Google excludes churches from its non-for-profits discounts

[Hatter The Mad]

What's confusing about that?

What evidence would you see from intelligent deisgn? Fossil record like we have.
What would you see from evolution? Fossil record like we have.

Same evidence, does one hold as much weight as the other, of course not as it falls outside the scientific method and as such science disregards it.

What makes you think that the fossil record is the only evidence for evolution!?!? Are you trying to be ignorant?

 

[Glaucus]

What makes you think that the fossil record is the only evidence for evolution!?!? Are you trying to be ignorant?

Not at all. How can you show that random mutation are random, rather than by a designer? The evidence is the same what ever level you look at it.
But again one does not fit in the scientific method so is discarded.

And is why it should never step foot in a science lesson as it's not science.
But you can't say the visual evidence doesn't match, because it does.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

No offence, but I cannot tell if you're trolling, really believe what you're saying, or just struggling to convey yourself.

Either way I cannot be bothered. Bring back Castiel!

 

[Glaucus]

No offence, but I cannot tell if you're trolling, really believe what you're saying, or just struggling to convey yourself.

!

I don't see what is hard to understand?
You know what intelligent deisgn is, it's exactly like evolution but with one difference. Rather than random mutations, mutations are by a higher hand.

With that in mind there, would be no difference in evidence. Unless you can prove the mutations are random which science can't prove.

Still following?

However intelligent design falls out side the scientific method as it isn't the simplest method. As such it is disregarded by science. It isn't disproved, it is simply disregarded. As such you can't use science to disprove intelligent design, all you can say is that science doesn't care about it, as it doesn't fit in the method.

 

[StriderX]

To be honest intelligent design could be easily explained, but no one would like it, mainly because there's no proof of the "group" as it were and so on.

 

[matt0r]

What's confusing about that?

What evidence would you see from intelligent deisgn? Fossil record like we have.
What would you see from evolution? Fossil record like we have.

Same evidence, does one hold as much weight as the other, of course not as it falls outside the scientific method and as such science disregards it.

Whilst i am not particularly anti-religious to simply say that the fossil record supports creationism is not so. I would also like to add there is more supportive evidence for evolution as a theory than there is for the theory of mavity. A considerable amount of the evidence for creationism is not actually ignored by the scientific community but disproved regularly, which is then in turn ignored by the creationists who published it. The problem with creationism is that it attempts to be scientific but with a conclusion that precedes any evidence.

That said, the tendencies of social groups, the links of power causing evil done to some is not inherent to religion.

edit: ah you've explained your point. Feel free to ignore

 

[RomanNose]

I don't see what is hard to understand?
You know what intelligent deisgn is, it's exactly like evolution but with one difference. Rather than random mutations, mutations are by a higher hand.

With that in mind there, would be no difference in evidence. Unless you can prove the mutations are random which science can't prove.

Still following?

However intelligent design falls out side the scientific method as it isn't the simplest method. As such it is disregarded by science. It isn't disproved, it is simply disregarded. As such you can't use science to disprove intelligent design, all you can say is that science doesn't care about it, as it doesn't fit in the method.

Wouldn't the premise of that argument actually require proof of an intelligent designer though?

 

[Glaucus]

Whilst i am not particularly anti-religious to simply say that the fossil record supports creationism is not so. e

A) I'm not religious, I don't agree with intelligent design
B) fossil record and observations are exactly the same for both evolution and intelligent design. But they certainly don't hold the same weight in science.

Wouldn't the premise of that argument actually require proof of an intelligent designer though?

I don't get what you mean,

 

[Destination]

Bizarrly I feel more Christian when I read threads like this damning the religion as a whole.

 

[RomanNose]

A) I'm not religious, I don't agree with intelligent design
B) fossil record and observations are exactly the same for both evolution and intelligent design. But they certainly don't hold the same weight in science.



I don't get what you mean,

Never-mind, I misread your post.

 

[Castiel]

I have said several times in the thread that I appreciate people are corruptible and fallible. Put them in positions of power (in any sense of the word) over vulnerable people and it will get abused. Kids will get anally raped. Sure.

However, it isn't just about the corruptibility of humans. The majority of major religion in this world (particularly Abramhamic) are founded on, have a long history of, and preach things that are evil and cruel.

Whether that is homosexuals being persecuted by various Christian denominations, the indoctrination of children in Evangelical belt of America (undoing of intelligence and cultural progress, essentially - a henious crime), or the stoning to death of adulterous women in Iran or
Nigeria (yes, I know it is hadith and not the Quran, but so what - the hadith is the religion), or the eternal damnation a non-believer gets for not believing (even if this poor
soul hasn't had the chance to be indoctrinated by a particular church), or the absolutely sickening and fear-inducing theological doctrine of original sin.

No one is disputing that religion can be used to justify Mankind's baser nature, however I notice you ignored totally those who use religion to do the exact opposite. Which is the point I was making, religion is just a tool, it has no conscience other than what Man gives it.

Our entire society in the western world is based upon an ethos and moral system encouraged and spread by Christianity, it is disingenuous to suggest that religion doesn't have a positive impact on the world, that ignores where we are today and how we got here.

Religion makes a virtue out of faith and not thinking critically or rationally. It tends to be retarded.

You will have to qualify that statement, soundbites have little impact on me I am afraid. In regard to critical thinking and rationality in Christianity specifically I would suggest beginning with Augustine of Hippo, Origen of Alexandria and William of Ockham.

Others to consider are Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther.

It is easy to criticise religion from a narrow knowledge base, but like people religion is rarely simple and to be objective about it requires significant research.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

No one is disputing that religion can be used to justify Mankind's baser nature, however I notice you ignored totally those who use religion to do the exact opposite. Which is the point I was making, religion is just a tool, it has no conscience other than what Man gives it.

Our entire society in the western world is based upon an ethos and moral system encouraged and spread by Christianity, it is disingenuous to suggest that religion doesn't have a positive impact on the world, that ignores where we are today and how we got here.

Why should I even take the 'good' religion does into account when I believe all of that 'good' and altruism would happen without it, in de/spite of religion?

I don't buy into this 'what about all the good?' argument for that reason. Look at the bad and the evils that get preached! I genuinely equate it to excusing the evils of Nazism because they were great with science and engineering, or the negatives of China's authoritarianism because they have a good economy.

You cannot ask me to take into account the nice bits. They are redundant. They don't happen just because of religion. However, the negative and cruel aspects of religious teaching very much do.

All of the 'moderate' believers of Christianity or Islam, or the followers who pick and choose parts of the bible or doctrines to follow or believe are just enablers in my eyes. They enable everything that is bad about religion (whether byproduct of organised religion or the actual active work and teachings of one) just as much as they do the good.

 

[Destination]

Good stuff Hatter well said, all those billions of people around the world, the hindi, the buddists, all enabling world wide destruction... Whats you solution for controlling the masses at a non-governmental level then?

 

[Salsa]

Oh god here we go again. Why do people keep bringing up religion on these forums? Thread always ends up in the same place.

*Awaits thread requesting religion gets its own sub forum*

 

[Hatter The Mad]

buddists, all enabling world wide destruction... Whats you solution for controlling the masses at a non-governmental level then?

It doesn't just have to be world-wide destruction. Buddhism has a big problem with the cultural oppression of women. Same with Hindus, the Caste system and again the status of women.

 

[PMKeates]

I find human religion annoying as it's so completely unlikely. What a waste of time.

 

[aaron]

My view is the more secular and distanced towards religion, corporataions and nations become the better!

Yes religion and science can work together however they certainly cannot go hand in hand with the biggest example being dare I say it "intelligent design" vs evolution.

I must admit I am genuinely shocked by some of the comment's in this thread especially those of AcidHell's as I know you claim to be non-religious but you seem to consistently divert away from the use of science to disprove the idea of creationism.

Science inherently is a way of enlightening humans as to the workings of life, physics...the whole damn universe so why can it not be included in such a debate as this? By rejecting scientific understanding in such debates you automatically reject the the acceptance of any argument against one's belief shrouding yourself in ignorance hence how the idea of "god's" came about in the first place, to describe what people dont understand.

However I certainly dont reject the idea of a higher power as im not that narrow minded to say there cant be something else. But the idea of religion is just prepostorous to me and started off and will end up as the longest running pyramid scheme on the planet. For all I know god could be real as well as intelligent design but if there was such a thing as a higher power it cetainly wouldnt be sentient in the way that we see it and without a doubt it would be impossible for a human to even begin to comprehend it.

But Acidhells argument that there is just as much evidence for intelligent design compared to evolution is just frankly silly. Evolution is happening right before our eyes, for example African elephants are developing smaller and smaller tusks as the ones with the larger tusks get killed by poachers which is natural selection in the making (if somebody could find an article about it that'd be great as i need to go off soon) also australian skinks turning from egg laying births into live births for which i cant remember why. However to say this is due to some higher power is proposterous as it is down to enviromental factors such as the poachers that lead to changes as a certain gene gets increasingly less prevelant among a species (large tusks) due to it not being advantageous any more.

Therefore i make the conclusion that i wont say such a god does not exist, however I use SCIENCE to back me up with the idea that there is more evidence to go against such a notion. However i just dont understand the notion of releigion itself, I dont understand why people have to follow a sect/large cult to follow there belief in a higher power. At the end of ther day, yes be a beleiver but why oh why do you have to follow religion. It's why i kinda like the idea of pagenism because yes they have deities however they are more personifications of the idea of mother nature and I respect that as we can see nature around us and it naturally trys to foward scientific understanding around you rather than smashing it into the ground like most organised religion.

sorry for the wall of words.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

A+

 

[Glaucus]

Did you read anything I said?

Or just jumped on intelligent design is rubbish idea(which it is but for other reasons)
Do you understand that the evidence for intelligent deisgn is identical for evolution? And do you understand that even with that being the case, science totally ignore it?

 

[Castiel]

Why should I even take the 'good' religion does into account when I believe all of that 'good' and altruism would happen without it, in de/spite of religion?

Which proves my point. If those 'good' things would have happened without religion, then conversely the 'bad' you attribute to it would have also.


Like I said, go away, do some actual research that doesn't consist of rhetoric and then make an objective argument from a broader, more informed perspective, or continue to purge yourself of your self confessed biased opinion instead.

I know what the critical and rational thing to do would be.