosophical issue is it???)? Why do we need to wait for science to "debunk" wrong ideas when we can instead listen to and accept the issues/questions/concerns that people may have about a given issue (such as a race realism)?

 

[Blazade]

Who in this thread is making this claim and what exactly does this have to do with Asek's post?

Why can't science dictate "what we should care about" (climate change isn't a philosophical issue is it???)? Why do we need to wait for science to "debunk" wrong ideas when we can instead listen to and accept the issues/questions/concerns that people may have about a given issue (such as a race realism)?

I meant to address Asek's equivalence by more explicitly speaking about the relationship between science and values. I think "science causes problems and religion causes problems, which is worse" is phrasing the question in a less useful way. To say science commits evil is a misrepresentation of what science is.

It's pretty easy to agree that we care about not dying, philosophically speaking, but that desire isn't prescribed by science (except in the statistical/normative sense that if you picked out a random person they would probably be predisposed to want to survive, but this says nothing of what we ought to believe). The predicted effects of global warming are, however, as are the actions we might take to prevent it if we don't want to die. Some heartless bastard might even take the stance that short term profits are better than the survival of their children. This is also not a scientific question.

We don't "have" to debunk things the hard way all the time, and indeed trolls who want to just waste your time can exploit that. But that doesn't change the fact that debunking an idea properly is sounder and more effective at conveying the truth.

 

[JALMONT]

I meant to address Asek's equivalence by more explicitly speaking about the relationship between science and values. I think "science causes problems and religion causes problems, which is worse" is phrasing the question in a less useful way. To say science commits evil is a misrepresentation of what science is.

It's pretty easy to agree that we care about not dying, philosophically speaking, but that desire isn't prescribed by science (except in the statistical/normative sense that if you picked out a random person they would probably be predisposed to want to survive, but this says nothing of what we ought to believe). The predicted effects of global warming are, however, as are the actions we might take to prevent it if we don't want to die. Some heartless bastard might even take the stance that short term profits are better than the survival of their children. This is also not a scientific question.

We don't "have" to debunk things the hard way all the time, and indeed trolls who want to just waste your time can exploit that. But that doesn't change the fact that debunking an idea properly is sounder and more effective at conveying the truth.

I don't think Asek is making that specific equivalency though. I don't want to speak for him here, but I don't think that his point was that "We need to look to religion because science is evil." The point is that placing science on a pedestal because it is "rational" and "logic based" is not just deceiving but also potentially dangerous.

Obviously yes, "science" as defined doesn't "do" anything. But at that point it's just a semantics game on what science "is." What's the point in that when we don't exist in a vacuum, and science is unfortunately (or fortunately?) constantly driven by human beliefs/interests/goals/etc.? The ways in which science is done is different from the ways in which people act in relation to the science that is done. That is what I think we should be mindful of.

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

We can scapegoat all day. Religion did this, science did that...etc

At the end of the day it is a purely superficial way of excusing the actual people who commit atrocities. I could very well say this is the fault of religion for teaching forgiveness, but I don't think that is a truly accurate statement. There is bad within us all as much as there is good in us all and that isn't going to change. No matter the amount of teaching, preaching, or beating-bad people will still exist. I find it better to accept that there will be setbacks than to thrust uncontrollably at every minor setback. I think the intent of religion was always pure in earnest but might have been usurped a time or two by people who weren't really full of benevolence, exactly. I don't have to own a bible or go to church to see that good people exist within the nonsecular sphere and I don't need to agree with everything they believe to show them kindness and respect. It would be nice if all people thought this way, but that is stupid of me to wish for because it just isn't possible.

 

[EV]

just as an aside, and im sure to the overwhelming stem crowd on smogons chagrin, i think scientific 'rational' work can be used to justify terrible things in an equal if not worse manner than religion can - look at phrenology historically and 'the bell curve' by charles murray in modern contexts as some examples used by 'race realists' which dress up racism in a way that makes it look justified and credible. obviously not everyone who believes in the scientic method will subscribe to these findings, but i think we should be wary of treating science as some kind of illuminating object that will lead to a perfect rational society.

lol if you think two debunked pseudosciences with shelf lives of less than a century are anywhere near the scale of say, the Crusades.

Damn that astrology, too. And alchemy. Really running amok with their degradation of rational modern society.

 

[1600pennftw]

lol if you think two debunked pseudosciences with shelf lives of less than a century are anywhere near the scale of say, the Crusades.

Damn that astrology, too. And alchemy. Really running amok with their degradation of rational modern society.

While the post youve replied to is rather weak I find it abundanfly clear you know not of what you speak. Not only are you probably believing the incredibly skewed whiggish narrative of the Crusades, but based on the swiftness with which you invoke it in an argument about the detriment of religion I take it you haven't looked into the topic with enough due diligence to realize that the propaganda spurring on the crusades was a great departure from traditional Christian ideal; a good idea being misappropriated by the corrupt for their own gain.

If you are going to now invoke a similar tired and inaccurately reported event such as the Library of Alexandria in response without taking time to read anything written by serious theological historians, don't @ me. I find these villifications of religion to be intellectually dishonest and in bad faith, as Christianity in particular is, if worth nothing else, a fantastic base of moral teaching by which all moral values in the modern West were shaped by.

 

[EV]

While the post youve replied to is rather weak I find it abundanfly clear you know not of what you speak. Not only are you probably believing the incredibly skewed whiggish narrative of the Crusades, but based on the swiftness with which you invoke it in an argument about the detriment of religion I take it you haven't looked into the topic with enough due diligence to realize that the propaganda spurring on the crusades was a great departure from traditional Christian ideal; a good idea being misappropriated by the corrupt for their own gain.

If you are going to now invoke a similar tired and inaccurately reported event such as the Library of Alexandria in response without taking time to read anything written by serious theological historians, don't @ me. I find these villifications of religion to be intellectually dishonest and in bad faith, as Christianity in particular is, if worth nothing else, a fantastic base of moral teaching by which all moral values in the modern West were shaped by.

Yeah, the corrupt popes of the Catholic church and the Christian kings who called for them? And that's supposed to make the religion look better how again?

I didn't put the blame of the crusades on the entirety of Christianity or its ideals. And to prop them up as an argument against modern Christianity would be fallacious. But if we're talking about the "history of terrible things" done in the name of religion/science - and the crusades were done in the name of religion, just as phrenology/the bell curve made claims to be scientific - asek's comparison is what's skewed.

 

[smogon account]

I'm a mormon and am just happy to be included

 

[Asek]

lol if you think two debunked pseudosciences with shelf lives of less than a century are anywhere near the scale of say, the Crusades.

Damn that astrology, too. And alchemy. Really running amok with their degradation of rational modern society.

im not trying to compare tit for tat science did this religion did that. thats not conductive to anything. portraying my post as trying to make this comparison is just dumb, as is me saying that science is somehow dragging society backwards (????). any idea of choosing between faith and science is a bit misleading as well (which i think blazade mightve been getting at idk), if that was the case no scientists would believe in god and religious institutions wouldnt fund the sciences. the point i was making is that which jalmont highlighted which is that science isnt apolitical. in a perfect world maybe science is conducted just for scientific purposes, but in reality science is funded by and conducted by parties with varying interests, statistically significant data can often be manipulated or interepreted in such manners that further the agendas of these parties. its not just a pure rational, objective search for truth and characterising it as so can be problematic

The bellcurve isnt exactly 'disproved psuedoscience', many people still buy into the arguments made in that book either directly or indirectly and charles murray hasnt been kicked out of the intellectual community, still appearing for talks on university campuses. if you are unhappy with the specific examples im presenting, how about we talk about the most relevant example i can think of in climate science, in which players with big stakes in certain findings being made are funding a large part of research in that area with specific findings in mind, then using these findings to justify not taking action to retain large profit margins? the majority of pure academic research might push forward that global warming and irreversible damage to the planet that most educated people would take to be correct, but what is to be said about a not insignificant group who are swayed by findings to the contrary who are sceptical of global warming and climate change?

as for the crusades thats probably the biggest meme example of a 'religion bad' thing you could present, with the root cause being the wane of byzantines who directly asked western europe for military assitance. the crusader kings hardly hid their real intentions and motivations behind the campaigns with events like bohemond at antioch and the sack of constantinople. at least hit me with galileo or the influence of evangelical christianity on the republican party / right wing politics if you want to make real points about the topic.

 

[EV]

as for the crusades thats probably the biggest meme example of a 'religion bad' thing you could present, with the root cause being the wane of byzantines who directly asked western europe for military assitance. the crusader kings hardly hid their real intentions and motivations behind the campaigns with events like bohemond at antioch and the sack of constantinople. at least hit me with galileo or the influence of evangelical christianity on the republican party / right wing politics if you want to make real points about the topic.

So if we're clear about our intentions, we can absolve ourselves of all sins.

Also, the catalyst for the Crusades, at least the first Princes' Crusades, wasn't so cut-and-dry as "pls send halp" by the Eastern Romans. It was also a reaction to the rise of Islamic caliphates and the Seljuk empire in the east, which the papacy seized upon in order to further its own agenda. See the Council of Clermont. If it had been merely an answer to Constantinople's request, then why didn't the Christian kings hand over the conquered territories to the former controllers, instead of establishing their own Kingdom of Jerusalem (and counties, etc)?

(Sack of Constantinople was also Crusade #4, when the crusaders took the city after they stopped getting paid, and established the Latin Empire. Their original goal was Jerusalem.)

We've really strayed off topic by now. I'm partially to blame - I love history. But your dismissive "meme example" rebuttal is some pretty half-assed gas lighting. You cannot disentangle the politics of the Crusades from religion as much as you'd like to.

 

[Ashaebi]

I actually studied and reconsidered my view on the debate between creationists and evolutionists.

Science - 'the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.' (oxford dictionary definition). Atheists can try as hard as they can to elaborate and explain but they are left with one massive obstacle - how can the first forms of life arose from non-life and how can intelligent life form?

Louis Pasteur's Biogenesis experiment - Omne vivum ex vivo, the Latin translation for 'all life from non-life', the experiment that debunked the idea that life can arise from non-life or even life within it's own species and breed. Observable? Yes, very. We see humans breed humans, dogs breed dogs and fish lay eggs. Repeatable via experiment? Certainly! I'm alive to be on smogon thanks to my mom and dad. To this day, no scientist has produced a life from non life despite having sooooo many given resources, time and energy and the laws of biogenesis has stood for over a century. (I assure you it will remain that way forever)

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Idea that humans were evolved from Apes and species change and adapt due to the process of 'natural selection'. Observable? Not at all. No one in recorded human history has even remotely witnessed an Australopithecine walking on land nor has seen an ape turn to a non-ape. Nor have we seen dogs turn into non-dogs or any species turn into other species. Not once. Repeatable via experiment? LOL what do you think? Maybe if I give an ape a firestone it will turn into infernape? :hyperthinking:

And then many evolutionists claim creationists are dumb ignorant fools to believe in supernatural beings where they can't even see/detect the presence of a God while on the other hand they have their 'science' to completely debunk the need for an intelligent designer. I simply reply to them - Sir, if you studied biology or a biology textbook, it is very likely that both of these scientific theories are found in the same textbook. Why do you insist the latter is true while the former must have exceptions when you can clearly both observe and experiment for the former but not the latter?

Now to the credit for evolutionist and atheist scientists I actually have much respect for them for trying to find evidence and come up with interesting yet creative theories to prove there is indeed a slight possibility that life can come from non life and that there are indeed exceptions to Pasteur's Biogenesis experiment. After all, those who have an Iron Will to succeed are the ones who are most likely to but you know what, it's time for them to admit that both creation and evolution are indeed faith based. No one has observed an intelligent designer nor has experimented. Similarly no one has observed life arising from non-life nor apes turning into non apes. Scientists can claim how single cell molecules formed and bonded and proteins formed during the big bang via abiogenesis or whatever creative theories they can but one sad fact is they will never be able to create a life from non-life let alone intelligent life; and don't even think about intelligent life forming spontaneously.

Don't get me wrong I don't expect this post to convince you an intelligent designer exist. After all I gave no arguments to imply the evidence of one but maybe to convince you maybe the 'science' produced by atheist scientists and evolutionists actually are just as faith based as creationists if not more.

But hey that's all I'll say. Demonstrate and repeat via observable experimentation how intelligent life can arise from nothing and I'll make sure all biology textbooks in the science education departments all around the world to completely re-write Pasteur's law of biogenesis. In fact since science claimed to have already found the solution yet they are making ZERO efforts to rewrite Pasteur's law of biogenesis. Hmmmm sound strange?

Prove me wrong! >:)

 

[Ashaebi]

Yeah, the corrupt popes of the Catholic church and the Christian kings who called for them? And that's supposed to make the religion look better how again?

I didn't put the blame of the crusades on the entirety of Christianity or its ideals. And to prop them up as an argument against modern Christianity would be fallacious. But if we're talking about the "history of terrible things" done in the name of religion/science - and the crusades were done in the name of religion, just as phrenology/the bell curve made claims to be scientific - asek's comparison is what's skewed.

As much as I love to agree with you that there will be individuals who will commit crimes in the name of God to abuse their religious authority but I hate to tell you this too - the brutal atheist dictators and secular governments during the 20th century are responsible for more deaths than deaths caused in the name of religion from the 1st century to the 19th century combined. Here's some stats for ya.

1. Joseph Stalin - 20 -25 million deaths during his reign.
2. Mao Zedong - 45 million the very least. Possibly more due to bad policies that caused famines.
3. Pol pot - 3 million.

and one more ancient is Genghis Khan responsible for 4 million across his Asian empire.

(I promise you there are even more but here are just the most infamous ones)

Man the crusades seem to pale completely in comparison. The crusades was only 1.7 million according to the Washington post (it doesn't get any more liberal than this).

And before you say no brutal dictators creates genocide for the sake of atheism or simply no atheists kill saying 'atheism is great' (similar to people saying 'god is great') Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all did it to wipe existing religions and philosophies of the face of the nation. In other words they are forcing people to embrace communism and secularism similar how the crusades tried to force Christianity to be embraced during their campaign. China's political culture has degraded so badly after Mao's 'great leap forward' which is why the Chinese government is ripping crosses down from churches.

Kinda feels bad man. Soooo many people gave religion a bad name but equally also quite a number of people gave atheism a bad name and it's not religious governments that has taken the most lives - it's secular governments. Strange the liberal media NEVER puts much emphasis that it's secular dictatorial governments that has claimed the most lives in human history but insist on over saturating the crusades in order to attack Christianity.

 

[earl]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Idea that humans were evolved from Apes and species change and adapt due to the process of 'natural selection'. Observable? Not at all. No one in recorded human history has even remotely witnessed an Australopithecine walking on land nor has seen an ape turn to a non-ape. Nor have we seen dogs turn into non-dogs or any species turn into other species. Not once. Repeatable via experiment? LOL what do you think? Maybe if I give an ape a firestone it will turn into infernape? :hyperthinking:

Because an ape doesn't suddenly turn into a non-ape? You seem to be under the assumption that evolution is a one-and-done sudden change when it's many, many small changes over time that would eventually result in a new species (the monkey that can stand on his hind legs can reach the fruit and survive more easily, the taller monkey can reach more fruit, so on and so forth). And remember how long of a time this is, in observable history some humans have evolved to be able to reliably drink dairy (after a mutation in Europe appeared some 7,500 years ago) or the loss of wisdom teeth in some people. Basically, we're slowly evolving as it stands and who are you to claim that over hundreds of thousands of years we will be able to be considered the same species? Of course we haven't seen any animals "turn" into another species seeing as we've only been documenting this for, what, 3,000 years? But then again, your entire notion of evolution in your argument is a strawman (the Australopithecine point implies that either A. you deny extinction existing and don't accept the fossil record as evidence or B. you don't understand what extinct means) and doesn't even begin to refute the theory.
(Plus, we didn't evolve from apes, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor that resulted in the 2.)

For the Pasteur point, you're taking that out of context. His experiment consisted of denying the currently held theory of spontaneous generation that spoiled food created flies and such, in no way does keeping a piece of spoiled food in an airtight container for a while and proving that maggots don't come from the meat disprove the point that simple single-celled organisms (or even just DNA) could realistically be formed over a huge swath of time by pure chance. Sure you could argue the concept, but the experiment itself does not back you up at all in this regard.

As much as I love to agree with you that there will be individuals who will commit crimes in the name of God to abuse their religious authority but I hate to tell you this too - the brutal atheist dictators and secular governments during the 20th century are responsible for more deaths than deaths caused in the name of religion from the 1st century to the 19th century combined. Here's some stats for ya.

1. Joseph Stalin - 20 -25 million deaths during his reign.
2. Mao Zedong - 45 million the very least. Possibly more due to bad policies that caused famines.
3. Pol pot - 3 million.

and one more ancient is Genghis Khan responsible for 4 million across his Asian empire.

(I promise you there are even more but here are just the most infamous ones)

Man the crusades seem to pale completely in comparison. The crusades was only 1.7 million according to the Washington post (it doesn't get any more liberal than this).

And before you say no brutal dictators creates genocide for the sake of atheism or simply no atheists kill saying 'atheism is great' (similar to people saying 'god is great') Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all did it to wipe existing religions and philosophies of the face of the nation. In other words they are forcing people to embrace communism and secularism similar how the crusades tried to force Christianity to be embraced during their campaign. China's political culture has degraded so badly after Mao's 'great leap forward'.

Kinda feels bad man. Soooo many people gave religion a bad name but equally also quite a number of people gave atheism a bad name and it's not religious governments that has taken the most lives - it's secular governments. Strange the liberal media NEVER puts much emphasis that it's secular dictatorial governments that has claimed the most lives in human history but insist on over saturating the crusades in order to attack Christianity.

Please scale your stats, 1.7 million is quite a chunk considering the world population of ~350 million at the time, as is 45 million out of ~3.5 billion. Doesn't change the point, but then again the communist atrocities were in the name of communism, not atheism (directly).

 

[Ashaebi]

Interesting but hear me this

Remember it is a very bold claim to suggest life can indeed arise from non life especially when no one has experimented or observed (let alone intelligent life). It is like religion based on faith. You can only make a claim that is scientific if and only if it is both observable and repeatable.

But let's just assume for convenience that you indeed can have life rising spontaneously from non-life. If the biology department of science truly believes this then have they made any efforts at all removing Pasteur's law of biogenesis from biology textbooks or at least re-write it to it corresponds to new discovery? Cuz they should have and yet no one made an official claim that Pasteur's law is no longer valid. The law of Biogenesis still stands. You can't have two conflicting laws in the same textbook it misleads students or you need to have least some justification to clear up this conflict when it's pretty easy to spot.

Or how about this? Let's just completely re-define the word 'science' so it can be wider and involve more theories? Forget about the observable and repeatable parts.

Also I'm not sure where you're coming from when you said there were fewer people on earth back then. Cuz here me this - I don't need to murder 7 people in a city with a population of 7 million to have the same punishment applied to me when I commit a single murder in a city with a population of 1 million. One single murder in each city regardless of population and i'll be in jail forever or executed. Murder is still murder.

Oh well. probably my last post here for a long time but evolution vs creation will probably be the most heated debate I've ever witnessed. Makes politicians debating who to sit in the white house look like small potatoes. XD And if both evolution and abiogenesis is true it's probably the two theories of science that has the least convincing evidence (if any) ever. I'm convinced about albert Einstein's theory of relativity over this infinitely any day.

 

[sandshrewz]

From my very general standpoint, I see no point for anyone of us here to be supportive or disproving of scientific theories. We aren't scientists or whatever, and what we say holds zero weight on this matter. Believe in what you want to believe in, don't bother trying to communicate about scientific theories because it leads to nowhere and is never going to be a constructive conversation.

A theory is just a theory. Iirc Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still a theory, I can't remember if recent findings have further supported or found fault with it. But that's it. Who are we ignorant people to dispute his theory? This isn't Newton's Laws of Motion. There is no absoluteness in theories. Something that may not be provable now may be in future.

Poking at individual science did this, religion did that, is just not helpful or constructive. Also, in the event of anything, I'd fault the people for misusing science / religion for causing said event instead of the science / religion associated with it.

To purposefully digress, I like the thread title stating religion / belief system. So what constitutes a religion and is there a fixed definition? I do think religion is often used as a broader term to encompass beliefs and a catch all.

 

[EV]

As much as I love to agree with you that there will be individuals who will commit crimes in the name of God to abuse their religious authority but I hate to tell you this too - the brutal atheist dictators and secular governments during the 20th century are responsible for more deaths than deaths caused in the name of religion from the 1st century to the 19th century combined. Here's some stats for ya.

1. Joseph Stalin - 20 -25 million deaths during his reign.
2. Mao Zedong - 45 million the very least. Possibly more due to bad policies that caused famines.
3. Pol pot - 3 million.

and one more ancient is Genghis Khan responsible for 4 million across his Asian empire.

(I promise you there are even more but here are just the most infamous ones)

Man the crusades seem to pale completely in comparison. The crusades was only 1.7 million according to the Washington post (it doesn't get any more liberal than this).

And before you say no brutal dictators creates genocide for the sake of atheism or simply no atheists kill saying 'atheism is great' (similar to people saying 'god is great') Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all did it to wipe existing religions and philosophies of the face of the nation. In other words they are forcing people to embrace communism and secularism similar how the crusades tried to force Christianity to be embraced during their campaign. China's political culture has degraded so badly after Mao's 'great leap forward' which is why the Chinese government is ripping crosses down from churches.

Kinda feels bad man. Soooo many people gave religion a bad name but equally also quite a number of people gave atheism a bad name and it's not religious governments that has taken the most lives - it's secular governments. Strange the liberal media NEVER puts much emphasis that it's secular dictatorial governments that has claimed the most lives in human history but insist on over saturating the crusades in order to attack Christianity.

My post was in response to a claim that "terrible things" done in the name of science were on par, if not worse than, things done in the name of religion. I don't know why you're conflating that with atheism and secular dictatorships .