General > Off Topic

Two arguments that give the creationists the upper hand.

<< < (7/11) > >>

Peter:
String theorie: it isn't disproved, so it could be right. Desame as all the other theories. All theories are based upon some formula, and pretty much theories are altered or proven not true. I am not even sure if there is a einstein-theorie that is completely intact. Many of his theories have been proven wrong later.
I find it strange that you can't see the evindence of the string theorie, the theorie has desame results as the four phycics theories. Four theories in one, meaning there are much, very much simple phycics where it could be proven wrong, it isn't proven wrong in any. It has four times more proof then any individual theorie, in the way I see it.

Ispettore: I could be wrong, I just looked up the minister that wanted to abolish the darwin-theorie. I could be wrong there, but it seems like the evolution-theorie missed from some kind of school-program. It doesn't really seemed like the minister intended it, maybe it was by mistake forgotten or anything. And if I am right now, it is back again.

Jezus was killed in jeruzalem, that is far away from italy, and far before the country Italy existed.
The clear link with Italy is that it was at the time owned by the romans. The romans of that time where other people then the Italians now, but it was done by an country that had it offspring in the land that now has the name of Italy, very true.

Jews are the chosen people, not the protected ones. You could see it if they have been tested in WW2.

Religion: We can agree, I think. On the fact that religion isn't fighting with science.

But the point is, is it rational, if I read right this seems to be Erics point. A rational human can be a christ or some other belief, but will it be a terrorist, I think not.
I don't think belief makes terrorists.

I think unfair treatment causes terrorists, and belief is just some cover for it.

For example the unfair treatment between jews and palatinas in Israel.

There are also much terrorist acts done by organisations or countrys, to (try to)wreck another countrys stability. The attack on the twin towers could be said as one of them. You can always find inrational people to help you, it doesn't have to be involved by belief.
You sound a little like someone that never heard of terrorism and suddenly with 9/11 the terrorism action in your country, you have heard of it and inmidiatly blame the beliefers, becouse it was someone who was a beliefer.
It is not like america is free of terrorism, they have done it themself too. See here for example, there are many other cases.

And no, it wasn't the only terrorism act. Here you only see the Al Quada acts. From 1992 to 2007. Yes strangely also, a part of the time is when Bin Laden was protected by america. As a dear ally.

Edit:
Or it is my browser, or this board. I doesn't seem to load png images.

Oh, link

rsucoop:

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---
--- Quote from: rsucoop ---Ah, but the logic it is derived from is very basic, and does not rely on deranged lunatics hearing voices. Every thing has mass. All mass is energy (Einstein's theory of relativity). All energy is movement, with all Newtonian laws applied one can see how this aplies to say, light or magnetism. So all mass has a frequency. All particles have a frequency. Therefore it is most likely that we are all just made of vibrations, or strings if you will. There isn't much speculation involved, not like the speculation that some God exists.
--- End quote ---

Reread what you just said: if that doesn't sound like the deranged rantings of a lunatic, I don't know what does   It's no more absurd than the animistic viewpoint that all matter has a spirit self.  String theory at best is a sort of mathematically based metaphysics.


--- Quote ---Furthermore, it does not matter who wrote the bible, the basis was that God had to prove he existed to the prophet or the saint by speaking to him. If God exsisted, he wouldn't have to talk to the prophets. Beyond that, Mark Twain makes many good remarks on why its so obsurd to even believe in a God (or at least one that pays any attention to the Universe). Finally, if God doesn't exist and the saints say he does, then God cannot exist by virtue of their writing (Yet if God does exist, then why is he not runnign the Universe? Better yet, why is he not creating more universes and dimensions). Because under saint prestense, god is all-knowing and all-powerful, so it would only make sense that a simple planet would be a waste of his effort (he would already know the outcome of anything he did, and he would know that before humans can do anything to help it, the Universe will hyper-expand). So this idea of a God in the bible sense has many logical errors, making it ilogical and irrational. But the idea of a God who somehow built something seems abit odd too. Why build something that you'll outlive if you're so smart? Seems like a big waste of time if I was god. Sort of like doing this  
--- End quote ---

Not at all.  It should be amply clear that the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God has a very straightforward goal in mind: growing a larval stage of His progeny on Earth: namely mankind.  That is, raising his literal children.  Why do you think the imagery of "Father-Child" is used?  It's the same way that teaching a kid to ride a bike isn't a waste of time.  Sure, you could ride the bike yourself, in a fraction of the effort, but the act of teaching is infinitely more meaningful.  That God isn't directly visible gives us a hint of the level of growth mortal life represents: mankind is something like a toddler going to preschool for the first time.  Sure it seems to us like our Parent has abandoned us, but in reality it's just the first step of growing up and becoming independant.

And who says that Earth is the only planet God is working on?  I'm pretty sure I've heard phrases like "worlds without end" at various times in different services.  The whole idea of the Judeo-Christian God is that He's quite literally the God of the whole universe.  Or at least our observable neck of the woods.  Other sentient life is presumably also under God's charge.


--- Quote ---Also, its odd that a believer of God would deny that there aren't more dimensions that cannot be percieved with limited 3 dimensional sensors. After all, is that not what religion is abou? Some higher place out of sight, even when using the Hubble Space Sattellite.
--- End quote ---

I make a careful distinction between belief and science.  If you came to me and said that you're religion claims that there are an extra 8 unobservable dimensions, and that all of everything is built from vibrating strings, that's fine, that's what you believe.  However, when you claim it's good science, I require supporting evidence before I accept it.


--- Quote ---Also, your analogy does not seem to fit. You're comparing some language that cannot be interpreted (but can be percieved) to something which cannot be percieved yet can be interpreted.
--- End quote ---

Perhaps something such as this would make more sense?


--- Quote ---(BTW, time is the 4th dimension. Can you see time? Einstein's proof is 100% accepted and solid. And many things are beginning to show that this fact is the case).
--- End quote ---

Time is observable.  We can percieve time.  Time was understood (in our rather constant inertial frame) long before Einstein.  That's what makes general relativity work: it makes predictions about things we know about.  Einstein didn't have to invent anything new, he just reformulated what we already understood.  When you start talking about compacted dimensions, I must scoff.


--- Quote from: EricL ---Only religon claims to have all the answers and proof in the positive.  Ask your religious leader "what experiment could I perform where if the results came out a certain way would falsify your claims?"
--- End quote ---

Here's what I almost guarentee a Christian priest would answer:

"Let Christ in to your heart and life, allow him to be your personal savior, and I guarentee you that you will receive a testament of the truth of these things".

The problem is that you as a science minded individual want to measure with a ruler and stopwatch, whereas a priest wants to measure in warm fuzzies.  They're really orthogonal to each other; you might as well be speaking different languages.  Almost everything religion is about (morality, our place in the universe, our relationship with our ancestors, our future destiny, etc.) are things that science has no business even asking.  How do you measure morality?  How do you develop a theory about the meaning of existence?  It just doesn't work.

Really the whole idea that science and religion are in direct competition with each other is extremely stupid.  There is a tiny portion of Judeo mythology that modern science conflicts with: namely Genesis and the creation story.  And only like the first 10 chapters at that.  And even then the only reason it's a big deal is that most Christians don't seem able to read more than the first 40 pages of their Bible.  They worked hard on reading that first chapter.  It's all they have.  I mean, once you get into later Genesis you start having all sorts of boring geneologies, and the Mosaic law, and who in their right mind wants to read that?  If the bible started with something like Isaiah, I think people would have a better idea about the whole point of all this.

--- End quote ---

1st, its a matter of genetics. Every action we make is simply genetic. We can choose, put the choices we make are almost always genetic based. Think about the health choice we make, we choose to live longer even though life brings no extra benefits to the old. We chose to itch because we feel the itch, but even the act of itching has a gene. Science and religion have similair backgrounds and beginnings, but that is not because they are the same. Science is merely observation; we are naturally curious beings, our closets genetic relatives are curious beings (I don't mean monkeys, apes are way closer), almost 50% of all beings on Earth have some amount of curiosity. All behavior is genetic. So logic becomes a new gene; obviously those with stronger abilities in analytical thought would have a different gene from a person very good at creativity (not that they lack either, just different). The problem with creationists is they cannot answer the whole of the question, Where did we come from?

Douglas Adams made a very point about this in his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; where a race builds a machine to answer the ultimate question (which they did not know), and all they got was 42. Its like saying a man did it. You're not even sure what the question is but your asking it, it always comes out with God in religion. As Mark Twain pointed out, if God controlled everything we would have to question the need for a God.

God's Major Laws (not the commandments):
1
Every living being is given an inherit trait, all the animals have their own strengths. The lion is loyal, territorial, lazy and self-concious; the cheetah is fast and fierce, while the eagle is majestic, nobel and proud. Humans were so-said to have been created with all of these traits inherited within their conciousness.

2
Every living being (including humans) can do no wrong under the laws of god, as they were inherit within their being and soul and cannot be denied.

So having judgement over humanity, as written many times in the bible, is completely against god's laws. So therefore the idea of God cannot live through such a system.

Yet humans continue again and again to lack in certain logic genes. Walmart, George Bush Sr, George Bush Jr, WW1, WW2, American Exspansionism, White Man's Burden (Manifest Destiny), Slavery, Genocide, Chemicaly infused tobacco products, The Atomic Bomb, The Combustion Engine (crude oil only limitations), AIDS, Money (yes, money is a form of greed which has lead to the knowing deaths of billions of harmless beings), etc... Show me intelligent design, and I will show you a man with a very poor idea of what is logical. The only thing which has seperated humans from the other animals, is our larger brains for more memories (prepairing us once we realize how to live longer) and the weight and degree that we feel the pain of others. It does not take the hand of intelligence to destroy everything regardless of your own survival.

So I assume you would call that freedom of choice, but that is not given to anyone, and cannot be taken away from any being. Therefore God not have given us this quality, we gave it to ourselves. That is how genetic selection works; random things happen to complex organisms running with way more variables than is capable in DB, so a wierd change can create continuous thought, or dilusional thoughts. If God were present in Humanity's life, then there would be more Einsteins, fewere wars and people would be enjoying themselves amongst people from everywhere. The idea of learning is a very primative idea (according to humans), because all animals teach their young, because the young are more receptive to memories, and obtain important behaivors from their first few memories; that is how people like George Bush Jr happen, or Ghandi, or even Buddha (although he drew from more memories). All religion has to offer is hope and love for the weak and hopeless and unloved; which is a very wonderful thing to have in a life filled with many problems and few rewards. It is genetic for humans to believe their will be something better than this moment, because that is how humanity has survived without a massive suicidal end; optimism is a very powerful genetic tendancy which cannot be learned, but is inherited.

So, religion false, bible false, idea of bible wonderful. So by silogism, God is wonderful, and false. Perhpas, in our minds which behave similar to holographic plates, the thought of good creates an illusion of god more powerful than reality, but reality will never go away, and the illusion is inherently a dillusional trait, so its almost a schizofrenic tendancy. That tendancy is very common in humans because we have such powerful thoughts and emotions compared to say a tree; we can see images not in existance, but in our thoughts, which are controlled by hormones and chemicals, which are in turn controlled by genetics.

(reference: Letters to the Universe, Mark Twain)

apothegm:
This is quite a contentious topic, and there's been some good discussion here... I've enjoyed reading it and I feel like I know some of the DB forum posters a lot better now   .  To throw in my own two-cents-worth:

I consider myself a scientist, and it seems to me that the scientific method is the most productive and effective paradigm to use in interacting with the universe. I also think that the act of "believing", of maintaining a conviction despite the lack of any observations supporting it and despite the presence of observations that would tend to counter it, is highly dangerous. However, there can be great value in things that are outside of the realm of science, like myths, stories, and symbols. Science has many uses, but when you're trying to figure out what you need in your life to make you happy or what movie to see tonight, science has very little to offer. As such, when the bible has stories about virgin births or resurrections, it doesn't mean you should dismiss them as scientifically innaccurate and therefore false, but instead look at them as symbols that have helped to shape our culture and our identities, and can serve as common reference-points that allow us to relate to one another more effectively. In a way, our lives as we subjectively experience them can be reduced to stories, and so it makes sense that all kinds of stories help to shape our perceptions.
Take, for example EricL's post about the DarwinBots bar (which I love btw). It's difficult to quantify or measure the utility of this piece, and the characters of the bartender, the old sage, and the escaped mental patient are certainly symbolic rather than literal, but reading it has without a doubt enriched my experience here.
If only fewer people would try to take our myths so literally...

And of course, these views would be completely out of place in a scientific discussion    .

Numsgil:
Reminds me of Orson Scott Card.  He likes to talk about exactly that sort of thing: stories/myths, and how they interact and bind a community of people.

EricL:

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---
--- Quote from: EricL --- perhaps it's not so much the god that matters but rather the belief itself....
--- End quote ---
Which many might do.

--- End quote ---
If someone acknowledges it is belief itself, in any god, that is important and not the god itself, that any god will do, that while there may be benefits to belief itself, gods don't really exist outsides one's head and don't really perform supernatural acts, then they are no longer religious in my book.   I will be the first to admit that there may be benefits to beleiving in a god or gods - physcological, social benefits rooted in evolved brain and social behaviour - but belief in the power of belief is very different than actual belief in the supernatural.  The placebo effect is very real.   It is actual beleif in the supernatural I have a problem with.

Religions conflict with one another (and with science) because they proport different and conflicting frameworks for how the universe came to be and which god or gods are in charge, which should be worshiped and how, how to kill those who whorship the wrong gods and so on.  If a monotheist acknowledges that another god is just as valid as their own, they have taken a huge step torwards secularism IMHO.

Your warm and fuzzy speculation that all religons may somehow be simply mutations of an original truth is interesting and there may be some value in it from a historical perpsective, but it does not add support for the existance of the supernatural.  It mearly demonstrates the inventivness and creativity of humans.  If you allow the possibility that all of the worlds religons have been modified and changed so dramatically from some root form through human invention, then why not acknowledge that religion itself may also be a product of the same inventivness?


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---If science is about removing the human component from our understanding of the universe (removing bias, superstition, etc.), religion is about understanding the universe through the human component.
--- End quote ---
I think that's crap.  Religion is mythological hangover from the dark ages rooted in a time before we understood the way the universe actually works. It gets in the way of understanding the universe, it doesn't enhance it.  People came up with religion as a way to explain and make sense of the world around them.  Before Darwin, there was no competing theory for how life in it's many varied forms came to be.  Before cosmology, there was no competing therory for the orgin of the universe or why the stars moved across the heavens.   Religion was it.   Until recently, religion was science.

Over the centuries, religon's domain has been erroded and largly supplanted from the outside by science.  The world does not sit on a giant turtle or on Atlas's shoulders.  The earth is 4.55 billiuon years old, not 6000.   Humans evolved, they were not created in a garden.   The modern interpretation of religion as simply a way to find personal meaning and understanding is a much diminished role, the last vestigages of a dying world framework.   There is no need to believe in fairy tales to stand in awe of nature and the universe or to find personal meaning.  Really, it's such a poor cousin to the truth.


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---What if I answer "I like to kill people" on your questionaire?  Is that a moral or amoral act?  How do you even begin to define "good" and "bad" in a purely scientific manner?
--- End quote ---
It's really easy actually.  Morality is a function of social norms.   Humans are social animals and the fact that we all share a set of general principles that one might term "morals" is because it's rooted in our genes.  Killing others in your tribe for no reason generally resulted in your genes getting removed from the gene pool.  Selection favorred certain behaviours and disfavorred others.   You see the same thing in chimps, gorrillas, wolves and so on.   There are norms of behaviour, often complex, often with cheaters, often with consequences for being caught cheating, often with a whole economy of behavioural practices.   There is always genetic variablity, always the one guy that likes to kill people for no reason, but that person is a rare anomily.    So, you use control groups, you use your questionaires to find a baseline across the population and then you test different demographic groups and look for corrolations.  It's been done hundreds of times.   This isn't hard.  I'm surprised you find it so.


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---but at some point someone is going to have to make a judgement call about what is desirable and what is not.  That's the realm of religion, philosophy, etc.  Things that are definately not scientific..
--- End quote ---
I strongly disagree.   As above, right and wrong, immoral and moral, these are social norms rooted in our genetics as highly complex social animals and as such as clearly within the domain of science.  


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Higher dimensions may or may not exist in any real sense, but they do not effect our normal, everyday life.
--- End quote ---
No argument here.  If they did, we would have evolved intuition to better understand them.  


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Sept. 11 was about as much about religion as the crusades were: meaning only a flimsy pretense.
--- End quote ---
I did not say that Sept. 11 was about religion.  I said that religon and specifically beleif in an afterlife allowed it to happen.  Were there no belief in an afterlife, no promise of 70 virgins and so on, I claim it would have been harder to find intelligent, educated people (as the hijackers were) willing to willingly kill themsleves for whatever the cause.  It would certainly not have been impossible. There are certainly many causes both religious and non-religious people would willingly die for, but religion tends to produce zelots in quanity like nothing else.  Certainly suicide bombers capable of flying 767's might be harder to come by were there no beleif in an afterlife.  (And yes I know many suicide bombers are misled and exploited).      


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---People hide their hate behind religion because they're ignorant and stupid.  Don't blame religion.
--- End quote ---
I don't.  Religon has no monopoly on hate just as it has no monolpy on love or morality (all a function of brain chemsitry - a science BTW).   There have certainly been atrocities perfromed in the name of religon and just as certainly there have been atrocities performed in the name of other agendas such as racism or facsism.   The common thread is ignorance.  


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Islam certainly does not advocate military attacks on civilian targets.
--- End quote ---
There are those who would disagree with this.  I'm no religious scholar, but from what I've read, the position that Islam is really a kind, gentle religion being misinterpreted by extremists may be wishful thinking.  It really does say in the Koran that your duty as a muslim is to kill non-muslims.  


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---people will act stupid and hateful regardless of what religion, belief, or philosophy the believe in (or don't).
--- End quote ---
Unfortuntly, I agree with this.


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---If anything, religion, belief, and philosophy are what prevents Man from being stupid and hateful all the time.
--- End quote ---
Surprisingly, I don't necessarily disagree with this.  It could be true that belief in a god makes people better members of society on average but this lends no support to the actual existance of gods or the supernatural.  


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---How easy would it be to fall in to a science-only world view, and adopt Social Darwinism as a guiding principle?  How would that make you any better from someone who falls in to a religion-only world view and adopts I-don't-understand-that-it-must-be-magic guiding principle?  Both views can cause so much harm.
--- End quote ---
I agree it does not take religion to do harm, but I'd rather live in a world where people use their brains and go through their life with the eyes open, beleiving what there is evidence to beleive and questioning beliefs in contradiction to evidence.  

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page