or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science and Religion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Science and Religion - Page 2

post #41 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If I preached to your kids that adding rat poison to their kool-aid would bring them closer to god, and they did it, and died, you wouldn't come after me with a baseball bat?

 

Wait, was your paternal grandmother a child? Or was she a grown adult, fully capable of making her own decisions, deciding what to believe and not believe, and pursuing her own path?

 

Or are you implying that anyone who believes things you personally disagree with is incapable of making their own decisions and should be treated like a child?

 

Really, you're coming across as a violent, narrow-minded bully, here.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #42 of 138
One of your serious faults, MJ, is that you assume every adult is as "smart" as you are, and if they aren't, then tough shit, they made their choice to go with the cheaper untested infant formula. So what if their kid died. They had free choice.
post #43 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

One of your serious faults, MJ, is that you assume every adult is as "smart" as you are, and if they aren't, then tough shit, they made their choice to go with the cheaper untested infant formula. So what if their kid died. They had free choice.

 

Actually, I don't assume that at all.

 

But one of your serious faults is that you appear to assume every adult is much dumber than you are and that you need to baby them with your endless array of rules and regulations.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #44 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Really, you're coming across as a violent, narrow-minded bully, here.

 

He's a leftist: It's what they do.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #45 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Really, you're coming across as a violent, narrow-minded bully, here.

He's a leftist: It's what they do.

And what you do is to give less than two shits about anyone who is poor or underprivileged, pretending that you believe that overall growth will somehow "trickle down" to make everybody prosperous, hallelujah!
post #46 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And what you do is to give less than two shits about anyone who is poor or underprivileged, pretending that you believe that overall growth will somehow "trickle down" to make everybody prosperous, hallelujah!

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion about what you think I give less than two shits about (or don't.)

 

Truth is: I give less than two shits about people like you and BR who think you can engineer the world into a perfectly regulated and ordered Utopia or your own imagination by imposing your beliefs and values and morals onto everyone else (whether they like it or not) and who think that most people are dumber than you are and need for you to be their parents.


Edited by MJ1970 - 11/29/12 at 5:22pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #47 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

 


Read again. She converted to Christian Science. That's the name of a specific cult of Christianity that rejects all modern medicine because they believe that if God wants you to live, you will live, and faith and prayer are the best and only righteous healers.

 

All she needed were some antibiotics and anti-inflammatories.

 

Ah, sorry, never heard of such a sect. I thought you meant she was a real scientist with a christian faith.

 

I just read on wikipedia what this sect is about. Apparantely they believe that they can gain similar wonder-healing-capability as Jesus performed through faith and praying. But Jesus was a messenger of God with the holy spirit which enabled his wonderous healings.

To expect normal human beings to gain that capability is quite strange.

And even stranger is that the established church hasn't condemned the founder for heresy and excommunicated her and her followers.

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #48 of 138
Post error.  I'll try again in a moment,
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #49 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

 

This sounds like an excuse for you not to answer the question.  Answer the question.  What meaningful contribution does Christianity have for the age of the Earth?  Pretend you aren't talking to me.  Answer the fucking question--or admit you don't have an answer.  Either way, stop dodging.

 

I'm sorry you feel I'm dodging.  The fact of the matter is that we cannot ignore your exclusively scientific perspective, nor your atheism for that matter.  Clearly, any answer I would give would not be of a scientific nature.  You would therefore reject any such answer.  Of course, you haven't defined "meaningful," nor have you indicated to whom such an answer would have meaning.  Finally, I do not claim to be anything near an expert on what Christianity and the Bible itself have to say on the topic...so I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer.  

 

 

By believing in a deity, you are making an assertion that the deity exists. 

 

 

Not true.  I know that because I've never posted "God exists," only that I believe God exists.  This is not an assertion of anything.  Look up the definition of "assertion" and you will see the distinction.  

 

 

Quote:
 Thus, the burden of proof is on you to prove that existence.  

 

I'm not asserting anything, nor do I need to prove anything to you.  Or anyone.  

 

 

Quote:
Your repeated claims that I haven't disproved the existence of a deity MEAN NOTHING, 

 

Oh, they mean something.  They mean that you've not disproved the existence of deity.  

 

Quote:
BECAUSE IT IS NOT UP TO ME TO DISPROVE EXISTENCE OR TO PROVE NON-EXISTENCE.

 

I agree.  And I'm not asking you to.  

  

 

Quote:
Gotta jet, but I'll respond to the rest later.  Seriously though, you need to really study up on the philosophical burden of proof.  You are failing spectacularly there.

 

OK then.  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR View Post

And here's the rest, SDW.

The default position isn't that there is no deity.  The default position is that without extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that a deity exists, it is not worth lending the idea any more credence than you would give to the idea of an invisible pink unicorn floating above your house--to anyone who approaches the situation with an ounce of critical thought, anyway. 

 

Again, I'm not making a claim.  Secondly, you've shown time and time again that scientific evidence is the only kind you'd accept.  Since faith is not about scientific evidence, offering any would be pointless.  And as I've said, my goal is not to convince you of anything anyway.  

 

 

 

Quote:
So, if one doesn't take that position, in the particular realm of rationality, yes, that person is less intelligent.  

 

Let me just get this one straight:  Are you claiming that any person who believes in a deity is less intelligent, and irrational?  

 

 

 

Quote:
You would have no qualms calling someone who believes in a flat earth less intelligent in the realm of geography.  Well, you are less intelligent in the realm of rationality.

 

I would call that person irrational because we have proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is round, not flat.  If someone can prove to the same standard that God doesn't exist, I'd be happy to change my belief.  

 

 

Quote:
 If you have to prove the nonexistence of every asserted supernatural being (mind you neglecting the entire issue of defining supernatural adequately), it instantaneously spirals into absurdity.  The great invisible yellow multiversal squid with his majestic triangluar square beak snuck up behind your god and inked him, causing such a fright that your god shat out the universe.  Prove it didn't happen that way.  

 

What you fail to realize is that I'm not asking you to prove nonexistence of anything.  I'm merely taking issue with your aggressive, condescending and somewhat ridiculous behavior to those who have come to a different conclusion on matters of faith than you have.  

 

 

Quote:
Congratulations, you don't deny evolution.

 

No, and I also don't think it fully explains all species development, nor the origin of life.  I happen to believe that God guided the process. BR, you better get some duct tape for that head of yours.  

 

 

Quote:
You just enable others to do so by giving them a magical thinking exemption.

 

If that's the case, then you enable the radical leftist environmentalists for believing in the magical, unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming.    

 

 

Quote:
I'm glad you can compartmentalize your irrationality and failure to understand the burden of proof.

 

You still have not explained to whom I am required to prove the existence of God.   You are also incapable of understanding I must prove my faith to only myself.  Over the years I've been on this planet, I have decided that I believe in the existence of God.  It does not matter to me that you reject my thinking as to why I've made that decision.   

 

 

 

Quote:
Others can't do that so well.  One of them is the new head of the House Science and Technology Committee.  You and people like you enable that.  We have a f*cking Christian "Scientist" leading the House Science and Technology committee.  ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME?  

 

I understand you don't agree with the Christian Scientists (nor do I).  That said, I'm not sure it's all that crazy that he chairs that committee.  Christian Scientists do not reject all science and technology, after all.  In fact, they do not reject all medical treatment, either.  What specifically is your concern about him chairing the committee?   

 
Quote:
You enable this shit, SDW.  You and people like you.  You crack open the door to irrational, magical thinking.  These folks push their way through.

 

 I enable Christian Scientists?  And so do "people like me?"  I'm not sure what power I would have to do that.  And again, what are you suggesting--that we ban all believers from public office, subjecting them to immediate ridicule and public flogging?  Yes, I'd definitely say someone has a problem with tolerance.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Nope.  You just promote irrational thought and provide cover for the lunatics setting our civilization back years and years.

 

I promote irrational thought by believing in God, yet not telling others they should?  Ha..OK.  

 

 

Quote:
  Of course, don't get all high and mighty with me about how much you accept science.

 

I do accept science.  Nothing "high and mighty."  

 

 

Quote:

You still don't think C02 is a greenhouse gas, let alone that global climate change is real. 

 

 

I don't think I've claimed that C02 is not a greenhouse gas, not specifically.  I do think it's highly questionable whether elevated C02 levels lead to higher temperatures, if that's what you mean.  As for global climate change, that depends on what you mean.  The climate is constantly changing, so of course it's "real."  However, I have not seen anywhere near sufficient levels of evidence to convince me that mankind is warming the planet abnormally.  In fact, I am not even convinced that the planet is warming appreciably at all.   Moreover, I am not convinced that a warming climate is necessarily a bad thing, despite the dire predictions to the contrary.  Finally, I am skeptical of our ability to actually do anything about this supposed disaster without causing serious economic damage.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

My paternal grandmother became a Christian Scientist in her fifties. She was a lovely, upper class lady who owned a lovely home in Carmel-by-the-sea.
When she was in her mid-sixties, she caught the flu. She died of pneumonia.
MJ will maintain that that was her right to believe what she believed, even if it led to her death. I tend to agree. But somewhere along the line, there was someone who taught her those beliefs. Someone taught my Grandmother something ridiculously false, and deadly.
Should I have the right to teach your children, SDW, that smoking crack can make them happy? Even if I'm not the one giving them the crack, or telling them where to get it?

 

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that.  Obviously, anything you would teach my child would be subject to my approval, so no...you wouldn't have a "right."  You are, however, free to express your opinion on such matters in the public arena.   In turn, it would be my right to protect my child from such a message.  You almost sound as if you're arguing against religious teachings in school, even though that issue has been settled for 50 years. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #50 of 138

Science and religion...

 

I'm not sure that religion is dealing with science at all, mostly it's about spiritual guidance, general purpose of life, origin, destination and moral laws...

 

Science on the other hand can't tell us anything about origins, it can only tell us about how things work within the already existent universe. The reason is that science needs reproduceable phenomena to verify or falsify emprically theories that are able to predict behaviour.

 

But that the universe follows universal laws that can be described mathematically hints imho very strongly at an intelligent design.

 

The question if such an intelligent designer indeed communicated with humanity using messengers and prophets remains a question of faith.
 

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #51 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

But that the universe follows universal laws that can be described mathematically hints imho very strongly at an intelligent design.

 

 

No... it doesn't "hint" at any such thing.

There is NO observational support for the existence of a Deity.  (well... except for all the videos that said deity has posted at mrdeity.com)

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #52 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

There is NO observational support for the existence of a Deity.

 

I suspect that's a matter of interpretation.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #53 of 138
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I suspect that's a matter of interpretation.

 

Present the evidence.  Unlike some people, when credible evidence is presented, I alter my conclusion to fit the new body of facts.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #54 of 138

How would you guys feel if people with one set of beliefs were to outlaw having a different set of beliefs? Is this acceptable?

 

Would you like it if Atheists, for example, were to prohibit people legally from simply saying there is a God? Do you think this is likely to ever happen in the US?

post #55 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I suspect that's a matter of interpretation.

More like a matter of faith.

post #56 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Encouraging a practice that kills children has nothing to do with the First Amendment and is rightfully illegal in many states.  Let me guess, you wouldn't want those parents arrested and prosecuted?  You do realize that there are noted exceptions to the First Amendment, right?  Speech that incites violence isn't allowed.  Speech that causes an immediate harm to others isn't allowed.  Well, I think that espousing views that medical science cannot and should not heal appendicitis , pneumonia, diabetes, and a whole host of other treatable illnesses is directly putting others in harm's way.  Not only should parents who refuse to treat their children be prosecuted, but also those who fraudulently convince adults to stop seeking treatment, too.  Those that convinced tonton's aunt to not go to the doctor have a hand in her death--and they should be held accountable for that.

 

You note the two examples where the First Amendment is curtail and then add another, one of you own making, that is not an example where it is curtailed. You make it sound as if your third exception is case law have labeled those who disagree with that notion. That simply isn't true. You are engaging in several logical leaps and the stakes in those leaps is the lives and freedom of others. You've made it quite clear you don't mind curtailing the freedoms of one group, obviously against their wishes, for your imagined dangers and harm, justified via bad analogies and logical leaps that are being "suffered" by another group. I use quotation marks for the suffering because they are not seeking redress for their condition, you are doing it on their behalf and without their permission or even their indication of desire.

 

You say they should be held accountable but there is nothing in REALITY, that place you ARE NOT OPERATING, that will hold them accountable for your bad reasoning and terrible analogies. One can safely presume that since society will not hold them accountable, that you are advocating for vigilante action. It isn't projection because no one else here is saying that the government is letting people be murdered by not curtailing free speech of certain other groups.

Quote:

You are projecting as usual.  There is one person here who uses the most violent imagery (always talking out of your ass about how some liberal is just itching to go on a shooting spree) and is constantly spreading hate about half of society--that person is you, Trumpetman. 

 

In your mind, and this is a limitation of your understanding, not mine, you fail to see scientific socialism and religion as the same. I've actually studied the progression of philosophers who took our understanding from a god centered view to a human centered view. You see someone like tonton and perhaps yourself declare that they are humanist. That isn't science. Philosophy is not science. More people have died for their philosophy than have died for their religion. You treat the two differently and give philosophy the benefit of doubt and claim the credibility of science for it when it in no form or fashion deserves either of those. You can't see that.

 

The authoritarian left exists and has existed. We have seen what they do. They purge the wrong believers by murdering them. You ignore this because you endorse this. It is clear you advocate for people that demand no advocacy and demand action against people who speak and believe wrongly according to you. You say their crime is murder. If you think I've judged you wrong in saying you wouldn't assign them the death penalty either by society or by yourself as a vigilante, then say what you would do. Would you jail the entire religion? Would you place them in interment camps? How would you rid us of this group and their bad religion per you?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton View Post

When she died because of it?

If I preached to your kids that adding rat poison to their kool-aid would bring them closer to god, and they did it, and died, you wouldn't come after me with a baseball bat?

 

I think if you truly believed in evolution and claimed science as your mantel, then you'd know that anyone would knowingly drink rat poison probably wasn't fit enough to want to carry the species forward. You're not being consistent here. Also people make choices DAILY that increase their risk of mortality. Your grandmother may have survived that bout of flu and been hit by a bus or died of food poisoning the next week from eating shell fish. You presume to know and to control the entire world.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

One of your serious faults, MJ, is that you assume every adult is as "smart" as you are, and if they aren't, then tough shit, they made their choice to go with the cheaper untested infant formula. So what if their kid died. They had free choice.

 

One of your serious faults is that you presume you are smarter than every other adult from whom you seek to deny rights and choices. You "know better" than them and thus they must turn their life over to you and your authoritarian ways. More people have died crawling over walls, fence and mine fields to get away from people like you than have ever died from infant formula. Also what are you going to do to fix it? Mandate breast feeding? There's increased risk of morbidity for all manner of ailments if moms don't breast feed long enough. There's even claims of lower IQ. How are you going to solve this problem tonton? Mandate women do as you decree with their mammary glands? You don't mind mandating their bodies take HPV shots.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And what you do is to give less than two shits about anyone who is poor or underprivileged, pretending that you believe that overall growth will somehow "trickle down" to make everybody prosperous, hallelujah!

 

You give two shits about them because you'll look them up in a pen, feed them daily and control their lives? We probably shouldn't forget that you and  your ilk don't mind "culling the weak and sick" to help improve the health of the herd as well. Anyone who disagrees with you "give(s) less than two shits" about the herd of course. The powers that be do this for dogs, cats, chickens, cows and every other herd. Scientific socialism had no problem doing it with the human herd and it is clear you won't have that problem either. You kill because you care.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How would you guys feel if people with one set of beliefs were to outlaw having a different set of beliefs? Is this acceptable?

 

Would you like it if Atheists, for example, were to prohibit people legally from simply saying there is a God? Do you think this is likely to ever happen in the US?

 

It certainly would if you and BR had your way. Keep hiding behind the veiled threats and saying that anyone who declares you'd make them more than veiled is just full of it. History has shown the path and progression of your thinking.


Edited by trumptman - 12/1/12 at 6:08am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #57 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

 

 

No... it doesn't "hint" at any such thing.

There is NO observational support for the existence of a Deity.  (well... except for all the videos that said deity has posted at mrdeity.com)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I suspect that's a matter of interpretation.

 

No it ISN'T a matter of "interpretation".

Simply show the evidence !... (I'll wait)

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #58 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

No it ISN'T a matter of "interpretation".

Simply show the evidence !... (I'll wait)

 

You are correct that our well-ordered universe doesn't automatically provide proof for a deity. However it is also too well ordered to believe it to he happenstance as well. Some scientists have proposed the multi-verse theory to account for this and it is just as unknowable and untestable as saying God is a flying spaghetti monster.

 

You could also just say we can accept things as they are and don't have to explain how they began but that isn't science either.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #59 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Science and religion...

 

I'm not sure that religion is dealing with science at all, mostly it's about spiritual guidance, general purpose of life, origin, destination and moral laws...

 

Science on the other hand can't tell us anything about origins, it can only tell us about how things work within the already existent universe. The reason is that science needs reproduceable phenomena to verify or falsify emprically theories that are able to predict behaviour.

 

But that the universe follows universal laws that can be described mathematically hints imho very strongly at an intelligent design.

 

The question if such an intelligent designer indeed communicated with humanity using messengers and prophets remains a question of faith.
 

 

Excellent post.  Couldn't have said it better.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

 

 

No... it doesn't "hint" at any such thing.

There is NO observational support for the existence of a Deity.  (well... except for all the videos that said deity has posted at mrdeity.com)

 

He's merely expressing his opinion that it hints at intelligent design.  It would be better if you just expressed your opinion as to why you disagree.  Instead, you're pulling a BR by attacking.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I suspect that's a matter of interpretation.

 

But MJ, different interpretations aren't allowed in BR World.  All who disagree must be held "accountable."  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

 

Present the evidence.  Unlike some people, when credible evidence is presented, I alter my conclusion to fit the new body of facts.  

 

1.  Why does he have to present evidence of his belief?  Why do I?  

 

2.  What kind of evidence do you find credible?  I'm not asking for specific examples, just general types.  

 

3.  No, you don't always alter your conclusion based on facts.  We know that the economy expands when we lower tax rates, but you still support higher rates.  We know that government costing more and more with respect to the total economy is bad for growth, but you support that too.  You are not free of bias, BR.  No one is.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How would you guys feel if people with one set of beliefs were to outlaw having a different set of beliefs? Is this acceptable?

 

No, assuming those beliefs don't involve the need to directly harm others.  

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Would you like it if Atheists, for example, were to prohibit people legally from simply saying there is a God? Do you think this is likely to ever happen in the US?

 

 

 

Of course not...where are you going with this?  And no, it won't happen...not unless we repeal the First Amendment.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

 

 

No it ISN'T a matter of "interpretation".

Simply show the evidence !... (I'll wait)

 

Again, just as bad as BR.  You cannot accept that Nightcrawler has reached a different conclusion than you have.  He is also not required to prove anything to you. Last, the only "evidence" you would accept would be scientific evidence.  Since we are dealing with faith, that type of evidence will not exist.  

 

Let me put it this way: Would you acknowledge God's existence if I told you I personally saw and communicated with Jesus Christ?  Of course you wouldn't.  You would dismiss it as a delusion, a lie, a hoax and who knows what else.  And here's the thing..that doesn't even matter, because in the event such an experience occurs, I am the only one who needs to determine what the experience means and what it actually "is."  There are people who have overwhelming "evidence" as to the existence of God...it's just not of a type you'd accept.  That is your right.  It is not your right, however, to attack people of faith because they believe and you don't.  

 

Ironically, what you can't understand is that there are believers out there who find you and the likes of you to be the narrow minded ones.  I must admit that I find it amusing to watch BR and company call believers less intelligent and irrational, when in fact they (you) only believe in what you can see, feel, and measure.  Still more amusing is watching them (you) actually believe that human beings are the ultimate intelligence in the universe.   The arrogance is astounding.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #60 of 138

This doesn't seem to be a very coherent discussion, and it seems almost to shy away from the "compare and contrast" purpose hinted at in the thread title. Perhaps that's because despite superficial similarities, science and religion are such fundamentally different concepts. Just in case anyone feels like debating that, here are some comments to take shots at. Note that these are just observation, hypothesis and opinion:

 

Religion predates science, and one can argue that, to some degree, it likely arose due to the absence of science, in that what became religious beliefs probably started as a result of human curiosity and introspection; an attempt to explain the unknown, which, back then, was nearly everything. Without any kind of formalized framework, man invented increasingly complex, arbitrary and untestable explanations for the universe and its workings. Hence the proliferation of deities: sun gods, moon gods, earth gods, tree gods etc. - in fact pretty much anything that could be worshipped as a deity seemed to be, somewhere, at some time. All religions are simple belief systems.

 

At some point, quite early it would seem, the usefulness of religions as control mechanisms became apparent, at which point they moved beyond being just explanations and started to set rules of behavior - often appropriate and beneficial rules for society, but not necessarily so. One can subdue by force, or one can subdue by threat of supernatural retribution and/or eternal damnation. Or one can usefully employ a combination of the two. The latter has the benefit that even if the subjects have a catastrophically miserable existence on earth, it can be trumped by the threat of eternity. And it's cheaper. All it requires is widespread indoctrination from a young age and the lack of, or suppression of, a competing mindset. It has been, throughout history, spectacularly successful and, even today, still works admirably in some parts of the world - as evidenced by the level of control voluntarily accepted in many Islamic societies.

 

Science, or more specifically, the scientific method, is not a control system. In fact it cannot be, by definition. It is not even very mysterious - just the rigorous application of logic to the process of observation, hypothesizing and testing. The results are what they are, and while, just like any other observation or statement of fact they can, in turn, be used to justify actions, those actions are not part of the process.

 

With the rise of scientific investigation, religions faced a challenge and some associated choices: (1) outlaw its practice, (2) deny its legitimacy, or (3) evolve to try to accomodate it. All three choices have been tried with varying success, although those religions that most obviously breached mainstream modern understanding of the most simple aspects of the universe (sun worshippers et al.) largely did not survive. In other cases, (1) and (2) have worked to some extent, especially when used together, and represent, for example, the default approach of many fundamentalist Islamic regimes, even though they clearly embrace science when it suits them - for example for the purposes of building advanced weapons. (1) and (2) are, however, very damaging to economic development, because ignorance is their friend and, if used consistently, they inherently suppress technological advancement.

 

Which leaves (3), the evolution of religion to accomodate the advances in understanding brought about by science. As has been noted many times, this effectively leaves religions in the position either of retreating to the remaining unknowns and declaring them to be the realm of their deity or of accepting that the modern explanations derived by scientific study are correct, but asserting that their deity created them that way. Both these positions have the advantage of being untestable, and they are relatively harmless - provided that they are flexible enough to continue to evolve as our knowledge expands. The danger comes when those who hold such beliefs start to push back against scientifically derived knowledge - regression to (2), if not all the way to (1).

 

That takes us back, if I am not mistaken, to one of the triggers of this discussion - the question of how to keep those religious beliefs that have been overtaken by modern advances in understanding out the policy-making process while not denying that personal values, including some derived from religious beliefs, will inevitably play a part in shaping proposed legislation.

post #61 of 138
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Again, just as bad as BR.  You cannot accept that Nightcrawler has reached a different conclusion than you have.  He is also not required to prove anything to you. Last, the only "evidence" you would accept would be scientific evidence.  Since we are dealing with faith, that type of evidence will not exist.  

 

Let me put it this way: Would you acknowledge God's existence if I told you I personally saw and communicated with Jesus Christ?  Of course you wouldn't.  You would dismiss it as a delusion, a lie, a hoax and who knows what else.  And here's the thing..that doesn't even matter, because in the event such an experience occurs, I am the only one who needs to determine what the experience means and what it actually "is."  There are people who have overwhelming "evidence" as to the existence of God...it's just not of a type you'd accept.  That is your right.  It is not your right, however, to attack people of faith because they believe and you don't.  

Hallucination is not an acceptable form of evidence.  If your deity really wanted worshipers and is all powerful as you claim it to be, why not present itself unambiguously without having to rely on things that rightfully should be dismissed as brain malfunctions?

 

Don't you see?  When your standard of evidence here is the effects of a mini-seizure, it calls into question your ability to think critically.  Frankly, I don't feel comfortable with these sorts of people making important decisions for me.  Someone who will take his or her hallucinations seriously and perhaps act on them is dangerous.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #62 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

When your standard of evidence here is the effects of a mini-seizure, it calls into question your ability to think critically.  Frankly, I don't feel comfortable with these sorts of people making important decisions for me.  Someone who will take his or her hallucinations seriously and perhaps act on them is dangerous.

 

And now you know why so many of us are concerned about people like you and Tonton and your authoritarian tendencies and desires to control others.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #63 of 138
Thread Starter 

Am I saying make it illegal for them to hold office?  No.  I'm just saying that the populace needs to learn not to elect such people.  And note, this awful attack on me and tonton is coming from the person who doesn't recognize the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution--any wonder why he might be motivated to smear us?

 

How about you address the argument?  Does someone who accepts hallucinations as valid evidence demonstrate a capacity to think critically?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #64 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

... However it is also too well ordered to believe it to he happenstance as well...

 

You could also just say we can accept things as they are and don't have to explain how they began but that isn't science either.

 

 

Well-ordered doesn't require a creator.

Of COURSE the initial chaos appears to have settled into some form of order... if it hadn't we would be something completely different.

 

Of course our particular kind of life happened to evolve here, on this particular ball of rock... IT'S THE ONLY PLACE (so far discovered) WE COULD HAVE EVOLVED!... our particular form of life required a particular set of conditions that happened to be present at THIS location, so THIS is where we evolved... that doesn't mean this location was CREATED expressly for us... 

 

Why accept things without searching for "how" and "why"? ...

That's all "god" is... it's an excuse to quit searching for the answers... because that's too much like work for most people... and they'd rather say "god" than "I don't know".

 

There is lots of evidence to guide us to the answers... humans have made great progress in this arena over the last couple millennia... but NONE of that evidence points towards a "god".  In fact, the more we learn, the LESS likely a god seems to be.

 

Happenstance combined with BILLIONS of years is a perfectly adequate way to come up with this ordered universe... it actually works quite neatly.  

Where did the initial burst of energy/matter come from?... well we're still looking for those answers... but "god" actually introduces inordinate complexity into any scenario... when, as a general rule, the simpler a rule, the more likely it is to be accurate.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #65 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

This doesn't seem to be a very coherent discussion, and it seems almost to shy away from the "compare and contrast" purpose hinted at in the thread title. Perhaps that's because despite superficial similarities, science and religion are such fundamentally different concepts. Just in case anyone feels like debating that, here are some comments to take shots at. Note that these are just observation, hypothesis and opinion:

 

Well as you note, they are different concepts and also perhaps the OP wanted to conflate them in ways they aren't meant to be conflated. There can be motive there.

Quote:

Religion predates science, and one can argue that, to some degree, it likely arose due to the absence of science, in that what became religious beliefs probably started as a result of human curiosity and introspection; an attempt to explain the unknown, which, back then, was nearly everything. Without any kind of formalized framework, man invented increasingly complex, arbitrary and untestable explanations for the universe and its workings. Hence the proliferation of deities: sun gods, moon gods, earth gods, tree gods etc. - in fact pretty much anything that could be worshipped as a deity seemed to be, somewhere, at some time. All religions are simple belief systems.

 

Now this is an important consideration. If human nature over time has to worship or deify the "answers" and do this whether they are right or wrong, then the question to really answer is why would we believe this would stop just because of a scientific method? The second point would be to note whether the scientific method alone is enough to overcome this tendency or whether it merely becomes another tool to help justify the deification of various answers.

 

Studies on peer review show that actually not much of it occurs. The reliance on meta-analysis for inexpensive research causes mistakes to become magnified and ingrained. Finally it isn't like research just is left out there. It has to be published and these gatekeepers are human and act with human bias.

Quote:
At some point, quite early it would seem, the usefulness of religions as control mechanisms became apparent, at which point they moved beyond being just explanations and started to set rules of behavior - often appropriate and beneficial rules for society, but not necessarily so. One can subdue by force, or one can subdue by threat of supernatural retribution and/or eternal damnation. Or one can usefully employ a combination of the two. The latter has the benefit that even if the subjects have a catastrophically miserable existence on earth, it can be trumped by the threat of eternity. And it's cheaper. All it requires is widespread indoctrination from a young age and the lack of, or suppression of, a competing mindset. It has been, throughout history, spectacularly successful and, even today, still works admirably in some parts of the world - as evidenced by the level of control voluntarily accepted in many Islamic societies.

 

It seems strange to note the mechanism, assign it to religion and somehow disqualify it from other forms. You note force, you note the second and call it threat by supernatural retribution. How is that really different than the former except in who would execute the force? Also note that the supernatural being can act as a two-way buffer. Some people seeking to engage in a force mechanism might not do so if they fear a supernatural retribution. This would not be true for purely atheistic model.

 

Have centralized and atheistic governments engaged in widespread indoctrination from a young age? Have they suppressed competing mindsets? Have they been successful? The last and most important question, have they been able to alter or harness science to harm rather than help those they serve?

Quote:
Science, or more specifically, the scientific method, is not a control system. In fact it cannot be, by definition. It is not even very mysterious - just the rigorous application of logic to the process of observation, hypothesizing and testing. The results are what they are, and while, just like any other observation or statement of fact they can, in turn, be used to justify actions, those actions are not part of the process.

 

Pure science might meet this definition. However science is seldom pure. It is often paid for and the people doing that want a result. While the method might not be mysterious, who gets to publish, who gets the department chairmanship, who wins the grant is indeed not a clear method. It is also important to note that much of what we call science is not based on a testable hypothesis but on empirical discovery and observation. It isn't like we have multiple earths or multiple universes to test a hypothesis on. Likewise it is very important to note that Empiricism stands in contrast to Rationalism. Finally both are philosophies and one can endorse one or the other without endorsing religion at all.

Quote:
With the rise of scientific investigation, religions faced a challenge and some associated choices: (1) outlaw its practice, (2) deny its legitimacy, or (3) evolve to try to accomodate it. All three choices have been tried with varying success, although those religions that most obviously breached mainstream modern understanding of the most simple aspects of the universe (sun worshippers et al.) largely did not survive. In other cases, (1) and (2) have worked to some extent, especially when used together, and represent, for example, the default approach of many fundamentalist Islamic regimes, even though they clearly embrace science when it suits them - for example for the purposes of building advanced weapons. (1) and (2) are, however, very damaging to economic development, because ignorance is their friend and, if used consistently, they inherently suppress technological advancement.

 

This presumes science as a control mechanism which you've claimed it isn't. This doesn't address the matter head on which is a competing control mechanism is attempting to use science to disavow another control mechanism and likewise declares it not acceptable for the religious control mechanism to use science. But this is completely wrong. The opposite of religion isn't science. The opposite of religion is atheism or perhaps agnosticism. The opposite of of Empiricism is Rationalism though again in some ways all these distinctions are a bit contrived because you are discussing thought models.

 

Finally there is a very large difference between hard science, soft science and proto-science. Taking economic theory and according it hard science status is ridiculous. People as agents are involved and they are far from rational agents in all matters.

 

What we have going on in terms of politics and public policy is not at all scientific. We have some folks who have adopted models of their variation on human rights and social justice. They have bolted on a few soft sciences with regard to select economics. Finally they've added some philosophy. They are using these in increasingly damaging and more authoritarian ways. That alone isn't a problem but because they have discredited all critics using false criteria, they won't alter their own views. Instead they harden into a damaging dogma.

 

An empiricist can have a heated discussion with a rationalist. The rationalist might say to the empiricist that he is correct that sharing the pie might give some more pie but that the person who made the pie might deserve a larger piece or might stop baking pies if they all are going to be taken. The empiricist doesn't have to listen to anyone if he declares the rationalist a religious freak.

Quote:
Which leaves (3), the evolution of religion to accomodate the advances in understanding brought about by science. As has been noted many times, this effectively leaves religions in the position either of retreating to the remaining unknowns and declaring them to be the realm of their deity or of accepting that the modern explanations derived by scientific study are correct, but asserting that their deity created them that way. Both these positions have the advantage of being untestable, and they are relatively harmless - provided that they are flexible enough to continue to evolve as our knowledge expands. The danger comes when those who hold such beliefs start to push back against scientifically derived knowledge - regression to (2), if not all the way to (1).

 

Religion need not retreat because there are plenty of religious people and they aren't going to give up their rights. When certain people bring a gun to insure they do and history has shown this to be true, we will realize that the people with the guns aren't being scientific. They aren't being rational. They are just attempting to bring power about in the absence of ability to persuade.

Quote:
That takes us back, if I am not mistaken, to one of the triggers of this discussion - the question of how to keep those religious beliefs that have been overtaken by modern advances in understanding out the policy-making process while not denying that personal values, including some derived from religious beliefs, will inevitably play a part in shaping proposed legislation.

 

The point is that you don't keep those religious beliefs out because they haven't been overtaken by modern advances. A great example of this is stem cells. They can increasingly be made from all manner of tissues including blood from my most recent reading. A rationalist would declare that just because science can doesn't mean it should. In this instance it was better, in my view, to force a different and in the end, a better path.

 

Likewise there is cloning or even the concept of owning one's own genetics. There's the concerns by some of GMO food. There's the ethics of science. It isn't as clear cut as those who want to control and disqualify others want to make it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #66 of 138
Thread Starter 

Indeed, KOSH.  The name of what you describe is the "weak anthropic principle"

 

 

 

Quote:
which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld. English writer Douglas Adams, who wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, used the metaphor of a living puddle examining its own shape, since, to those living creatures, the universe may appear to fit them perfectly (while in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly).

 

 

Also, for Trumpet to proclaim that we are content to say that we don't know and don't wish to seek out the answers to the origins of the universe is evidence of complete willful ignorance, intellectual bankruptcy, or intentional distortion of reality.  I absolutely want to know where the universe came from.  I won't settle on "god did it" because we don't know right now.  We don't know, but we are trying to find out.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #67 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

... However it is also too well ordered to believe it to he happenstance as well...

 

You could also just say we can accept things as they are and don't have to explain how they began but that isn't science either.

 

Happenstance combined with BILLIONS of years is a perfectly adequate way to come up with this ordered universe... it actually works quite neatly.  

Where did the initial burst of energy/matter come from?... well we're still looking for those answers... but "god" actually introduces inordinate complexity into any scenario... when, as a general rule, the simpler a rule, the more likely it is to be accurate.

 

You could also just say we can accept things as they are and don't have to explain how they began but that isn't science either.

 

I hate to repeat myself. Happenstance is coincidence. Coincidence doesn't explain anything. It isn't science. God doesn't introduce any inordinate complexity into any scenario for it makes perfect sense (from the rationalist perspective) for a beginning to have a beginner.

 

What does introduce inordinate complexity is the multiverse theory. It basically throws away science where it falls down and introduces dogma instead of seeking a correction. It leaves explaining and does exactly what you do, accepts happenstance by declaring all the failed and alternate models are somewhere else that we can never see, observe, test or find.

 

That is much worse and much harder to accept than a big guy in the sky. It also shuts down learning because the nature of that big guy in the sky may not be known by pure empiricism, but we do claim to be able to learn about it and understand it in other ways. The multiverse, we can't ever know it. Not only that, it says that all we know really is false because all we've done is attempt to quantify a coincidence.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #68 of 138
Thread Starter 

Oh look, someone is playing the "intent game" when it suits him.

 

Also, I hate to repeat myself but...

 

For Trumpet to proclaim that we are content to say that we don't know and don't wish to seek out the answers to the origins of the universe is evidence of complete willful ignorance, intellectual bankruptcy, or intentional distortion of reality.  I absolutely want to know where the universe came from.  I won't settle on "god did it" because we don't know right now.  We don't know, but we are trying to find out.  

 

The multiverse hypothesis is one of many possible explanations for the given facts.  It is not universally accepted.  You are making a textbook strawman argument.  Of course, I doubt that you understand any of the physics behind the multiverse hypothesis.  You are making an argument from incredulity, too--which is a logical fallacy.

 

And did you really say the nature of the big guy in the sky might not be known by empiricism only and that advanced physics hypotheses shut down learning?  Holy **** I don't even know where to begin with that.  I feel dumber having read that. 

 

Black is white.

War is peace.

Up is down.


Edited by BR - 12/1/12 at 2:02pm

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #69 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Indeed, KOSH.  The name of what you describe is the "weak anthropic principle"

 

 

 

Quote:
which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld. English writer Douglas Adams, who wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, used the metaphor of a living puddle examining its own shape, since, to those living creatures, the universe may appear to fit them perfectly (while in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly).

 

 

Also, for Trumpet to proclaim that we are content to say that we don't know and don't wish to seek out the answers to the origins of the universe is evidence of complete willful ignorance, intellectual bankruptcy, or intentional distortion of reality.  I absolutely want to know where the universe came from.  I won't settle on "god did it" because we don't know right now.  We don't know, but we are trying to find out.  

 

You fail to understand the point. The scientist you claim are trying to find out have simply thrown up their hands, said we can't know and to use your example, there are other puddles out there but we can't ever prove them and our own puddle happenstance. You have to take our word on this based on faith because goodness knows you wouldn't want to put your faith in a religion.

 

The point is that isn't science. Whatever you assign to one you must assign to the other. If people saying God created a universe are willfully ignorant, intellectually bankrupt and intentionally distort reality, then so are those who proclaim the multiverse for they both fail to explain, cannot be proven, and must be accepted on faith.

 

Our universe exists because of selection bias. We are here and can confirm it exists and is suited to life. All the universes that can't support life "will go unbeheld" or unobserved for ever. We can't prove them or observe them nor can anything else.

 

You've just left empiricism. You have no high ground on religion once you do this. You're left with "because I think so and it makes sense to me."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #70 of 138
Thread Starter 

I would argue that you fail spectacularly at summarizing their work, their conclusions, and their motivations.  You are constructing a strawman for the ages.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #71 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Oh look, someone is playing the "intent game" when it suits him.

 

Also, I hate to repeat myself but...

 

For Trumpet to proclaim that we are content to say that we don't know and don't wish to seek out the answers to the origins of the universe is evidence of complete willful ignorance, intellectual bankruptcy, or intentional distortion of reality.  I absolutely want to know where the universe came from.  I won't settle on "god did it" because we don't know right now.  We don't know, but we are trying to find out.  

 

The multiverse hypothesis is one of many possible explanations for the given facts.  It is not universally accepted.  You are making a textbook strawman argument.  Of course, I doubt that you understand any of the physics behind the multiverse hypothesis.  You are making an argument from incredulity, too--which is a logical fallacy.

 

And did you really say the nature of the big guy in the sky might not be known by empiricism only and that advanced physics hypotheses shut down learning?  Holy **** I don't even know where to begin with that.  I feel dumber having read that. 

 

Black is white.

War is peace.

Up is down.

 

First try the quote function if you are going to rail at someone. They try a dictionary. A hypothesis must BY DEFINITION be testable. If someone with a degree in advanced physics proposes something and it can't be tested, then it isn't a hypothesis it is conjecture. When your conjecture, by definition states there is no test to prove it then yes, you are at an end.

 

Keep feelng dumber. I'm sure it is indeed a trend after you read your own thoughts and compare them to my own. Don't get down about your own inferiority though. Just try some quoting and discussion instead of ranting and maybe you'll feel better.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #72 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I would argue that you fail spectacularly at summarizing their work, their conclusions, and their motivations.  You are constructing a strawman for the ages.



Given your own hateful biases and ranting, this is a complement. You can't quote and engage so better to rant and ad-hom instead.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #73 of 138
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post



Given your own hateful biases and ranting, this is a complement. You can't quote and engage so better to rant and ad-hom instead.

You quote and overengage.  Your statements are so dense with logical fallacies and the warping and misstatement of other's views that it simply isn't worth the time to break it all down.  In essence, you do the internet forum equivalent of a Gish Gallop.

 

 

 

Quote:

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science EducationSam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

The formal debating jargon term for this is spreading.[1] It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice, like the internet, such techniques are remarkably common.

 

I just don't have the time or energy to put your fires.  Not only do you start 10 new ones each time, you reignite your 10 old ones.  You still think that atheism was the motivation behind Stalin's death toll after having had that utterly refuted time and time again.  You are the pigeon that knocks over the game pieces and shits on the board, declaring himself victor.  Sorry, enough is enough.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #74 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

You could also just say we can accept things as they are and don't have to explain how they began but that isn't science either.

 

I hate to repeat myself. Happenstance is coincidence. Coincidence doesn't explain anything. It isn't science. God doesn't introduce any inordinate complexity into any scenario for it makes perfect sense (from the rationalist perspective) for a beginning to have a beginner.

 

I suppose I shouldn't have allowed you the use of the word "happenstance"... as what YOU see as happenstance is actually an orderly working of the universe from very near the beginning... (we're still working backward and haven't gotten to the VERY beginning yet.)

So the way the universe works isn't actually happenstance or coincidence at all... but as we find more and more fundamental "laws" of nature, we discover that that same order requires no creator.

 

How does and arbitrary "creator" NOT introduce more complexity compared to fundamental laws of nature?

 

You have the universe... you say it can't exist without a creator... well what created the creator?... and what created THAT creator?... and what created THAT creator? ... ad infinitum.

Your "creator" theory is INFINITELY complex.

 

(yes... the "bang" had to start from something also... and when it's figured out, we'll keep going back searching for RATIONAL answers to the new questions introduced by all new knowledge... but to fall back on "magic" makes no sense whatsoever.)

 

But yet, I can't rule it out entirely... I suppose it is always a POSSIBILITY until proven otherwise... there's just no evidence whatsoever to support that theory.

And while there are multiple theories that science is exploring (the multiverse idea being ONE of them)... they are pursuing ideas based on evidence... not on hearsay... and all ideas are subject to change or outright rejection when the evidence supports such.

 

 

Again, I'm willing to entertain any evidence for a creator ... (still waiting.) 

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #75 of 138
Thread Starter 

"But, but, it's not evidence you'll accept!" -Religious Apologist

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #76 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

[
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How would you guys feel if people with one set of beliefs were to outlaw having a different set of beliefs? Is this acceptable?

Would you like it if Atheists, for example, were to prohibit people legally from simply saying there is a God? Do you think this is likely to ever happen in the US?

It certainly would if you and BR had your way. Keep hiding behind the veiled threats and saying that anyone who declares you'd make them more than veiled is just full of it. History has shown the path and progression of your thinking.
What if a state government outlawed Atheism? Would that ever happen?

I'll give you a hint. One of these two things has actually occurred.
post #77 of 138
By the way, I'm perfectly fine with people believing whatever they want to believe, as long as those beliefs don't harm others.
post #78 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

By the way, I'm perfectly fine with people believing whatever they want to believe, as long as those beliefs don't harm others.

 

Well good. Since beliefs don't harm others, we're done.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #79 of 138
Thread Starter 

Ah, but making decisions based on magical beliefs does harm others.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #80 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ah, but making decisions based on magical beliefs does harm others.

 

True enough. Now I suggest you stop doing it (and, far more importantly, please stop trying to impose actions, based on your magical beliefs, on others through the state.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science and Religion