Darwin's Fish Decal

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
KenRU
Guru
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:44 pm
Location: NJ

Darwin's Fish Decal

Post #1

Post by KenRU »

I'm interested in both theist and atheist opinions.

Just purchased the Darwin's Fish decal from Amazon and was wondering what the popular consensus was. Do you find it offensive? Disrespectful?

I know its a light-weight topic and all, but nonetheless, they all don't have to center around quantum theory, right?

All the best,

-Ken

(my apologies if this has been discussed already in another post)
Last edited by KenRU on Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #51

Post by wiploc »

ThePainefulTruth wrote:
[Replying to post 39 by Jashwell]

(A problem with religion, not theism).
What's the diff?
I'm told that 25% of reformed Jews are atheists. They're still religious, but they don't believe in gods.

Buddhism is, for most Buddhists, a godless religion.

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #52

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

wiploc wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote:
[Replying to post 39 by Jashwell]

(A problem with religion, not theism).
What's the diff?
I'm told that 25% of reformed Jews are atheists. They're still religious, but they don't believe in gods.
If that's even true (source?), then they're atheists who participate in the Jewish ethnic culture. To call that religion would be splitting microfibers. I'm not saying there aren't a few who fall through the cracks of any religion, but if they don't believe in God(s), they don't believe in their religion's claim to authority.
Buddhism is, for most Buddhists, a godless religion.
It is hard to pin Buddhism down being fraught as it is with so many obscure terms and concepts as to put modern psychobabble to shame. It isn't theistic in a literal sense, but they treat Buddha's teachings as of a divine like source due to the enlightenment he is supposed to have achieved. Their most unfounded and fantastic beliefs are reincarnation (transmigration or the recycling of the "soul", for lack of a better word in English), and the release from that cycle when Nirvana is achieved. That's nothing but pure mythology without the gods. But Buddha has become the quasi-divine, holy, authority that revealed Buddhist philosophy. IOW, there's no reasoning behind many of his most spectacular beliefs, and for all intents and purposes, he is a surrogate god.

Yes, technically, he is not a god, but he is venerated and given authority as if he were. Ask a Buddhist what is moral and you're likely to get any number of answers. But like other major religions, they also have a version of the Golden Rule tucked away, in this case in a non-canonical source. From the Udanavarga 5:18 (560 BCE)-- "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself."
Truth=God

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #53

Post by Goat »

ThePainefulTruth wrote:
wiploc wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote:
[Replying to post 39 by Jashwell]

(A problem with religion, not theism).
What's the diff?
I'm told that 25% of reformed Jews are atheists. They're still religious, but they don't believe in gods.
If that's even true (source?), then they're atheists who participate in the Jewish ethnic culture. To call that religion would be splitting microfibers. I'm not saying there aren't a few who fall through the cracks of any religion, but if they don't believe in God(s), they don't believe in their religion's claim to authority.
How very narrow minded and illogical. OF course it's religion. You have no concept of what you are talking about.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #54

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

[Replying to post 53 by Goat]

Of course what is religion?

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #55

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 54 by ThePainefulTruth]

re·li·gion
riˈlijən/Submit
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #56

Post by Goat »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 54 by ThePainefulTruth]

re·li·gion
riˈlijən/Submit
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
or , expanded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] A critique of Geertz's model by Talal Asad categorized religion as "an anthropological category."[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[2]

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[3]

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith, belief system or sometimes set of duties;[4] however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social".[5] A global 2012 poll reports that 59% of the world's population is religious, and 36% are not religious, including 13% who are atheists, with a 9 percent decrease in religious belief from 2005.[6] On average, women are more religious than men.[7] Some people follow multiple religions or multiple religious principles at the same time, regardless of whether or not the religious principles they follow traditionally allow for syncretism.[8][9][10]
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #57

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

[Replying to post 55 by DanieltheDragon]

Thanks for posting, looks like my statement adhered to the definition after all. But you said I was narrow-minded and illogical. Maybe if you weren't so busy calling names.....

Post Reply