Do you believe in evolution ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The rules on this forum are stupid. We should be be allowed to critisise religion.
Why does it get special treatment. It's a religion, not a race.

If you don't think evolution is real then you are wrong.
 
Sliver said:
I agree completely except for that last bit. Religious nutters fly planes into buildings. Militant atheists just annoy the god crew on the tinterweb. ;)
Click to expand...

Some miltant atheist nutters murder millions of innocent people while they are at it...but hey, let's not mention those ones. Shhh!
 
Last edited:
Westyfield2 said:
Agreed.

I believe in Natural Selection / Survival of the fittest / Micro Evolution / whatever you want to call it.
But that doesn't really create new species. All it does is adapt & pick the best from an original large gene pool, and make new combinations of genes. It doesn't create a new gene from scratch.

Macro Evolution I don't believe in.
Click to expand...

That position doesn't hang together and doesn't really have anything to do with evolution.

To start with, you're talking about belief where it doesn't fit. If you know what evolution is, you know that belief is irrelevant. It's such an obviously wrong term to use - would you talk about believing in mavity, for example? Not a theory explaining how mavity works - mavity itself.

You say you believe in evolution and in the core concept of the theory of evolution (selection), then you say you don't believe in evolution. Making up a non-existent distinction between smaller changes and bigger changes is papering over the gaping crack in that argument. With value brand tissue paper.

If you got a 10p piece, that would be an extremely small change in your life. If you got 10,000,000 10p pieces, that would be a large change. But each 10p piece would still be an extremely small amount of money. Many small things can add up to a big thing.

New genes appear all the time - that's what mutation is in this context. Evolution doesn't cause new genes to exist. The existence of new genes is one factor in evolution.

Agreed. The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. Without making observations, you can't test a hypothesis.
Click to expand...
It is hardly likely that the entire theory of evolution rests on no observations at all and nobody has noticed.

Besides, even if the theory of evolution was completely wrong (which is extremely unlikely given the mountain of evidence supporting it), that would have no effect at all on the existence of evolution. Evolution is a process that is observed to happen. The theory of evolution is an explanation of how it happens.

Similarly, if the germ theory of disease was completely wrong that would not mean that contagious and infectious diseases would cease to exist, nor would it mean that no such diseases existed before the theory was made.

Why is there such a difference between the two? Why is nobody arguing that diseases don't exist because "they're only a theory"? Why is nobody arguing that minor diseases exist but major diseases don't? Why is nobody arguing that the germ theory of disease is wrong and why is nobody confusing the existence of disease with a theory explaining how it happens?
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
That position doesn't hang together and doesn't really have anything to do with evolution.

To start with, you're talking about belief where it doesn't fit. If you know what evolution is, you know that belief is irrelevant. It's such an obviously wrong term to use - would you talk about believing in mavity, for example? Not a theory explaining how mavity works - mavity itself.

You say you believe in evolution and in the core concept of the theory of evolution (selection), then you say you don't believe in evolution. Making up a non-existent distinction between smaller changes and bigger changes is papering over the gaping crack in that argument. With value brand tissue paper.

If you got a 10p piece, that would be an extremely small change in your life. If you got 10,000,000 10p pieces, that would be a large change. But each 10p piece would still be an extremely small amount of money. Many small things can add up to a big thing.

New genes appear all the time - that's what mutation is in this context. Evolution doesn't cause new genes to exist. The existence of new genes is one factor in evolution.

It is hardly likely that the entire theory of evolution rests on no observations at all and nobody has noticed.

Besides, even if the theory of evolution was completely wrong (which is extremely unlikely given the mountain of evidence supporting it), that would have no effect at all on the existence of evolution. Evolution is a process that is observed to happen. The theory of evolution is an explanation of how it happens.

Similarly, if the germ theory of disease was completely wrong that would not mean that contagious and infectious diseases would cease to exist, nor would it mean that no such diseases existed before the theory was made.

Why is there such a difference between the two? Why is nobody arguing that diseases don't exist because "they're only a theory"? Why is nobody arguing that minor diseases exist but major diseases don't? Why is nobody arguing that the germ theory of disease is wrong and why is nobody confusing the existence of disease with a theory explaining how it happens?
Click to expand...

Because most people like to argue about **** they don't actually understand. They are simply regurgitating crap that others have said.
 
Uriel said:
Fixed.

Have a quick look at the following link. You know what they say about people in glass houses: http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/
Click to expand...

This argument that atheism has caused millions of deaths has been debunked so many times. Stalin and others like him may have been atheists, but they did not do their terrible deeds in the name of atheism. Most educated people will acknowledge this. You might as well say that Hitler and Stalin did their terrible deeds because they both had a moustache. The reason this nonsense persists is because the religious right are desperate to discredit atheism in order to try and bolster their position. There is no logical pathway from atheism to mass murder but there is a logical pathway from religious fundamentalism to mass murder.

Instead of posting a crappy link which uses psychopaths like Jeffery Dahmer to try and discredit atheists, yeah, like I care what a cannibal psycho says on the subject, how about you do some genuine research and try and understand the truth behind the claims against atheism. You talk about glass houses, read this : http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/...atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

Also Uriel, I'm still waiting for you to man up and tell me why I don't have an understanding of the scientific method. You accused me of being wrong about my explanation of it but despite repeated requests from me for you to demonstrate where and why I'm wrong, all I get is silence. Were you just being a jerk and slandering me because I said something you didn't agree with, or do you have a genuine problem with what I said ? Please, state your case.
 
Last edited:
What scientific qualifications have you got Sliver?

Edit: The reason I ask this is because you are repeatedly saying people who believe in religion are stupid. Hence I think it would be pertinent for you to establish your credentials.

I would also ask the following:

Do you think when we attempt to explain the universe we do so without assuming things we can't prove (at this time or ever)?
 
Last edited:
Sliver said:
This argument that atheism has caused millions of deaths has been debunked so many times.
Click to expand...

So has the notion that religion has caused millions of deaths by the same logic. People cause millions of deaths, not the things they use to justify it.

Sliver said:
Stalin and others like him may have been atheists, but they did not do their terrible deeds in the name of atheism. Most educated people will acknowledge this.
Click to expand...

Most educated people will actually do their research and realise that Stalin did indeed do a whole bunch of terrible deeds in the name of atheism and in the attempt to create of an atheist state.

There is a discussion within this thread that illustrates the reasoning and facts that illustrate Stalin's ideology and groups such as The League of Militant Atheists who did indeed do a range of pretty horrendous things in the name of Atheism.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18609356&highlight=Stalin+atheism

Post #358 onwards I think.

As pointed out in that thread also, doing something in the name of something, doesn't mean that the the something is the central causal factor..be it atheism or religion. Both are common tools in which to justify the acts under which they are committed...it's like blaming the gun for the murder rather than the shooter.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
So has the notion that religion has caused millions of deaths by the same logic. People cause millions of deaths, not the things they use to justify it.



Most educated people will actually do their research and realise that Stalin did indeed do a whole bunch of terrible deeds in the name of atheism and in the attempt to create of an atheist state.

There is a discussion within this thread that illustrates the reasoning and facts that illustrate Stalin's ideology and groups such as The League of Militant Atheists who did indeed do a range of pretty horrendous things in the name of Atheism.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18609356&highlight=Stalin+atheism
Click to expand...

My understanding is he killed millions of people to create a communist state. The make everyone atheist bit was just one small part of that.
 
SlyReaper said:
My understanding is he killed millions of people to create a communist state. The make everyone atheist bit was just one small part of that.
Click to expand...

If you read the linked thread that is also discussed and dealt with. I don't want to regurgitate an entire argument when one has already taken place that covers those questions. Essentially, Atheism is inherent and a fundamental underpinning of Marxist-Leninism and therefore the creation and enforcement of an atheist state is a fundamental precept for a communist state.
 
Castiel said:
And the millions and millions killed by weapons created using the application of science, the destruction of our ecosystem using the application of science..the creations of schools, libraries, hospitals, scientific discovery itself through the application of Religion...the point I'm making is that you cannot objectively quantify the ratio of good and bad, you can only judge the application of each as it is defined at the time.
Click to expand...

The problem is there is a very important contextual difference between science and religion.

Science itself is amoral and scientists merely make discoveries and gain information. It is the governments who then use this knowledge to build bombs. We prosecute the axe murderer not the axe.

Now you could say something similar about religion, that it is misused by people in power to gain support for evil actions. The difference is though religion claims not only to be moral but also the source of morality itself.
 
Castiel said:
If you read the linked thread that is also discussed and dealt with. I don't want to regurgitate an entire argument when one has already taken place that covers those questions. Essentially, Atheism is inherent and a fundamental underpinning of Marxist-Leninism and therefore the creation and enforcement of an atheist state is a fundamental precept for a communist state.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

How did the topic spiral towards militant atheists vs militant religious people? I still recall when this topic was about evolution.
 
SlyReaper said:
How did the topic spiral towards militant atheists vs militant religious people? I still recall when this topic was about evolution.
Click to expand...

Who knows...that's why I didn't really want to restate a discussion already going on in another thread. The evolution thread of this discussion is more interesting, at least it was anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom