Evolutionism

Gisteron wrote: 4. Generally speaking, no, there are no definite trends or goals to evolution. While natural and sexual selection are everything but random, variation within a population and mutations in individuals are and there is no feature that is being selected for in all circumstances. However, there are many instances of somewhat similar eyes evolving separately and independantly. It seems to be that a light-sensitive organ of that type is rather beneficial in many environments and it seems there are only so many sensible structures for such an organ. We know how and why they come about, but it is noteworthy that on our planet they evolved on several independant occasions, even if its no big mystery how and why they did.

Mareeka, that's my point. Peace of mind at the price of abandoning curiosity, honesty or let alone basics of logical thought, is not a peace worth having. That's the price you have to pay when claiming there is a supreme ethical good to be gained from world religions. That's the price you have to pay when trying to reconcile beliefs in magic with beliefs in reality. That's the price you have to pay when compromising a testible truth statement against your own feelings and will and then leave the issue behind. You may no longer have to wrap your mind between the two and work it out, but that is not a good gained - that is a good lost.

I seek to understand what you are saying . . .


Who has abandoned curiosity? honesty? and basics of logical thought?

Does it say anywhere in this thread that someone makes claims to a supreme ethical good to be gained from world religions?

By accepting a religious belief as substitute for scientific inquiry, curiosity is being abandoned. To ask "How do I confirm this?" instead of "What is going on?" is not curious, although to be fair, if one is going honestly about the former, the latter might follow.
As for honesty and logical thought, those two go together for the most part. What you basically implied in post #126732 is that creation and evolution are reconcilable beliefs in thousands of minds, and just to back you up, here is a quote from that post:

Many [of these 'Christ conscious people'] have joined creationism and evolutionism in their mind and are done with valuing one versus the other. A synthesis. They are at peace. They have compromised nothing.

And I disagree specifically with the last sentence. Yes, there are people living with a generally scientific mind and religious beliefs, some are even active in both. However, to reiterate what I said, this comes at a price. They are living one life in church and another one at work, having a double standards on truth claims and are genuinely inconsistent for that reason. Granted, they may be sincere with both and not realize how two-faced they really are, and this gap in self-awareness, by the way, is yet another price they have to pay to reconcile the mutually exclusive.
I'm not so much pointing fingers as saying that the idea that you can be both within and outside a box at once is in violation of the most fundamental and axiomatic rules of logic. The proposition itself denies all of human thought, let alone math, outright and cannot be effectively defended with or without any degree of honesty.

As for supreme ethics in world religions.. No, this was not made an explicit point although it was implied in the same post #126732, even if probably common ethics rather than superior ethics were meant, and for that matter, one might say why bother for the least of those ethics are good and those that are usually are also found outside of religion and in fact with or without being taught them as a child. So consider this not so much a rebuttal of the point you made (which was actually about fear of investigation) but rather a rebuttal by anticipation of a point that can potentially be meant, implied or made in the future within this discussion. And yes, the price one has to pay to claim that the religions are not only comparable but unitable and that any good ethics can be derived from that is pretty mucht he same: More sooner than later there is no honest way of arguing that position any longer.

Gisteron wrote: By accepting a religious belief as substitute for scientific inquiry, curiosity is being abandoned. To ask "How do I confirm this?" instead of "What is going on?" is not curious, although to be fair, if one is going honestly about the former, the latter might follow.
As for honesty and logical thought, those two go together for the most part. What you basically implied in post #126732 is that creation and evolution are reconcilable beliefs in thousands of minds, and just to back you up, here is a quote from that post:

Many [of these 'Christ conscious people'] have joined creationism and evolutionism in their mind and are done with valuing one versus the other. A synthesis. They are at peace. They have compromised nothing.

And I disagree specifically with the last sentence. Yes, there are people living with a generally scientific mind and religious beliefs, some are even active in both. However, to reiterate what I said, this comes at a price. They are living one life in church and another one at work, having a double standards on truth claims and are genuinely inconsistent for that reason. Granted, they may be sincere with both and not realize how two-faced they really are, and this gap in self-awareness, by the way, is yet another price they have to pay to reconcile the mutually exclusive.
I'm not so much pointing fingers as saying that the idea that you can be both within and outside a box at once is in violation of the most fundamental and axiomatic rules of logic. The proposition itself denies all of human thought, let alone math, outright and cannot be effectively defended with or without any degree of honesty.

As for supreme ethics in world religions.. No, this was not made an explicit point although it was implied in the same post #126732, even if probably common ethics rather than superior ethics were meant, and for that matter, one might say why bother for the least of those ethics are good and those that are usually are also found outside of religion and in fact with or without being taught them as a child. So consider this not so much a rebuttal of the point you made (which was actually about fear of investigation) but rather a rebuttal by anticipation of a point that can potentially be meant, implied or made in the future within this discussion. And yes, the price one has to pay to claim that the religions are not only comparable but unitable and that any good ethics can be derived from that is pretty mucht he same: More sooner than later there is no honest way of arguing that position any longer.

well i don't have religious beliefs, therefore, i can't see how substitution could be construed.

i don't have a clue how one could think that superior or supreme ethics is implied in the post you referenced.

I respect and accept your decisions whatever means for reasoning that are used.

Mareeka wrote: well i don't have religious beliefs, therefore, i can't see how substitution could be construed.

Fair enough. I was trying to address your words or what other people may interpret in them. Its not about anyone specific, its just things that I think are worth being said and if someone gains anything from reading them, that's good enough for me

i don't have a clue how one could think that superior or supreme ethics is implied in the post you referenced.

Agreed, it technically isn't in there. Again, its about the conversation and the ideas that have been or will be emerging within it.

I respect and accept your decisions whatever means for reasoning that are used.

Can't say I do the same, unfortunately. Sound reasoning to me is about as important as the end results. Better be a Muslim for good reasons than a Jaine for bad ones, so to say

*shuts the heck up to let others talk*

Brenna wrote:

Gisteron wrote: The 'designs' we find in nature for the most part are bad, incomplete or unnecessary and I can provide prominent examples, if needed.

Yes please...

http://youtu.be/cO1a1Ek-HD0

ok...

Maybe I am missing something; however, this is my $0.02.

Lets assume for a moment that all views are right, odd as it is.

Evolution is observable, able to recreated and a fact.

Now there are multiple creation stories. Which one you choose, doesn't matter. They are a point of view, most can be placed in parallel with evolution. For instance, Christianity has God creating everything in 6 days and resting on the 7th. Lets assume that God is real, now perception plays in. God may perceive millions of years as 1 day. There are many many different creation stories. The ones I have seen have only re-enforced my thought process.

Zanthan Storm wrote: ok...

Maybe I am missing something; however, this is my $0.02.

Lets assume for a moment that all views are right, odd as it is.

Evolution is observable, able to recreated and a fact.

Now there are multiple creation stories. Which one you choose, doesn't matter. They are a point of view, most can be placed in parallel with evolution. For instance, Christianity has God creating everything in 6 days and resting on the 7th. Lets assume that God is real, now perception plays in. God may perceive millions of years as 1 day. There are many many different creation stories. The ones I have seen have only re-enforced my thought process.

Sure why not? http://youtu.be/L9EVMzVQKTk

Zanthan Storm wrote: ok...

Maybe I am missing something; however, this is my $0.02.

Lets assume for a moment that all views are right, odd as it is.

Evolution is observable, able to recreated and a fact.

Now there are multiple creation stories. Which one you choose, doesn't matter. They are a point of view, most can be placed in parallel with evolution. For instance, Christianity has God creating everything in 6 days and resting on the 7th. Lets assume that God is real, now perception plays in. God may perceive millions of years as 1 day. There are many many different creation stories. The ones I have seen have only re-enforced my thought process.

There's nothing wrong with that explanation, on its face, however, it does have a major fallacy in it, that being it comes into things assuming there must be a god as espoused in the judeo-christian/islamic sense. In any given view of the world we should seek to maintain as few assumptions as possible.

God years. That's an interesting veiw to take. I like it.

Rickie The Grey wrote: God years. That's an interesting veiw to take. I like it.

I too thought in "god years"...

I ask my father, who studied in a seminary, this "6/7" day creation...

He responded with "How long is a day to God?"

Since then, and becoming a Jedi, this thought has recurred many times on trying to understand things....

How long is a day to god?

How long is eternity to a a mayfly?

Sorry, taking a hard turn from the OP at this point, haven't we? :lol: