|
bumblie
Jan 27, 2005, 9:32 PM
Post #201 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: No, you still don't get it. Evolution is scientific fact. It has been observed, repeatedly. Science is not based on belief. It is based on objective observation and testing. Again, it is scientific fact that evolution has and does occur.
You've not been paying attention. tsk tsk
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Jan 27, 2005, 9:37 PM
Post #202 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
[quote="jt512 Science isn't based on beliefs. That's religion.
-Jay
Other than possibly the field of mathematics, that's a patently false statement. Whole books have been writen about errant beliefs in almost every scientific field, and the wrath incured by those with the timerity to oppose the prevailing belief.
Oh, by the way, hasn't mathematics been viewed as a religion at various points in human history?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2005, 9:37 PM
Post #203 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Keep in mind that creationism and evolution are BOTH theories, meaning that neither has been proven conclusively. An objective scientist will consider the possibilities of both and disregard neither. The only people who think that either creationism or evolution are theories are Christians. That evolution has occurred and continues to occur is a scientific fact, supported by overwhelming molecular, laboratory, and field evidence. Creationism is not a scientific theory either because it cannot be tested and falsified by scientific methods. Quite the contrary to your claim, an objective scientist would not consider creationism at all because there is no way that he can objectively test it. -Jay Your wrong! Evolution is not a fact or law, it is a theory because it can not be used to predict the natural world.
You're wrong on two counts: you misunderstand both what a scientific theory is and a scientific fact is. Briefly, scientific theories are models that are used to make predictions. In that sense, there is a theory of evolution, but, though they don't know it, this is not what the creationists are arguing against. What they are arguing is that evolution has not occurred; whereas it is scientific fact that evolution has occurred, a scientific fact being something for which the evidence is so compelling that we must accept it as fact. Thus, there is a theory of evolution that is concerned with the details and mechanisms that underly the fact that evolution has and does occur.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2005, 9:43 PM
Post #204 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: [quote="jt512 Science isn't based on beliefs. That's religion. -Jay
Other than possibly the field of mathematics, that's a patently false statement. Whole books have been writen about errant beliefs in almost every scientific field, and the wrath incured by those with the timerity to oppose the prevailing belief.
And the fact that those errant beleives were corrected by using the scientific method is proof to the fact that science isn't based on beliefs. It goes without saying that as our knowledge about a subject improves, our understanding of the subject will change. That's the whole point, in fact.
In reply to: Oh, by the way, hasn't mathematics been viewed as a religion at various points in human history?
Because no one has been delusional enough to view it that way -- and get published.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jan 27, 2005, 9:48 PM
Post #205 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Organizations like this = waste of time and energy.
Let the brainwashed, can't-live-without-the-fact-that-there-must-be-more people have their fun.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2005, 10:04 PM
Post #206 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: It seems to me like the evolution of the universe, earth, life in general, etc., would be causing a general upward trend in complexity; i.e. from single cell to multi-cell organisms, from dispersed gaseous clouds to consolidated stars and planets. In other words, the quality of energy found in the universe is increasing. However the 1st and 2nd laws state that the amount of energy in the universe is constant, and that the quality of this energy is trending downward. In other words, a cup of hot coffee will get cold on its own, but a cup of cold coffe will never get warm without heat input. And so the trend is for eventual even heat dissipation througout the universe, from order to randomness. This goes contrary to the increase in order that seems to be espoused by the current theory of evolution...
There's no contradiction at all. The 2nd Law states that the disorder of the Universe must increase. That does not contradict local decreases in disorder, as, for instance, the development of multicellular organisms on a particular planet. You need to go beyond the 1st and 2nd Laws to undesrtand how the disorder of a system can decrease spontaneously. Look up Gibbs free energy, which you should have studied in both intrductory chemistry and physics.
In reply to: Also, who said there was experimental evidence for evolution??? Show me an animal changing species in the lab...But please, direct me to this wonderful experimental evidence.
I did. There are numerous examples of evolution being observed in the lab and the field. Some are reviewed here: http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm See point 9.
In reply to: Please, be specific in how you think Christians are holding back science and medicine.
Three words: stem cell research.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
abalch
Jan 27, 2005, 10:34 PM
Post #207 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2003
Posts: 179
|
In reply to: [quote="jt512 Science isn't based on beliefs. That's religion. -Jay
Other than possibly the field of mathematics, that's a patently false statement. Whole books have been writen about errant beliefs in almost every scientific field, and the wrath incured by those with the timerity to oppose the prevailing belief.
Oh, by the way, hasn't mathematics been viewed as a religion at various points in human history?
You are actually right about your point on Mathematics (at least loosely) being used as a religion. Near the time around 100 AD to about 380 AD what was called gemology was very popular. It is was we call today numerology. Tons of things were given numerical equivalents, and the importance of numbers were considered a surefire way to prove the accuracy or innacuracy of claims. A few such examples of the use of numbers in the Bible.
When the sign of the beast is described in the Bible it was very obvious to the readers at the time, that taking the prophecy of the Beast, and using that number in numerology, you came up that Nero came out to 666 when his name in Hebrew was translated to a number. This is supported by different language transcripts of that portion of the Bible translating Nero from Greek, and coming up with 676.
Jesus' name translated to 777. That was considered extremely good, because 7 was considered the number of completeness. So, many places in the bible, when 7 or multiples of seven were used, it was to demonstrate a wholeness, or entire, or complete. So, when someone asks Jesus how many times to forgive their brother if they wrong them--seven times? And Jesus responds, seven times seventy times, it signifies not 490 times, but a completeness multiplied by completeness, or ALWAYS.
That is the best examples of numbers in the Bible I can remember right now off the top of my head. But, remember, since the Bible was written not only for those who currently believed when it was written, but to also educate those who would come to believe, it had to incorporate information that would speak to many types and backgrounds of people.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jan 27, 2005, 10:46 PM
Post #208 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: And in historical perspective, I personally find it (religion) an insulting and devisive tool used principally to divide, subjugate, and pit societies against one another. Trophy (honorary, this being the Community forum). -Jay I'm not sure I recognize that trophy based on the underlined text alone ('cause I'm just that kind of jerk). That and I fail to see how science differs so greatly in this regard. What, you think, like biologists hate chemsits, who hate physicists, or something? -Jay
Just the other day mitochondria eve was telling me to smite those multiple point origin theory pushers. That and I won't rest until every last astrophysicist has repented for their perverse art.
Science and religion are both forms of knowledge and both are frequently misapplied towards political ends... religion has just had a longer run of it and is better organized to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
abalch
Jan 27, 2005, 10:48 PM
Post #209 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2003
Posts: 179
|
Three words: stem cell research.
-Jay
I tried to respond to this question when first put forward yesterday, but I was booted from my system when the IT guys came to fix something. When it originally was put forward that Christians are impeding science, this is what I expected the argument to be about.
I don't find that most Christians are trying to impede all science, but some science needs certain controls on it. In the case of Stem Cell Research, the control needs to be doing it in an ethical manner. The killing of inoccent lives for the sake of medical research is a barbarianism that was condemned during WWII when the Nazis were using Jews to do medical research. Now, interestingly enough, some of the research done by Nazi doctors led to medical breakthroughs that have improved many peoples' lives. The question is, what value do you put on one person's life for the sake of trying to save another person's life.
If the stem cells are acquired from an adult who can consent to donating blood or marrow, or a few of the other tissues that stem cells can be acquired from, or if the stem cells are acquired from the placenta and leftover umbilical cord from a birth that went about normally, or even stretching things for a moment and saying the stem cells are acquired from a stillborn infant when medical murder was not committed to make that infant stillborn, then you are morally in the clear, because you haven't killed an infant to harvest those stem cells.
But, if you use stem cells from an aborted infant, you are wandering down the path to such atrocities as most people would condemn. How do you feel about the forced abortions that go on in China under the guise of controlling their population. Many places the solution found to population growth was education, not abortion.
Would you condemn a person who poisoned, or stabbed or somehow otherwise caused their one year old kid tremendous pain before whatever method they used resulted in the one year old's death? Or would you say, "Oh, I guess they felt they couldn't handle being a parent--It's ok, the kid only was one, It isn't like it has lived much of a life already."
So, to reiterate, it isn't the stem cell research most Christians object to, it is the method of acquiriing the stem cell lines.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 27, 2005, 11:03 PM
Post #210 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Science isn't based on beliefs. That's religion. -Jay Other than possibly the field of mathematics, that's a patently false statement. Whole books have been writen about errant beliefs in almost every scientific field, and the wrath incured by those with the timerity to oppose the prevailing belief. Oh, by the way, hasn't mathematics been viewed as a religion at various points in human history? You are actually right about your point on Mathematics (at least loosely) being used as a religion. Near the time around 100 AD to about 380 AD what was called gemology was very popular. It is was we call today numerology. ...
And of course there's also the Pythagoreans, who had a sort of cult with a set of commandments (the first of which was to "abstain from beans" :lol:).
But I don't think any of that really supports thegraytradster's claim that science is as equally baseless and faith-based as religion. It is not---if it were, why would conservative Christians feel so threatened by it, as opposed to say, I dunno, belief in Zeus?
There's a reason you zealous types have to thank science---not your dogma---for the ability to even have this flamewa^H^H^Hconversation on the internet in the first place. Science demostrably models reality to some degree of accuracy (that's the whole point); OTOH, all your religion does is leave people sexually repressed and wanting to kill each other
Anyway: really we're all atheists here (anyone worship Zeus?). Some of us just happen to believe in one less God than the rest of you do. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 27, 2005, 11:14 PM
Post #211 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: But, if you use stem cells from an aborted infant, you are wandering down the path to such atrocities as most people would condemn.
:lol:
In reply to: So, to reiterate, it isn't the stem cell research most Christians object to, it is the method of acquiriing the stem cell lines.
I don't think anyone has been discussing harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses.
As far as I know, Christian fanatics are the only ones harvesting fetal remains.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 27, 2005, 11:16 PM
Post #212 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: I've said it many times in the past. if god could be scientifically quantified or proven, then he/she/it would cease to be god.
Define "God".
(No one ever seems to bother---not that I expect you to be able to).
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jan 27, 2005, 11:26 PM
Post #213 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
In reply to: I think you misunderstand #1 just a little. Libertarian freedom is that in which all human choice is causally undetermined. Soft-deterministic freedom is that in which there is nothing external to the human agent preventing him from doing (or compelling him to do) any specific action. If we adopt soft-deterministic freedom as our explanation of “free-will,” then God can still know our future, while we maintain our autonomy of choice. Eric
The point that I was making is that under soft-determinism there are still internal constants that will predetermine the choice any individual makes. Those internal constants are based in the nature or definition or even limitations of the individual. In the case where an omniscient creator god is said to know the future that god is also repsonsible for the definition of a given individual created by it.
If I decide to stab you with a knife that decision is defined by my nature. Because you did not define my nature, you are not resopnsible for my decision. My nature was the cause of the situation, thus I was the cause of the sitiuation, thus I must be held responsible. If that situation is viewed as problimatic then I, as the cause, am the party to be dealt with. Even so, to punish me for the sake of punishment would be pointless. Only punishment for the sake of a resolution to a problematic situation would be justified.
If I stab God I am responsible for acting based on my definition, but God is also responsible for defining me as such. In that case morality and responsibility are negligible since both parties share equal blame. I may be a person who decides to stab people, but God is one who decides to define me as a person who stabs people. If we return to a god that does not know the future then I would be responsible because God made no decision to define me as such.
|
|
|
|
|
iltripp
Jan 27, 2005, 11:34 PM
Post #214 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1607
|
In reply to: Your wrong! Evolution is not a fact or law, it is a theory because it can not be used to predict the natural world. Read up on your scientific method.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basic hierarchy of science is more or less as follows:
fact
series of related facts
theory relating those facts
Law that is a proven relationship about those facts.
I can't count the number of people who have said "evolution is a theory, not a fact". You are correct that evolution is not a law, but it IS a fact. It is a fact that evolution has occured. Evolutionary theory remains a theory because, as you said, it can't be used to predict the natural world. We simply don't know exactly how it works, but that doesn't mean it hasn't occured.
Also, someone made a comment about thermodynamics, and said that evolution could not be occuring because it represents a trend towards increasing order. That's not necessarily the case. First of all, something that is increasingly complex is not necessarily more ordered. It is just more complex. Second, local decreases in entropy are entirely possible. It is the universe that increases in disorder.
|
|
|
|
|
happyfra
Jan 27, 2005, 11:37 PM
Post #215 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 91
|
In reply to: Other than possibly the field of mathematics, that's a patently false statement. Whole books have been writen about errant beliefs in almost every scientific field, and the wrath incured by those with the timerity to oppose the prevailing belief. In reply to: Oh, by the way, hasn't mathematics been viewed as a religion at various points in human history? You are actually right about your point on Mathematics (at least loosely) being used as a religion. Near the time around 100 AD to about 380 AD what was called gemology was very popular. It is was we call today numerology. Tons of things were given numerical equivalents, and the importance of numbers were considered a surefire way to prove the accuracy or innacuracy of claims. A few such examples of the use of numbers in the Bible. When the sign of the beast is described in the Bible it was very obvious to the readers at the time, that taking the prophecy of the Beast, and using that number in numerology, you came up that Nero came out to 666 when his name in Hebrew was translated to a number. This is supported by different language transcripts of that portion of the Bible translating Nero from Greek, and coming up with 676. Jesus' name translated to 777. That was considered extremely good, because 7 was considered the number of completeness. So, many places in the bible, when 7 or multiples of seven were used, it was to demonstrate a wholeness, or entire, or complete. So, when someone asks Jesus how many times to forgive their brother if they wrong them--seven times? And Jesus responds, seven times seventy times, it signifies not 490 times, but a completeness multiplied by completeness, or ALWAYS. That is the best examples of numbers in the Bible I can remember right now off the top of my head. But, remember, since the Bible was written not only for those who currently believed when it was written, but to also educate those who would come to believe, it had to incorporate information that would speak to many types and backgrounds of people.
Are you SERIOUSLY equating numerology and mathematics? Now I understand where some of your previous funny statements and judgements come from...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
abalch
Jan 27, 2005, 11:43 PM
Post #216 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2003
Posts: 179
|
In reply to: In reply to: But, if you use stem cells from an aborted infant, you are wandering down the path to such atrocities as most people would condemn. :lol: In reply to: So, to reiterate, it isn't the stem cell research most Christians object to, it is the method of acquiriing the stem cell lines. I don't think anyone has been discussing harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses. As far as I know, Christian fanatics are the only ones harvesting fetal remains.
You are correct in saying noone before me on this discussuion explicitly mentioned harvesting stem cells from aborted infants. I brought that up as an example of some of the things that have been proposed, and/or attempted by the medical researchers conducting stem cell research. In fact, when Bush passed into law the legislation he did on stem cell research, it was in direct response to this question.
Some of the stem cell lines in existence were harvested from abortions, not from postpartum umbilical cord or placental matter. He outlawed the harvesting of any new stem cells from aborted infants, but allowed the continued use of those stem cell lines that had been acquired from past abortions. The justification for this by his administration was that the moral wrong had already been committed, and if they eliminated all of the stem cell lines that came from abortions, it would have set back the research to too great of an extent.
So, I mentioned all of this in response to what I may have incorrectly inferred from the posters comment--that any restriction on a medical research based upon what many would consider to be moral grounds, whether they believe in God or not, it not REALLY a case of Christians trying to eliminate science, but only put some ethical constraints on it.
|
|
|
|
|
abalch
Jan 27, 2005, 11:50 PM
Post #217 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2003
Posts: 179
|
In reply to: In reply to: Other than possibly the field of mathematics, that's a patently false statement. Whole books have been writen about errant beliefs in almost every scientific field, and the wrath incured by those with the timerity to oppose the prevailing belief. In reply to: Oh, by the way, hasn't mathematics been viewed as a religion at various points in human history? You are actually right about your point on Mathematics (at least loosely) being used as a religion. Near the time around 100 AD to about 380 AD what was called gemology was very popular. It is was we call today numerology. Tons of things were given numerical equivalents, and the importance of numbers were considered a surefire way to prove the accuracy or innacuracy of claims. A few such examples of the use of numbers in the Bible. When the sign of the beast is described in the Bible it was very obvious to the readers at the time, that taking the prophecy of the Beast, and using that number in numerology, you came up that Nero came out to 666 when his name in Hebrew was translated to a number. This is supported by different language transcripts of that portion of the Bible translating Nero from Greek, and coming up with 676. Jesus' name translated to 777. That was considered extremely good, because 7 was considered the number of completeness. So, many places in the bible, when 7 or multiples of seven were used, it was to demonstrate a wholeness, or entire, or complete. So, when someone asks Jesus how many times to forgive their brother if they wrong them--seven times? And Jesus responds, seven times seventy times, it signifies not 490 times, but a completeness multiplied by completeness, or ALWAYS. That is the best examples of numbers in the Bible I can remember right now off the top of my head. But, remember, since the Bible was written not only for those who currently believed when it was written, but to also educate those who would come to believe, it had to incorporate information that would speak to many types and backgrounds of people. Are you SERIOUSLY equating numerology and mathematics? Now I understand where some of your previous funny statements and judgements come from... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
read the first line of my post, where I said loosely. Now, to me, addition, subtratction, mulitplication, or other manipulation of numbers falls within mathematics. Since I explained, they would take the name of a person in a specific language, translate each letter of the name to a number representing its place in the alphabet, and multiply, add, etc. the numbers together, that does loosely make it in the field of mathematics, even if today people might look at numerologists and say they have no connection with mathematical scholars. At the time, though, numerology was a very respected area of mathematics
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 27, 2005, 11:56 PM
Post #218 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
In reply to: In reply to: I've said it many times in the past. if god could be scientifically quantified or proven, then he/she/it would cease to be god. Define "God". (No one ever seems to bother---not that I expect you to be able to).
hehe. dude, I just said that "god" is not quantifiable. So, the only way I could define "god" would be as "the undefined."
Personal take: there will always be matters of our worldview that science and logic cannot explain. You know, the metaphorical first microsecond of the big bang, the original prime mover of the universe. all that is not quantifiable, then, is "god." To say any more than this is presumptuous, arrogant, and leads towards the slippery slope of organized religion, crusades, and Jerry Falwell. bad, bad.
I don't know what, who, how, when, or why "god" is. However, it is incredibly unlikely that "god" is a large, white man with a beard who constantly feels the urge to meddle in human affairs.*
(*paraphrase of Carl Sagan)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 28, 2005, 12:01 AM
Post #219 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: But, if you use stem cells from an aborted infant, you are wandering down the path to such atrocities as most people would condemn. :lol: In reply to: So, to reiterate, it isn't the stem cell research most Christians object to, it is the method of acquiriing the stem cell lines. I don't think anyone has been discussing harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses. As far as I know, Christian fanatics are the only ones harvesting fetal remains. You are correct in saying noone before me on this discussuion explicitly mentioned harvesting stem cells from aborted infants. I brought that up as an example of some of the things that have been proposed, and/or attempted by the medical researchers conducting stem cell research. In fact, when Bush passed into law the legislation he did on stem cell research, it was in direct response to this question.
No---I don't think it has been proposed or attempted by medical researchers.
Please go read http://en.wikipedia.org/...ources_of_stem_cells.
What we're talking about here is cells grown in a petri dish. It involves destruction of a human embryo, but that is not the same as a human fetus, nor is it the same as harvesting aborted fetuses (like Christians do).
In reply to: He outlawed the harvesting of any new stem cells from ...
Wrong. Embryonic stem cell research has not been outlawed---it is just blocked from receiving federal funding.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 28, 2005, 12:10 AM
Post #220 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I've said it many times in the past. if god could be scientifically quantified or proven, then he/she/it would cease to be god. Define "God". (No one ever seems to bother---not that I expect you to be able to). hehe. dude, I just said that "god" is not quantifiable. So, the only way I could define "god" would be as "the undefined." Personal take: there will always be matters of our worldview that science and logic cannot explain. You know, the metaphorical first microsecond of the big bang, the original prime mover of the universe. all that is not quantifiable, then, is "god." To say any more than this is presumptuous, arrogant, and leads towards the slippery slope of organized religion, crusades, and Jerry Falwell. bad, bad.
I must admit I misread your last post. But I'll also mention that personally, I find this sort of thing almost as distasteful as the Jerry Falwell type bullshit.
Why do you have to call all that stuff "God"? Just so you can fit in in our society and play like you believe in the same thing everyone else does (even though, you obviously don't)? It's just intellectually dishonest, if you ask me (not that you did).
;)
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 28, 2005, 12:23 AM
Post #221 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
dude, mister fracture, you are obviously not getting the gist of my post.
Here is the cliffnotes version: we do not KNOW if there is or is not a God, we never will, and to say that we do is dangerous.
I don't think I can simplify it any more than that.
Think about this statement: "I lack the faith to be an atheist." Is that intellectually dishonest?
anyway, props for dragging me into another one of these counterproductive threads. How's the weather going to be for Austin limestone this weekend?
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 28, 2005, 12:53 AM
Post #222 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: dude, mister fracture, you are obviously not getting the gist of my post. Here is the cliffnotes version: we do not KNOW if there is or is not a God, we never will, and to say that we do is dangerous.
You're right---and I still don't see how I should've grokked that that was your position from your posts.
Ah well. :D
In reply to: I don't think I can simplify it any more than that. Think about this statement: "I lack the faith to be an atheist." Is that intellectually dishonest?
IMHO, it relies on a misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist.
You might find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism to be interesting reading....
Most people who call themselves "agnostics" are really "weak atheists" by the understanding of most atheists. ;)
In reply to: anyway, props for dragging me into another one of these counterproductive threads.
Woohoo!
In reply to: How's the weather going to be for Austin limestone this weekend?
It's raining right now, but at the very least the cave and canyon should be good on Saturday. 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
esallen
Jan 28, 2005, 12:54 AM
Post #223 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2004
Posts: 304
|
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight,
I’ve got some serious climbing to do this weekend, so this is me signing off from this thread. . .
I suppose the atheists will continue crying about how offended they are that theists actually have come up with good arguments, and the Christians will continue being offended at how ignorant some of the atheist’s are being in this circular thread. . .
I guess I won’t be missing much hu! I’ll catch you guys next week.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Jan 28, 2005, 1:07 AM
Post #224 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
[quote="fracture"][quote="abalch"]In reply to: In reply to: Science isn't based on beliefs. That's religion. -Jay But I don't think any of that really supports thegraytradster's claim that science is as equally baseless and faith-based as religion. It is not---if it were, why would conservative Christians feel so threatened by it, as opposed to say, I dunno, belief in Zeus?
You completely misconstrued my point. It was that science is as susceptable to dogma as religion!
I really don't have a dog in this fight, but from close association and observation of evangelicals I'd have to say that They aren't the ones that feel threatened or defensive. That's the provanance of the agressive atheist.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jan 28, 2005, 12:16 PM
Post #225 of 322
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Wait a minute; let’s not let healyje get off so easy . . . His point is well taken: religious experiences are numerous and diverse, and members of all creeds have misused their religious ideals for selfish and bloody purposes, but neither fact disproves the existence of God.
No, god as conjecture can't be proven or disproven. But that none of you (even restricting it to just christians) can agree on pretty much any aspect of it all suggests that there is no real truth to be had and all of you are pretty much manipulating a shared delusion for your own personal and/or societal agendas.
In reply to: The fact that considerable disagreement exists among theists has never been accepted as a strong argument by intelligent societies. On the contrary healyje, the fact that the significant majority of human beings on the planet all bear witness of some form of religious experience, is strong and compelling evidence that a divine reality does exists, at least in some form or another.
Actually, esallen, it isn't any form of "evidence" beyond possibly pointing to the fact that most human beings have and will always live with a degree of uncertainty and fear in their lives - and they will live their entire lives without any real answers to many fundamental questions.
But even though we have evolved to thrive in an uncertain world as a species, as inidividuals we tend to be intolerant of unanswered questions. As social organisms we typically organize hierarchically and look up the pyramid for those answers. And those desirous of acquiring and maintaining power over a society know that providing some plausible and internally consistent scenario (story / religion) addressing those questions and fears is a requirement of the job.
The fact that over 10,000 years or so humans, like so many proverbial monkeys at keyboards, have cranked out an endless and random parade of group delusions to satisfy our fundamental and innate insecurities doesn't validate the nature of god, but rather simply the nature of the beast. Given every society that ever conjured a diety over that timeframe has claimed their god is real - including you folks - how can you expect an objective third party to simply take your word over all the others as evidence of anything special? That would be a leap of faith.
In reply to: Just because God has not manifested himself in a manner pleasing to you healyje, and just because you cannot reconcile his reality with your inadequate human presumptions, this is no reason to reject the possibility of his existence.
Actually, delusions, even widely held delusions, do not "manifest" and possess no "reality" outside of your imagination. In fact, don't you find it a bit strange that at no time has any god instanced itself by materializing in some totally unambiguous and verifiable way. Is there really no pressing business for one to attend to here? Why does god have to be a matter of faith instead of a matter of fact? And why, why can't you and I or anyone else simply access a real walking, talking, sit down with them at Starbucks over a latte god? Seems as though that wouldn't be a problem for your god given all the power you folks ascribe to him...
The combination of finite lifespans, resource constraints, competition, fear, uncertainty, doubt, intolerance, ignorance, power, and material gain is pretty much an unstoppable and constant driver of our collective condition and has always manifested itself as the unholy triumvirate of politics, religion, and warfare. In particular, I explicitly consider religion (i.e. your notion of god) a principal driver of war and genocide and all religious adherents as deliberate or unwitting accomplices to those acts. As such, I view all forms of fundamentalism as clear and present dangers to the world at large.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
