Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on September 07, 2005, 07:06:08 am
-
It's worse than I ever imagined....
[q]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/07/natural_selection/
A mere 26 per cent of people in the US believe that life on Earth has evolved without any input from a supreme being, according to new figures from The Pew Research Center.
Unsurprisingly, secular respondents were overwhelmingly more likely to say they believed in the theory of natural selection. But even in this group, 15 per cent said life has not changed since time began, and 10 per cent agreed that change over time was likely to have been guided by a supreme being.
This does make us wonder if these people all knew what "secular" means, and indeed researchers at Pew say that an analysis of the poll suggests that there is some confusion among respondents about the meaning of the words evolution and creationism.
They point to inconsistencies in people's declared beliefs and what they think ought to be taught in schools, after 64 per cent of those surveyed said creationism ought to be taught alongside evolutionary theory.
Age, sex and race also seem to be big factors in what people are likely to believe, with women being more inclined to go with God than are men: overall, 47 per cent of women and 36 per cent of men told the Pew pollsters that they believe humans, and other lifeforms, have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
Of the 48 per cent of the population who believes that life has evolved, well over a third (37.5 per cent) think that its evolution was guided by a supreme being.
White respondents were the most likely to go with Darwin (27 per cent reported a belief in natural selection), compared to 22 per cent of Hispanic respondents and 14 per cent of those who gave their ethnicity as black. More than half (53 per cent) of the black respondents said life has existed unchanged since the dawn of time.
Those under 30 were the least likely (37 per cent) to state that life has existed since T=0, unchanged. This figure rises to 50 per cent in the over 65s.
In the over 50 age group, just 15 per cent of women have faith in evolution compared to 26 per cent of men, and for the under 50s, 34 per cent of men shun the idea of a supreme being, compared to 25 per cent of women.
The survey also probed the US public's attitude to religion and politics. While most Americans are quite happy for their politicians to openly declare their religion, the number of people who are uncomfortable with how much President Bush mentions prayer and religion has doubled over the last two years, and now stands at 28 per cent.[/q]
-
what
the
frak
i really need to get out of this country, dont i
-
*sigh*
*pulls out quick-fire beliefs in the whole creation debate*
according to the bible, the world is 6000 years old, and started from two people...today, it's 6 billion. and on the seventh day, god created barry white :p
that's a lotta sex, lies, and incest :p
i'll keep the second part to myself unless it's asked for a lot. ;)
-
I'm speechless, I am completely without speech...!
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
*sigh*
*pulls out quick-fire beliefs in the whole creation debate*
according to the bible, the world is 6000 years old, and started from two people...today, it's 6 billion. and on the seventh day, god created barry white :p
that's a lotta sex, lies, and incest :p
i'll keep the second part to myself unless it's asked for a lot. ;)
And if you think of the number of children from just two people and think of them mate with each other to start the colony *chill* scary.
-
You know I've still never heard an explaination for where Cain and Abel's wives were supposed to have come from.
I keep asking and the creationists hem and haw nervously and then shout "Look behind you! A three headed monkey" and run away to deal with another topic.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You know I've still never heard an explaination for where Cain and Abel's wives were supposed to have come from.
*hems and haws*
Look at you! A three headed monkey!!
*runs away*
-
They say that an increase is superstition over realism is usually a sign of people avoiding reality and seeking solace is the 'Supernatural'. Possibly by believing the world was made (remember we hear very little about how many percent of, say, Iran, believes the world was made by God) we try to avoid responsibility for what we are doing to it?
By saying this is God's plan or will, maybe we are simply trying to say 'Don't blame us! God screwed up!'?
I think a lot of people in the world are far too scared to not believe there is a plan or a supreme being, because that would mean their actions are their own and no-one elses, and, depending on the action, that can be a shameful thing.
-
Bow down upon seeing His Noodly Appendage !
:D
-
I wonder how the wustion are put together...Too often I have seen pools that were put together very shabby anbd you're not even sure what the question means (or assume it means one thing).
For instance the evoution guided by a supreme being could be undestrodd as god determining when creature will evolve and exactly how, OR that by hte very creation of hte the life and the laws of nature the evolution is, in a sense, guideed...
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I think a lot of people in the world are far too scared to not believe there is a plan or a supreme being, because that would mean their actions are their own and no-one elses, and, depending on the action, that can be a shameful thing.
That's where naturalism comes in. I don't believe in god, but I don't believe people as a whole have control over their actions either. It's a bargain!
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
That's where naturalism comes in. I don't believe in god, but I don't believe people as a whole have control over their actions either. It's a bargain!
Genes > *
(Well, not always or totally, but quite often.)
-
I never believed (AFAIK there's no concrete evidence) in genetically determined behaviours. Predispositions, perhaps.
Because if genes really did determine behaviour, we'd never have to take any personal responsibility.
-
I'm not talking about genetics; I'm talking about instincts. But yes, it is true that this theory butts heads with the idea of personal responsibility. However, I would still say that the only way to have a society is to pretend that people are somewhat responsible for their actions, just as I believe that morals necessarily stem from the pretense of a god, even if an individual does not claim to believe in god.
-
Bah. A lack of personal responsibility isn't incompatible with the concepts of consequence, reward and punishment.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I never believed (AFAIK there's no concrete evidence) in genetically determined behaviours. Predispositions, perhaps.
Because if genes really did determine behaviour, we'd never have to take any personal responsibility.
Determinism vs. Free will round 41390851 GO GO GO
...ahem.
You're right - the genes don't force us to do anything [HOW CAN WE KNOW OMGOMG comment goes here]. However, they rule our basic behaviour down to very, very basic levels - even our ability to disobey our natural instincts which makes Homo sapiens pretty interesting species is a byproduct of genetics. How we judge other people, tendency to form groups and just about every imaginable act we can perform are on some level controlled by genes. It's like individual vs. society, really - individual can do pretty much whatever he wishes as long as he stays within the boundaries drawn by society, if you catch my allegory.
On deepest level - reproduction and survival - it pretty much means that there's only so much we can truly decide and what just is built in our bodies.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
Bah. A lack of personal responsibility isn't incompatible with the concepts of consequence, reward and punishment.
Exactly my point.
-
Testify, etc.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Determinism vs. Free will round 41390851 GO GO GO
...ahem.
You're right - the genes don't force us to do anything [HOW CAN WE KNOW OMGOMG comment goes here]. However, they rule our basic behaviour down to very, very basic levels - even our ability to disobey our natural instincts which makes Homo sapiens pretty interesting species is a byproduct of genetics. How we judge other people, tendency to form groups and just about every imaginable act we can perform are on some level controlled by genes. It's like individual vs. society, really - individual can do pretty much whatever he wishes as long as he stays within the boundaries drawn by society, if you catch my allegory.
On deepest level - reproduction and survival - it pretty much means that there's only so much we can truly decide and what just is built in our bodies.
Yeah, of course there will be certain biological necessities built into us (for lack of a better phrase). What I mean is, of course, the more fine grained specific behaviours within the context of human society; specifically non-instinctual behaviour - that your genes may be able to 'push' you in a certain way (i.e. I believe XXY males are provatively more violent, to use a very basic example), but that it's not something we can't control.
As an aside, I'd think it'd be likely that both genetic and societal behaviour would be mutually reinforcing; if a slight genetic tendency makes society evolve in a certain way, it'd be quite likely society would affect the genetics. Either by acting as a (probably weak) natural selection - 'normal' people find it easier to reproduce - or simply by forcing people to override or follow genetic predispositions to 'fit in'.
Really this (behaviour) is mainly in relation to crime and the general act of being a bastard - I don't think it should be used an excuse for that, nor for eugenics. Largely it's selfishness; I don't want to think genetics is responsible for my good points, even if it means I can't blame my bad points upon it.
-
Where does the HHGTTG's theory of creation come in?
-
Which one?
-
I swear, if the question of teaching Creationism alongside Evolution in English schools ever comes up, I'm going to devise a thoroughly ridiculous Theory of Origin, register it as an official religion, then campaign for it to be taught on an equal basis with Creationism.
You can hold me to that.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
I swear, if the question of teaching Creationism alongside Evolution in English schools ever comes up, I'm going to devise a thoroughly ridiculous Theory of Origin, register it as an official religion, then campaign for it to be taught on an equal basis with Creationism.
You can hold me to that.
http://www.venganza.org/
PRAISE THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
-
You know what worries me about the Spaghetti Monster is that someone, somewhere is taking it seriously. Given the number of nutcase theries on the net there's bound to be at least one person who truely believes in it.
-
Better that than Scientology :nervous:
-
Are you sure?
At least in Sceientology there the great empeoror Zarax(or whatever)...but this is a pile of spaghetti!
-
At least we know spaghetti exists.
All bless His Noodly Appendage!
-
Yeah, spaghetti is also tastier than Evil Alien Overlord Zenu(tm).
-
to be fair, that article is a bit biased, the real ratio is closer to 50/50, Americans are overwlmingly a very religious group, but most of us (slightly) are able to keep the world of religion and reality apart, the 26% figure posted there is basicly the percentage of people who beleive in an atheist world, this is the percentage of atheist to slightly religious (don't want to accept that they will in fact die when they die, but otherwise inteligent) people.
now that said, 50% is still a fcuking scarey number.
-
Honestly I'm surprised that 26% in the US are pretty much solid atheists.
I estimated the figure to be around 12% and I'm in one of the most secular states.
Considering the ground being gained by such a worldview, it's no surprise why the fundamentalists are so vocal.
-
Originally posted by Wild Fragaria
And if you think of the number of children from just two people and think of them mate with each other to start the colony *chill* scary.
but wait, it gets worse, if you take the bible literally, since adam was made from dirt in god's image, that'd make adam a golem, and since eve was made from a rib extracted from adam, that'd make Eve a clone of a golem...
now you do the math. ;7 :p
-
religous people also tend to have more kids, consitering we beleive in evolution and they don't makes this is sepecaly sad.
-
Call me a godless commie, but if 'god' created the world, then 'He' really ****ed up.
-
You Godless Commie!
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
Call me a godless commie, but if 'god' created the world, then 'He' really ****ed up.
You could just as easily say that we ****ed up His world. And x2 on the godless commie comment. :p
Anyway, those numbers seem a little bit skewed in the extreme direction. I've never put much faith in random surveys; as "balanced" as they claim to make them, you're still trying to extrapolate the opinions of hundreds of millions of people from the opinion of 1000 or so. Something's going to get lost in translation no matter what you do. While I'm sure there are many people in this country that subscribe to each of the beliefs in that study, I doubt that the results are as bizarre as that; I'm sure you would get something similar if you went to many other countries, as well.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
You could just as easily say that we ****ed up His world. And x2 on the godless commie comment. :p
Anyway, those numbers seem a little bit skewed in the extreme direction. I've never put much faith in random surveys; as "balanced" as they claim to make them, you're still trying to extrapolate the opinions of hundreds of millions of people from the opinion of 1000 or so. Something's going to get lost in translation no matter what you do. While I'm sure there are many people in this country that subscribe to each of the beliefs in that study, I doubt that the results are as bizarre as that; I'm sure you would get something similar if you went to many other countries, as well.
It's Pew.
Also, you can read the entire article here (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=254). Be warned, it's longer and more complicated than you propably think :p
There's also one pretty interesting snippet which sheds some light on this:
66% of people believe various lifeforms have evolved over time. 20% of people believe they have evolved through intelligent designer, 40% believe the lifeforms evolved through natural selection, 6% have no idea. Oh yes, and 27% are apparently young earth creationists who believe no lifeforms have evolved. 7% have no idea of anything at all.
It's 40% classic natural selection vs. 47% of different creationistic worldviews. 13% don't, you know, man, like, care, man.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
You could just as easily say that we ****ed up His world. And x2 on the godless commie comment. :p
'Tis true, but if that were the case, then he ****ed up when he made us. :p
-
I am wondering how a perfect, all-powerful, creator could create an imperfect creation even with the wildcard of free will. Because wouldn't the ability of free will to create imperfect beings thus make free will imperfect? Thus if free will is imperfect how could a perfect creator have it? Meaning that a perfect creator thus has no free will and is thus not all-powerful.
Considering the paradoxical nature of such an entity, the universe is a better place without it ;)
-
Originally posted by Ace
I am wondering how a perfect, all-powerful, creator could create an imperfect creation even with the wildcard of free will. Because wouldn't the ability of free will to create imperfect beings thus make free will imperfect? Thus if free will is imperfect how could a perfect creator have it? Meaning that a perfect creator thus has no free will and is thus not all-powerful.
Considering the paradoxical nature of such an entity, the universe is a better place without it ;)
god didn't create us to be perfect, he created us for two reasons:
1) for the ego trip, and 2) he has a vindictive sense of humor, which would explain reality television.
-
or 3) He's an emo and wanted to create something he could whine about since life was too pleasant ;)
"Ohh... man life sucks even more... they have nuclear weapons... damn..."
-
Or 4) it's just sloppy workmanship. Maybe this universe is the failed prototype that got binned when god worked out that it didn't work properly...
Or maybe he/she is just lazy...
-
Or maybe he didn't want mindless automatons but rather intelligent beings who could choose to love him of their own accord...Or maybe he intended humans to be good, but evil entered into their hearts and drove them away from him...Or maybe we can just drop the maybes and get back on topic :p
-
WATCH SOMEONE COME OUT OF LEFT FIELD QUOTING CARLIN, AND MIND U WILL MOST LIKELY BE A REPUBLICAN, AND SAY, **** MAN THIS IS PASSIVE EUGENICS, GET OVER IT!
-
Originally posted by Ace
I am wondering how a perfect, all-powerful, creator could create an imperfect creation even with the wildcard of free will.
In Genesis, at least, when God created things he called them "good" and "very good". None of them he called perfect; and in any case we are told that heaven is "much better" than the present creation.
To put it another way, just because I'm capable of assembling a balsa wood radio-controlled airplane from a kit doesn't restrict me from making a paper airplane if I feel like it. Or the intermediate Guillows kits either. Each airplane is suited for its intended use: if I want something to toss around for an afternoon, I make a paper airplane; if I want something I can fly outside during the summer, I opt for the radio-controlled version. The paper airplane could be called "okay", the Guillows plane "good", and the radio-controlled model "very good", but there's no inherent reason why I should choose one over the other.
-
Looking again at the title of this thread...
... I'd say that it's pretty true throughout the entire 'civilised' world, not just the USA.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
The paper airplane could be called "okay", the Guillows plane "good", and the radio-controlled model "very good", but there's no inherent reason why I should choose one over the other.
Yes there is, because one is merely good and the other is very good :p
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Looking again at the title of this thread...
... I'd say that it's pretty true throughout the entire 'civilised' world, not just the USA.
No it's not.
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
WATCH SOMEONE COME OUT OF LEFT FIELD QUOTING CARLIN, AND MIND U WILL MOST LIKELY BE A REPUBLICAN, AND SAY, **** MAN THIS IS PASSIVE EUGENICS, GET OVER IT!
What the hell is 'passive eugenics'? Is that like, Evolution? :)
-
Originally posted by Ace
Yes there is, because one is merely good and the other is very good :p
So why do people build paper airplanes then? :)
-
because they are lazy.
-
Paper airplanes do not exist. Praise be to the Ori.