To Be Irreligious, Stupididy Helps

[JBeukema]

do not say that Paliln of OT.

are you high?

 

[Toro]

1. Thanks much for re-reading the thread, and for this post, which highlights exactly what the OP was intended to indicate.

Case in point, your selection of the Big Bang Theory' as disposiive of he superiority of the 'science thesis: "...rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena."

This shows a misunderstanding of the theory, and how it applies to our discussion. The explanation in which you invest your rebuttal refers to 'during and after' the creation...and suffers from the huge lacunae of the source of the material that became the universe: what was there before? Or do you have faith that something can come from nothing?

a. "Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question... " Big Bang Theory

PC

I'm going to refer back to your very first sentence in this thread. Note the highlighted part.

Our friend U2 seems unable to understand that the anti-religion thesis requires as much faith as the religious thesis...

Anti-religious, i.e. science, requires as much faith as religion? Surely, you know that is not true. In a hospital, the doctors and nurses are applying treatments derived from scientific discoveries to heal patients. They are not healing patients by standing over them and praying.

The fact that we have not yet discovered the origins of the universe does not obviate the enormous advances of science based on the scientific process. Even if a scientist "has faith" that something will work in an experiment, and then it does, does not discount the body of knowledge leading up to his experiment. Since religious people can offer no tangible proof of God, and thus the belief in God is 100% based on faith, by definition, your claim cannot be true.

As for the origins of the universe, I have no idea what caused it. Maybe it was God. But it certainly was not the Christian God as described in Genesis. And if God did create the original Big Bang, that does not mean we are all going to heaven and hell when we die. That type of God is most likely very different than the Christian (or Islamic or Jewish) God.

c. My contention is that in some prominent provences of science, the vehicle is faith, just as it is in religion. I submit weaknesses in Darwinian evolution theory as evidence. You are begging the question by stating "...is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion." I never made the claim about all of science.

I just took what you said in that first sentence at face value that "anti-religion" requires "as much faith" as religion. If that is not what you are saying, then fine.

e. "...The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate..." Actually, it is your side that is adament on the matter, for example you seem downright hostile on the matter. Further, the Academy of Science went to court to prevent any other argument to be presented as far as evolution. That doesn't seem very inquisitive, does it?

I will repeat, I am a Christian, albeit a lazy one. However, creationism isn't "science" and shouldn't be taught as such. If there is another scientific theory to replace evolution, then let's teach that. But teaching that God created women from Adam's rib is as fanciful as aliens beaming mankind to earth.

It is my humble opinion that the religious community isn't interested in an intellectually honest debate - and maybe I am being harsh here - is because if you believe in something as an absolute, what is the motivation to prove yourself wrong? Science develops theories to explain phenomenon until a better theory, i.e. a more verifiable theory, comes along to replace it. Science of today can discredit the science of yesterday, medicine being an obvious example. Science is groping towards an explanation for the origins of the universe. That explanation may be very much at odds with religious doctrine and even the fundamental underpinnings of religion itself. Do you think religion is interested in having this discussion?

3. Allow me this anecdote..
I'm certain that you are familiar with Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics. Genetics is pretty scientific, no?

He determined that some traits are determined by the dominance or recessive nature of genes, and in his studies, over several generations of Garden Peas, he proved same using data "...rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena."

Now, here's the thing...Mendel was a monk, a deeply religious man. Get that: a blending (pun intended) of science and religion...

and, he knew his God was enlightening him with scientific prooof because the ratio that proved his theory was three to one...

Get it? This monk initiated the science of Genetics based on a relelation that corresponded to the Trinity.
What did he see that you don't?

The fact the someone really, really, really believes in something does not make it true. We don't know if God exists. Mendel did not know if God exists. Believing and knowing are different things. His belief in God does not preclude the existence of God. If God does not exist, then Mendel's discovery and reliance on religion is a happy accident of circumstance.

I have made no argument here for or against the existence of God, nor have I made any comment about whether religion is good or bad. All I am saying is that science is based upon a methodological process. Religion is based purely on faith.

 

[Father Time]

While most Christians will do nothing (physically or legally) to stop atheists from believing,

Ok how far back are we allowed to go for examples that prove you wrong? Some states tried to make it illegal for atheists to run for office.

atheists and some people of other faiths will go to great legal lengths, and even resort to physical violence to stop Christians from free speech, practicing their faith, or even believing.

What the hell are you talking about?

Our Bill of Rights (in the Constitution) lists those rights as "given" by our "Creator".

Wrong, that's the DOI which is not a legal document.

 

[Madeline]

the views that elevate science to the level of God is flawed

Only you posit any such thing

Quite to the contrary, there are many scientists and entire branches of same, wherein the prerogatives of God have been usurped.

a. The British parliament approved the creation of animal/human hybrids the laboratory, and the decision was praised in the Times (UK) as ‘free scientific inquiry’ over the objections of ‘a religious minority.’ [UK times Mark Henderson, May 20, 2008]

They have been trasnplanting pig skin onto human burn victims for ages. I believe they have tried transpalnting pig livers into humans as well. I rather doubt anyone is attempting to transform "The Fly" into real life.

b. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll.

Out of context and no one had to "invent" situational ethics. Cain employed them in an attempt to defend his murder of Able.

c. “John Harris, the Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, England,… urged that people like Terri [Schiavo]— that is, human non-persons — be harvested or otherwise used as mere instrumentalities. Bioethicist big-wig Tom Beauchamp of Georgetown University has suggested that “because many humans lack properties of personhood or are less than full persons, they…might be aggressively used as human research subjects or sources of organs.” Wesley J. Smith on Terri Schiavo on National Review Online

The Schiavo case had resonable people from all walks of life up in arms. Happy to debate it again, if you like. No one is saying new medical advances don't pose any thorny ethical issues....most US hospitals now have bioethicists on staff precisely because they do.

d. A large segment those known as scientists have been trained in the value-free concepts. The transhumanism movement holds that human life has no value, or dignity, and that it must be perfected through gene modification. Dr. Nick Bostrom finds that human nature, itself, “is a work in progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn to remold in desirable ways.” Transhumanist Values Their utopia is created through technology.

Let's ask the scientists and doctors who have trained in US schools, shall we? If these schools are now forcing students to take ethics classes on science and medicine, I'll fall down in dead faint. Most people bitch precisely because the schools don't even offer these courses as an elective.

PC, stop trolling the blogosphere. The premises you began this thread with are beyond salvage. You cannot scientifically prove God exists and will never be able to do so, humans were not better off before the Enlightenment (that period was called The Dark Ages for a reason) and science does not require some form of religious zealotry to accept.

 

[Madeline]

Check out the post on the weaknesses in the theory of evolution...significant, as it represents the idea that generally separates believers from non-believers.

And, of course, consider the dearth of scientific theory as to the creation of the universe itself...a pretty good question, no?

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the universe, which is rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena.

But that is beside the point. There is more to science than how the universe started or evolution. The body of scientific knowledge does not remotely pretend to have answered every single question in the universe. (Likewise, simply because science cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of God is currently beyond the bounds of human technological ability.) But scientific answers are based upon methodology, not unverifiable belief systems, which is religion. That is why it is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion. By definition, this cannot be.

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. They are attempting to discredit evolution in the hopes that by discrediting evolution, people will turn to religion for answers by default. Religions are created in part to provide answers to questions people cannot comprehend. When science attempts to give answers to those questions, it threatens the foundations of religion. So religion attempts to discredit science because its credibility and very survival depends on it.

I am a Christian. I see a bunch of theories about evolution with very little evidence. Fossils do not prove evolution. If the scientists could lay out fossils that showed the transformation from one species to another, I would consider evolution. If there was evidence of species "evolving" today, I would consider evolution. If you could show me that monkeys are slowly becoming humans, I would consider evolution. If you could explain why there are still one-celled animals after telling me those one-celled animals evolved into other animals, I would consider evolution.
Until then, I see a "scientific" fairy tale told by people trying to raise money to keep their jobs (that would be biased opinions).

I take it you'd like science to reproduce a morph? So you could watch and be convinced?

Here ya go....now run along and read your freshman HS science text so you can begin to understand what constitutes "evidence" in the geological record.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu2US3pYhlw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu2US3pYhlw[/ame]

 

[Madeline]

1. Thanks much for re-reading the thread, and for this post, which highlights exactly what the OP was intended to indicate.

Case in point, your selection of the Big Bang Theory' as disposiive of he superiority of the 'science thesis: "...rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena."

This shows a misunderstanding of the theory, and how it applies to our discussion. The explanation in which you invest your rebuttal refers to 'during and after' the creation...and suffers from the huge lacunae of the source of the material that became the universe: what was there before? Or do you have faith that something can come from nothing?

PC, IMO, science has proven that both energy and matter are irreducable but changable. I conclude that the universe has always existed but in far different form. There is no "before" and there cannot be any "after". There is only change.

a. "Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question... " Big Bang Theory

Again, not a scientist here, but my understanding of the Big Bang is that a sudden transformation of existing energy and matter took place. Mayhaps not just one event and mayhaps a similar one will occur in future, and eliminate the energy and matter that we, as 21st Century humans, are capable of observing -- but that does not mean that they cease to exist.

For me, the question of creation has been answered by science and it did not require God to posit a theory that incorporates all the known facts.

So, the theory that you bring into the discussion is as much an argument for the OP as against it, i.e. the 'outside the realm' of natural science.

2. Let's review...

a. Prior to the Enlightenment, ideas whether empirical or of morality, were considered knowledge.

Huh?

b. So, impressed with science and where it could lead us, caused many, such as yourself, to be enamored with same to the extent that any other kind of knowledge was relegated to a lesser position.

Huh?

c. My contention is that in some prominent provences of science, the vehicle is faith, just as it is in religion. I submit weaknesses in Darwinian evolution theory as evidence. You are begging the question by stating "...is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion." I never made the claim about all of science.

The gaps in the theory of evolution are far too small to permit one to reasonably conclude, as a scientific matter, that they are now or in future only fillable by employing something akin to faith. I dun really even know how to apply this to science. I suppose you could argue we have faith that gravity exists, though we cannot observe it....except that we can. Reasoning that all the evidence of past evolution together with our observations of microevolution today can only lead us to conclude that evolution accounts for the emergence and disappearance of species, etc. if we employ "faith" just doesn't make sense to me.


d. "...a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith..."
Well, first, there was more than one scientist mentioned in the thread in that light...including Jonas Salk.
So, it seems that there are acclaimed scientists less sanguine than yourself on the matter.

This suggests that you think a scientist who believes in God is some sort of living proof that God's existence can be scientifically proven. One's spritiual life need have nothing whatever to do with one's professional life (apart from ethical questions). Why should I feel any reassurance that my belief in God is sound merely because Jonas Salk has one too? Why a scientist rather than a plumber?

e. "...The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate..." Actually, it is your side that is adament on the matter, for example you seem downright hostile on the matter. Further, the Academy of Science went to court to prevent any other argument to be presented as far as evolution. That doesn't seem very inquisitive, does it?

"Insensitive"? To want to limit science classes to teaching science? If the irrational find the matters of science hurtful, that seems to me to be a personal problem. Teaching intelligent design or whatever the nonesense going today mebbe alongside the theory of evolution in science classes can lead to only one result: crappy scientists.

3. Allow me this anecdote..
I'm certain that you are familiar with Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics. Genetics is pretty scientific, no?

He determined that some traits are determined by the dominance or recessive nature of genes, and in his studies, over several generations of Garden Peas, he proved same using data "...rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena."

Now, here's the thing...Mendel was a monk, a deeply religious man. Get that: a blending (pun intended) of science and religion...

and, he knew his God was enlightening him with scientific prooof because the ratio that proved his theory was three to one...

Get it? This monk initiated the science of Genetics based on a relelation that corresponded to the Trinity.
What did he see that you don't?

Mendel may well have credited God with inspiring him to discover the theory of genetics, but so what? If he had instead credited leprechans, would that serve as proof that leprechans exist?

You are mixing apples and oranges, PC. The ethical rules a religon has developed to address various human conflicts or foibles are akin to philosophy. Interesting, enlightening and worthy of study but no more likely to shape our understanding of the natural world than studying Romance Languages would be.

Huh and Huh are covered in the OP.

Fine by me if you want to abandon these points. I cannot even tell WTF they are.


2c. If the gaps in the theory of evolution were small, then we wouldn't be having this argument.

There are gaps in the STORY of evolution, not in the THEORY. We do not have a full geological record of all species. We do know modern man shares genetic links with Homo Erectus and Neanderthal Man, etc.

2d. How to explain away noted scientists who have the belief?

WTF do I care what these people do in their spare time? How is it support for any philosophy, religion, political movement etc. that it can attract some scientists as followers? Mayhaps they all like rap music as well -- that does not give rap music a "patina of scientific validity". You are trying to put a silk dress on a cloud -- might could be fun for you to try but it will never be successful.

2e. Why should scientist hesitate presenting their proof in a school setting, unless they feel insecure about said proof. They do so all the time when the proof is obvious: genetics- science teachers use the example of cultures where males divorce wives who don't produce male, showing that it is the male who determines the sex of the child.

Scientists are not high school teachers. They aren't even writing high school science textbooks -- that's a distinct skill in and of itself. No one is attempting to keep scientists out of public school science classrooms -- though it would be odd to find one there. What us anti-intelligent design folks want is to keep religion out of science classes.

You want religion and creation myths taught in public HS's? I have no major heartburn over that....just make the class elective and call it Comparative Religion.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

For example, the topic of evolution, regularly discussed on the board, is largely based on faith as well...

I just dont see that. Evolution relies on tons of physical fossil evidence, many different types of dating evidence and geological evidence that posits geology in terms of billions of years of age rather than the naive religious date of 6,000 years. there is no 'faith' involved here and faith as a concept is unknown in the scientific realm.

Did you see post #52?

“macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion”

A ‘mere’ conclusion’ based on very good and constantly mounting EVIDENCE, literally tons of fossils showing CLEARLY the evolution of creatures from one form to another, mirroring and complementing the microevolution that you agree can be witnessed in ones lifetime.

“Nobody doubts that evolution occurs”

Lol, you should tell all your creationist friends, they will be surprised.

“Some experts do not believe”

Very few are taken seriously and those that are have very little to offer in the way of alternatives. Many (all?) are creationists to begin with, completely undermining their credibility.

“there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms”

All of the creatures which exist in the fossil record are successful types in their own right. They are not ‘intermediate’ in the sense that when they lived and walked the Earth they were complete and total in their own right, nevertheless they did evolve into other types over the course of millions of years. This idea seems to be a difficult one for creationists to understand.

“The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear.”
`
Two things to say about this 1) the creatures which existed at this time were soft bodied (jellyfish like) and their chances of fossilising are very poor.
2) It is breathtakingly hypocritical of creationists who believe the world is only 6,000 years old to be attempting to pick holes in scientific theories by relying on part of the evidence that seems to suit their case.

Evolution is a scientific theory that is so well established and based on such an extensive wealth of evidence that it is as close as science comes to established FACT.

 

[FrankZapper]

Creationist disprove their own theories just with the stupidity that comes out their mouths.

 

[Madeline]

Creationist disprove their own theories just with the stupidity that comes out their mouths.

It is not a belief that the planet is only 6,000 years old that astounds me....it's this goofy insistence that we teach such nonsense in public schools as a theory on a par with evolution in science classes. I cannot understand why the Religious Right thinks we'll be better off when there are no more American scientists? Do they hate this country?

 

[JBeukema]

Fossilization is a rare phenomenon...

 

[JBeukema]

They don't hate the country, Maddie,. They hate civilization. PC hates all technology, as she revealed to us in another thread.

 

[Father Time]

They don't hate the country, Maddie,. They hate civilization. PC hates all technology, as she revealed to us in another thread.

That seems bizzarre even for PC, could you show me which thread you are talking about.

 

[JBeukema]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...religious-stupididy-helps-11.html#post2965008


She takes issue with using technology to better the human condition. She opposes hammers, spears, homes, shoes, all forms of medicine aside from prayer, and anything else where 'the prerogatives of God have been usurped.'


I do stand corrected in that it was actually this thread.

 

[psikeyhackr]

A lack of belief in the existence of a thing is not the same as a belief in its non-existence

See: gnostism v agnosticism ; theism v atheism

There are four possible positions:
-agnostic theism
-gnostic theism
-agnostic atheism
-gnostic atheism

Just because something is false does not necessarily mean that enough reliable evidence can be acquired to know that it is false.

Just because something is true does not necessarily mean that enough reliable evidence can be acquired to know that it is true.

An agnostic is a non-believer.

An atheist is a believer. An atheist just BELIEVES the opposite of the religious believers.

But admitting that one does not know makes it possible to entertain more possibilities than believers. What about the possibility that there is a God but He considers all religions to be idiotic junk. Each religion could be just a form of group-think with its own delusions about how much it knows about God, but they are all wrong.

Does anybody ever mention the possibility that the commandment:

Thou shalt not use the name of the Lord they God id vain.

is really a commandment against organized religion? Why is it higher on the list than thou shalt not kill, if it just refers to swearing which is usually what we are told.

Scientists admit they haven't figured out everything about reality yet, why are we supposed to believe any religion figured out everything about God 1000 or more years ago. What if they are all just institutionalized brainwashing?

psik

 

[Father Time]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...religious-stupididy-helps-11.html#post2965008


She takes issue with using technology to better the human condition. She opposes hammers, spears, homes, shoes, all forms of medicine aside from prayer, and anything else where 'the prerogatives of God have been usurped.'


I do stand corrected in that it was actually this thread.

Allow me to quote an Ayn Rand knock off to express my feelings about this.

"A man invents. A parasite says, "Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God...""

(I wonder if anyone knows who this is).

 

[Father Time]

If you think a scientific experiment or procedure is morally wrong then you should be able to argue that it's wrong without invoking God. Otherwise you're just holding us back.

 

[JBeukema]

An agnostic is a non-believer.

Fail.

See: agnostic theism

An atheist is a believer. An atheist just BELIEVES the opposite of the religious believers.

fail

see: agnostic atheism

theism/atheism deals with belief

gnosticism/agnosticism deals with epistemology

 

[goldcatt]

An agnostic is a non-believer.

Fail.

See: agnostic theism

An atheist is a believer. An atheist just BELIEVES the opposite of the religious believers.

fail

see: agnostic atheism

theism/atheism deals with belief

gnosticism/agnosticism deals with epistemology

There you go using those big words again. Shame on you!

 

[logical4u]

A lack of belief in the existence of a thing is not the same as a belief in its non-existence

See: gnostism v agnosticism ; theism v atheism

There are four possible positions:
-agnostic theism
-gnostic theism
-agnostic atheism
-gnostic atheism

Just because something is false does not necessarily mean that enough reliable evidence can be acquired to know that it is false.

Just because something is true does not necessarily mean that enough reliable evidence can be acquired to know that it is true.

An agnostic is a non-believer.

An atheist is a believer. An atheist just BELIEVES the opposite of the religious believers.

But admitting that one does not know makes it possible to entertain more possibilities than believers. What about the possibility that there is a God but He considers all religions to be idiotic junk. Each religion could be just a form of group-think with its own delusions about how much it knows about God, but they are all wrong.

Does anybody ever mention the possibility that the commandment:

Thou shalt not use the name of the Lord they God id vain.

is really a commandment against organized religion? Why is it higher on the list than thou shalt not kill, if it just refers to swearing which is usually what we are told.

Scientists admit they haven't figured out everything about reality yet, why are we supposed to believe any religion figured out everything about God 1000 or more years ago. What if they are all just institutionalized brainwashing?

psik

Taking the Lord's name in vain is something that has lost its meaning in today's culture. A statement that was made when a person was "certain" they were doing the Lord's will, that if they believed they might die, they would call on the Lord to finish their mission if they died or became incapacitated. "So help me, G*d", "by G*d", "Jesus", are all examples of using the Lord's name in vain. The Lord is being asked to finish an oath, made by a believer. If it is frivolous, or without merit, it is in vain.

The Dali Lama was quoted as saying "the best religion is the one that brings the believer to the truth". I do not know if he really said that, but it is an amazing statement. Choose your path well. Is it leading you to the truth? Do you "love" yourself (if you don't you might be on the wrong path)?

 

[Madeline]

If you had been born in Mumbai rather than say, Peoria, you'd likely be Hindu. Does it never occur to you that it is somewhat unfair of any faith to claim to be "The Only Way" when people are so limited in terms of their religious training?