Evolution vs Creationism \ Religion vs Atheism \ Is Homosexuality Wrong?
 

This thread is for the frank, mature discussion on your opinions of whether or not the world was created, or we evolved over time. It will also question the validity of religion in the modern world. Do we need religion to keep our moral compass intact? Or have we grown past it? Also, is homosexuality wrong?

No matter your viewpoint, this is a place for mature discussion. If you deviate from the topic, flame another person's opinion, post a meme, or try to derail the topic you will be banned from all of VLS (including the NSFW forum)

Go!

First!

Religion was created as a means to control otherwise barbaric people and scare them into behaving. Now that we have society/laws/government/rules does religion have any place in the 21st century? I think not.


Also, am I the only one bugged by the fact that almost all 'great tales' from any religion all seem so unrealistic and impossible? How is believing in those tales any different than believing in santa/easter bunny/etc ?




Also, some interesting experiments:
Miller-Urey experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment

Provides an alternative to a 'mighty being' creating every living thing on the planet. Basically a bunch of biomolecules floating around, zapped by lightning --> organisms formed.

Evolution took place with those organisms --> HUMANS

You state that homosexuality is against God/Christian Bible, I challenge that statement: Do you follow every teaching of the Christian Bible, or do you selectively choose which teachings to follow, as many centuries of Christians, including leaders who define the shape of the faith, have?

You state that homosexuality is not natural as it holds no possibility of reproduction, I challenge this statement also, through two routes:

A. Have you ever masturbate or had sex with the intent of anything other than reproduction?

If so, you are being hypocritical, as those activities are solely for the purpose of pleasure. A number of animals engage in homosexual activities for the purpose of pleasure; they without human influence engage in these activities,therefore they must be natural.

B. You previously stated, you do not believe in evolution, but you now use it as a component of a defense of your belief that homosexuality is unnatural. If you indeed do not believe in evolution, you cannot include this statement in a retort.

Not only was religion created to control the masses, but it was also used "answer" questions of the unknown (sun rising, weather changes, etc).

As science answered a lot of these questions, the need to religion to answer these questions dissolved to where religion is today. As religion has no official judgement in life (laws do this now), and in all reality, no relevance....it becomes more of a catalyst for moral and ethical behavour. Proper and correct (according to religion) behavour dictates ones future in the after life. Be good in this life and follow the teaching of xxxxx religion and go on to live a happy life in the after world.

People fear death and take comfort in knowing what is going to happen after. This is the one and ONLY thing that still allows religion to hang on.

Should there ever be a day when what happens after you die is answered...religion will be history.

Oh this will be fun..

Religion brings people together on a smaller scale, but it also causes arguments and confusion on the larger scale. I think it's alright to have separate religions as long as people don't shit on others for their beliefs.. our beliefs always change and judging someone else would seem paradoxical.

Dunno what causes homosexuality, but it's just an irregularity of the biological body, i'd say the same about someone who is a paralyzed or quadriplegic, etc..
But love is love, being born that way it is what it is

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. (Buddhism answers this description).





I didn't come up with that. but it pretty much sums it all up.

especially the second paragraph.. especially:
"It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology."

religion wasn't created to control people.

that's what it turned into when people figured out they could control people with it.

homosexuality isnt wrong. it just feels wrong.
if we were brought up and taught differently, then it would be okay. and it wouldnt feel wrong.

it's just a bias people have. unable to admit ignorance and let go of old ways. egotistical.
but old ways will pass, when old people pass.


but actually, we have to define what religion is.

google says:

re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
1) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2) Details of belief as taught or discussed.

so if an alien species were to observe us...
why can't capitalism or communism, or dictatorship be a religion?
we are worshiping a superhuman power (a government, or a collective of individuals [or just one individual in dictatorships], who hold greater power than the rest of us).
all those all have figureheads, figures we have to worship and obey. they all have their own laws and morals.
hah, i can say people worship hockey players, or actors and actresses. can they not be viewed as lesser gods? a religion with many levels of gods. one himself can rise to godhood through fame and money or whatever other means.
what's the difference?

and by definition #2... details of belief as taught or discussed.... that sounds like modern society to me.

i believe religions will just be updated.
"It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology."

gods can take many different forms. in fact, someday we may be viewed as gods by a lesser evolved species with lesser awareness.

dogma can take different forms (science and scientific theories and laws are dogmas in some ways). dogmas are just the best explanations we have for what we can observe and test out at this moment in time. currently science makes more sense than blind faith. but who says 1000 years from now current science could be considered fairly inaccurate? so if that happens, what is current science? just a dogma as well.

the only way the human race can evolve continually is to adapt to and adopt new discoveries and thoughts, through application of greater awareness.

I've always believed that people choose to follow a religion 'cause it creates some form of "hope" for them, if that makes any sense
For example, Christians are taught that Jesus/God or whomever is always by their side so they don't have to worry. Would you rather believe in that, or believe the fact that you have nobody to rely on but yourself? Same goes for the theory of heaven/hell; believe in heaven and that there's a better place in the afterlife, or believe in science and know that you're just gonna rot in the ground?
I am not a Christian myself, but most Christians I meet are very welcoming and loving people. I just don't like the persistent sons of bitches who come knocking on my door at 8 a.m in the morning, shove religion "Armageddon" crap down my throat, and plead me to accept Jesus
Yeah I also believe that religion can warp a person's perspective and change them into a better person, but it could also totally fuck with somebody's head. Doesn't religion cause a shit-ton of wars? :lol
Hopefully I haven't offended anybody, 'cause I honestly didn't mean to

And as for homosexuality: :bigthumb::eekthumb::gayfight:

Yeah... dis thread gon be good.

Adding to what pinn3r said, i believe religion was made so people could understand why certain things happens, or what happens after you die, or how the earth was made. Since there is no hard proof around, religion brings together a small community, i mean, who doesnt want to feel part of something?

Its important to be aware and keep an open mind. I mean, those people who reject any other ideas and believe in their own beliefs are just ignorant. I believe that people should think first, gather information, keep and open-mind, and gather a PERSONAL opinion, THEN choose a religion.

I'm sorry but I had to fail your thread.



1st. You're basically asking if the Earth is 6,000 years old or billions of years old.

This is not a topic worthy of any discussion.



The 2nd thing you bring up is religion vs atheism.. Atheism is not a religion. You cannot compare them. You are asking "Hey, let's compare, CNN, Fox, and "The TV OFF".


Lastly, your point about "is homosexuality wrong'.

No.

I think I might be able to answer your last sentence. I bet life after death is very similar to life before one is born.

you cannot prove there was nothing, you can only assume that. the only thing you can be certain of is the fact that you cannot remember anything before, and you don't know if the same will be for after.

Like the majority of my peer group, I'm in the evolution camp. But that doesn't automatically put me in the atheist camp either.

The way I see it, creationism vs. evolution and religion vs. atheism are not mutually exclusive of one another--not theoretically speaking of course, but in more pragmatic terms. That's why you'd have practicing, faithful religious folks who believe whole-heartedly in evolution, and even some non-religious individuals who believe in all kinds of random, remotely scientific-sounding fringe theory about the origins of the universe.


IMO (and I know a few philosophy majors who are in agree with such a view), science and religion should just lay off of each other. Easier said then done, of course--I remember when they tried to implement creationism as an alternate theory to evolution (to be taught simultaneously in an unbiased fashion) into grade school curricula in the States a few years back. That turned out to be quite disastrous iirc.



P.S. Not that I'm not all in for diversity of opinions on discussions like these, but labeling religion as things like "ways to control the masses", "hope", "dogmatic" is, at least in my opinion, reverting us back primitive squabbles over the demarcation of science.
Not to say that these arguments are not viable answers in themselves, but to state these assumptions (and I would say to a certain extent, even to bring them up at all, because they're generally assumed to be implicitly understood) just weakens one's argument by a dozen notches.

:whistle: You can be sexy with words!

I could do the same.


Ulic, you cannot prove that there is no flying spaghetti monster, you can only assume that there isn't. The only thing you can be certain of is the fact that you cannot remember seeing one before. See what I did there?






Claims that are made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I'd encourage hardliners of any camp, religious or not, creationist or evolutionist, to read up books and essay pieces on science and society--and look specifically into science and religion sections of those books.
I remember there was an assigned reading on such a topic for one of my political theory (? maybe something else) classes long ago, and I was so intrigued I subsequently took two more philosophy courses on the very same topics as electives after that.

i agree, i cannot prove there is no flying spaghetti monster.
i can assume there isnt one here on earth.
i can be certain i've never seen one before.

quantum physics combined with how infinitely large our universe(s) is, the probably of a flying spaghetti monster type creature somewhere out there is greater than the probability that there is not.

you don't need evidence to make a claim.

you claim about something that happened in the past, and only you know if its true or not. then what? are you saying your claim is invalid because you have no way to prove it?

if you live by that statement it limits your field of view by a great amount and it's very stubborn.

it's very much like "don't believe it till i see it"

plus i do have evidence.

i have the evidence of human response.

in fact we are both smart enough to not have to ask anyone. we can come up with the possible answers to my survey.

my personal question to each and every individual that replies on this forum is...

what was life like before you were born?

there's only a few possible answers:
1) I don't remember
2) I don't know/not sure/cant find out.
3) It was like XXXXXX

anyone that says nothing, is assuming it was nothing (because they don't know, or cant remember) or is making a claim that they remember it was nothing, which means there was something because they can remember there was nothing.

and on top of that, with the gathering of those 3 answers, i think it's safe to say, "nothing" would be the weak claim without any evidence.

You're missing one key answer.

4) There was no life before I was born.

you are making a claim that you are 100% sure or you remember that there was no life before you were born?

you can't do that though.

my answers were not providing assumptions.

they are providing real world answers.

yours is 100% assumption.

i am asking to ANSWER it PERSONALLY.
you cannot use that as an answer as it is not a personal answer.
if there was no life, you would not remember, as you would not exist. therefore your answer would have to be i don't remember or i don't know.

Yes you do. Just ask any scientist.


This question can't be answered personally. You're working under the assumption that it is possible to remember and cognitively function before conception. That's the only way possible you could have a response like "I couldn't remember what happened before birth."

It's simple, before one is born there is no brain since the brain hasn't even grown. Therefore memories aren't possible and cognitive function is not possible. All life is based on cognitive function. Death is cessation of activity in the brain.

Anyway, to postulate that there is life before birth requires some pretty compelling evidence.

And as I said before, claims that are made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. That has worked phenomenally well in the field of science.

As a last thought, pleasure to respond to the legendary Ulic, I agree with every post in history that you made on RS, which is why I have never replied to any of your posts ever. But there's a first for everything.

Technically we are offtopic and the risk of being banned because we're discussing Metaphysics.

This topic can go where it needs to.

That's a pretty bold statement to make

Are you sure? Have you ever heard of past regression sessions?

Funny enough i just heard about that a few days ago

Anyways metaphysics is related to this topic, since whatever you want to call your "spirit" is connected to your mind and brain.. You don't just think with your mind, you think out of all of them.

LQ, i think you're getting backtracked a bit too much into the field of science, i agree that science has solved some of the mysteries on this earth but this only leads to more and more uncertainty.

According to ancient aliens, every single religion out there involve higher beings descending from the skies. They bring technology, gifts, and knowledge. The beings then left and people wanted them to return so people start building large monuments and such hoping them to return. These higher beings were actually aliens according to the TV show and I somewhat do buy it.

The way I see things, and have seen them for a while now, religion isn't necessary in this day and age. Like others above me have said, it was used mainly to explain the unexplained events which would occur on a regular basis. Granted, this was when Gods were considered to be in control of singular objects/concepts such as Ra being the Sun God of ancient Egypt.
And this is where the basis of religion stems from; it has been stated that many, if not all religions have begun due to the ancient Egyptians being the first to create Godly figures in which to worship, fear, pray to, etc.

I myself, am an Atheist. And although I personally don't believe in "higher powers" or Gods, I do know that if it is one day proven, with physical, visible evidence that there really is a God, or Heaven, or Hell, I will gladly accept that. But at this point in time, science has been able to prove much more than religion has, and has been able to explain many of these originally unexplainable events.
As for the homsexuality issue, I don't see it as wrong at all. Again, like others above me have stated, animals in the wild with no human contact have performed homosexual acts as well. Just my thoughts.

And of course, there IS that one fundamental flaw in the argument you presented.

Past Regression sessions, the idea that can be hypnotized and deliver remnants of your past life through dreams.

I don't get it. Could you explain to me at all how this is legitimate or remotely real. I would put these in the same categories as things like seances, scams to take money from people who believe others can communicate with the dead.

I don't think my statement is bold. People cease to exist prior to their parents copulating. The burden of proof are the people who make extraordinary claims.

LOL that's not the idea, i've heard of people that have these visions when they're in a deep meditative state by themselves.. anyways i can't speak on behalf of this but i will when i go through it