 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)Roger Wilco ...and 262 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614125 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think a comparision of the scientific method and the religious method is in order. Scientific method: a) observe phenomena b) form a possible explanation c) test explanation d) if it works out, tell others e) others verify it for themselves f) if it's the best possible explanation at the time, it becomes known as theory Religious method: a) observe phenomena - or not - in any case, don't observe too closely b) say "God did it" c) kill or drive away anyone who disagrees. If you can't get away with that, influence government and the legal system to have "god did it" taught in schools. See how much easier religion is? That must be why it's so popular. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"god has only been a concept since man reached the evolutional turning point of sentience."" The implications of this statement regarding intelligence are what I wanted to address with this thread. " i think to believe in god is relieving yourself of the responsibility and control of life." Just the opposite. Without God there is no true purpose, therefore no responsibility and direction. You can't relieve something that you've rendered pointless. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How do you tell true purpose from false purpose? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's called rationalism, and it isn't more or less convenient than just accepting either. Accepting just the one would be narrow-minded. you should read Pierre Bayle, btw... his stuff is messy, but it has some good points... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Slight modification. Scientific method: a) observe phenomena b) form a possible explanation c) test explanation d) if it works out, tell others e) others verify it for themselves f) if it's the best possible explanation at the time, it becomes known as theory Atheist method: a) observe phenomena - or not - in any case, don't observe too closely b) say "Chance did it" c) Riducule or character assisnate anyone who disagrees. If you can't get away with that, influence government and the legal system to have "chance did it" taught in schools. I agree, the scientific method is the path less traveled. :-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm not here talking to pete. i thought i was talking to drunken mastah about his own ideas. ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well.. both the concept of birds and mammals are man-made, and classing a flying thing as a bird isn't all that illogical regardless if it gives birth to living things instead of eggs. on the question of the earths shape I'm inclined to believe science, and who knows about epilepsy... however, in the bible, the devil was never a real force.. he has no body and can only conjure illusions, so whenever the devil made someone sick, he only made them believe they were sick. oh, and.. the bible has been the subject of interpretation ever since it was written, and as I said about the philosophers from the scientific revolution, they were trying to "read the book of nature" since it was written by god and "untainted" by human interpretation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahaha! you are, it's just that 1: Bayles stuff is an interesting read, 2: One cannot always think of EVERYTHING, and I spend more time thinking about language and inhibitation of thought than religion and science, so sometimes you need something to jog your imagination. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
From an athiestic viewpoint, there is no diffrence. Actually from any viewpoint, purpose is just intent to fufill some desire or complete a predefined goal. I just don't get the whole 'man must shape his own destiny' attitude. As if belief in God is a restraint on mans progress. That depends on how you define progress. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Atheist method: a) observe phenomena - or not - in any case, don't observe too closely b) say "Chance did it" I assume it's safe to assume we're both talking about evolution here. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a given population over time, and there's an enormous body of knowledge that describes how this happens, from the level of molecules to the level of populations, in excruciating detail. It's anything but chance. c) Riducule or character assisnate anyone who disagrees. Are you talking about that guy Hovind who teaches creationism and got his "degree" from a diploma mill run out of a bungalow? Yeah, nothing to ridicule there. If you can't get away with that, influence government and the legal system to have "chance did it" taught in schools. Er, no - even going back to the beginning, the Scopes trial, the legal initiative was taken by religionists to punish a teacher who was teaching evolution. If you can provide evidence of scientists using the court to force schools to teach that "chance did it" - something they don't even believe - I would be very surprised. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Would you send your child to a school that teaches that bats are birds, or that the earth is flat? Would you send your epileptic child to an exorcist? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Religion will bring peace to the world. ^ ha! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
" i think to believe in god is relieving yourself of the responsibility and control of life." 'Just the opposite. Without God there is no true purpose, therefore no responsibility and direction. You can't relieve something that you've rendered pointless.' isn't that saying if you don't believe in god, your life must not have purpose? unless i'm reading that wrong. then what is our purpose? is our purpose what god wants for us? that makes it his purpose. all religion ever seems to say is that without god, you have no purpose because you're not following gods "ways". what i'm saying is when ever some bad shit happens in life, i've heard so many people say it's the devil trying to bring them down. and by golly, anytime something good happens, it's the grace of god! that's the stupidest thinking i've ever come across. it's people entrusting their lives to god and then when anything unsatisfactory happens, they'll give the blame to the devil. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, but I wouldn't send him to one that only taught science either, and I definately wouldn't teach him to be a closed-minded science man, nor a close-minded religious man... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I just don't get the whole 'man must shape his own destiny' attitude. Where do you get that from? Sounds like something a 15 year old reading Ayn Rand for the first time would say. As if belief in God is a restraint on mans progress. That depends on how you define progress. Progress is a pretty vague term, but maybe we can talk about progress in terms of learning more about the world, in which case I would have to argue that yes, belief in God can be a restraint. You should read the Dawkins article I linked to earlier. Here's the |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
without man here on earth, who would here be to acknowledge the god concept? no one. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, but I wouldn't send him to one that only taught science either, Why not? If you want him to learn your preferred superstition you can always send him to the witch doctors on Sunday. And you can teach him yourself about how the wind-demons make planes fly, and how airplanes are really big silver birds that carry people in their bellies. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't even understand why theists distinguish science from religion. Isn't science just a medium for god? I don't, but then again, I'm an atheist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't want him to learn my superstition, I want him to be able to choose... however, I'd not allow him to grow up without any classes with ethics... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's population genetics. Nauture rearanging traits that already exist. I'm referring to real meaning behind evolution: the idea that the information contained in genes, which by the way are mathmaticlly equvilent to written and computer languages, arose without any intelligent influence. The mechnism for this is supposedly Neo-Darwinism: Natrual Selection preserving theoreticlly beneficial genetic mutations. And how do these benefical mutations arise? They are complely random. BTW I must say that you are living up to Athiest Method c) quite nicely. Anyway, this whole thread has veered away from a discussion to a flame war. Well, im glad everyone held out as long as they did. Good night all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
goddamnit, i'm late to the flame war again... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what "flame war" are you talking about? there was none i could see until mertens came into the discussion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I dismiss nothing. I regret nothing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's population genetics. No, that is the most concise definition of evolution possible: change in the frequency of alleles in a given polulation over time. Note that change in frequency can include genes completely lost or new genes introduced. Nauture rearanging traits that already exist. I'm referring to real meaning behind evolution: the idea that the information contained in genes, which by the way are mathmaticlly equvilent to written and computer languages, arose without any intelligent influence. All you need is a chemical that can copy itself, make mistakes, and pass on the mistakes to its copies. I'm not sure what you mean by "mathematically equivalent". The mechnism for this is supposedly Neo-Darwinism: Natrual Selection preserving theoreticlly beneficial genetic mutations. And how do these benefical mutations arise? They are complely random. First of all, there is no such thing as theoretically beneficial. A mutation is beneficial or it isn't. Take an organism with an eyespot. It can detect light - not too shabby. Now what if a mutation causes its eyespot to fold into a cup shape? Now the organism can not only detect light, but what direction it's coming from. There's a beneficial mutation that would tend to survive and be passed on. But yes, the mutations themselves are random insofar as they are not directional - we're not Lamarckians here, believing in inheritance of acquired traits. The interesting thing is that we can follow the tree of life genetically, morphologically and geologically, and the three bodies of evidence present the same conclusion - all life is related. For instance, humans have a pseudogene that would be able to produce vitamin C - except that it's broken. Dogs, on the other hand, have the exact same gene except in their case it works. Is God fond of dogs, more so than of humans? No primates have it, nor do guinea pigs. Why do humans and primates have the exact same pseudogene (nonfunctional gene), broken in exactly t |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Evolution shines light on all things. You might not see how small, autonomous and limited human minds are because your entire perception is biased by being trapped inside one. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(continued) Why do humans and primates have the exact same pseudogene (nonfunctional gene), broken in exactly the same way? More importantly, if we look at apes with 24 chromosomes and humans with 23 chromosomes, we see that humans have those two ape chromosomes (with the same genes) joined together, with remnants of the extra centromere and telomeres. If that doesn't suggest common ancestry I don't know what does. Perhaps you have an alternate Biblical explanation for all this... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i am referring to the flame war referred to by mertens, my good sir...thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clear this matter up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so was i. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
your avatar does not fit your comments. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't think that evolution is evidence against the existence of God. It's certainly evidence against a boneheadedly literal interpretation of the Bible, though. If you choose to believe that God designed a really really good big bang, lit the fuse and laughed while the universe went *whoomp* and everything happened, that's fine with me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right, that's why you asked me what "flame war" i was referring to, the only "flame war" that had yet been mentioned in the thread. or by "so was i," did you mean that you're not anymore? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's no evidence for God, so, draw your conclusions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How so? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I am a Born again Christian. I am not even going to debate any of this as i see no point and at the same time, i , myself am still learning. This stuff goes real real deep. If you really go into the past and trace information that has been around for thousands of years I feel there is substancial evidence to make one think otherwise. Most people (including christians) dont take the time to look into this stuff. People are dying over "holy land" everyday. From islamics to Christians. Overall atheists are a very small percentage of the human population who think that they can just say "prove it" and that will be the end all be all of their religious debates. That is probably the most foolish thing one can say. No offense intended but people take years, if not their whole lives looking into this matter. It can not be summed up in one post or for that matter a number of them. There are records that need to be checked. Teachings of philosphers, words of others amongst other things. Saying "theres no evidence" is the easy way out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it must be so hard to always be the victim. my first post about that was NOT a follow up to you. it follows gonzo's post and isn't specifically addressed to anyone. relax and leave it alone. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How can you even know what you're believing in then if it has no basis ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
who cares. just eat, shit and sleep. stop thinking about things you can't ever prove but think you can if you take enough hits of acid with a slice of crack cocaine. i love teh nihilism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My big problem with Christianity is that it teaches that when you die you will become something better then you already are. We are pretty amazing right now enjoy being human it's great. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
People are dying over "holy land" everyday. From islamics to Christians. Overall atheists are a very small percentage of the human population who think that they can just say "prove it" and that will be the end all be all of their religious debates. Imagine what a hellhole the middle east would be like if all those Christians, Muslims and Jews were atheists! Why, it'd be a bloodbath. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Actually it would probably end up morally bankrupt like our wonderful america. But thats neither here nor there. :p --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- I've stated my opinion on this subject and thats it for this thread. It cant go anywhere because no one is throughly educated on this subject enough. Oh and if you are could you please disprove the believing world while your at it? Really. No one in this thread can honestly prove anything besides that they have an opinion. Anyone thats begs to differ can refer to my other lengthy post explaining as to how it takes great lengths of time (decades) to look into this. People need to stop thinking that those in a religion are brainwashed and just believe anything that is handed their way. There are some of us that actually look and compare what is written with other various sources. We are free thinking indivuduals just like our athiest counterparts. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
'not if you travel within god's path' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nice I hadn't thought of that! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Actually it would probably end up morally bankrupt like our wonderful america. But thats neither here nor there. " george w bush is a born-again christian. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Actually it would probably end up morally bankrupt like our wonderful america. But thats neither here nor there. Do you think women would rather live in the morally bankrupt and secular west where they have human rights (which dubya and his gaggle of rightwing fundamentalist assholes are sawing away at) or in a nice righteous theocracy like Saudi Arabia where they can look forward to clitoridectomy, then possibly death at the hands of their male relatives for being seen talking to a strange man? :p indeed. Oh and if you are could you please disprove the believing world while your at it? Really. No one in this thread can honestly prove anything besides that they have an opinion. When confronted with evidence, the religious always retreat to a position of relativism where one position isn't any better than another. ALLLLLWWWWAAAAYYYYSSSS. Of course it's a self-annihilating position because relativism negates their claim to absolute truth through revelation from God. But you can't depend on them to remember that from one moment to the next. Hey, if they had critical thinking skills they probably wouldn't be religious in the first place. We are free thinking indivuduals just like our athiest counterparts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that reagan quote is absolutely incredible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you should make your avatar do the horsefactory thing and check for enemies! I am bowing out of this conversation respectfully as I have already stated my opinion as this cannot be discussed completely and i am still learning. Thanks for the posts though. I always like to read what you have to say and i really appreciate the time and effort you put towards conveying your thoughts! :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Haha! You're right, someone could be sneaking up behind him! I'm glad you're not getting pissed off at me - I know I can get awful RARRARARRAARRAAARRRR in these threads. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah him and James "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" Watt in the same administration. Jesus. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do people honestly believe that theists are any less free thinking than atheists? Perhaps you should work your way through the collected works of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Pascal, Locke, Kant, Kierkegaard, Plantinga (just to name a few) before believing that kind of nonsense. Of course there are close minded theists, often of the more fundamentally religious sort, but this is because all belief systems attract close minded people. Neither theism nor atheism are exceptions. Fleetmouse, those quotes reflect on the individuals, not theism or religion in general. While I agree that the bible is a horrible science text book, the idea that theism itself is unscientific is completely wrong, in the sense that the two belong to separate epistemic categories altogether. Also, people claiming that there is no evidence for God's existence should be referred to the different kinds of a priori evidence offered in support of the idea for the last few thousand years. Admittedly, whether or not one finds this compelling will depend on one's standard of evidence (a lot of people seem to ignore a priori evidence), but note that there is about as much a posteriori evidence for the existence of the external world as there is for God's existence (i.e. very little). And besides, for a lot of people, looking for evidence or proof is beside the point entirely (fideism). As a disclaimer: I myself am agnostic, not theistic, but I've chosen to defend theism here because people are often overly critical of it, usually because they approach it from the wrong perspective. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
While I agree that the bible is a horrible science text book, the idea that theism itself is unscientific is completely wrong, You'd think that the fella who created the universe would KNOW MORE ABOUT IT. I appreciate what you're saying but the political and philosophical positions I'm arguing against are not the musings of enlightened philosopher kings who believe in some rarefied theism / deism informed by knowledge of rationalism vs. empiricism and all that ivory tower wankshot. I'm talking about people who think in sound bites if they think at all. People who have jesus fish on their bumpers and want to outlaw contraception. People for whom naive realism would be a huge step up. If you want to mount a principled intellectual defense of people who believe that mental illness is caused by demons, that "prayer oil" from a televangelist can cure cancer and that there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark, why you go right ahead. Just be aware of the consequences of defending utter pigshit ignorance and superstition, because reality is a stubborn ugly thing when it's burning books (and possibly writers) it disagrees with. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
