ADF
Member
You don't believe all the scientific evidence of evolution, but you believe in a talking snake and you deserving eternal torture because a very distant relative made from dirt ate an apple...
Religion in the Furry Community
- Thread starter Ame
- Start date
You don't believe all the scientific evidence of evolution, but you believe in a talking snake and you deserving eternal torture because a very distant relative made from dirt ate an apple...
Kitsune Cross
**** that **** now! Bitch
Hakar Kerarmor
PRAISE THE EMPEROR
Off course, they would claim the same about God.
Cassafrass
Member
I typed up a nice written response but sadly it was lost, so I will just leave you with these links:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/answers-to-11-questions-for-atheists/
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
http://www.christianityexplained.net/
Hopefully that clears up any questions you have well enough, and I don't really want to argue about this anymore, seeing as I'm only fifteen and I know I probably won't be able to persuade you to view the world as I do (unless, by chance, these links help you - if so, that is a miracle in itself and great!). You can also PM me any other questions you have.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/answers-to-11-questions-for-atheists/
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
http://www.christianityexplained.net/
Hopefully that clears up any questions you have well enough, and I don't really want to argue about this anymore, seeing as I'm only fifteen and I know I probably won't be able to persuade you to view the world as I do (unless, by chance, these links help you - if so, that is a miracle in itself and great!). You can also PM me any other questions you have.
Last edited:
Butters Shikkon
Patron Saint of Queers
Why not show the best example, Cass?
[video=youtube;2z-OLG0KyR4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4[/video]
Muhahahahahhahahhahhahahahahahahhah!!!!!
[video=youtube;2z-OLG0KyR4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4[/video]
Muhahahahahhahahhahhahahahahahahhah!!!!!
Ozriel
Inglorious Bastard
Humans ARE animals, but not on par with other animals on a cognitive level.
tisr
I exist perhaps
Age is not a defining factor, and should not be a defining factor, about the validity of your beliefs. But if you wish not to argue, I respect your choice. I shall counter your links anyway, and you may simply interpret as an exercise for me to practise my debate skills and confirm my opinions. (ugh semantics D: )
For the first link, it is a pro-atheist link, which constanty mentions that life is meaningless if God had a plan for us. Nothing to rebut here, and I agree with most of the points.
For the second link, the rebuttal to this delves into a lot of semantics. I answered yes to the existence of absolute truth, since I can confirm that I am having an experience. I cannot confirm the nature of the experience(e.g. real, hallucination, dreaming), but it is an experience nonetheless. I do not even know how to begin to doubt whether I am having an experience, and I presume that something in my own mind cannot be experience by all people everywhere at everytime. So yes, as far as I can tell, the statement that I am having an experience is an absolute truth.
Next question, Do you know something to be true. I answered that I believe I know something to be true, namely the fact that I am having an experience.
Next question, Does Logic Exist. From my experiences, logic exists. Logic, for example, states that something cannot be simultaneously true and not true, and so far everything I know of holds up to this claim. In fact I do not even know how to think of something that violates this statement. So yes, logic exists.
Next question, Does logic change. I cannot guarantee that because logic has worked all the time, that it will work tomorrow. So the answer should be "I don't know". But sadly that is not an option, and because logic has worked so far according to all my experiences, I shall go with "Logic does not change"
Next question, Is logic made of matter. Semantically, I would say so. Logic is a process that is undertaken by matter, it is a pattern or a computation that happens to matter. Logic is like the image printed onto paper, a pattern from blotches of ink. Without matter, logic would not exist, and the process cannot occur.
Next question, does matter change. Matter changes, according to my observation.
Next question, they asked me again if logic is made of matter. They claim that there is a contradiction if logic does not change, logic is made of matter, but matter changes. I disagree. Bringing back the analogy of printed images, the atoms that are used in the ink may change, but the pattern produced by the ink still stays. Likewise, even though matter changes, the process of logic need not change.
That was an awful lot of semantics. Just before the "The Proof That God Exists..." button, they state that according to my options, "Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God." I disagree. Firstly, logic is not necessary to prove everything. Bringing back the example of me knowing that I have an experience, logic was not required to know that, and no deduction was necessary. I do not doubt, or even know how to doubt that claim, and do not require logic to doubt that claim.
Secondly, God is not required for me to know I am having an experience. Why would you need God to understand that you are having an experience? I understand that you need some form of universal outside observer to determine the nature of your experience, since you are unable to confirm it without a universal reference, but knowing that I am having an experience does not require God.
And so they claim, "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything". If they mean that I need God to know that the nature of my experience is one that is true, I agree that an outside observer is required. But I do not claim that, as I stated before, I do not need God to prove I am having an experience.
And assuming God exists, and that God is able to let us know whether our experiences are true, and that he is infalliable, this does not mean that we know absolute truth from God. God may be infalliable by definition, but human beings are not, and human beings are unable to accurately discern true revelations from false experiences of true revelations.
Phew, that was a mouthful. The third link has obvious gaping holes regarding the viability of atheism. Its the usual, 'matter coming from nowhere/always existing is illogical, but God always existing is justified'. Most laughable about the link is how they claim a reason Christianity is more accurate than Islam is because the Bible is more scientifically accurate, giving examples from the Quran(e.g. mountains prevent earthquakes), while ignoring the plethora of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. This rebuttal is heavily abridged, but its mostly because most of the examples are trivial to rebut.
Last edited:
Casual Cat
Member
I'm a practicing catholic, even though my f̶a̶g̶g̶o̶t̶r̶y̶ fabulousness probably means I shouldn't be. I must confess (hah)that I don't actually believe most of the dogma. I just love all of the pomp and circumstance of the church.
And I mean it's not like saying a rosary is going to hurt me. Unless the muslums were right. Then I'm fucked.
And I mean it's not like saying a rosary is going to hurt me. Unless the muslums were right. Then I'm fucked.
Last edited:
Cassafrass
Member
Oops, I searched that link up off of Google and put it in my reply without thinking! Sorry, I disagree with it then. Gah, it's fine if you like it, but just know I don't agree with it personally. >.< Here's a good site that talks about a lot of things, almost all of which I agree with (if not all!) https://answersingenesis.org/answers/
And since this is a furry site, here is my views on the whole subject (again, I would love to be an animal, but that doesn't mean humans ARE animals): https://answersingenesis.org/are-hu...nces-between-human-life-and-animal-life-ob16/
Just totally ignore that first link I put before (you can tell I need to polish up on my debating. XD)
And since this is a furry site, here is my views on the whole subject (again, I would love to be an animal, but that doesn't mean humans ARE animals): https://answersingenesis.org/are-hu...nces-between-human-life-and-animal-life-ob16/
Just totally ignore that first link I put before (you can tell I need to polish up on my debating. XD)
Last edited:
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Even other creationists recognise that answers in genesis is false. :\ Even they make fun of it.
I happen to study the Earth Sciences, which means I have a rudimentary understanding of evolution.
1) When it is stated 'there is no animal parallel of the human brain, therefore evolution is wrong', the statement is not only too vague to be useful [and incorrect by most measures] but incoherent. Why should we expect there to be animal parallels? And if there were parallels how could we be sure they weren't convergent?
The fact humans have large complex brains does not mean they didn't evolve, especially when there is a fossil record of apes with increasingly large brains leading up to us. Homo heidelbergensis, habilus, erectus, ergaster.
2) 'Only humans speak'. Again, very vague. Even bees have their own language...but even if humans were the only species that you would say 'speaks', what is the significance? We might imagine a world in which all creatures that echo-locate, bar one species of bat, go extinct. Would that species of bat now no longer be an animal because it was unique? In spite of the fact it meets all the definitive criteria to be properly defined as an animal?
3) Only humans are fully bipedal. No they're not. Many animals in the history of earth have been bipedal and many still are. Gibbons are fully bipedal primates, for example.
4) 'Man has feelings'. Again so what? This doesn't mean humans aren't animals- why would it?
The arguments for defining humans as 'not animals' are incoherent. They fail to even address the question of what an animal is and why the possession of traits like bipedalism would mean a species isn't an animal.
On the other hand Scientists do have a proper definition of animal, which is "a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli." So we would, even if we were not descended from apes, be animals.
What AIG is trying to prove is that we don't belong to the phylogenetic clade Animalia, or indeed any clade- that we were invented by God some 10Kya.
Of course, there is no evidence to suggest this is the case, while there is very good morphological and genetic evidence to place humans within a nested animal phylogeny, which I will explain in detail if you're actually interested in discovering about our origins, rather than trying to distort them to fit your religious convictions.
Current physics is nothing like past mystical beliefs. You may get this impression if you do not understand the correct meaning of the scientific jargon. Any semblance of physics to past mystical beliefs would not lend credence to mysticism by association, though.
You know what you experienced, but I don't care what you experienced. I care what you can demonstrate. People have 'experienced' being abducted by aliens, or seeing big foot.
The chance of guessing the first 3 lottery numbers is small. But a large number of people per day dream about the lottery numbers. Your dad's 'mystic experience' was actually an unimpressive coincidence, given there are 7 billion dreams per night.
It's as if you were to ask 1 million people to flip coins. At least a few will get 50 heads in a row. It doesn't make them magic.
Last edited:
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Already asked the OP, he accuses us of being organised. D:
In any case these threads, however they are worded, are usually 'what is your perspective on spirituality?'.
tisr
I exist perhaps
I have heard bad things about answersingenesis, and it has confirmed my belief that it has a severe misunderstanding of science.
Almost all the reasons why humans supersede animals are irrelevant. So what if humans are bipedal, or are able to speak? How does that makes humans transcend animals? Cats have acute senses of sight, hearing and smell, and are able to make use of conservation of angular momentum to land on their feet. By my arbitrary requirements, cats are more advanced than humans. As Fallowfox mentioned, science has an unbiased and rigorous definition of animals that includes humans in.
I briefly browsed on a few topics in answersingenesis, and it is clear the writers do not know and regularly misuse science. For example, in "Does distant starlight prove the universe is old?", the article regularly misuses relativity and time dilation(we can and have calculated the effects of time dilation, it is not unknown), as well as basic logic(local time vs universal time, light created on day 4 does not necessarily reach earth on day 4 local time, using their example of planes, you could set off and land in different local times)
Overall, answersingenesis contains many gaping scientific inaccuracies and logical inconsistensies.
Kitsune Cross
**** that **** now! Bitch
Girl, you need to finish school rather than read "answeringenesis.org".
I don't even know where to start because you don't seem to have any basic knowledge in biology
Last edited:
CaptainCool
Lady of the lake
Holy cow, you are just 15 and you are falling for the nonsense they are writing there... That is very alarming to me!
Answers in genesis is an AWFUL source of information! As everyone above me pointed out, litereally everything they say about scientific subjects is just plain wrong!
If you want to know something about science, ask a scientist, not a person who wants to justify the bible through science!
Also, evolution is a proven FACT. There is no question about it anymore. If you say you don't believe in it... I'm sorry, that just means you didn't educate yourself about the subject or you simply looked at the wrong sources.
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."
Or in the language of mere mortals, proven.
Our current understanding of how evolution works and what the phylogenetic tree of life on earth is is incomplete, but it is the most predictive and accurate understanding of biodiversity to ever be produced.
In the future new discoveries will augment this theory of biodiversity, but they will not change its foundations, because those have been confirmed.
What remain now are subtleties, such as 'does life tend to evolve gradually, or does it evolve in fits and starts?' and 'what is the significant of macroscopic trends in evolution over geological time periods, and how do they arise?' Nobody can be completely certain about these questions.
These are questions one could spend a life time researching, and potentially solving.
Corwin Cross
Unofficial FAF Welcome Person
I put down atheist, even though I was born and raised a Catholic. Catholic school showed me the light. :>
The light being, of course, that I want nothing to do with the church. :I
The light being, of course, that I want nothing to do with the church. :I
Ozriel
Inglorious Bastard
Scientific theories are completely different from Theories.
Kokoro
Member
My philosophy is best illustrated through this example: How much money do I have in my pocket?
A Christian would say I had exactly $24.36. A Muslim might say that I have $57.95. A gnostic atheist would say I have $0.00.
Unless you've done scientific inquiry (turning out my pockets), the only viable answer is, "I don't know". And that's a perfectly good answer. This is agnosticism. Default = Void.
A Christian would say I had exactly $24.36. A Muslim might say that I have $57.95. A gnostic atheist would say I have $0.00.
Unless you've done scientific inquiry (turning out my pockets), the only viable answer is, "I don't know". And that's a perfectly good answer. This is agnosticism. Default = Void.
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I contest that you're not wearing any pants, so don't have pockets.
Asking whether someone has any money or not in their pockets is different from asking an unfalsifiable magical question. In that situation we can either say 'we don't know and we never will, because it is not falsifiable,' or we can say 'bullshit- despite not being falsifiable everything we currently know indicates it is wrong'.
For example, consider the question 'How many magic beans do I have in my pocket?' Of course I have none, everyone knows magic isn't real.
CaptainCool
Lady of the lake
Yes, but we have turned out your pockets when it comes to evolution.
The evidence that supports it is overwhelming. At this point saying that it isn't a proven fact only serves to demonstrate that you haven't done any research on the subject.