Lexodus said:
cuddly_tomato said:
Lexodus said:
dragon_of_red said:
You need it, faith and hope are the only things making us seperate from the bad guys.
Dragon_of_red, highlighting one of the main points as to why religious people are hated by many. Give the man a biscuit.
You don't need faith. You do need belief. Not belief in god, but belief in concepts of good and evil. Science has nothing to say about morality, ethics, justice, or anything else like that. So yes, if someone relies only on science and logic they are amoral. Not evil or bad, but simply completely without morality. Note: That is DIFFERENT from being an atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, not someone who doesn't believe in morality.
Lexodus said:
OT: The big thing about evolution vs creation is that, whilst not disproving God, evolution being correct would take away his massive claim to fame (and, if God didn't create the world, who's to say he did all that other stuff? And if he didn't do that, who's to say that there even is a God?). That is why, I think, there is the schism.
Why do you think that evolution contradicts religion? Surely you have the word "allegory" in your vocabulary? That is all one needs to understand that religion and evolution really don't have anything all to do with each other.
Also, what do you mean "create the world"?
What I mean is, the whole story links together God creating the world, and God creating the plants, animals and humans. If you believe the story, it says God did all that, and all in 6 days, yadda yadda yadda. Point is, 'creation' is lumped into one story. However, If God
didn't create the plants, animals, and humans, maybe he may not have created the world either (see: big bang theory. If evolution can be accepted, why not the big bang as the next logical step?), which means he may not either a) have the power, and then not be the god that Christians, Jews and Muslims etc. believe in, or b) exist in any way, shape or form.
So you don't know what allegory means? From wiki:-
"Allegory (from Greek: αλλος, allos, "other", and αγορευειν, agoreuein, "to speak in public") is a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal. Allegory communicates its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. Allegory is generally treated as a figure of rhetoric, but an allegory does not have to be expressed in language: it may be addressed to the eye, and is often found in realistic painting, sculpture or some other form of mimetic, or representative art."
This means that texts such as the Bible are not considered literal truth even by people who "believe" them. They are allegorical, metaphoric, symbolic, not literal. 'Art' rather than 'science'. Mythos, not Logos.
If not evolution, then why not the big bang as the next logical step?
Well it could be that there is absolutely no logical connection between the big bang and evolution? This is rather like saying "If someone likes climbing mountains, won't they like raspberry pie as the next logical step?" It is a complete non sequitur.
Also, the Big Bang theory does not disagree with religion. Not at all. In fact the theory was created by a
Catholic priest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
So trying to say that religious people don't believe in stuff like the big bang and evolution is as empirically false as creation itself, which is extremely ironic.