Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom Mullet:
well said, but that does not address my argument exactly.

​

would I be correct to say that evolution is believing something without proof, and therefore a religion?

---

No, there are other qualifications for a religion. Please do no oversimplify. There is no proof that my car will start in the morning, yet I believe it will. Are you willing to say this belief is a religion also?

quote:

---

After all, every man in this world who is not mad is always refining his world view based on empirical knowledge, so science in this view is nothing but a tool of the mind, just as much use to a christian as an atheist and an agnostic.

---

Correct. That is why atheists, believers and agnostics can believe in evolution. By the way, is there something wrong with a 'tool of the mind'?

quote:

---

If science cannot prove evolution or christianity then why not abandon it and accept that neither are believable on pure fact but on faith?

---

Because your definitions are wrong. Why have you gone from 'belief' to 'religion' to 'faith' without the least hesitation? They are all differenct but you conflate them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom Mullet:
Very good point. Vocabulary can often stop communication. According to me...

​

a BELIEF is a personal opinion.

---

Okay so far.

quote:

---

a RELIGION is a set of BELIEFS

---

Sort of, but not a complete definition. My definition includes "concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency ... usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often involving a moral code..."

quote:

---

FAITH is belief in that RELIGION.

---

Too all-inclusive here. Faith need not have anything to do with religion. I have faith in my friends and my car too. Does that mean they are part of my religion?

quote:

---

So FAITH is the belief in a set of personal opinions.

---

Well, I think this has been refuted.

quote:

---

I hope this helps you understand what i said. Because you seem to detest simplification I will reword my argument in lowest terms just for spite.

---

Actually, I know what you were saying. You were projecting your own style of faith and religion on science. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. And yes, I detest simplification where it avoids details that are detrimental to your argument. This is a favorite creationist tactic and a well known propaganda technique.

quote:

---

a BELIEF is a personal opinion.
a FACT is a TRUE BELIEF. (descarte and berkely get off here...)
TRUE BELIEFs are determined to be FACTS only by PROOF
PROOF leaves no room for DOUBT
DOUBT comes from INDUCTIVE and ABDUCTIVE reasoning, but NOT DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

---

Not sure what you are saying here. Nothing about religion yet...

quote:

---

EVOLUTION happened in the past. It is supported by INDUCTIVE and ABDUCTIVE reasoning, but NOT DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

---

Perhaps more on this later, but I think you are wrong here.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION has a degree of doubt.

---

And so is the belief that my alarm clock will go off at the right time tomorrow morning. And yet it is a pretty good bet.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION is not proved.

---

Correct. However, it is supported by the preponderance of evidence.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION is not a FACT.

---

In a strict sense, yes. However, since it is supported by so much evidence it can be used as a premise for further sudies. This is where creationists lose the thread of logic. They think that a working hypothesis is necessarily assumed to be a fact. In the case of evolution, the theory has survived for so long without refutation that it is what we can call it a 'scientific fact'. By using this scientific fact as a premise we are not only causing scientific progress, we are actualy testing the theory as well. Every day.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION is an opinion.

---

You are projecting again. Evolution is a useful scientific theory. It is a scientific fact.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION is a BELIEF, or set of BELIEFs.

---

Not really. We believe in evolution, but it is not a set of beliefs. Or perhaps you could tell us what these beliefs are and we could discuss them.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION is a RELIGION.

---

Since you have redefined 'religion' you are absolutely correct. However, most of us including all dictionaries have a different definition of 'religion'.

quote:

---

now, when you say

​

quote:

---

Because your definitions are wrong. Why have you gone from 'belief' to 'religion' to 'faith' without the least hesitation? They are all differenct but you conflate them.

---

​

you are partly right.

---

Actually, I am completely right. Your defintion of religion is self-serving.

quote:

---

Of course, you wouldn't want to call my opinions 'wrong' would you? That is not the purpose of a debate!

---

Suuurrrrre. No one ever does this.

quote:

---

If when you debate and you keep getting stuck on incongruous definitions, ...

---

Which is just what you have done.

quote:

---

...why not just take the basic meaning of words and forget all the little addons?

---

Sure. Let's just avoid those annoying details.

quote:

---

In any case the importance of debate is to argue concepts. I hope mine are clear enough to inspect and critique.

​

and yes incidentally i DO think that believeing that your car will start in the morning is religion. Sooner or later you will leave your lights on and cause a midlife...or midday...religious crisis. Faith in things of this world will only disappoint you.

---

I am not surprised that you think this. You seem to be a bit careless in your thinking as I have shown above. Because of you tend to project, everything could be a religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom Mullet:
But by defintion 5 an atheistical world view IS a religion. I suppose I have to define devoted too though right?

---

Actually, no. But since I don't really care about this I won't argue the point.

quote:

---

Devoted: loving, loyal.

---

True enough. See above. (I don't care, so how is this to be 'loving' or 'loyal'.)

quote:

---

I doubt that this is what the previous 115 posts have been arguing. How about somebody tells me the 'real' definitions and an argument that evolution is not a religion.

---

The real definition is that which is commonly understood. I think we all know what a religion is.

quote:

---

e: In a strict sense, yes. However, since it is supported by so much evidence it can be used as a premise for further sudies. This is where creationists lose the thread of logic. They think that a working hypothesis is necessarily assumed to be a fact. In the case of evolution, the theory has survived for so long without refutation that it is what we can call it a 'scientific fact'. By using this scientific fact as a premise we are not only causing scientific progress, we are actualy testing the theory as well. Every day.

​

PM: I agree, but that too is a selfserving definition. Look at it this way, for a theory to become fact it needs to survive without refutation.

---

This is a good criterion. It is why evolution has moved to what I call a 'scientific fact.'

quote:

---

I have never heard an argument that has destroyed my beliefs, so I feel they have not been refuted. It has been about six years personally. Is that enough time? Christianity has been around 2000 years, but at other times people believed slightly different Christianity as they believed slightly different forms of evolution. Is 2000 long enough?

---

I am not sure where you get the idea that christianity necessarily conflicts with evolution. The only conflict is where creationists insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis and forget about the important parts of the Genesis story.