Is god becoming a weak argument?

First things first, What do I call ‘a weak argument’? It’s something that a lot of vegetarians deal with on a regular basis. Whenever they say they are a vegetarian and someone says “you’re just a hypocrite, since I’ve seen you wear leather shoes.” It’s an argument that’s totally beside the point and serves no purpose but to try to bring the other person ‘down’ (to your level). In this case: a lot of carnivores tend to feel guilty or are basically insecure and are afraid that the vegetarian might feel superior to them. For those of them that are not equipped with adequate verbal skills: instead of talking about it, you simply lash out with a weak argument.

Politicians deal with it constantly as well, e.g. “His/her view on globalism cannot be any good since he/she has a kid with a drinking problem.” or; “He/she cannot possibly have any good policies for workers out there, because he/she comes from a wealthy family.” Weak arguments.  When you don’t have anything useful to say to make a good statement for yourself, attack the other person with ‘off-the-point’ nonsense.

darwinWhy would god be becoming one of these weak arguments? Well, as you might know, this year Charles Darwin would have 200 years old, if evolution would have let us age that many years. So, 2009 has been proclaimed ‘Year of Darwin’, to the dismay of many religious organisations who do not approve of the evolution theory. And what do they plan to do about it? Well, in a lot of countries these christian organisations are spreading leaflets containing a protest against evolution. The central argument is: “Since the evolution theory cannot be proved, it is just a belief, just like any other religion.” Ermmm…yeah…

That’s a weak argument. First, it’s weak because it is untrue. There is so many scientific evidence to back the evolution theory up, that, if this were a trial, any jury would find the defendant guilty. Second it’s weak, because it doesn’t say anything about ‘why we would have to believe that there is a god’, it does not give us any reason whatsoever to believe in a god, other than ‘not believing in god is following the -very sensible- route of something that is unproven -which it is actually-.’
Finally it’s a weak argument because it’s beside the point. even if the evolution would turn out to be a false theory, that does not mean that there is a god after all. for those of you that evolution theory cannot be proved and therefor should not be seen as ‘truth’, please also stop believing that water turns into wine, masturbation is a sin, something listens to all our prayers and gay people are scum. Religious people are the last ones that should be playing the proof card.

If you want to believe there is a god, fine with me. but keep your personal belief out of politics, society and my face please. And really don’t bother me with ‘evolution theory is unproven’ nonsense. Thanks you!


6 reacties op ‘Is god becoming a weak argument?

  1. Well it is unproven which is why it remains a theory. And besides, science is a field that relies on testing and proving things, so with or without religious voicing, science should be have proof before waving the banner of evolution as dogma, which according to my experiences as a student at a public university is exactly what science does.

  2. PS, the difference between evolution and the miracle of water turned to wine are unrelated. One relies on spontaneous genetic mutations that are beneficial to organisms and not only that, but add new genes for completely new traits. The water wine is an intervention of God to perform a miracle. Without a god, the chances of the billions of spontaneous genetic mutations that are necessary to evolve all the species that exist today and have existed from a very primitive single cell are so minute, that it is statistically classified as zero.

    1. Hi Norman, thanks for your comment. I don’t think the ‘changing water to wine’ story really backs up our case, but if you wish to keep using it, be my guest. I am also afraid your assumption on what defines ‘science’is somewhat faulty. Even though it ca hardly beconsidered a scientific source, you may find an adaquate description of the term on Wikipedia:

      1. @cultblender. I see you still believe in Darwinism/Evolution etc. I can see that your knowledge towards religion is appalling but yet you seem to want to blame them for what your sad science scriptures have taught you (of course that’s if you’ve read any). Science itself is based upon religious scriptures but people like you misinterpret them and come up with such things as evolution, darwinism the psycho the one that denied his own creator, the one that will beg for forgiveness for not believing in God. Next time when you say that the existence of GOD is a “weak” argument plzz do your homework right.

      2. Thanks for your comment M2Mi. I assure you that my knowledge of the most dominant religions is quite adequate. Unfortunately I cannot find any arguments in your reply to support your claim that science has got it wrong. I am curious to read them.

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen. logo

Je reageert onder je account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Verbinden met %s