If you believe in evolution(only) you are an idiot
 

Ok smarty pants where did the cells come from that started our life? Beyond that where did the material come from before the big bang? Get a grip its obvious there is something out there larger, greater and way beyond our comprehension so why dont you practice a little faith.

I believe only in evolution and at the same time am agnostic.
Our cells came from assorted chemicals getting the pounding of their existence when the moon was much close than it is now and the tides covered continents.
Before that they came from the left overs from when our star formed.
That which of course came from previous stars that have gone kaput. Those from the same.
Eventually before we had some stars we had a shit load of matter and anti matter, just thankfully for us there was at least just one more matter than their was anti matter.
Then well before that there really was nothing until something started a reaction. Now if your happen to feel that this cause of a reaction was our higher power. A force of some sort we yet and may never understand. Then sure we are close to being on the same page. However if you feel it was some greater plan, that it knows or even can care about us, then well our pages are weirdly different.

My faith is with science. My heart is with the unknown. My will remains my own. My mind is open to any and every ones theories and is able to change what ideas it has.

I'm sure there is something larger, greater and way beyond our comprehension, but it's not an omni-benevolent, omni-potent Christian God.

Scientific Pantheism: A Manifesto.

Scientific pantheism is not atheism, for it acknowledges the existence of a supreme power responsible for creation. However, the choice to label that power ?god? rests entirely with the individual, and bears no substantive implications to the character of that power other than to acknowledging its transcendence. For the purpose of this document, I will use the word ?god? as shorthand for that supreme power; the ?god? that is the sum total of all the natural laws in the universe.

Scientific pantheism is also not agnosticism, although it acknowledges that a conclusion of ?god? is at least as much a leap of faith as it is a logical inference. But in contrast to the ?intellectual punt? of agnosticism, scientific pantheism holds that ?god? is essentially knowable, even if our knowledge at this time is incomplete. It further presumes that the quest for more perfect knowledge is by definition good, and that no avenues of inquiry are proscribed, forbidden, illegitimate or wrong.

Scientific pantheism is more than anything else a philosophy of mankind?s place in the universe, our relationship with the rest of creation and the natural law that constrains, conforms, guides and makes possible our existence. It is humanism with humility, concerned fundamentally with humanity and the human condition, but without assuming human centrality in any cosmic scheme.

And it is deeply personal, dependent upon each person?s ability and interest in observing and understanding and reaching his or her own conclusions.

On the Knowledge of ?God.?

The scientific pantheist does not believe that the universe ?is? god, as if there were small pieces of god dwelling within the trees, rocks, water and other components of creation.

Scientific pantheism understands god to be the sum total of all natural laws in the universe. ?Creation? is not god, it is OF god, in the sense that all ?created? things are the current results of unvarying natural law. This natural law is only incompletely understood by man, and may ultimately consist of the very simple and comprehensive ?Theory of Everything? that is the ultimate grail of cosmologists. But whatever its most profound and sublime form, such law preexisted the occurrence of the ?big bang? and will exist long after ?heat death.?

As such, it is not coexistent or coterminous with the universe in which we dwell. There may be other universes, earlier universes, or universes of the future not yet in existence. All of these conceptual possibilities are subsumed within and guided by the same ultimate natural law that is god.

Our knowledge of god comes only from observing the results and affects of that law. As this same law constrains and conforms the senses with which we observe the creation and the brains with which we interpret that sensory input, such observation can be trusted to yield information that is at some level a reflection of objective reality. There are no other intermediaries between the law that is god, and our ability to perceive directly the results of that law.

There are no prophets sent from god with messages, or rules, or salvation schemes, or other esoteric ?gnostic? knowledge. There are no revealed texts, no divinely prescribed rituals or prayers, no appointed priests or priestesses, and no structures of authority or coercion. There is only natural law, its results, our senses with which to perceive them, and our mind?s ability to analyze and understand them.

On the Nature of ?God?

Unlike ?revealed? religions, scientific pantheists must depend entirely on inference from creation for our understanding of the nature of god. The closest that mankind can come to a face?to-face encounter with god is the exploration and definition of the natural law that constrains and conforms the universe. The characteristics of that law are the characteristics of god.

Natural law does not vary with time.

The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to view across space historic events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has unrolled within the guiding context of the same natural law that guides it today.

From this we can infer that god is eternal. God is not arbitrary, does not tinker with creation, does not change or break ?the rules? at whim, and does not perform ?miracles? which would be violations of his very godhead.

Natural law does not vary with place.

As the extremes of the universe have come more clearly into our sphere of observation with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.

From this we can infer that god is unitary, omnipresent, and universal.

Natural law does not vary with species.

In spite of mankind?s awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in ?god?s plan,? that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

In converse, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural law does not vary with person.

While equality of opportunity remains an elusive goal for mankind, each of us remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities as dictated by natural law. We are organisms with varying biological and environmental potential, true. But no disparity of wealth, power, intelligence or natural ability renders any individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.

From this we can infer that god does not play favorites with individuals or particular human groups, and that he provides all of creation with the same potential for ?success? or ?failure? (as those created beings conceive the terms). And certainly, we all achieve the same eventual conclusion to our respective existences. There is no ?qualification test? for salvation, no punishment or reward in an afterlife, no distinction between believer and infidel. There is no ?true? religious faith capable of excluding members of any other faith from either the perils or benefits of existence.

There are no ?chosen? peoples, no national divine providences, no divine participations in the rise and fall of peoples or nations. God is not on the side of ?justice,? or ?righteousness? or the ?bigger battalions.? Human conflict is entirely an internal human issue with no cosmic significance whatsoever.

Natural law does not vary with respect to moral outcome.

Natural law operates. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

There is neither unalloyed virtue, nor unalloyed vice. There is neither obvious good, nor obvious evil. There is only the unvarying operation of natural law, and the constrained consequences of the choices we make within those boundaries.

It is only through the agent of human choice that a consideration of morals or ethics becomes relevant. There is no moral or ethical component to the outcome of natural law. There is only a moral or ethical component to the outcome of human choice. To the extent that such outcomes are personal and private, the choices are equally personal and private. To the extent that such outcomes are communal, the individual making them is responsible to that community for them. Responsibility and accountability for the eventual ?goodness? or ?badness? of those outcomes rests squarely with the individual who made the choices.

From this we can infer that god is not a moral agent. God neither prescribes nor proscribes, neither approves nor forbids. There are no ?sins,? no transgressions of divine law, no arbitrary rules of ritual or conformance.

The social contracts we adhere to are of human convention, and we are responsible as humans for their rationality, their utility, and their enforcement. God does not care about them.

Summary thoughts on the ?nature? of God:

In final measure we can infer that god is not personal. God is not in our image, nor are we in his. God does not have a body or a mind. God does not have emotions, feelings, longings, desires or intentions. God is neither angry, nor jealous. God does not demand worship or homage, sacrifice or prayer. God does not help his creation, nor does he hinder it beyond the operation of his law. God does not hear our supplications or respond to our requests.

God simply is, and all of creation is simply the result of his existence.

On the Issue of ?Human Purpose?

Throughout much of history, those human beings who were afforded the luxury of leisure have wrestled with the philosophical idea of ?human purpose.? These considerations were enabled only by the ability of humanity to reach a point in socioeconomic evolution where effort and energy were no longer exclusively required for securing subsistence and survival. While there can be great disagreement as to the driving mechanism of this ?need for purpose,? there can be no doubt that most modern religions and philosophies pertain at least some measure to the identification, codification and fulfillment of ?human purpose.?

Religious faiths, particularly modern ones, have tended to define ?human purpose? as something externally imposed on mankind by the creator god. But from the viewpoint of the scientific pantheist, there can be no external imposition of either purpose or meaning.

Humanity is only one of the many current results of the operation of unvarying natural law. As such, man can be expected to have no more or no less extrinsic purpose or meaning than any other entity, from mangrove to manatee. However, blessed with a seemingly unique combination of intelligence, consciousness and self awareness, humans are able to define and develop an intrinsic ?purpose? which no other organism obviously enjoys.

Each individual human being maintains ultimate responsibility for determining, defining, accepting and fulfilling their own ?purpose? according to the dictates of their conscience and the shared values of their community. Whether such ?purpose? is directed inward or outward, whether it is measured by personal or community benefit, whether it is trivial or profound? all of these are individual and personal choices.

But each individual human being likewise maintains ultimate responsibility and accountability for the tangible affects of that purpose as expressed through any resulting action. And it is such action that extends the sphere of personal responsibility into the realm of community responsibility.

On Ethics and Morals

?Purpose? implies action, though it does not demand it. But it is the outcome of action, not unemployed ideas, that is subject to social contract. Any community of individuals possesses shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And any community of individuals will experience events and instances where individual prerogatives and desires compete, impinging on those interests.

A community can be anything ranging from two consenting adults negotiating a sexual encounter, to the family, to the economic business organization, to the city, to the nation/state, to the global community with shared interests in global assets such as clean water and the ozone layer. Each individual operates within overlapping and different sets of morals and ethics relevant to the communities to which that individual belongs.

Human ethics and morals are codified agreements among the members of a community designed entirely to secure those shared communal interests, at the least possible violence to the individual. They are not eternal. They are not ?sacred.? They are not absolute. They can and must evolve along with knowledge, technology and the specific circumstances of existence in time and place.

As they are absolutely communal by nature, ethics and morals can only be evaluated on a communal basis. Their ultimate ?goodness? or ?badness? rests entirely on a utilitarian assessment of their outcomes, not on the specific impact to the individual. There can be no ethical or moral implication to the private act of an individual, but there is always an ethical or moral implication of any act that involves or affects two or more.

To this end, communities can and will define ?norms,? or laws for the purpose of securing the shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And the community has full recourse to enforce such norms in that pursuit. But the presumption must always remain with the individual freedom of choice in the absence of any competing community interest, and coercion to conform would theoretically only be proportionate to community risk.

Scientific pantheism recognizes the reality and authority of community structures designed to enforce the morals and ethics of those communities. But it also holds a presumption of individual freedom, maintaining an essentially ?libertarian? prejudice. ?Moral? or ?ethical? frameworks that exceed their rationale of community interest are illegitimate, and are ironically neither moral nor ethical.

If there is no real community interest, there is likewise no moral or ethical component to an individual?s behavior.

whoa way too much text :(

"I can only show you the door. You're the one who has to walk thorugh it."

And you know this for a fact? Oh wait are you one that worships the spaghetti monster? And you can prove this too? See you cant prove it either way so why dont you take your fucking hatred for religion and stick it up your hypocritical ass.

Faith is just an excuse not to require any evidence. I don't know for a 100% fact there's no God, but in the absence of ANY evidence why the hell would I believe in something so fantastical, it doesn't make any sense.

The Spagetti monster is just a parody of belief in God, there's exactly the same amount of evidence for that as there is for your God. I don't literally believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster, or did that just go over your head too?

Prozac is good, m'kay?

I know the definition of the word FAITH you idiot, people have faith for a reason. It comforts them and allows them to not CARE about something they will never know the "factual truth" about, and you wont ever know the truth either. I notice you said "your God" when referring to my quote. Thats quite interesting since I never said I had a God. Also you capitolized the word God. Now hmm that is quite interesting as well any particular reason you would do that? You haters are so pathetic hiding behind science when the fact is you probably were molested by some priest so now you hate all of faith. Sicko.

Yes, yes, yes. Since the evol scientististsorx cant explain everything, they must obviously be wrong. Especially when there is something they say they cant explain, which they actually cant explain! Oh my God.

And the worst part is that if you had bothered reading up on evolution, you would have better questions.

Such as, what was it that caused the mutation that later evolved into the eye?

That very question, the eye-one, was one Darwin himself put in his works. It carries symbolic meaning to "the evool scientists", and is a great example of the "faith" of the evolution-ists.

Because I have no valid proof of faith solving anything. I try to solve problems by thinking, not by begging an imaginary being that has shown no sign of its authenticity, even when it was what i specifically begged for.

Do you know what I think is obvious? That its a much more impending mystery to see why people select the option with least credibility, religion.

Science cant explain everything (yet?), but it can explain a whole lot and prove it as well.

Religion cant explain EVERYTHING (look, God made a deer), and can prove NONE of it.

I guess the cut is between people who value proof higher than explanation. Or the between the people who value proof and the people that dont.

But most of all, i want to know why you are trying to prove an imaginary being logically?

AN IMAGINARY BEING IS NOT LOGICAL. TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING WHICH HAS BEEN SHOT DOWN TONS OF TIMES WITH THE SAME FUCKING ARGUMENT IS NOT LOGICAL. BY ALL ACCOUNTS, "GOD WANTS IT" IS STILL YOUR MOST LOGICAL AND BEST ARGUMENT.

I put it in all caps for easier understanding.

I said your God, because your beliefs are transparent. I used a capital to distinguish between the Christian God and random gods like Zeus or Thor or all the other gods you're atheistic about.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a hater? That sounds pathetic to me.

I don't believe in an omni-benevolent because of many reasons. One of the most common is the problem of evil. If God is so good, why does he allow so much suffering in the world? Like the painful death of innocent children who die of horrible diseases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

I don't hate people of faith, if they have really thought about their faith and at times struggled with it but stick to it, then all power to them. Those who haven't, don't really have faith they're brainwashed.

No, it´s porn: obviously.

It probably IS porn anyway. Would make sense in some way.

Should porn be spelled with a capital p from now on?

Porn?

We could run this one around the theoretical carpark all day and at the end of the day nobody would be none the wiser.

A theologian will ask if energy creates mass at the speed of light using Einstiens M Coeffecient, then how was this energy encapsulated ?


A scientist will ask for proof of religion, and it is also far to ask whom or what created God....this question lends credence to both sides...as initially asked in this post.

We can postulate theories all day if need be...but does it really matter?

the only important thing is that this Omni Potent Being invented the porn industry
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a26...ugh-Hefner.jpg

God's brazilian?

Evolution is probably what created humans, because scientists have seen evolution occur in cells, viruses, ect. Although it is probable, it doesn't mean that it is in fact the truth, since 'human' evolution is a theory (as is time itself).

As for myself, I am more of a science person and have no faith in anything. The only thing that I can refer to as a "God" would be 'The last universal ancestor to everything that exists in eternity.' Eternity being everything to ever have existed in any realm/universe/plane, ever (everything).

Also, I believe atheism is innate in humans. For example, assume a war happened and there were 1,000 people left on the entire planet. The rulers of the island were staunch atheists and killed anyone who didn't proclaim atheism. This continued for 500 million years, and eventually everyone was an atheist and no one had the word "God" in his vocabulary.

Now, with "God" "Jesus", ect gone for 500 million years - no one is going to innately just come out and say "Hey, wait... Jesus is God!"

On the other hand, lets say the rulers killed everyone who didn't believe in Christ for 500 million years. Innately, someone who can think critically can say "Hey, wait, why do I believe this Christ person is God? Maybe there is another God, or no "God" at all." (Btw, this would probably happen many many times over the course of 500 million years.)

Who cares? You die, you're worm food. Other animals eat the worms, other animals eat other animals. They die, become worm food.

ever asked a Christian who created god?

GFY is such a great place for a deep, philosophical discussion!

:)

You will never be able to overdiscuss anyone and it will finish with drama. :upsidedow

There must be an even bigger being than God, because where did the God come from that started our life? Beyond that, where did the thing that created God come from?

Imo you can believe just as easily in evolution, as you can believe in god. And its not very difficult to believe in both at the same time (god created evolution process). All these theories do have some holles in it and it will hardly be resolved before someone proves Einstein wrong and invent time travel.

Watch their eyes spin..I have asked my dad this a number of times but never get anything approaching an actual answer.

god created a time machine, went back in time and created himself, then went forward in time again and created muslims for a laugh. every good christian knows this silly

Because this is only a question of faith. People believe in what it is comfortable to believe for them.
For example i read Blavatskaya and believe that before our civilization existed 7 or 6 other civilizations. Those people where different from us. Antlants were the representetives of the previouse civilization and were bigger and half transparen. They had a very high developed technics and were able to fly on some machines the way we are able to drive now. After some world catastrofy the civilization died and the Earth has to develope from zero. But there are some "somatti" that lived through catastrophy in a special sleeping condition and brought some knowledge to us through the years!

This has no proves, but i believe that.

Seriously?

Really, really! Great read!

I think evolution and creation are both right.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours", Stephen Roberts

I think we evolved, but had a little "nudge" along the way from more advanced entities.

Science and "intelligent Design" don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The more you study biology and genetics, the more obvious it's pretty much proven fact that every species on earth is related to one another.

The more you study science, in general, the more faith in the unexplainable you're required to have.

At the end of the day just saying god created it just cos... is just a lazy answer.

the thing with creation is that it explains nothing, cause it only raises the question "who created the creator" which then goes into an neverending circleargument.

well, not that that is the Only falacy with creation.. but it's one of them ;)

Blind faith is ignorance... evolution has been proved (although a few brainwashed christians still won't admit it and use lame excuses like 'the devil planting bones' to try to suggest otherwise).

As for how cells and matter were created, no one knows. Anyone that believes it was a conscious being must have a much better imagination than I. Please explain where this 'God' lives, and where he came from?

People can choose to believe in religion and accept it as fact. But try to remember, my science cured smallpox, your science burned witches. Go figure.

Blind faith is ignorance... evolution has been proved (although a few brainwashed christians still won't admit it and use lame excuses like 'the devil planting bones' to try to suggest otherwise).

As for how cells and matter were created, no one knows. Anyone that believes it was a conscious being must have a much better imagination than I. Please explain where this 'God' lives, and where he came from?

People can choose to believe in religion and accept it as fact. But try to remember, my science cured smallpox, your science burned witches. Go figure.

Our logical sense tells us that nothing comes from nothing.. so our physical worlds must somehow have been created by something/someone... but that conclusion just leads to another question - what/who created the what/who that created our world.. and that etc etc...

So somehow.. the simple answer is actually that our world got created out of nowhere at some point...

Saying that evolution is "it" is just people who aren't able to think outside the box.. our whole reality isn't much different from a computer game... maybe we're created by another world which we are not able to see.. just like Super Mario can't see the world that created him...

Where does evolution have it's intelligents from?... why does evolution want to make everything survive and multiply?

evolution doesn't have some built-in intelligence as one would use the word "intelligence" for a human. Evolution doesn't "want" anyting.

Evolution just pretty basic stuff -- survival of the fittest. Many different (through mutation and sexual reproduction) creatures battle over limited resources (food to survive, females etc).. and the best ones gets to spread parts of their DNA to the next generation.

The easiest way to understand evolution is to think that everything exists because it CAN. Thats it. A bunny does not run from its predator because god gave it the thinking to do so, a bunny runs from its predator because those bunnies that did not run are dead and no longer exist today.