Religion is a subjective topic and should only be approached as of matter of beliefs

December 10, 2019, 7:27 pm

Agree50 Disagree19

72%
28%

The debate "Religion is a subjective topic and should only be approached as of matter of beliefs" was started by marky on December 10, 2019, 7:27 pm. 50 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 19 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

Nemiroff posted 16 arguments, diecinueve posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument, marky posted 3 arguments, Allirix posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
jrardin12 posted 14 arguments, JesusISGod777888 posted 4 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

marky, Allirix, diecinueve, historybuff, TheExistentialist, Millenialist, Facundo4261Arg, StrangeTime, Helloguys, Liam, ao, bitchimaqueen and 38 visitors agree.
jrardin12, JesusISGod777888, Oheythere, Entropyrose, abie, Godisnotdead and 13 visitors disagree.

marky
replied to...

ok, I will take that.

1 year ago
Allirix
replied to...

Faith is a complete trust or confidence in something. It you believe evolution is definitely true you have faith in that theory.

1 year ago
marky
replied to...

How can you have faith in Eveloution?

1 year ago
Allirix
replied to...

In the same way that everything requires faith to some degree? Evolution needs less faith than Christianity though

1 year, 1 month ago
marky
replied to...

How so?

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

1. logic: we could be in gods image mentally... but physically we are 100% animals, and animal is a physical description based on biological structures and functions.

2. animals have shown logic, from dolphins, to dogs, to ravens, to squids. so it is not unique.

3. the chasm is not necessarily genetic. genes describe the potential an organism can reach. take a person with genius genes and never give him an education or nutrition and he won't be very smart. the brain is a very nutrient hungry organ, especially during development. the chasm was made not by evolution, but innovation: cooking.

4. cooking: cooking unleashed an unprecendent mass of energy from food and allowed us to save time and energy chewing and digesting rough raw meats. cooking also differentiates us from all other animals.

1 year, 1 month ago

Well, greater chasms than that exist between man and all other animals.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

there is also a great chasm in intelligence between apes and other mammals. between mammals and other animals. the greatest chasm is between animals and non animals.

great chasms are not rare or unnatural. the chasm may not even be that great. a marginal competitive advantage can over time make the difference between dominance and bankruptcy.

1 year, 1 month ago

Science and the Bible show that there is a great chasm between man and animals.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

animals is a scientific classification of biological structures with the same function.

mammals are not exclusively land dwelling: dolphins, whales.

animals have unique cell structure that differentiates them from plants, fungi, and bacteria. they cannot make their own food and must eat nutrients.

1 year, 1 month ago

God's image would include things like logic.

1 year, 1 month ago

Mammals is a scientific classification of biological structures with the same functions. We share functions with mammals because most mammals are land dwelling creatures (which is why we don't share anything with fish).

When we say God's image we are not referring to physical appearance, but abilities God gave us separate from animals, especially a spirit.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

so mammals are not animals?

1 year, 1 month ago

maybe it is meant to be about our external appearance... but our internal function and layout is identical to animals.

also, i thought god had no form or shape.

1 year, 1 month ago

We are mammals, but we are not animals.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

so we are not mammals either?

1 year, 1 month ago

Humans are not primates. We are made in God's image separate from animals.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

are humans primates?

1 year, 1 month ago

Tailess primates from Africa and Southeast Asia.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

can you define ape?

1 year, 1 month ago

austropithicus has been shown to be an ape. Neanderthals have been proven to be human.

1 year, 1 month ago

in the chain of human evolution we have austropithicus, homo erectus, neanderthals, and many other examples... which of those are transitional? are none of them transitional?

the answer is all of them are transitional. homo sapien sapiens (us) are also a transitional form for the next step.

all forms are transitional. evolution is continuous.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

what do you mean transitional species? all species are transitional.

what do you mean "loses genetic traits"? dna is made up of 4 information molecules call a,t,c, and g. mutations can add, remove, or change a letter. cells use 3 letter sequences to code proteins. removing a letter simply brings the next letter into the 3 letter blocks. the information is not lost, it is changed.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

bacteria does not have a specific life span, all bacteria is different. some can form spores that resist most forms of eradication for prolonged periods of time. not all bacteria is parasitic. some is in the air, in the soil, in the air droplets. i think youve been misinformed about microbes.

1 year, 1 month ago
JesusISGod777888
replied to...

mutation is not properly defined, science asserts a mutation occurs in a genetic sequence when a Gene fails to copy itself and loses genetic traits present in a gene.

the process results in a gene that lacks genetic traits that are present in other Genes. the loss of traits effect genetic development

1 year, 1 month ago
JesusISGod777888
replied to...

there is no evidence for evolution,

Darwin's tree is inversely what disproves and disquantifies evolution.

transitional species should be as observable as primitive species, since transitional species are not transition never occurs or occured.

1 year, 1 month ago
JesusISGod777888
replied to...

bacteria has a standard lifespan of a 24 he period in which bacteria must sustain it's processes through a host. explain how bacteria can survive without a host in a hostile climate.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

mentioning a few isolated real events does not make a story true.

wonder woman showing a very real ww1 and many real nations does not make the story of wonder woman true.

most religions reference real events, that doesnt make the fanastical parts of their stories true by default.

1 year, 1 month ago

Religion, purely objective to it's definition,which stems from the Greek word religio meaning deep contemplation or thought.

1. thoughts are not a source of knowledge
2. therefore religion is not based on what is known or what someone is aware of

however, CHRISTIANITYS based on events and therefore excluded from being defined as religion.

1 year, 1 month ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

To show evolution we essentially have to show a positive trait being added to a species that didn't exist before. First we can look at nylon eating bacteria:

Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Arthrobacter that can digest certain by-products of nylon 6 manufacture. This strain of Flavobacterium sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became popularly known as nylonase

Nylon was invented in 1935 and is a completely man made product. There is no real need to have nylonase in nature as it would never be useful without the man made material.

This; however has been dismissed by creationists as evidence for evolution since it's a modification of an existing protein rather than a new protein. The general argument on various creationist sites is that the only acceptable evidence for evolution is a positive trait being acquired through frameshift mutations since it creates new information on the genome and necessarily adds to the genome.

In 2017 this paper was published:
https://jvi.asm.org/content/92/8/e01770-17

This paper shows a positive trait being added to chickens via NATURALLY occurring frameshift mutation. This is about as definitive of proof as you could possibly get of positive frameshift mutations happening naturally and a selection process to select for that mutation.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

a global flood would not speed up nuclear decay. but yes, uniformity is the assumption. a magical being can decieve all. i can guess as to why he had to speed up time or modify universal expansion for his practical reasons... but planting false fossils and faking the dates of objects, thats not a good god. thats a trickster. if you believe in a trickster, not are all things possible, they may actually happen!

1 year, 1 month ago

Actually millions of years is based on assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. However, we cannot know if the processes that are used to "prove" long ages were not sped up (ie. A Global Flood).

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

if you believe a million years has not passed, a million years from today, eventually, it will have passed. and yet the idea, would still be just as hard to believe. we can make object measurements, the results have been tested and vetted. it is valid knowledge.

1 year, 1 month ago

Another problem is your statement of a long process. To believe in millions of years takes faith for we cannot prove it. There is no observable way to see millions of years. Science is about observation.

1 year, 1 month ago

Well how can we have such diversity from mutations if most have a negative impact?

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

you are semi correct, most mutations are neutral and have no external effect. of the ones that do have an effect, most are negative. a small number are positive.

there are mechanisms that speed up changes, such as sex cells swapping segments of their chromosome pairs so every sperm/egg is unique. and retroviruses injecting loads of usually junk dna to the mix. our genome is quite large.

obviously any poor mutations will be unlikely to take hold in the species and die with the individual, espeically if they are debilitating, the good ones may last forever tho. the key concept that makes or breaks evolution is time. given time, evolution is inevitable.

1 year, 1 month ago
historybuff
replied to...

You are correct, partially. Many mutations are not positive. But that would mean that the creature with a negative mutation is unlikely to survive and reproduce. A creature with a positive mutation is more likely to survive and procreate, thus passing on that mutation. This would be the selection phase.Over time those with the mutation spread and thrive. Thus over a long period of time mutation becomes evolution.

There is no faith involved. It is a very, very long trial and error process.

1 year, 1 month ago

I would argue that mutations in most instances is devolving, not evolving. It takes faith to believe mutations made everything"better" and not worse as we see today.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

evolution is a 2 step process.
1. mutation, which we have seen happen in real time in all living things.
2. selection, which of course things that are less able to survive and reproduce will eventually die out.

this cycle of change and competition is evolution. its simple and it explains everything we have found without inconsistencies. it is as simple as e=mc2.

1 year, 1 month ago

Well, let me know what evidence. I just want one and we can argue about whether it is solid or if it requires faith.

1 year, 1 month ago
diecinueve
replied to...

No, there is much evidence of evolution

1 year, 1 month ago

I am sorry, but evolution requires faith as well.

1 year, 1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

meh, assuming they aren't part of some fringe evil religion, its best to approach their wicked ideas from within their faith rather then mount an ineffective challenge of their faith.

1 year, 1 month ago

Or if they use that faith to advocate for terrible things. That also needs to be challenged.

1 year, 1 month ago

unless a religious persons claims run completely counter to known science, i tend to leave well enough alone. its a matter of faith, no way to declare yes or no with any confidence.

1 year, 1 month ago

That's how I see it

1 year, 1 month ago
Discuss "Religion is a subjective topic and should only be approached as of matter of beliefs" life religion society
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.