Creationism vs. Evolution

[Individuality-ness]

That's your problem.

No, it's your problem. I mean my problem. Atheist overlord and all that, remember?

Exactly.

[Normandywe]

Did you post in the wrong thread?

No, I'm just not sure pantheism falls in this debate. I mean, I believe evolution to be logical, and most creationist religions absurd, however I also believe that, at the same time, there's some non-sentient force that made the universe... Happen, I guess.

Whatever developed the quarks, yknow?

Nature, you mean. I've read Spinoza well enough to understand that the non-sentient force toward which you allude is nature.

[Divair]

Did you post in the wrong thread?

No, I'm just not sure pantheism falls in this debate. I mean, I believe evolution to be logical, and most creationist religions absurd, however I also believe that, at the same time, there's some non-sentient force that made the universe... Happen, I guess.

Whatever developed the quarks, yknow?

Doesn't matter. Plenty of theists understand and accept evolution.

[Normandywe]

No, I'm just not sure pantheism falls in this debate. I mean, I believe evolution to be logical, and most creationist religions absurd, however I also believe that, at the same time, there's some non-sentient force that made the universe... Happen, I guess.

Whatever developed the quarks, yknow?

Doesn't matter. Plenty of theists understand and accept evolution.

Clearly, though, they don't understand theology very well.

[Divair]

Doesn't matter. Plenty of theists understand and accept evolution.

Clearly, though, they don't understand theology very well.

How come?

[Sporkin]

No, I'm just not sure pantheism falls in this debate. I mean, I believe evolution to be logical, and most creationist religions absurd, however I also believe that, at the same time, there's some non-sentient force that made the universe... Happen, I guess.

Whatever developed the quarks, yknow?

Nature, you mean. I've read Spinoza well enough to understand that the non-sentient force toward which you allude is nature.

Well, yeah. But, when I think about it, there should be something more broad than just nature as we know it. I mean, there's still so much about the universe we don't know, among other things.

Also, apologies about the lynch joke. I was laughing at the absurd ones as much as you.

[Meryuma]

I support evilutionism #satan

[Normandywe]

Clearly, though, they don't understand theology very well.

How come?

They have to make too many leaps and assumptions to make the two compatible, which can be considered to be a very illogical action in many religions.

[Normandywe]

Nature, you mean. I've read Spinoza well enough to understand that the non-sentient force toward which you allude is nature.

Well, yeah. But, when I think about it, there should be something more broad than just nature as we know it. I mean, there's still so much about the universe we don't know, among other things.

Also, apologies about the lynch joke. I was laughing at the absurd ones as much as you.

That seems to me to be more of a limit on science than it is on nature.

[Divair]

How come?

They have to make too many leaps and assumptions to make the two compatible, which can be considered to be a very illogical action in many religions.

Bro, we're talking about religion here. You really can't get any more illogical. Stretching it even more doesn't do much.

[Sporkin]

Well, yeah. But, when I think about it, there should be something more broad than just nature as we know it. I mean, there's still so much about the universe we don't know, among other things.

Also, apologies about the lynch joke. I was laughing at the absurd ones as much as you.

That seems to me to be more of a limit on science than it is on nature.

True. However, is not science devoted to the understanding of nature? Truthfully, I don't care too dreadfully much about religion in the first place (aside from extremists and whatnot), and I simply curious as to the greater workings of the universe, and whether some 'deitic' force had something to do with it.

Inb4 Galactus

[Farnhamia]

That seems to me to be more of a limit on science than it is on nature.

True. However, is not science devoted to the understanding of nature? Truthfully, I don't care too dreadfully much about religion in the first place (aside from extremists and whatnot), and I simply curious as to the greater workings of the universe, and whether some 'deitic' force had something to do with it.

Inb4 Galactus

So far there isn't any evidence of a "deitic" force, just unanswered questions. Yes, science seeks to understand nature and our understanding grows daily. This is perfectly acceptable to me.

[Sporkin]

True. However, is not science devoted to the understanding of nature? Truthfully, I don't care too dreadfully much about religion in the first place (aside from extremists and whatnot), and I simply curious as to the greater workings of the universe, and whether some 'deitic' force had something to do with it.

Inb4 Galactus

So far there isn't any evidence of a "deitic" force, just unanswered questions. Yes, science seeks to understand nature and our understanding grows daily. This is perfectly acceptable to me.

Same here. Glad to have found some sane people after discovering the existence of a Harry Potter cult.

-eye twitch-

[AiliailiA]

True. However, is not science devoted to the understanding of nature? Truthfully, I don't care too dreadfully much about religion in the first place (aside from extremists and whatnot), and I simply curious as to the greater workings of the universe, and whether some 'deitic' force had something to do with it.

Inb4 Galactus

So far there isn't any evidence of a "deitic" force, just unanswered questions. Yes, science seeks to understand nature and our understanding grows daily. This is perfectly acceptable to me.

What's particularly gratifying is being able to say "our" understanding when we personally and individually don't know much at all. Some other person knows a share of some small part of human knowledge (a larger or smaller share depending on their capacity and how much effort they put into study), yet some other person has a share of some other part of human knowledge, and so on though with considerable overlap, for billions of people. So much knowledge available to the individual curiosity and yet no-one can know it all. To have all this knowledge, to call it "ours", we need others to know some of it. And of course we need language and some common precepts ...

Oh I could write a poem but this isn't the place ... any minute now I'll be called a thief or a collectivist oppressor or something.

What are conspiracy theories, but gratification of an urge to know something others don't? To deny common precepts, and wall oneself off from the awesome majesty of human knowledge, and to "own" knowledge like a physical thing instead of a social good which must be shared to be owned at all.

[Implying Logic]

nevermind that the date was actually chosen to lure in more pagans.

Except that the two of you are talking about Christ's birth, not his death. The crucifixion and resurrection happen in the Spring, not in the winter.

Again, dates were changed for luring in more Pagans. It's not the best argument, but hey.

[Farnhamia]

Except that the two of you are talking about Christ's birth, not his death. The crucifixion and resurrection happen in the Spring, not in the winter.

Again, dates were changed for luring in more Pagans. It's not the best argument, but hey.

Why make up a story about him being crucified at Passover, a Jewish festival? That wouldn't attract more pagans, most pagans thought the Jews were ... well, eccentric, at best. I'll give you the birth story because who knows when he was born, but remember that Christ's birth was not a very important holiday in the early church.

[Implying Logic]

Again, dates were changed for luring in more Pagans. It's not the best argument, but hey.

Why make up a story about him being crucified at Passover, a Jewish festival? That wouldn't attract more pagans, most pagans thought the Jews were ... well, eccentric, at best. I'll give you the birth story because who knows when he was born, but remember that Christ's birth was not a very important holiday in the early church.

Because during easter time the days get as long as nights again, perhaps Pagans had a holiday for that, and hence implenting it togheter it on passover.

[Farnhamia]

Why make up a story about him being crucified at Passover, a Jewish festival? That wouldn't attract more pagans, most pagans thought the Jews were ... well, eccentric, at best. I'll give you the birth story because who knows when he was born, but remember that Christ's birth was not a very important holiday in the early church.

Because during easter time the days get as long as nights again, perhaps Pagans had a holiday for that, and hence implenting it togheter it on passover.

You talk as if there were these secret meetings, the Christians all going, "Okay, okay, we'll set up our holidays at the same time as the other guys have theirs, see, and we'll promise them all sorts of shit. Then, once we have them signed up, they'll be ours for all eternity!" Followed by maniacal laughter, of course. Did it ever occur to you that people simply found Christianity appealing on its own? I mean, it offers eternal life after death, something none of the others really did. So, yeah, a little salesmanship maybe - they say Paul could sell sand to the Bedouins - but the other religions and cults had their festivals and fun stuff. The thing with Christianity was, you didn't have to go through any elaborate initiation ceremony, it didn't really have secrets. You just signed up with Jesus and there you were. Once they got past the circumcision thing, it was easy.

Not everything in history is a nefarious plot.

[Implying Logic]

Because during easter time the days get as long as nights again, perhaps Pagans had a holiday for that, and hence implenting it togheter it on passover.

You talk as if there were these secret meetings, the Christians all going, "Okay, okay, we'll set up our holidays at the same time as the other guys have theirs, see, and we'll promise them all sorts of shit. Then, once we have them signed up, they'll be ours for all eternity!" Followed by maniacal laughter, of course. Did it ever occur to you that people simply found Christianity appealing on its own? I mean, it offers eternal life after death, something none of the others really did. So, yeah, a little salesmanship maybe - they say Paul could sell sand to the Bedouins - but the other religions and cults had their festivals and fun stuff. The thing with Christianity was, you didn't have to go through any elaborate initiation ceremony, it didn't really have secrets. You just signed up with Jesus and there you were. Once they got past the circumcision thing, it was easy.

Not everything in history is a nefarious plot.

Name one philosophic person, a Roman whatsoever, who writes about Jesus.

He must not be in the Bible, and he must be around Jesus' age.

[Farnhamia]

You talk as if there were these secret meetings, the Christians all going, "Okay, okay, we'll set up our holidays at the same time as the other guys have theirs, see, and we'll promise them all sorts of shit. Then, once we have them signed up, they'll be ours for all eternity!" Followed by maniacal laughter, of course. Did it ever occur to you that people simply found Christianity appealing on its own? I mean, it offers eternal life after death, something none of the others really did. So, yeah, a little salesmanship maybe - they say Paul could sell sand to the Bedouins - but the other religions and cults had their festivals and fun stuff. The thing with Christianity was, you didn't have to go through any elaborate initiation ceremony, it didn't really have secrets. You just signed up with Jesus and there you were. Once they got past the circumcision thing, it was easy.

Not everything in history is a nefarious plot.

Name one philosophic person, a Roman whatsoever, who writes about Jesus.

Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. Well, they write about Christians, anyway, but you sort of need Christ to have Christians. Again, it wasn't some massive, Empire-spanning conspiracy.

"He must not be in the Bible, and he must be around Jesus' age." No fair moving the goalposts. Still not a conspiracy.

[Dyakovo]

Did you post in the wrong thread?

Why do people do that "Please don't flame me" and "Braces for lynching" thing? We're really not that bad, are we?

*puts away torches and noose*

[Nationalist State of Knox]

You talk as if there were these secret meetings, the Christians all going, "Okay, okay, we'll set up our holidays at the same time as the other guys have theirs, see, and we'll promise them all sorts of shit. Then, once we have them signed up, they'll be ours for all eternity!" Followed by maniacal laughter, of course. Did it ever occur to you that people simply found Christianity appealing on its own? I mean, it offers eternal life after death, something none of the others really did. So, yeah, a little salesmanship maybe - they say Paul could sell sand to the Bedouins - but the other religions and cults had their festivals and fun stuff. The thing with Christianity was, you didn't have to go through any elaborate initiation ceremony, it didn't really have secrets. You just signed up with Jesus and there you were. Once they got past the circumcision thing, it was easy.

Not everything in history is a nefarious plot.

Name one philosophic person, a Roman whatsoever, who writes about Jesus.

He must not be in the Bible, and he must be around Jesus' age.

Josephus writes about Jesus.

[Zokorias personal views]

We human beings evolved from monkeys, so there hardly is a reason to justify creationism.

[Farnhamia]

We human beings evolved from monkeys, so there hardly is a reason to justify creationism.

That's the thing, we didn't. We share a distant common ancestor with monkeys but we don't come from them.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

I believe in both God and Evolution.