162 replies to this topic

[TheMasterSwordsman]

I think I saw this on this particular message board once, and I don't remember who said it... but...

Religion describes why things work. Science describes how things work.

...Or something along those lines... but I totally agree with this, entirely. It makes sense, and it kinda bothers me how much people think science (evolution, which is basically just adaptations over time) makes religion look like crap. Well, it doesn't. Religion isn't the same as science. And it's just so bothersome how people just keep smacking each other and becoming enemies thanks to stupid opinional arguments on religion and evolution. Now, anyway, I know there are folklores on some religions such as Hinduism that tell how things work. It may have a religious genre, but it's a story. Just a story. I mean no disrespect to religious folks, but it's still just a story. Now, I ask that you all discuss this, and this is a very popular and overused discussion, but I thought I'd bring up a new point of view (somewhat).

I personally believe that evolution is just change over time, adaptations. I believe that adaptations are made, but not necessarily macroevolution, which, a childish example of it would be a frog being put into the desert and growing a lizard's head over time. That's a bit of an overexaggeration, but I'm just making a point.

Discuss.

Edited by TheMasterSwordsman, 01 July 2007 - 10:12 AM.

[SOAP]

I think I saw this on this particular message board once, and I don't remember who said it... but...

Religion describes why things work. Science describes how things work.

...Or something along those lines... but I totally agree with this, entirely. It makes sense, and it kinda bothers me how much people think science (evolution, which is basically just adaptations over time) makes religion look like crap. Well, it doesn't. Religion isn't the same as science. And it's just so bothersome how people just keep smacking each other and becoming enemies thanks to stupid opinional arguments on religion and evolution. Now, anyway, I know there are folklores on some religions such as Hinduism that tell how things work. It may have a religious genre, but it's a story. Just a story. I mean no disrespect to religious folks, but it's still just a story. Now, I ask that you all discuss this, and this is a very popular and overused discussion, but I thought I'd bring up a new point of view (somewhat).

I personally believe that evolution is just change over time, adaptations. I believe that adaptations are made, but not necessarily macroevolution, which, a childish example of it would be a frog being put into the desert and growing a lizard's head over time. That's a bit of an overexaggeration, but I'm just making a point.

Discuss.

I don't get your point. The whole point of that statement is that science and religion are just different, separate, but equally valid approaches and that people shouldn't feel that they have pick sides as if religion and science were polar opposites. They're not. That would be like saying if you believe in Math then you can't believe World History. You say it bothers you that people become enemies of such debating but if you totally disagree with the statement then you're supporting the continuing conflict. So, um really... what are you driving at because I don't really understand what you're saying...

And for the record, I was the one who said it. Unless you read it elsewhere. I was actually quoting the Absent Minded Proffesor with Robin Williams.

[Reflectionist]

I agree, in fact, we had an entire discussion over this in the other thread about evolution...

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 July 2007 - 11:54 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I personally disagree.

Religion is more of a cultural issue than anything else. As to successfully answering questions about our world, it cannot do so, unless it focuses primarily on social issues, in which case I must admit it has had a lot more success.

[Fyxe]

Ironically, one thing religion never does it explain 'why'. This is true of Christianity, anyway. It doesn't give us a reason why God made the world.

[SOAP]

Um, yes it. Whether the answers it supplies satisfy you is a completely different story but millions of people have found their answers to their Why's in religion and are more than content.

[Reflectionist]

Ironically, one thing religion never does it explain 'why'. This is true of Christianity, anyway. It doesn't give us a reason why God made the world.

Read John 3 or Isaiah. It says plenty of times in there.

And it helps if one (anyone, not you specifically) actually read the Bible to find out more about what it says, and not to find a little bitty error in the translation to just push on Christians.

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 July 2007 - 03:43 PM.

[Fyxe]

Okay, enlighten me, why did God create everything, and where did God come from? And don't be all preachy about it, give me the abridged version. And I can't read it, because that would require me to actually own a Bible, and I'm not planning to do that any time soon.

Edited by Fyxe, 01 July 2007 - 06:53 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Okay, enlighten me, why did God create everything, and where did God come from? And don't be all preachy about it, give me the abridged version. And I can't read it, because that would require me to actually own a Bible, and I'm not planning to do that any time soon.

Okay.

It says that everything in the world was created by God and for God. So He created everything for Himself. That's his why, his reason.

He created us to love Him. And it's that simple.

And if you don't like it, which you don't, that's cool. It's not my choice, it's yours.

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 July 2007 - 07:08 PM.

[Selena]

The Bible in it's entirety, including its different translations, is available online. It's good for quickly looking up things. I use it if I ever need to research a verse for debate or interest. A quick search via Google will give you plenty of hits to Christian sites who have it online and untampered with. If one is involved with religious debate, it is quite good to have the source material in your mind or in a search's reach. I personally wouldn't try to debate without having read a good portion of it. I shy away from topics I haven't read through. Which is mainly the New Testament, because the Old was cooler. Woo, brimstone~



As for Evolution vs. Religion, I think we need a Street Fighter cage match. That's pretty much the only thing that can resolve the issue at this point and time. *nod*

[Reflectionist]

The Bible in it's entirety, including its different translations, is available online. It's good for quickly looking up things. I use it if I ever need to research a verse for debate or interest. A quick search via Google will give you plenty of hits to Christian sites who have it online and untampered with. If one is involved with religious debate, it is quite good to have the source material in your mind or in a search's reach. I personally wouldn't try to debate without having read a good portion of it. I shy away from topics I haven't read through. Which is mainly the New Testament, because the Old was cooler. Woo, brimstone~



As for Evolution vs. Religion, I think we need a Street Fighter cage match. That's pretty much the only thing that can resolve the issue at this point and time. *nod*

www.biblegateway.com <<<best site for it. All different translations. I particularly like 'The Message' Translation.

[MikePetersSucks]

It says that everything in the world was created by God and for God. So He created everything for Himself. That's his why, his reason.

He created us to love Him. And it's that simple.

Which doesn't explain Fyxe's questions at all. Or at the very least makes God look like a conceited, self-centered asshole.

[Reflectionist]

It says that everything in the world was created by God and for God. So He created everything for Himself. That's his why, his reason.

He created us to love Him. And it's that simple.

Which doesn't explain Fyxe's questions at all. Or at the very least makes God look like a conceited, self-centered asshole.

1. Yes it does.
2. Who are you to judge God? I think that makes you a 'conceited, self-centered asshole.'

[TheAvengerLever]

Which doesn't explain Fyxe's questions at all. Or at the very least makes God look like a conceited, self-centered asshole.

Ahem. Pardon. She wanted to know why he created the world and we gave her an answer. Now you're just coming in here gun toting and insulting other people's religion. Which, quite frankly, isn't any proper form of debate or arguement at all.

Thank you, that is all.

[MikePetersSucks]

1. Yes it does.
2. Who are you to judge God? I think that makes you a 'conceited, self-centered asshole.'

1. Sorry, but what I mean is, why did he decide to make it after whatever period of time he decided to make the world, and why does God suddenly want people to exist so they can worship him and such?
2. Judging God isn't that big of a deal if you don't believe in the Abrahamic conception of him.

Ahem. Pardon. She wanted to know why he created the world and we gave her an answer. Now you're just coming in here gun toting and insulting other people's religion. Which, quite frankly, isn't any proper form of debate or arguement at all.

I'm not insulting someone's religion (intentionally), I'm judging a deity.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

All the Bible says on the matter is along the lines of, "Because he felt like it." Which doesn't really explain much at all. Why did he feel like it? Because he felt lonely?

But that doesn't make sense. He had all eternity before he made the Universe, so why didn't he do it then?

He couldn't have create human beings because he needed them, because why would an omnipotent God need us?

Then there's the issue that the Bible is very presumptive. It presumes God exists. If he doesn't, the answer the Bible gives isn't really an answer at all.

That is why I don't believe religion provides the answer to questions of "Why". The answers stand on very, very shakey ground.

[Person]

The question of why he didn't create the universe earlier is a moot point. Since time is linear and not eternal, there is no time in eternity. Time began at the beginning, not before. Cosmology begins at the big bang, and asking about what happened before that is beyond human understanding.

As to the question of why he created the world in the first place, it's the same as saying "why does a mother have children?"

The whole center of the question is love. The purpose of the human race is reciprocal love between creation and creator.

1 John 4:8

[SOAP]

Okay, enlighten me, why did God create everything, and where did God come from? And don't be all preachy about it, give me the abridged version. And I can't read it, because that would require me to actually own a Bible, and I'm not planning to do that any time soon.

Person beat me to the punch but basically what he said. Quite frankly I find this a very stupid question. You might as well ask a couple why they make a baby or an artist paints a picture or a poet writes a beautiful piece of literature. Obviously he can't be a creator if he doesn't create anything.

Then there's the issue that the Bible is very presumptive. It presumes God exists. If he doesn't, the answer the Bible gives isn't really an answer at all.

Oh wow. A Christian holy book that assumes that the Christian God is real. The audacity!

All I meant is that believing God is all the answer most people need. Why are we here? That's the why I was referring to and to lots of people they find it in God. We're here to serve and love God. At least that's the answer Christianity gives. That alone gives people meaning and purpose to their lives. Of course if you don't believe in God to begin with of course such answer won't mean anything to you. Whoop-dee-doo. Just because you don't believe doesn't make the answer any less meaningful to those who find it.

Edited by SOAP, 02 July 2007 - 01:55 PM.

[Fyxe]

Quite frankly I find this a very stupid question.

Then you're a stupid person?

I mean, what the hell is so damn stupid about merely asking 'why'? Don't you ever wonder?

You might as well ask a couple why they make a baby or an artist paints a picture or a poet writes a beautiful piece of literature. Obviously he can't be a creator if he doesn't create anything.

I CAN ask a couple why they make a baby or why an artist paints a picture, and they will often give actual reasons. God won't, as far as I know. Apart from the one already given in the topic, which doesn't actually answer my question. I don't want to know his REASONS. I want to know WHY he has his reasons.

Why CAN God create the world?

Here's an even bigger question. Why does God exist? Not that he does. But where did he come from? What purpose does he serve?

I think I've already heard the answer to those ones, the convientent 'he is everything' answers. Bah. Christianity has such boring mythos.

And Lena, yes, I'm aware the Bible can be found online, but it has so many different translations and edits that I'd be concerned about what version I'd be reading. On the internet it's especially succeptable to being abridged. Besides, I'm more interested in people's interpretations than the actual words.

[Selena]

I'd assume the simplest answer would be god got tired of looking at Nothingness all day. I mean, there wouldn't be any drama to watch.

As for boring mythos, very few mythologies ever really explain why deities create the world. Actually, I can't really think of one of the top of my head. Plenty of reasons why humanity was created in other mythos, usually to be servants, but not to the creation of the universe. Norse, Greek, or even Sumerian - the latter of which has things most in common with the Old Testament because of how geographically close to each other they were. None of them really explain why. Most gods create the universe just because they can. Or they're born as representations of that universe.

The answer to Why? can be summed up with Why Not? It's an open ended question you're not going to get a concise answer to no matter who you ask. You could ask god, but I think a person has to die before they get a real one on one chat with her.

[Reflectionist]

Besides, I'm more interested in people's interpretations than the actual words.

May I ask why?

[arunma]

Moderator Note: I'm going to have to put an end to the insults here.

Atheists: no more blasphemy. Saying that God is a conceited, self-centered ******* is only going to tick people off, and it adds absolutely no value to the discussion. Any further comments of this nature get deleted. And if it's too hard for me to simply delete the comments (i.e. over 80% of your post consists of derisive statements about a deity), I delete your entire post.

Theists: I know this is a bit of a preemptive measure, but no personal attacks on atheists. Like the blasphemy, it doesn't add anything to the debate. Same consequences apply.

I realize I'm preventing many of you from stating your genuine, personal beliefs, but this is necessary to have a healthy debate.

[MikePetersSucks]

Atheists: no more blasphemy.

If you're an atheist, blasphemy doesn't really exist, though.

[Arturo]

But it's offensive for those that are not atheist.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

And Lena, yes, I'm aware the Bible can be found online, but it has so many different translations and edits that I'd be concerned about what version I'd be reading. On the internet it's especially succeptable to being abridged. Besides, I'm more interested in people's interpretations than the actual words.

Actually, the version Reflectionist referred to you has the added benefit of allowing you to search a passage in multiple versions of the Bible (Limited to five per search). Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it doesn't have a Catholic version.

arunma, personally, as far as I can tell, MPS said that the answer which was given makes God look like a conceited etc. etc. That's not exactly the same as saying he is, although I can understand how somebody can get insulted with such a statement. And I agree with MPS, it does make God sound like a conceited ass, and seeing as he isn't, or at least many Christians believe he isn't, that particular answer could not be right.

And SOAP, you do see the problem, don't you? I obviously know that a Christian Bible would presume that a Christian God exists. That much is given. However, the answer the religion provides is presumptive, you must agree on that.

[Arturo]

I have found a Catholic version. http://www.biblegate...c...&version=63

A Catholic Bible is also available at http://www.vatican.v...0839/_INDEX.HTM

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Hm, that's weird, it isn't in the English section yet it's clearly written in English... Could this be evidence of discrimination against Catholics, perhaps?

[Arturo]

No, it's because you have to change your options to show the Bibles containing the Deuterocanonical books, otherwise the only Bibles you will see are Protestant. So, you have to go in the main page to the Bible search preferences, and there, choose the option that says "show Bibles containing Deuterocanonical books"

[Wolf O'Donnell]

The site does seem rather presumptive in assuming that all people viewing the site would be Protestants, but I suppose it was good of them to allow people to view the Deuterocanonical books.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 03 July 2007 - 06:02 AM.

[Arturo]

It's one of those things I have found curious at the Internet. The Protestants outside of Europe tend to forget that Catholics exist, even if we are a majority within Christianism.