Just a thought...

[AscendingIndigo]

I have been wondering about how people would react to an evolution based religion? I mean, evolution is a part of our every day life. It's the reason why you can run a mile and be out of breath but if you keep running that mile day after day, in a year you will be able to do it effortlessly. It's why you can do 30 chin ups now but when you first started 5 was your max. I mean if it's something that really does effect our day to day lives then why not?

There is a place for morals, a motivation for living, and even a view for an afterlife though I think that much is optional.

[spiderman101]

It's called building up muscle. no evolution

[AscendingIndigo]

When you think about it, what's the diffrence? What influence how something or some one evolves?

[Playfishpaste]

well technically he's right, simply because evolution requires gene mutation through reproduction and phylogeny. But your point still works as an analogy. I don't think there's one based on evolution because it's relatively new, and since when are religions based on scientific theories?

[MaximiIian]

and since when are religions based on scientific theories?

Most religions are based on science. Just not necessarily modern science.
Scientific learning is simply the way people observe and understand the world around them. Older religions, and those directly derived from them, use a more outmoded series of observations, while newer religions and philosophies are more likely to accept modern scientific information.

Though a religion or philosophy centred around accurate views of modern scientific theories, like the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, is not very viable.

[Bovril]

Most religions are based on science. Just not necessarily modern science.
Scientific learning is simply the way people observe and understand the world around them.

Science is much more specific than simply trying to understand the world. It has certain characteristics and methods that are completely seperate from those that influenced the world views of all the major religions. Some religions have traditions as old as they are of making no claims about the mechanisms of the physical universe and many more have abandoned such claims more recently.

Older religions, and those directly derived from them, use a more outmoded series of observations, while newer religions and philosophies are more likely to accept modern scientific information.

The Catholic Church and many others tend to accept evolution.

[MaximiIian]

Science is much more specific than simply trying to understand the world. It has certain characteristics and methods that are completely separate from those that influenced the world views of all the major religions.

Modern science, yes.

The Catholic Church and many others tend to accept evolution.

I should have said that old ones are more likely to retain older scientific methods, though it is certainly possible for them to update. The more versatile ones, like Catholicism, often do so. IMO, the ability to adapt is the mark of a worthwhile and meaningful system.

[Alkarin]

well technically he's right, simply because evolution requires gene mutation through reproduction and phylogeny. But your point still works as an analogy. I don't think there's one based on evolution because it's relatively new, and since when are religions based on scientific theories?

deism believes in a god but says all science is true (even though it was made before the discovery of evolution) they still respect ALL scientific advancements

First of all building up muscle and getting muscle memory is completely different from evolution- a series of non random genetic mutations that favour the techniques that work the best (basically).
I've heard the claim that "god" triggered evolution and I think it's total . It's just another creationist ploy to retreat when they've lost the evolution battle (whether it's real).

i was arguing with a creationist friend today and he stated ''well ive never seen a bird turn into a fish before'' and i just walked away.

[Playfishpaste]

But deism has nothing to do with any scientific theories.

And max, I meant to say centered. obviously the principles of elements in early greek alchemy and the geocentric model were important parts of christianity (and biology an important part of Wicca) but they were never of centralized importance or fundamentality. Mostly because science doesn't provide any moral basis for anything, and religions frequently need one.

[AscendingIndigo]

Why not?

[Roman Knight]

I'm torn between whether to call it Pantheism or Perfectionism. The appreciation of all that is natural, or the idea that you can always be better and should always strive for it.

[Playfishpaste]

Religion requires a faith.

If the evolution religion were created, it would require the faith that "everything evolutionary biology says is correct" which would be a rather silly faith.

[colin666]

First of all building up muscle and getting muscle memory is completely different from evolution- a series of non random genetic mutations that favour the techniques that work the best (basically).
I've heard the claim that "god" triggered evolution and I think it's total . It's just another creationist ploy to retreat when they've lost the evolution battle (whether it's real).

[Alkarin]

what do you mean? deism is all about scientific thought and theories..

[Roman Knight]

It depends one how you define religion, because not all religions require a belief in God, but only a way in which to live life by certain standards.

[AscendingIndigo]

It depends one how you define religion, because not all religions require a belief in God, but only a way in which to live life by certain standards.

I guess you could call this idea more of a philosophy then.

[MaximiIian]

I guess you could call this idea more of a philosophy then.

I don't see too much of a difference between a philosophy and a religion. They're both basically a system of living and thinking. The main difference, I think, is the amount of devotion a person has for said system.

[AscendingIndigo]

I don't see too much of a difference between a philosophy and a religion. They're both basically a system of living and thinking. The main difference, I think, is the amount of devotion a person has for said system.

I think that if people could see how it makes as much sense as I know it does then devotion wouldn't be a problem. It might even be a substitute for atheism since it would pretty much be an atheist religion.

[Otsman]

what do you mean? deism is all about scientific thought and theories..

and reverence for the natural world

[Playfishpaste]

and reverence for the natural world

Deism is not based on any scientific theories and you do not need to be a scientist to practice deism. Deism does not make any statements of faith about scientific theories, and the fundamentals of deism have nothing to do with science. "God is a quantifiable source", "god is unknowable" etc.