Enforcement of the Idea of Evolution/Creationism

[Big Jim P]

No, but their have been attempts to (for example) remove the "In God We Trust" from our currency, etc.

So? It's part of secularism.

So if "thou shall not kill" is supported by religionist as a part of secularism, it is wrong?

See, both try to influence the law. I was making no comment on the reasons or justification of doing so.

[Threlizdun]

I've truly never bothered to ask many people. Discussion of basic science seem truly destined to end in disaster. Either you encounter a fool who doesn't understand it, a blinded individual who refuses to accept it, or a sensible individual that is wondering why you are asking them about something so basic.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

I am a Satanist and I am atheist.

Wait, educate me on this a little bit. How is that possible? Atheism is a belief in the non existent of the spiritual planes and deities, and is the opposite of theists who believe the spiritual planes and deities exist. Are you saying that Satanism is materialist?

In which case, actually, I won't argue with it, because it actually helps my point. All Satanists are atheists, but not all athiests are Satanists.

Once fundamentalists stop trying to influence the government, we can stop debating religion.

Not really fair as Atheist try the same thing.

This though.

[Divair]

So? It's part of secularism.

So if "thou shall not kill" is supported by religionist as a part of secularism, it is wrong?

See, both try to influence the law. I was making no comment on the reasons or justification of doing so.

If it's justified on the basis of religion, it's wrong.
If it isn't, it's fine.

[Tlaceceyaya]

So? It's part of secularism.

So if "thou shall not kill" is supported by religionist as a part of secularism, it is wrong?

See, both try to influence the law. I was making no comment on the reasons or justification of doing so.

The idea may not be wrong, but if the reason is 'omgz bibble sayd so' then the reason is wrong.

[Big Jim P]

No, but their have been attempts to (for example) remove the "In God We Trust" from our currency, etc.

And?

No, but their have been attempts to (for example) remove the "In God We Trust" from our currency, etc.

That's just removing bias towards a certain group. We don't all trust in god, so why not just remove that?

Still, it is atheism trying to influence the law. If we are going to try and condemn religionsists for anything, we should be accurate, and fair about it. In short, we should be better than our opposition.

[Andropoland]

Eh. Evolution, though it can't be considered "Fact" as of yet because of a lack of concrete evidence, is a damn sight near more plausible than "God did it!".

Evolution is pretty widely accepted here in Northeast Ohio, though I suppose it depends who you talk to. There's a lot of Catholic schools around here, and I'd suppose that they and the Jehovah's Witness types would believe in Creationism... though I've never seen it happen before, I'd like to think that anyone who said they believed in creationism would be laughed at to their face.

[Threlizdun]

I am a Satanist and I am atheist.

Wait, educate me on this a little bit. How is that possible? Atheism is a belief in the non existent of the spiritual planes and deities, and is the opposite of theists who believe the spiritual planes and deities exist. Are you saying that Satanism is materialist?

In which case, actually, I won't argue with it, because it actually helps my point. All Satanists are atheists, but not all athiests are Satanists.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/

[NERVUN]

Let's see here: "with us atheists preferring a moral system that is reasoned and not based on "might makes right" from a deity." All atheists believe in a reasoned morality? *heh* No, there's plenty who have done might makes right.

"When it becomes normal for people to beleive the imaginary without decent reason when they are an adult, as I care for peoples wellbeing it also concerns me."
Who appointed him as keeper of judging a reason to be decent or not? Not to mention the notion of being concerned for people's well being... it apparently doesn't extend to not coming off as arrogant, better, or at least "clearer" thinking.

Same shite, just from a different point of view, as the holier-than-thou you get from some theists.

Non-holier-than thou. *nod*

Jim... you're a Satanist. You're supposed to be Unholier-than-thou.

[Tlaceceyaya]

And?

That's just removing bias towards a certain group. We don't all trust in god, so why not just remove that?

Still, it is atheism trying to influence the law. If we are goijng to try and condemn religionsist for anything, we should be accurate, and fair about it. In short, we should be better than our opposition.

No, it is not atheism trying to influence the law. It is atheists trying to influence the law for nonreligious reasons. Their reason is not "Because atheism", but something else.

[Big Jim P]

Non-holier-than thou. *nod*

Jim... you're a Satanist. You're supposed to be Unholier-than-thou.

I was not referencing me.

[Divair]

And?

That's just removing bias towards a certain group. We don't all trust in god, so why not just remove that?

Still, it is atheism trying to influence the law. If we are going to try and condemn religionsists for anything, we should be accurate, and fair about it. In short, we should be better than our opposition.

It's not atheism. If it was atheism, it would be "We Trust in No Gods". Religious secularists also support the removal of "In God We Trust", so it's obviously not atheism influence.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Eh. Evolution, though it can't be considered "Fact" as of yet because of a lack of concrete evidence, is a damn sight near more plausible than "God did it!".

Evolution is pretty widely accepted here in Northeast Ohio, though I suppose it depends who you talk to. There's a lot of Catholic schools around here, and I'd suppose that they and the Jehovah's Witness types would believe in Creationism... though I've never seen it happen before, I'd like to think that anyone who said they believed in creationism would be laughed at to their face.

Evolution... lacks concrete evidence? Just... no.

[Divair]

Eh. Evolution, though it can't be considered "Fact" as of yet because of a lack of concrete evidence, is a damn sight near more plausible than "God did it!".

Evolution is a fact.


Evolution by natural selection is a theory, which is as good as it gets, and is based on mountains of evidence.

[Ryadn]

All of the students I teach want to get into Stanford or Berkeley, so they'd better 'believe' in evolution.

(Just in case no one said it, what the OP described isn't evolution, it's the theory of evolution via natural selection. Evolution isn't a theory, it's a lab-proven reality.)

[Ryadn]

Eh. Evolution, though it can't be considered "Fact" as of yet because of a lack of concrete evidence, is a damn sight near more plausible than "God did it!".

Evolution is a fact.


Evolution by natural selection is a theory, which is as good as it gets, and is based on mountains of evidence.

Well, damn.

[Big Jim P]

So if "thou shall not kill" is supported by religionist as a part of secularism, it is wrong?

See, both try to influence the law. I was making no comment on the reasons or justification of doing so.

If it's justified on the basis of religion, it's wrong.
If it isn't, it's fine.

Either way, it is (and should be) the law of the land.

The reason I mentioned "in god we trust" is that it was the first thing that came to mind. I personally am not offended by the motto, and (as long as the money spends) don't really care what is on it.

[Ryadn]

Meh. I don't understand why one can't accept both, within the framework available. Bear with me here.

Both say life began in the waters, then the land, then the air. Neither has an absolute answer to 'how it all began' if you get right down to it. If one is serious about their religious beliefs, one must accept that we're here to learn, grow - gasp - adapt, and that's what evolution basically is when you get right down to it. Adapting to an ever-changing environment. One also has to accept that if there is a higher power, there is order to the universe - and that means rules/laws. This is where science comes into play. Shouldn't be any surprise that things work the way they do, in a scientifically proven manner.

I've been up half the night on short sleep, so pardon the rambling and all but jebus - it's silly for people to get as bent out of shape about all this as they do. Especially when, if looked at somewhat rationally, both sides do not necessarily need to be in contention with one another.

When you have faith vs reason, there is a direct conflict. Accepting something without good evidence for it is not a good reason to beleive in anything. Whilst there COULD be a creator that directed evolution/created the laws of reality that science can observe, without any evidence for it there is no good reason to beleive that this is the case, no more so than to beleive a council of invisible leprechauns creates rain by dancing above your toilet.

Only when it's faith VERSUS reason. There are plenty of questions science doesn't attempt to answer because they aren't scientific questions. I'm sure someone could believe in the theory of evolution via natural selection and still believe that an omnipotent being designed the universe that way. As long as religion and science don't attempt to answer the same question, there's no conflict.

[Divair]

Either way, it is (and should be) the law of the land.

Sure, but it shouldn't be based on religious guidelines.

The reason I mentioned "in god we trust" is that it was the first thing that came to mind. I personally am not offended by the motto, and (as long as the money spends) don't really care what is on it.

I'm not offended by it either, and it isn't a priority in my opinion, but we should get around to removing it one day.

[Ryadn]

I have always believed in Evolution.

I've never "believed in" evolution. Facts do not require belief.

Yeah, I never understand when people ask me that question. No one ever asks me if I believe in electromagnetism. Which, for the record, I DO NOT. Invisible faeries spinning very quickly.

[Zanera]

People have their opinions.I am an agnostic,but evolution has helped more then Creationism so I will believe in Evolution until Creationism can be proven true and I can believe in Creationism.A lot of people I meet and been around don't disagree with evolution,besides the occasional Jehovah's Witness.

[Dyakovo]

I am a Satanist and I am atheist.

Wait, educate me on this a little bit. How is that possible? Atheism is a belief in the non existent of the spiritual planes and deities¹, and is the opposite of theists who believe the spiritual planes and deities exist. Are you saying that Satanism is materialist?

In which case, actually, I won't argue with it, because it actually helps my point. All Satanists are atheists, but not all athiests are Satanists.²

1: Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity or deities, not necessarily the belief in a lack.
2: Wrong again. Some Satanists are theists others are atheists.

[Ryadn]

I have yet to meet a person outside of NS who does not hold evolution as the only true explanation for humanity's existence.

You've lived a very unique life. Or you don't talk to anyone.

[Big Jim P]

Still, it is atheism trying to influence the law. If we are going to try and condemn religionsists for anything, we should be accurate, and fair about it. In short, we should be better than our opposition.

It's not atheism. If it was atheism, it would be "We Trust in No Gods". Religious secularists also support the removal of "In God We Trust", so it's obviously not atheism influence.

I see. Like I said, it was the first thing that came to mind. I believe the group was headed by Madelaine O'Hair, but it still stands as an example of atheists attempting to change the law.

My personal belief is that the State should be totally neutral in the area of religion (or lack thereof).

[Divair]

People have their opinions.I am an agnostic,but evolution has helped more then Creationism so I will believe in Evolution until Creationism can be proven true and I can believe in Creationism.A lot of people I meet and been around don't disagree with evolution,besides the occasional Jehovah's Witness.

Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist?