....isnt evolution your religion?
Look at it this way. I believe God made everything in 6 days. You believe all the matter in the universe came together in a big bang, and it took BILLIONS of years, maybe even TRILLIONS, and poef here we are. So I believe God, my religion, you believe dirt, evolution, your religion. Whats the diffirence? I believe, and you believe.
2006-10-25 06:10:58 · 46 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Mere belief does not constitute a religion. I wish people would stop making that false connection.
What's the difference?? Belief in science and belief in religion are two different kinds of belief. One is belief in evidence and fact and proof and the other is faith in that which CANNOT be evidenced or proven. To suggest that the one word is used in the exact same way in these respective contexts is highly misleading and completely disingenuous.
By the way, evolution is NOT the same as the big bang. It is perfectly acceptable and possible for a person to acknowledge the truth of evolution but NOT believe in the big bang.
Do you actually KNOW what the big bang is? Do you know how it happened? Did you know it was recently proven? Want a link? George Smoot - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Smoot and John Mather - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Mather#Awards were given a NOBEL PRIZE for finding proof.
2006-10-25 06:13:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 2⤋
Athiesm is not a religion. Religion involves the belief in some supernatural power, or some spiritual leader. Athiests have no such belief.
Evolution is not a system that teaches morals or spiritual values. It is simply a well-defined theory that explains how life came about in a clear scientific manner. While not complete, it's the best and most logical answer to the question "how did we come to be?" It requires nothing supernatural.
The Big Bang is not part of evolution. That explains how the universe most likely came to be. Evolution is a distinct process that occurrs after that.
Your question would be akin to asking an art historian if the Louvre was her religion. She studies the art, but does not rely on it to define her place in the universe.
Athiests may have a sort of religion. Some practice ethical humanism, a religion which emphasizes man's responsibility toward others. It's not a religion in the sense that it has not
God or supernatural spiritual authority, but it does deal with ethics.
Again, athiesm is simply the lack in belief of hte supernatural. It doesn't recognize a god, and does not replace said god with anything.Science is not religion, Darwin is not worshiped. The Big Bang was not a supernatural event.
EOL
--Dee
2006-10-25 06:41:03 · answer #2 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There's no 'poof' to the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. Something always existed and that something gave rise to the big bang/inflaton. Over 12-15 billion years (the age of the universe is hard to pin down, but it's about that) matter did a bunch of moving ...
why am I wasting my time on this. I've explained this to you before and you couldn't contest it then either.
No. No it's not a religion. We have strong evidence we're right and you're wrong. You complain about assumptions, well EVERYONE operates on assumptions. Science makes only a handful of assumptions -- math & logic are valid, we can describe only what we can observe (aided or unaided), and that *IF* there is a supernatural realm, it does not affect the universe. That's it. Those three things are it.
As a theist, you disagree with that second and third assumption. But to accept an assumption or axiom is not an act of religion or faith. It's just choosing which game you wish to play. You play the religion game, I play the science game, your proof is meaningful only individually, my proof is meaningful individually and socially.
Mine is morally superior. Deal with it.
2006-10-25 06:17:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Your religion is ignorance, hatred and deception. Time after time, despite quite clear explanations offered to you by multiple respondants, you still choose to muddle together evolution and cosmology. Evolution is not a religion; it is a science, a characterization of the natural history of the Earth. One can believe in God and evolution at once. If God steered evolution, he did it perfectly, not leaving a mark of His intervention. You have abandoned God for a literal interpretation of a relatively recent edition of the Bible. Last I saw, you were rewriting the Bible to fit your agenda, so you even seem to abandoned it. I sincerely hope your beliefs are wrong, or you will have a lot to answer for.
2006-10-25 08:47:44 · answer #4 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have made an excellent point! And now I am more confused than ever. The thing is, neither "religion" seems to have undeniable proof. I am a proof kind of person. While I believe in evolution but only so far, I also only believe so far in the six day theory. Both of them sound a bit fairly tale-ish to me. Can I believe a little bit of both? Do I have to choose? Maybe that's my OWN religion, eh?
I see someone gave you a "thumbs down". Ridiculous! You get a great big thumbs up from me just for making me think!
Thanks!
2006-10-25 06:18:06 · answer #5 · answered by AKA FrogButt 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There's more proof of the bing bang theory than there is of God. Why isn't got the colour he should be, why is he always white in pictures? Peter Kay says God was English, that's why we don't have earthquakes, you don't sh1t on your own doorstep! Of course that's just a joke but how can you believe that someone made everything in 6 days? Why did he make bad stuff? What about all the other unanswerable questions? Some people even think the bible was just a story book like a Harry Potter book of the time and it just got taken for something totally different over time!
2006-10-25 06:13:54 · answer #6 · answered by claire 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Religious people ignore everything that questions their beliefs regardless of the evidence. Theories about evolution are never permanent, but always changing to reflect new evidence. It does not cling to old ideas that have been disproved. That makes it a science. If and when there are better theories, I will change my opinions accordingly. Does this sound like I consider evolution an "infallible religion"?
2006-10-26 07:03:13 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's not a religion it's a theory a theory that has heaps of scientific evidence to back it up look around you things are always changing to better themselves. you on the other hand believe a man in the sky that just appeared out of no where because the first line or so in the bible is...before God there was nothing...then where did God come from there was no atoms no molecules nothing at all you can't make something from nothing it just doesn't work that way there has to be something to create the something from. Look at noah and the ark there is no way that noah took one male and one female of every creature on the planet and put it on an ark just the different types of ants that are out there would fill up the ark unless he some how created an ark that covered in entire planet earth so it could house all of these creatures.
2006-10-25 06:16:32 · answer #8 · answered by athenajade 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
You're missing the point entirely.
I don't BELIEVE in evolution, like other rational people I study the evidence and arrive at the logical conclusion that it is a correct explanation of how life arose and continues to exist on this planet. There is no belief involved. With evolution, I'm not asked to believe in something I can't see and can't test -- which is what you do when you believe in god. Instead I'm able to look at all of the evidence for myself and arrive at my own conclusion. There is no evidence for god (none testable -- someone else's "testimony" is not evidence, as it can't be tested to be true or false). That's belief, that's faith.
Neither belief or faith are required for evolution, only logic, reason, and an examination of testable evidence.
It's clear you have NOT examined any of the evidence for either evolution or cosmology, since you don't understand even the basic concepts.
2006-10-25 06:16:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
"6 days" in the bible is a subjective measurement. Obviously it couldn't have been formed in 6-24 hour days. Because the universe was dark...when light first appeared, as a result of the theorized big bang, that would have been one very long day lasting billions of years. In that light, even though I am more or less an atheist, I really do not disagree with your Christian belief that "god" created everything in 6 days. If you want to call that an act of God, you're more than welcome to. In fact, I am totally unreligious but don't even doubt that we really disagree in much.
So yeah, I agree that you and I believe in the same thing. That's been my contention since day 1. Call it whatever you want to call it, we believe in the samething ultimately.
That means I am as much of a Christian as you are an atheist.
I think you and I should form a United Nations of Ideologies and hopefully, the rest of humanity would get their heads out of their arses and pay attention to the blind technicalities they're stubbornly clinging onto in the name of war.
2006-10-25 06:16:26 · answer #10 · answered by Tones 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋