I tried doing a search for that one the other day, to no avail. Glad you found it.Originally posted by Gwalchmai
FYI, I would like to direct everyone's attention to the old thread Theological Quandaries 101, started by my dear friend, whom I've always considered the most able to clearly articulate a theological opinion of anyone I've ever known.
The logic of religion (no spam)
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I'd completely forgotten about that thread: thanks for bringing it back to mind, @Scayde. It was nice how we were able to all discuss religion here, 2 1/2 years ago, without losing our tempers. Lots of interesting stuff written. 
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by fable
I'd completely forgotten about that thread: thanks for bringing it back to mind, @Scayde. It was nice how we were able to all discuss religion here, 2 1/2 years ago, without losing our tempers. Lots of interesting stuff written.
It does make it more enjoyable
Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)
The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
*snip*this is the type of thinking I am talking about.
*snip*
Yes actually it has. In 1953, Dr.Stanley Miller tried to prove life springing forom nothing but gases and boiling water.*snip*
My use of the absolute 'never' can still be supported in regard to evolution (which was my intention) and the theory of evolution can not be held accountable to every person who claims it is or is not related to anything what-so-ever. Also Miller has not connected exobiology with evolution, ask him if you must.
The scientific method applauds the success or failure of all experiments. Dr . Stanley Miller (et al.) failing to cause life to appear spontaneously never tested any element of Darwinian Evolution and so doesn't in anyway invalidate it. As an aside Dr Miller is still performing experiments with the intention of demonstrating his exobiological (not evolutionary) theories.
As to Alexander Oparin, "Couldn't prove a thing" - Not much of an experimenter then was he*snip*Alexander Oparin, *snip* Mainz, Germany has said "At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or a confession of ignorance" in other words, they can't prove it.*snip*
. As with Dr. Miller, Oparin's failure in 1920 to 'create life' did not discourage him in anyway he continued to follow the trail of possibility as long as he was able. Oparin unfortunately died in 1980 but Dr. Miller is still in academic life.Klaus Dose appears to be quoted out of context. I find it implausible that any Biochemist would present the case that, "At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field ( ? Biochemistry) either end in stalemate or a confession of ignorance". If the claim relates to something less comprehensive than the whole of Biochemistry it would be nice if you could include the context. My brief research into Dose (he is not a Crick, Dawkins or Leakey) found only references to creationist sites. His 'more recent' statement was made in 1977 and was made in reference to 'abiogenisics'.
So you can see the proposal that life was formed on earth from primordial ooze is still a going concern. In all probability one day someone will cause a complex protein reaction that leads to organic self replication via something like the originally proposed mechanism (in other words the proposal is not impossible).
Oh, and exactly what 'type of thinking' am I exhibiting?
More able and specialised minds than mine have shown that the eye has evolved into the one that resides in the human skull from a light sensitive cell. Your argument is a straw man. Every example yet raised can be explained via the mechanisms of evolution. The use of superlatives like 'infinitely more complex' really does not serve your case. It is mathematically wrong. However complex the human brain is, unless you are categorically stating that it is infinitely complex, it can not be infinitely more complex than something else. I neglected to look up Restak in my reseaches (bad Curdis) but although he may be 'a noted biologist' he is not a Leakey, Dawkins, Crick noted biologist.*snip*BTW that comparison was from Dr. Richard M. Restak, a noted biologist.*snip*
If it is the historically famous Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) you refer to, he did not do anything centuries ago. Perhaps this is disingenuous of me but Louis Pastuer at no stage demonstrated that under no circumstances ever could life not come from non-life. Any theory needs to be falsifiable. If you do an experiment (or make an observation) and show that the theory is not supported by the results, that theory is not correct. You can not do this for all theories all at once. Just because ANYBODY does an experiment which fails to demonstrate something does not mean that that thing is forever disproved. If you want to have a winning experiment for your case what you need is an experiment which conclusively demonstrates the opposite (good luck designing that one). It may be that with this particular occasion the mechanism chosen was not suitable, or even that the overall probability of it occurring was not met by the number of repetitions.*snip*
Life from Non-life. Louis Pasteur disproved it centuries ago.*snip*
So yes, I can separate Evolution from Creation. None of the Life from Non-life theories threaten Evolution because they are not related.
I am sorely tempted to put *rolleyes* here. Missing links are being discovered every day. The truth is that fossils are very delicate and rare examples of what existed at the time. Not everything is preserved and even if it was that doesn't guarantee it will be, or has yet been found. The existence of transitional forms is well known. That you admit that such fossils exist "can fit int a single coffin" (not true unless it is a singularly large coffin) really means that you KNOW where the missing links are. Piltdown Man is a fascinating scientific fraud, as I don't have the montaged skull in my possession I can't show it to you, but what is the point here anyway? You have agreed that transitional forms exist.*snip*
I never said the scientific method didn't work, I said Evolution couldn't stand up to it. All the fossils ever found linking man and ape, mammal to bird or any of it can fit int a single coffin. Not all the fossils found, just the ones that are supposed to be links. If Evolution is a well established fact then where are the missing links? Surely you don't mean to show me the piltdown man?*snip
Well it has been proposed that Neanderthal Man was a less successful hominid contemporary (Ape-man) who did not survive to the modern era. Is this the sort of proposal you are requiring? What of the hominid succession: Australopithecus afarensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and/or Homo ergaster, Homo sapien. There are known contemporaries (coexistences) between Paranthropus boisei (ape/apeman?) and Homo habilis (in the hominid succession). Strangely it is where to but all the pieces (in or out of the hominid succession) rather than any particular lack there of. Ref: Conroy, G.C.,1997,Reconstructing Human Origins W.W. Norton and Company, New York.*snip*If it truly is "Survival of the Fittest" then why do we have Men and apes but no ape-men? Was there a mistake?*snip*
Man's brain did not evolve from a chimp's brain. Both evolved from a common ancestor. The mechanism is widely agreed (evolution). And please I'm trying to be reasonable here, you yelling 'PROVE it' isn't helping your case.*snip*If the mechanism of Evolution is so accurate than prove to me exactly how man's brain evolved from a chimp? And don't read it out of a high school biology book, PROVE it.*snip*
I can't show you because they went extinct. Will their fossils, or their living contemporaries (lung fish) suffice?*snip*Show me the fish that walked on land,*snip*
I can't show you because they went extinct. Will their fossils suffice?*snip* the lizzard with feathers and hollow bones.*snip*
See above, but what of:*snip* Find the missing links, find the hands-down proof.*snip*
Theropod dinosaurs (fast-running, bipedal carnivores), leading to:
Tyrannosaurs, Sinosauropteryx, leading to:
Caudiupteryx, leading to:
Velociraptor, Sinornithosaurus, leading to:
Confusiusornis, Archaeopteryx, leading to:
Modern Birds. reference - Xing Xu et al. (2002, Nature 415: 780-84).
Does, see above.*snip*It doesn't exist.*snip*
Look my speciality is Quantum Physics, but I am sufficiently well read to be able to make the previous detailed critic of your views. All archaeological evidence is tentatively presented by the modest and well researched scientist(s) who write the papers. They have been wrong from time to time (and inevitable will be wrong in some regard) and all science (as I have stated ad nauseam) is tentative(ie conjectural).*snip*There is a lot of conjecture and supposition, "we think this may be" but no hard facts.*snip*
Would in vitro fertilisation do? Try Buddhism, saves on shoe leather and you don't get calluses from knocking on doors.*snip* When life is created in a Lab from non-living Material then I will reevaluate.*snip*
Hey Maverick8088, surprise me, tell me that you now admit (having been shown where to look for the evidence, and duly check up on it) that there are transitional forms in all the cases you required.*snip*One more thing, not all Creationists deny simple truths, though I will admit that some do, just as you, Curdis, must admit there are some unreasonable Evolutionists. *snip*
I'm not offended. I am astonished that all of these puppies keep popping up. And I do not enjoy the mental exercise, because I have to go and get the reference (often demanded) and do a lot of leg work which occasionally involves reading the bible (yuck) only to be ignored or insulted. All of this is enough to make an otherwise reasonable evolutionist unreasonable, but in my experience the evolutionists are the last ones standing. - Curdis*snip*I'm sorry if in any way I offend anyone. I, for one, enjoy the mental exercise of this kind of thing.*snip*
P.S. I agree that all these battles have been fought on this forum in the past, but I would also for balances sake point out that they resulted in the banning of at least one forum member and Waverly still uses the EVOLVE fish as his avatar. So perhaps we aren't as quietly composed on this as we thought. Anyway I did half a days work on it so I'm posting to a personal request, hey he used my name O.K...... mutter, mutter
The warlord sig of 's' - word
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
The topic is interesting.
I must agree with the feeling of flaw. That some atoms of this mixed with some atoms of that in a certain temperature and pression melted into more complex combinations to in the chains of time to become me.
It would be already ridiculous if there was no humans, cause if creation is absurd, we are aberration. Conscience, inteligence, feelings, reason... no doubt it sounds to me like a gift, why would it be a defense?
Flaws that maintain us in the frustration of doubts.
Flaws that dont seems lesser or greater than "Genesis"(Bible) flaws.
I do believe that define religion would be its death, the ilogic of the axioms flow religions existence, as the majority of you pointed. Obviously Metodology dont seem utile to legitimate religions existance or inexistance, what is normal, cientific method and religeon are in diferent spaces of the human nature. Like lens to hear the sound.
Since i am atheist ,
Leszek Kolakowski, come to us with an excelent concept(IMO), to logically define religion space.
Unfortunatelly, i ll translate it myself
"The religion, in the truth, is the conscience of the insufficient human being, is lived in the admission of the weakness...
The invariable message of the religious cult is: "of the finite to the infinite, the distance is always infinite...
(...) we come across with two irreconcilable ways to accept the world and our position, none of which can claim to be more of being "rational" than the other... Since the way is choosen, any choice imposes judgment(logic) criteria that support it in a circular logic: if it does not exist a God, empirical criteria only will guide our thoughts, and empirical criteria do not lead to God; if God exists, it gives tracks as to perceive Its hands in the continue of the events, and with the aid of these tracks we recognize the divine reason of what whatever happens"
Leszek Kolakowski
First time i read it, i though it was too simplist... "Two ways" "invariable" "irreconcilable"... later i finded that it is simplist, and is not wrong, like a thread that repeat the other or a speech that echo again and again.
And the most interesting is that again and again it is not futile, and will never be. Like many ways to walk in the same path.
I must agree with the feeling of flaw. That some atoms of this mixed with some atoms of that in a certain temperature and pression melted into more complex combinations to in the chains of time to become me.
It would be already ridiculous if there was no humans, cause if creation is absurd, we are aberration. Conscience, inteligence, feelings, reason... no doubt it sounds to me like a gift, why would it be a defense?
Flaws that maintain us in the frustration of doubts.
Flaws that dont seems lesser or greater than "Genesis"(Bible) flaws.
I do believe that define religion would be its death, the ilogic of the axioms flow religions existence, as the majority of you pointed. Obviously Metodology dont seem utile to legitimate religions existance or inexistance, what is normal, cientific method and religeon are in diferent spaces of the human nature. Like lens to hear the sound.
Since i am atheist
, Leszek Kolakowski, come to us with an excelent concept(IMO), to logically define religion space.
Unfortunatelly, i ll translate it myself
"The religion, in the truth, is the conscience of the insufficient human being, is lived in the admission of the weakness...
The invariable message of the religious cult is: "of the finite to the infinite, the distance is always infinite...
(...) we come across with two irreconcilable ways to accept the world and our position, none of which can claim to be more of being "rational" than the other... Since the way is choosen, any choice imposes judgment(logic) criteria that support it in a circular logic: if it does not exist a God, empirical criteria only will guide our thoughts, and empirical criteria do not lead to God; if God exists, it gives tracks as to perceive Its hands in the continue of the events, and with the aid of these tracks we recognize the divine reason of what whatever happens"
Leszek Kolakowski
First time i read it, i though it was too simplist... "Two ways" "invariable" "irreconcilable"... later i finded that it is simplist, and is not wrong, like a thread that repeat the other or a speech that echo again and again.
And the most interesting is that again and again it is not futile, and will never be. Like many ways to walk in the same path.
[Sorry about my English]
Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".
Lurker(0.50). : )
Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".
Lurker(0.50). : )
-
VoodooDali
- Posts: 1992
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Spanking Witch King
- Contact:
Well, I meant to spam a little, but I cannot resist a topic like this...
I just took a course in evolutionary theory at Rutgers. Curdis has already stated this, but I'll reiterate that Darwin never said that men are descended from apes. We have a common ancestor in the prosimians (e.g., lemurs - my favorite animal!) Evolution is not a simple tree, it's a complex bush - different species are linked, but not always in direct ways. I don't want to go into the theory too much, but if anyone has any questions, I'm sure I can answer them.
I really wanted to bring up what I think is the reason that the theory of evolution is so threatening to fundamentalists. Simply put - if you take the bible as fact, then it is absolutely essential that there existed a real Adam & Eve. It is with the fall of Adam & Eve that you get Original Sin. This is the major thing that Jesus Christ died on the cross for - to save us from Original Sin. So, evolutionary theory poses quite a dilemma for the fundamentalist christian, because it means that there was no Adam & Eve - therefore no Original Sin and therefore no need for Jesus. Once I understood this, it made me understand why they get so worked up over evolutionary theory. My advice would be to switch to another protestant denomination that is not so literal in its interpretation of the bible - but to each, his own. (They didn't go into this in my class - I just figured this out on my own)
Another interesting bit of history trivia.
If it weren't for St. Augustine, then Darwin would not have come up with the theory. In St. Augustine's City of God, he comes up with the idea that time is linear. Prior to that, many people believed that time was cyclical. St. Augustine proposed that time was linear, that there was only one crucifixion and it would never happen again. Everything is moving forward, progressing towards the future. It is this concept of linear time that lays the foundation for evolution.
My question for maverick (nice to meet you) would be, do you think it is possible to reconcile evolutionary theory and your religion? Must one cancel out the other and vice versa?
I just took a course in evolutionary theory at Rutgers. Curdis has already stated this, but I'll reiterate that Darwin never said that men are descended from apes. We have a common ancestor in the prosimians (e.g., lemurs - my favorite animal!) Evolution is not a simple tree, it's a complex bush - different species are linked, but not always in direct ways. I don't want to go into the theory too much, but if anyone has any questions, I'm sure I can answer them.
I really wanted to bring up what I think is the reason that the theory of evolution is so threatening to fundamentalists. Simply put - if you take the bible as fact, then it is absolutely essential that there existed a real Adam & Eve. It is with the fall of Adam & Eve that you get Original Sin. This is the major thing that Jesus Christ died on the cross for - to save us from Original Sin. So, evolutionary theory poses quite a dilemma for the fundamentalist christian, because it means that there was no Adam & Eve - therefore no Original Sin and therefore no need for Jesus. Once I understood this, it made me understand why they get so worked up over evolutionary theory. My advice would be to switch to another protestant denomination that is not so literal in its interpretation of the bible - but to each, his own. (They didn't go into this in my class - I just figured this out on my own)
Another interesting bit of history trivia.
If it weren't for St. Augustine, then Darwin would not have come up with the theory. In St. Augustine's City of God, he comes up with the idea that time is linear. Prior to that, many people believed that time was cyclical. St. Augustine proposed that time was linear, that there was only one crucifixion and it would never happen again. Everything is moving forward, progressing towards the future. It is this concept of linear time that lays the foundation for evolution.
My question for maverick (nice to meet you) would be, do you think it is possible to reconcile evolutionary theory and your religion? Must one cancel out the other and vice versa?
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe
We are the champions...
I believe that the other combatant has fled the field (as I prophesised) and so I claim a temporary tactical victory. Hussar, medals, commendations, and promotions all round.
Biblical Cosmography (partly plagurised from Kirk Straugen)
The Creationist/Biblical Fundamentalist (C/BF) thesis is that the Bible is literally true and inerrant, that is, that it can't be wrong. "In dramatic contrast to primitive and mythological religious writings, the Bible is faithful to scientific evidence. The writers' observations about nature, man, and history are correct, and free from the ancient scientific inaccuracies and superstitions of their contemporaries. It is truly a wonder that the writers of Scripture did not make scientific mistakes in their observations about the world around them." Don Stewart: The Ten Wonders of the Bible, page 73.
If your not laughing (or looking confused) then your probably a C/BF. You see there are some real problems.
The flat earth : "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in. Isaiah 40:22 A circle is a two dimensional figure - flat, oops Houston we have a problem....And it isn't just Isiah 40:22 try Job 26:10 and Prov 8:27
The Earth is, apparently, a flat surface bounded on all sides by the watery depths above which the heavens form a hollow vault. Try thinking about the 'Truman Show' set for a better idea of this.
The vault of the heavens: It was hammered (or possibly the person writing about it, hammered that is) out of a solid, Genesis1:6, and holds back the waters from above Genesis 1:7. Apparently this was necessary to cleave the watery deep so that dry earth could appear, Genesis 1:8.
I could go on but I think we get the point.
I have a Doctorate in Divinity from the University of Tampa (or some such), if you are sceptical about my qualifications to discuss the bible, and it cost me a whole $50.00 US. DR. Curdis !
I believe that the other combatant has fled the field (as I prophesised) and so I claim a temporary tactical victory. Hussar, medals, commendations, and promotions all round.
Biblical Cosmography (partly plagurised from Kirk Straugen)
The Creationist/Biblical Fundamentalist (C/BF) thesis is that the Bible is literally true and inerrant, that is, that it can't be wrong. "In dramatic contrast to primitive and mythological religious writings, the Bible is faithful to scientific evidence. The writers' observations about nature, man, and history are correct, and free from the ancient scientific inaccuracies and superstitions of their contemporaries. It is truly a wonder that the writers of Scripture did not make scientific mistakes in their observations about the world around them." Don Stewart: The Ten Wonders of the Bible, page 73.
If your not laughing (or looking confused) then your probably a C/BF. You see there are some real problems.
The flat earth : "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in. Isaiah 40:22 A circle is a two dimensional figure - flat, oops Houston we have a problem....And it isn't just Isiah 40:22 try Job 26:10 and Prov 8:27
The Earth is, apparently, a flat surface bounded on all sides by the watery depths above which the heavens form a hollow vault. Try thinking about the 'Truman Show' set for a better idea of this.
The vault of the heavens: It was hammered (or possibly the person writing about it, hammered that is) out of a solid, Genesis1:6, and holds back the waters from above Genesis 1:7. Apparently this was necessary to cleave the watery deep so that dry earth could appear, Genesis 1:8.
I could go on but I think we get the point.
I have a Doctorate in Divinity from the University of Tampa (or some such), if you are sceptical about my qualifications to discuss the bible, and it cost me a whole $50.00 US. DR. Curdis !
The warlord sig of 's' - word
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Re: We are the champions...
I remember one very active member on another forum about ten years ago, who insisted that the wonders of the Judeo-Christian God were made manifest by the way he had removed the cloven hoof from the hare since the time the bible had been written. The gentleman was quite serious, too.
Originally posted by Curdis
The Creationist/Biblical Fundamentalist (C/BF) thesis is that the Bible is literally true and inerrant, that is, that it can't be wrong.
I remember one very active member on another forum about ten years ago, who insisted that the wonders of the Judeo-Christian God were made manifest by the way he had removed the cloven hoof from the hare since the time the bible had been written. The gentleman was quite serious, too.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Re: Re: We are the champions...
.
I thought Biblical Cosmology was a nice twist on The logic of religion, but hey it looks like I'm just preaching to the choir.
A C/BF once called me on what I would do when I found myself in front of my maker (after all my years of C/BF poking and God nonbelief). I said "Boy, I can see your pissed." - Curdis !
P.S. It does upset me that they don't ever acknowledge that you did a fine job demolishing their spurious arguements, especially once you've done the work.
And quite a few other things tooOriginally posted by fable
*snip* The gentleman was quite serious, too.
.I thought Biblical Cosmology was a nice twist on The logic of religion, but hey it looks like I'm just preaching to the choir.
A C/BF once called me on what I would do when I found myself in front of my maker (after all my years of C/BF poking and God nonbelief). I said "Boy, I can see your pissed." - Curdis !
P.S. It does upset me that they don't ever acknowledge that you did a fine job demolishing their spurious arguements, especially once you've done the work.
The warlord sig of 's' - word
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Re: Re: Re: We are the champions...
We may have lurkers who have never seen the content, before. And in any case, sooner or later the thread takes a turn into areas it hasn't previously visited.Originally posted by Curdis
I thought Biblical Cosmology was a nice twist on The logic of religion, but hey it looks like I'm just preaching to the choir.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
@Curdis and Fable
Just a comment
I dont know why the extreme religious ppl would be more funny or wrong than us.
For example, we live with the never-perfect Cientific Method. Cause the idea of the absolute can never come from the Method.
We live in an atempt to forgot our final fatality.
In a world that any Decartes or Baudrillard, like an earthquake, turned to dust. By the way, anyone with a bit of relativism and abstraction could turn us to dust.
(Thankfully, i am not certainly... cause if i was an total atheist... i would ask for a very good purpose to breath.)
What make me think, how easy is to destroy. Thesis are like the machines, i can open and split a radio in lots of little parts. Sometimes it is even a pleasure... guess you feel the same. There is nothing that a caustic relativism cant end.
So, it is no big deal to destroy... no prizes. Nihilistic dont take us too far, unless we like to walk in frustrations.
But to suport a belief(that is not based in the disbelief[ a-anything]) we need a lot more of willpower.
The worst aplication of logic and method i ever know is the destruction vector.
Again, my atheism is not less funny, tragic or ignorant than maverick's beliefs.
Just a comment
I dont know why the extreme religious ppl would be more funny or wrong than us.
For example, we live with the never-perfect Cientific Method. Cause the idea of the absolute can never come from the Method.
We live in an atempt to forgot our final fatality.
In a world that any Decartes or Baudrillard, like an earthquake, turned to dust. By the way, anyone with a bit of relativism and abstraction could turn us to dust.
(Thankfully, i am not certainly... cause if i was an total atheist... i would ask for a very good purpose to breath.)
What make me think, how easy is to destroy. Thesis are like the machines, i can open and split a radio in lots of little parts. Sometimes it is even a pleasure... guess you feel the same. There is nothing that a caustic relativism cant end.
So, it is no big deal to destroy... no prizes. Nihilistic dont take us too far, unless we like to walk in frustrations.
But to suport a belief(that is not based in the disbelief[ a-anything]) we need a lot more of willpower.
The worst aplication of logic and method i ever know is the destruction vector.
Again, my atheism is not less funny, tragic or ignorant than maverick's beliefs.
[Sorry about my English]
Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".
Lurker(0.50). : )
Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".
Lurker(0.50). : )
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Very nicely put. But if we reduce everything to a zero-sum game, then of course every result will be equal. Zealous dogmatists of all religious (or anti-religious) stripes aren't funny--I don't think anybody here is laughing at them. But they are wrong, in so far as they define as proven that which cannot be proved, and attempt to convince others with their lack-of-proof. When they further seek to ignore or confuse the understanding of others with bad science, they (rightly, I think) deserve the contempt of the real scientific community, which at its best values the search for truth over fraud; and of all those who value truth, whether they are scientists, or not.
But if we reduce everything to a zero-sum game, then of course every result will be equal. Zealous dogmatists of all religious (or anti-religious) stripes aren't funny--I don't think anybody here is laughing at them. But they are wrong, in so far as they define as proven that which cannot be proved, and attempt to convince others with their lack-of-proof. When they further seek to ignore or confuse the understanding of others with bad science, they (rightly, I think) deserve the contempt of the real scientific community, which at its best values the search for truth over fraud; and of all those who value truth, whether they are scientists, or not.To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
maverick8088
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 8:24 pm
- Location: Center of the 'Husker Nation
- Contact:
This will be my final post on this topic and I hope I don't come across as dogmatic again, as that has never been my intention nor is it my character. Somehow I have become the poster child for Religious Zealots everywhere. It was not my intention to come across as the blind faith believer, only to question, to discuss. I am in no way trying to swing anyone to my point of veiw, simply talk and debate. That said...
Curdis, (my apologies to you for not writing sooner) you do make some valid points. However, 1: The scriptures you quoted all use the same Hebrew word for circle and can be translated "sphere" which we all know the Earth is.
2: Genesis does speak of an expanse of water above. Have you never seen clouds? For that matter, have you never considered that a thick cloud layer could be where the flood waters came from?
3: There are fossils that are hailed as missing links, however, isn't possible these modest and truth seeking scientists you speak of are searching to prove what they have already hailed as fact?
4:If theories are constantly being disproven, why can the Theory of the Evolution of Life not be questioned?
The Theory of Evolution is not what I set out to prove or disprove, anyway. I brought up evolution to show that science is as vulnerable to human weakness and ego as any other human endeavor and cannot be followed blindly. I simply saw some people on another thread ( before Fable switched us to this one to get away from some spam)who said, basically, that God didn't exist and that only science held the answers. This to me constitutes tunnel vision. These veiws discounted other possibilities by the statements they made. All I asked was that they not close their minds.
C/bf's, as you call me, are not all close minded, Bible thumping, judgemental, frothy mouthed, antiscience freaks. I don't like being categorized and stereotyped with those type of people, because I am not one. I have the opinions that I have because I have done enough research to come to this conclusion. If I found something that was strong enough to alter my outlook, I have the ability to change my way of thinking.
My personal veiws are that there is too small a probability that the complexity we see in the world could be left up to chance. "Every house is constructed by someone, but He that constructed all things is God" Hebrews 3:4. That makes sense to me, it seems logical.
If someone could provide a more convincing argument that Man is the result of countless eons of evolution, and[B/]that Life springs from nothing, I have an open mind and would redirect my thinking. But there are too many things that simply don't add up. It doesn't make sense to me but it obviously does to you, and that's fine. I don't have nearly the problem with your veiws as you seem to with mine. Remember, all I asked was that you open your mind and consider the other possibilities. I never meant to start an argument on this matter but felt it necessary to respond to your stereotyping me with hard core creationists. I have listened to your arguments and given them several days consideration before responding:
Even if Evolution is true you still haven't answered the problem I originally put forth. If God (or some form of higher intelligence)does not exist, Life would have to originate by chance. Anything less than a sheer random event would indicate design. Scientists have estimated that for an average sized protein made from 100 amino acids to fold into the shape it needs for life to function (the shape it is now, DNA) would take 10 to the 27 power years to try every possibility. That's 1 billion billion billion years! Incredible odds! Like winning the Lottery 100 times in a row. But this process happens every second in our bodies. It's too complex. One does not get a house by piling lumber, shingles, and some nails in a lot and leaving it there for countless years. If a house is too complex for this to take place, how much more complex is a single chain of amino acids known as DNA. That strand, if written in 12 point type, would stretch 10,000 miles long!
One more point I thought of with regard to Dr. Miller's and other like experiments. If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the spark is the lightning, and the boiling water the sea, what does the scientist designing and arranging the experiment represent? Even the attempts at a recreation speak of intelligence!
As I have stated time and again this is not an attempt at conversion. I simply want people to question Science as much as they question the Bible. All great thinkers had the ability and the courage to question the knowledge of the day. Galileo, Einstein, Columbus and Magellan all questioned the understanding of the world around them in their time. The theory of the Evolution of Life is just that: an unproven theory.
Nice to meet you, too. Hope you don't think I'm a Bible thumpin' moron from all this. In my opinion, one must be true. The whole reason I brought it up was that people hailed God as an impossibility. If God is impossible then life originated w/o a plan or design. Which leaves us with the Theory of Evolution. The two must, by their very nature, be diametrically opposed. Belief in one negates Belief in the other. Some say that God got it started and let life choose it's course. I guess I could buy into that if there weren't such enormous gulf between species. But, humans only use about 1% of their brain capacity. We have enough memory storage capability to fill entire libraries worth of books. We have the ability to create and love and sing and enjoy and plan our future. Not to mention sit and debate stuff like this. I just think that points to a higher purpose for mankind.
Have fun guys I'm done with this string
Curdis, (my apologies to you for not writing sooner) you do make some valid points. However, 1: The scriptures you quoted all use the same Hebrew word for circle and can be translated "sphere" which we all know the Earth is.
2: Genesis does speak of an expanse of water above. Have you never seen clouds? For that matter, have you never considered that a thick cloud layer could be where the flood waters came from?
3: There are fossils that are hailed as missing links, however, isn't possible these modest and truth seeking scientists you speak of are searching to prove what they have already hailed as fact?
4:If theories are constantly being disproven, why can the Theory of the Evolution of Life not be questioned?
The Theory of Evolution is not what I set out to prove or disprove, anyway. I brought up evolution to show that science is as vulnerable to human weakness and ego as any other human endeavor and cannot be followed blindly. I simply saw some people on another thread ( before Fable switched us to this one to get away from some spam)who said, basically, that God didn't exist and that only science held the answers. This to me constitutes tunnel vision. These veiws discounted other possibilities by the statements they made. All I asked was that they not close their minds.
C/bf's, as you call me, are not all close minded, Bible thumping, judgemental, frothy mouthed, antiscience freaks. I don't like being categorized and stereotyped with those type of people, because I am not one. I have the opinions that I have because I have done enough research to come to this conclusion. If I found something that was strong enough to alter my outlook, I have the ability to change my way of thinking.
My personal veiws are that there is too small a probability that the complexity we see in the world could be left up to chance. "Every house is constructed by someone, but He that constructed all things is God" Hebrews 3:4. That makes sense to me, it seems logical.
If someone could provide a more convincing argument that Man is the result of countless eons of evolution, and[B/]that Life springs from nothing, I have an open mind and would redirect my thinking. But there are too many things that simply don't add up. It doesn't make sense to me but it obviously does to you, and that's fine. I don't have nearly the problem with your veiws as you seem to with mine. Remember, all I asked was that you open your mind and consider the other possibilities. I never meant to start an argument on this matter but felt it necessary to respond to your stereotyping me with hard core creationists. I have listened to your arguments and given them several days consideration before responding:
Even if Evolution is true you still haven't answered the problem I originally put forth. If God (or some form of higher intelligence)does not exist, Life would have to originate by chance. Anything less than a sheer random event would indicate design. Scientists have estimated that for an average sized protein made from 100 amino acids to fold into the shape it needs for life to function (the shape it is now, DNA) would take 10 to the 27 power years to try every possibility. That's 1 billion billion billion years! Incredible odds! Like winning the Lottery 100 times in a row. But this process happens every second in our bodies. It's too complex. One does not get a house by piling lumber, shingles, and some nails in a lot and leaving it there for countless years. If a house is too complex for this to take place, how much more complex is a single chain of amino acids known as DNA. That strand, if written in 12 point type, would stretch 10,000 miles long!
One more point I thought of with regard to Dr. Miller's and other like experiments. If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the spark is the lightning, and the boiling water the sea, what does the scientist designing and arranging the experiment represent? Even the attempts at a recreation speak of intelligence!
As I have stated time and again this is not an attempt at conversion. I simply want people to question Science as much as they question the Bible. All great thinkers had the ability and the courage to question the knowledge of the day. Galileo, Einstein, Columbus and Magellan all questioned the understanding of the world around them in their time. The theory of the Evolution of Life is just that: an unproven theory.
My question for maverick (nice to meet you) would be, do you think it is possible to reconcile evolutionary theory and your religion? Must one cancel out the other and vice versa?
Nice to meet you, too. Hope you don't think I'm a Bible thumpin' moron from all this. In my opinion, one must be true. The whole reason I brought it up was that people hailed God as an impossibility. If God is impossible then life originated w/o a plan or design. Which leaves us with the Theory of Evolution. The two must, by their very nature, be diametrically opposed. Belief in one negates Belief in the other. Some say that God got it started and let life choose it's course. I guess I could buy into that if there weren't such enormous gulf between species. But, humans only use about 1% of their brain capacity. We have enough memory storage capability to fill entire libraries worth of books. We have the ability to create and love and sing and enjoy and plan our future. Not to mention sit and debate stuff like this. I just think that points to a higher purpose for mankind.
Have fun guys I'm done with this string
They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty. And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Har-Maged'on - Revelations 16:14,16
The Wheel Of Time turns and Ages come and go. What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under Shadow. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time.
The Wheel Of Time turns and Ages come and go. What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under Shadow. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time.
I haven't stopped debating.Originally posted by maverick8088
This will be my final post on this topic and I hope I don't come across as dogmatic again,*snip debate. That said...
Which ones?Originally posted by maverick8088
Curdis, (my apologies to you for not writing sooner) you do make some valid points.
Huh? The word is in english AND came to be there via a Greek Scripture. I'm not aware of the existence of a version of Genesis, which predates the Greek, in Hebrew, but I've been wrong before. Meanwhile how does the sphere hold up the vault of the heavens? This works MUCH better if it is a disk as written, and intended. For a non C/BF you sure seem to want it to be inerently true.Originally posted by maverick8088
However, 1: The scriptures you quoted all use the same Hebrew word for circle and can be translated "sphere" which we all know the Earth is.
Yes I have seen clouds and? This is not the bible as written it means wet water.Originally posted by maverick8088
2: Genesis does speak of an expanse of water above. Have you never seen clouds?
Are we going for a literal flood here too?Originally posted by maverick8088
For that matter, have you never considered that a thick cloud layer could be where the flood waters came from?
They dig, they fit into the rich tapestry. And anything is possible as we are all human.Originally posted by maverick8088
3: There are fossils that are hailed as missing links, however, isn't possible these modest and truth seeking scientists you speak of are searching to prove what they have already hailed as fact?
It can and is being questioned. No theory has lasted unchanged. To use an example Newtonian Gravitation. It is demonstrably wrong. GPS systems will not work unless you acound for General Relativity. However I don't ever consider general relativity when I'm driving my car or doing simple mechanics/optics Newton still works and gravity still sucks.Originally posted by maverick8088
4:If theories are constantly being disproven, why can the Theory of the Evolution of Life not be questioned?
CE is entitled to her beliefs, as you are. I do know that CE is not closed minded.Originally posted by maverick8088
*snip*who said, basically, that God didn't exist and that only science held the answers. This to me constitutes tunnel vision. These veiws discounted other possibilities by the statements they made. All I asked was that they not close their minds.
I didn't call you one. I'm sure everyone can make up there own minds without me telling them. It was part of a quote in a post in response to Fable after it seemed likely you wouldn't be back.Originally posted by maverick8088
C/bf's, as you call me, are not all close minded, Bible thumping, judgemental, frothy mouthed, antiscience freaks. I don't like being categorized and stereotyped with those type of people, because I am not one. I have the opinions that I have because I have done enough research to come to this conclusion. If I found something that was strong enough to alter my outlook, I have the ability to change my way of thinking.*snip*
I answered part one in detail, I feel part two is an open question. it is my belief that it is possible and it will be demonstrated at some stage.Originally posted by maverick8088
If someone could provide a more convincing argument that Man is the result of countless eons of evolution, and[B/]that Life springs from nothing *snip*
I'd be very careful in the future about what you post then.Originally posted by maverick8088
*snip*I never meant to start an argument on this matter but felt it necessary to respond to your stereotyping me with hard core creationists.*snip*
The whole process of science IS questioning. The whole process of believing the bible is believing. I don't believe science in that way and the theory of evolution is a well demonstrated theory, as I have demonstrated via reference.Originally posted by maverick8088
I simply want people to question Science as much as they question the Bible. All great thinkers had the ability and the courage to question the knowledge of the day. Galileo, Einstein, Columbus and Magellan all questioned the understanding of the world around them in their time. The theory of the Evolution of Life is just that: an unproven theory.
Small of me to care about knowledge and truth isn't it. - Curdis !Originally posted by maverick8088
Have fun guys I'm done with this string
The warlord sig of 's' - word
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
Obviously I missed this entire discussion while I was on holiday in Tunisia, well, I have nothing new to add really and Beowulf has already linked to the long discussion we have had on this board regarding evolution and creationism.
It is funny how the labels "close-minded" and "open-minded" are often used by people who do not understand science at all, but believe science and religion are contradictory and one is "blind" whereas the other is "open". If you come back to this thread Maverick, I really recommend you to follow Beowulfs link and read not only about evolution but also about science in general - it has been discussed in detail exactly in this context, and I think it is good to be somewhat familiar with the theory of evolution as well as scientific principles, in order to know what you are talking about. I see several strawman arguments in you post.
However, it was I who said in another thread that I will start believing in a god if if can be scientifically demonstrated that one exists. Just as I will start believing in fairies and pink unicorns too, if it is scientifically demonstrable. Believing in phenomena that cannot be objectivly demonstrated to exist, is your choice as a religions person. My choice is not to believe in things that are not. The scientific framework is simply my paradigm for whether I believe something exist at all or not.
Originally posted by maverick8088
The Theory of Evolution is not what I set out to prove or disprove, anyway. I brought up evolution to show that science is as vulnerable to human weakness and ego as any other human endeavor and cannot be followed blindly. I simply saw some people on another thread ( before Fable switched us to this one to get away from some spam)who said, basically, that God didn't exist and that only science held the answers. This to me constitutes tunnel vision. These veiws discounted other possibilities by the statements they made. All I asked was that they not close their minds.
It is funny how the labels "close-minded" and "open-minded" are often used by people who do not understand science at all, but believe science and religion are contradictory and one is "blind" whereas the other is "open". If you come back to this thread Maverick, I really recommend you to follow Beowulfs link and read not only about evolution but also about science in general - it has been discussed in detail exactly in this context, and I think it is good to be somewhat familiar with the theory of evolution as well as scientific principles, in order to know what you are talking about. I see several strawman arguments in you post.
However, it was I who said in another thread that I will start believing in a god if if can be scientifically demonstrated that one exists. Just as I will start believing in fairies and pink unicorns too, if it is scientifically demonstrable. Believing in phenomena that cannot be objectivly demonstrated to exist, is your choice as a religions person. My choice is not to believe in things that are not. The scientific framework is simply my paradigm for whether I believe something exist at all or not.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Originally posted by Zelgadis
Second law.
<snip>
Also, the second law is only valid in closed systems, which might actually not be true for our universe
I don't know much about molecular biology, because it has never interested me, but it seems to me that to start evolution, all that is needed is a gathering of molecules with self replicating tendencies and a percent error in these replications. Cells and DNA would not be the simplest design for this, in my opinion. But then again, I'm a lot more physicist than I am biologist, so I might be completely and horribly wrong
The earth is certainly not a closed system - there is a certain little star nearby giving us energy
The origin of life is called abiogenesis and is a different question from evolution. Evolution deals with how life on earth developed, whereas it does not address the issue of how life started from non-life, so to speak. A lot less in known about the abiogenesis that the evolution, but the consensus abiogenesis hypothesis currently is the RNA soup-model. It it similar to what you describe - different molecules put themselves together into strings of self-replicating proteins, and voila - RNA appears, and from RNA, DNA is formed. Smaller building stones are integrated into larger, and you have a cell.
Anyway, back to the original question of this thread. I think all belief systems that include transcendental and/or mystical features, be it monotheistic religions or astrology, must rely on faith since the logic in those systems (if any) is in the form of internal consistency only.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
fable-kaima
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:30 pm
- Contact:
im not against religion (spellcheck)
ok first of all im not against religion lol.
but i just find it hard to belive that
1. a god or higher entity created us.
2. (in christianity) the bible in my opinion is just a story book (no offence).
3. 1 last thing i think that most religions are ignorance, in this way.
"quote from a book" why does the sun go around the sky? i dont know, so i will attribute it to the efforts of a sun god with a golden chariot. why do people die? i cant say but i will choose to belive it is the buisness of a murky reaper who carries souls to some afterworld."end quite"
and that is why i belive in no religions.you may think im shallow but there we go.
ok first of all im not against religion lol.
but i just find it hard to belive that
1. a god or higher entity created us.
2. (in christianity) the bible in my opinion is just a story book (no offence).
3. 1 last thing i think that most religions are ignorance, in this way.
"quote from a book" why does the sun go around the sky? i dont know, so i will attribute it to the efforts of a sun god with a golden chariot. why do people die? i cant say but i will choose to belive it is the buisness of a murky reaper who carries souls to some afterworld."end quite"
and that is why i belive in no religions.you may think im shallow but there we go.
if monkeys rule the earth nothing can go wrong !
-
imawindowlickr
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:29 am
- Location: Harrisburg, Pa.
- Contact:
ooohhhhhh * cracks knuckles, grabs bottle of jolt *
I think you all may be over thinking everything. Both science and religion can find facts and proof to back there arguments but just cause you put feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. Both walk hand in hand. Try finding people to join those opposing hands is another thing altogether. Faith dictates believe blindly, science dictates question everything. At what point do any of you walk away more enlightened? Your views largely aren't changed. Do not let your need to prove a point or even be right close your mind to learning or changing the way you view something.
Both are right and wrong as well. errors made on both ends. Zealots and scientists apt apt to do wrong for the wrong reasons.
I think the religion is wonderful and a fascinating study of mankind in general. The way our thinking has evolved and in some cases devolved.
If you are going to make a stand for religion separate it from the church. The embodiment of the Christian religion and the church in my opinion are two separate things. I support no church. I agree with no church but I cannot agree totally with science either. The Roman catholic church has evolved to be a machine that holds the world in its grasp. Controlling and loyal to keep the citizens of the world in the dark. This is not religion. They do not represent a side to argue science when they have strived to silence scientists throughout history. To argue God vs. Science you have to find a good foundation versed in many different religions to pitt against science. The church is not that foundation. The end result will be the consant petty bickering of ancient scientific and religious laws and no one will be any wiser.
I think you all may be over thinking everything. Both science and religion can find facts and proof to back there arguments but just cause you put feathers up your but does not make you a chicken. Both walk hand in hand. Try finding people to join those opposing hands is another thing altogether. Faith dictates believe blindly, science dictates question everything. At what point do any of you walk away more enlightened? Your views largely aren't changed. Do not let your need to prove a point or even be right close your mind to learning or changing the way you view something.
Both are right and wrong as well. errors made on both ends. Zealots and scientists apt apt to do wrong for the wrong reasons.
I think the religion is wonderful and a fascinating study of mankind in general. The way our thinking has evolved and in some cases devolved.
If you are going to make a stand for religion separate it from the church. The embodiment of the Christian religion and the church in my opinion are two separate things. I support no church. I agree with no church but I cannot agree totally with science either. The Roman catholic church has evolved to be a machine that holds the world in its grasp. Controlling and loyal to keep the citizens of the world in the dark. This is not religion. They do not represent a side to argue science when they have strived to silence scientists throughout history. To argue God vs. Science you have to find a good foundation versed in many different religions to pitt against science. The church is not that foundation. The end result will be the consant petty bickering of ancient scientific and religious laws and no one will be any wiser.
Something witty and laughable.
-
Loki[D.d.G]
- Posts: 2515
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:50 pm
- Location: The initial frontier
- Contact:
Brilliant. I can't say how much I agree with you here. Religion shouldn't be about politics and trying to control everyone and everything. How is that much better than a totalitarian government?imawindowlickr wrote: The Roman catholic church has evolved to be a machine that holds the world in its grasp. Controlling and loyal to keep the citizens of the world in the dark. This is not religion.
Love is just a chemical. We give it meaning by choice ~ Eleanor Lamb, Bioshock 2: Sea of Dreams
-
Maharlika
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Wanderlusting with my lampshade, like any decent k
- Contact:
Could you kindly substantiate that with facts (since a number of those who don't believe in religion or God keep on harping about facts...imawindowlickr wrote: The Roman catholic church has evolved to be a machine that holds the world in its grasp. Controlling and loyal to keep the citizens of the world in the dark.
)?Unless validly substantiated, such statements are mere perceptions.
"There is no weakness in honest sorrow... only in succumbing to depression over what cannot be changed." --- Alaundo, BG2
Brother Scribe, Keeper of the Holy Scripts of COMM
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/"]Moderator, Speak Your Mind Forum[/url]
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/sym-specific-rules-please-read-before-posting-14427.html"]SYM Specific Forum Rules[/url]