What do you think of this religion called evolution. its dogmas, gods(e.g Darwin, Dawkins,Mother nature, natural selection),
They say religious people are fundamentalist, dogmatic...yet they are worse at it.
i think evolution is the newest religion to be formed in the last 100 years....they just dont know it.
this new religion should be mapped.....its adherents, gods, temples, high priest etc
59 comments
He doesn't even get the timeframe correct. And there are multiple religions younger than the ToE, meaning that, even if it was a religion, it still wouldn't be the newest.
Only evolution has no dogma, no system of worship, no large tax excempt buildings, and is a science.
Claiming evolution is the newest religion... even if evolution WERE a religion, claiming it is the newest shows this person to be woefully ignorant of comparative religion and recent events... Raelians, Heaven's Gate, Wicca, Neo Druidism...
Good idea whitewater55. Since I always believe man evolved, I must be a practicing evolutionist 24/7. Therefore I can write off all my meals as religious expenses, a new computer as my holy text, and my home as a house of worship!
If evolution is a religion, then why are scientists even bothering to look for evidence to prove the theory? Wouldn't their time be better spent pounding a pulpit on TV, asking for donations, and telling us that all we need is faith that the theory is true just because a book says so?
"What do you think of this religion called evolution. its dogmas, gods(e.g Darwin, Dawkins,Mother nature, natural selection),"
I think that they are not a religion, and you would too if you had bothered to consult a good dictionary.
"They say religious people are fundamentalist, dogmatic...yet they are worse at it."
No, those of us with a respect for science are not dogmatic as science always allow for the introduction of better evidence. Dogma does not allow that.
"i think evolution is the newest religion to be formed in the last 100 years....they just dont know it."
Well, since the Origin of Species was published about 150 years ago, we can all see how much research you've put into forming your opinion.
Get one of the kind, smart people to help you look up "religion" and "evolution" in a dictionary.
"this new religion should be mapped.....its adherents, gods, temples, high priest etc"
That will be difficult as the ToE is not a religion and has no gods, temples nor high priests.
Even if your accusations of the theory of evolution being some kind of religion were true (which they aren't), that doesn't condemn it unless you also condemn religion in general, and thus your own faith - you'd at worst be putting evolution on the same level as religion, not below it.
Not as brilliant an argument as it might seem to you, unless of course you hold that religion in general is bad, whilst somehow excusing your own from that generalisation.
To sum up - if you're wrong, we win outright. If you're right, you just about break even, but you don't win any more than us and we don't lose any more than you.
this new religion should be mapped.....its adherents, gods, temples, high priest etc
OK Francis, you do that!
(I'm saying that in the vain hope he or she might learn something. Frankly I can see this project scuppering when they eat all the crayons.)
this new religion should be mapped.....its adherents, gods, temples, high priest etc
And you will find... none! wow what a surprise!
And my religion, Discordianism, is far newer asshat. Well, at least in it's current incarnation...
Evolution is a reliogn? Fair enough. You're only jealous, Francis, because our religion allows us to live life as we see fit and, basically, we're having a more fun and getting more out of it than you. But hey, you chose to believe in your sky daddy and his inflexible rules, so tough shit.
Dogmatism is a series of accepted truths that can´t be disputed within a religion. Well, evolution is just a theory, and has no gods. We don´t adore mother nature like the pagans in the past did and natural selection is a theory too, not a god. Darwin, well, he was the son of a minister.......so it´s considered a human. Second, all those assumptions HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATED. I can only believe, for example, that Jesus is the son of God, but if his existence is proved say in Flavius Josephus writings, well, that´s a fact. Like that Paris is the capital of France, but that it´s the most beautiful city in the world is just an opinion.
Evolution has no dogmas. Any idea, theory, teaching, or belief in evolution, since it is a science, can be challenged, tested, disproven, and changed if proof is demonstrated to warrant a change.
"Dogma" means a teaching, rule, or belief that can not be altered or changed under any circumstances. Such does not exist in science as a whole or evolutionary science in particular.
Science seeks to find ultimate truth, and examines the world to discover it, despite the fact that said ultimate trurh will likely never be arrived at since every answer leads to more interesting questions.
Religion claims to already be in possession of ultimate truth, and any evidence in the world contradictary to that truth is ignored and discarded.
Science and religion are polar opposites.
This is an odd argument. He's trying to discredit evolution and promote religion by calling evolution a religion. Is it just me or does this seem self-defeating?
Oh well, at least we know for sure that Darwin, Dawkins, nature and natural selection actually exist!
It's amazing. Just cos the fundies can't think outside the constraints of "gods, temples, priests, etc", that's the only way they can comprehend atheism. Hilarious.
"this new religion should be mapped.....its adherents, gods, temples, high priest etc"
Don't know wether to laugh hysterically or start crying.... I thought dictionaries were cheep these days.
Francis - thou art full of shyte.
Atheists live in a world where religion has no importance.
We are free of the constraints of being lectured by those, who know fuck-all in the first place.
Any branch of science is abhorrent to the fundie, and the fundie will invent any lie to belittle the achievements of science.
My job of 57 years has been translating documents and text on which the bible was based - it's ALL shit.
Now, not taking into account how (despite the ol' urban myth wheeled out by Cre[a]ti[o]nist fundies to try and claim to the contrary) from his discoveries to his death he was an Agnostic , this photo in the Church of England's Westminster Abbey:
image
Also, how Queen Elizabeth II has final power of veto over any & all potential designs of stamps, coins & banknotes (as they bear her image, natch) prior to the Royal Mail/Mint issuing such; and how she is also Head of the Church of England, Defender of the Faith ...:
image
image
...what do you think, Francis?! >:D
Enjoy your 'dogma'-destroying paradox.
"this new religion should be mapped.....its adherents, gods, temples, high priest etc"
That's it. That's your map. Yes, that blank spot. Why is it blank? Because you're delusional.
Sure, let's map it.
Adherents - everyone with a high school level education and a grasp on reality.
Gods - none
Temples - none
High priests - none
Dogmas - none
Oh, and it's 150 years old.
Funny thing is, not too many people belong to two religions.
And ther are plenty of people who accept Jehovah AND evolution.
Or Jesus and evolution.
Or Jesus and the Bernoulli Principle.
Or Jesus and the theory of gravity...
So unless they're ALL religions in your view, YOU'RE talking out your ass.
Actuelly, that could just be the last five words.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.