Spider Lad Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Ben, I can never be bothered to read your posts in their entirety, mainly because they tend to waffle (particularly in this thread).I think you may be little off there though. I know how quantum physicists can moot all day, each struggling to assert their own idea on the subject). Partcularly if it's something which is difficult to prove or measure.When you're looking at the mutation of DNA, the visible divergent evolutionary paths of isolated colonies of the same species, fossils, petrified forest records, isotope dating through radioactive decay(carbon dating), etc.. this is all physical evidence that can be seen, not just ideas.These things aren't just invented or falsified to support an idea. And it's a lot harder to shoehorn physical evidence into fitting a previously conceived idea, when it pretty much speaks for itself. Unlike some aspects of physics which often amounts to no more than tossing ideas around and number crunching til it fits(yes, I'm aware that's an extremely crude way of putting it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikeriding Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 faith is for those who believe special. we can't knock them. so long as they live their life's Christ like...........if they do that they'll do well.EVER SEEN THE FILM TEETH? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 (edited) Ben, I can never be bothered to read your posts in their entirety, mainly because they tend to waffle (particularly in this thread).I think you may be little off there though. I know how quantum physicists can moot all day, each struggling to assert their own idea on the subject). Partcularly if it's something which is difficult to prove or measure.When you're looking at the mutation of DNA, the visible divergent evolutionary paths of isolated colonies of the same species, fossils, petrified forest records, isotope dating through radioactive decay(carbon dating), etc.. this is all physical evidence that can be seen, not just ideas.These things aren't just invented or falsified to support an idea. And it's a lot harder to shoehorn physical evidence into fitting a previously conceived idea, when it pretty much speaks for itself. Unlike some aspects of physics which often amounts to no more than tossing ideas around and number crunching til it fits(yes, I'm aware that's an extremely crude way of putting it).Yeah, I have to agree with you somewhat on the waffling. I've been getting progressively more lazy throughout this thread in placing my terms into more appropriate ones for a forum thread. Nobody really wants to have to think twice about the meaning of a statement in this context, I guess Unfortunately I often end up unconsciously writing in the styles that I read. These are also the terms that I think in, so it's more of a pleasure to write in the way that I do, that is a waffle to you.Anyway, I still have to disagree. It's true that there are a range of interpretations regarding quantum mechanics. Clearly I chose the interpretation that made the most sense to me and supported my argument but that's because that interpretation fits into my general thinking with regards to reality. I am open to being mistaken. However, my argument doesn't rest solely on quantum mechanics. It rests on other philosophical ideas that I won't waffle about too much Basically I think it's dangerous to wrap up the practice of biology in such simple terms. Just because the process of "looking" gets placed into the single word, "looking", doesn't mean that it is as simple as might be suggested. I'm sure that you know this but often we forget and in a sense make assumptions about such things through that forgetting. Language has a way of doing this to us though. Anyway, within that process are a hugh multitude of interconnected factors which work together to amount to "looking", at least in terms of the actual end experience of looking. Looking is both passive and active. We contribute to what we see, through factors such as language, reason, emotion, assumption, etc. in an interconnceted fashion and which can all manifest in a way unique to the individual using them. Psychology has a wealth of data supporting this type of assertion but cognitive dissonance is one example of the way that we subserve our reasoning to emotion. Looking is not a separated human process but a dynamic process which includes, in varying degrees, all that makes us who we are. Further to this, even other aspects on the environment have an influence on our "looking".Additionally, science is not simply an act of observation. Science is completely enmeshed with reasoning. My biology textbook even admits that science contains both inductive and deductive reasoning. Reasoning, unless dealing with an incredibly uncomplex system, seems to always have unidentifiable or unprovable parts; assumptions which individuals can vary relative to other factors such as emotion. A problem we often see in religion. I'm afraid, science can much be like religion. This isn't to say science is useless. That isn't true. It is probably the best way we can come to predict certain parts of our environment. It's just that it isn't beyond the influences that affect every other human activity. I may be wrong though. I accept that but the above explanation makes the most sense to me at this time. Edited September 25, 2009 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Lad Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 I'm afraid, science can much be like religion. This isn't to say science is useless. That isn't true. It is probably the best way we can come to predict certain parts of our environment. It's just that it isn't beyond the influences that affect every other human activity.I think you meant 'some scientists' can appear to be dogmatic, not 'science' itself being like a religion. You're talking about people, not science itself.Science just is. I think you're stuck in the mindset (created by religious apologist and the like) that science and religion are two battling entities.Science has revealed some undeniable evidence and truths that have shown to contradict and rubbish religious teaching. Religious zealots in turn have tried to combat it thus inventing this science vs religion stance. Science isn't motivated by the goal of disproving religion (I think it does a good job of that all by itself). True some scientists now use it to actively disprove religious myths but, I think, only as a defensive measure. Religion as I see it is the enemy of reason and free thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Religion as I see it is the enemy of reason and free thinking.So true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 (edited) I think you meant 'some scientists' can appear to be dogmatic, not 'science' itself being like a religion. You're talking about people, not science itself.Science just is. I think you're stuck in the mindset (created by religious apologist and the like) that science and religion are two battling entities.Science has revealed some undeniable evidence and truths that have shown to contradict and rubbish religious teaching. Religious zealots in turn have tried to combat it thus inventing this science vs religion stance. Science isn't motivated by the goal of disproving religion (I think it does a good job of that all by itself). True some scientists now use it to actively disprove religious myths but, I think, only as a defensive measure. Religion as I see it is the enemy of reason and free thinking.You're right, I think there are individual variations across the range of science, regarding bias and dogmatism. I should have been more specific there.I wouldn't say that I think science and religion are two battling entities however. In fact, I said in one of my earlier posts that, in general, religion and science are different activities and as such, they shouldn't have a great deal to say about one another. But religion does make (cosmological) statements which are open to science and being that science is a more reliable form of evidence than faith regarding cosmology, religion should bow down to science. However, this goes both ways and sometimes science encroaches on religion where it's not appropriate to do so. Science cannot teach me about my connection to the world, per se. It may say things about an experience but it doesn't give a certain experience regarding the types of religious experience. At their core, science is conceptual (although of course it refers to observation) but religion is about non-conceptual experience - going beyond ideas.I'm afraid though that you've also over generalised against religion as I did for science. Although within every religion we do find dogma, we find this a lot less with some religions, especially regarding their central teaching. Most especially in Buddhism, which teaches never to simply take the word of what it or anyone else says, but to actually have your own experience from which to pass judgement - it is against idle speculation. This is a very open teaching and in line with scientific method. There are variations across the range of all religions in this way and that includes Christianity which has many sects.I am certainly not a religious apologist though. Generally, at their core, I do not think religions have anything to be apologetic of. It's just an unfortunate case of mass misunderstanding of what religion really means. Religion has blatantly been misused. So have cars though but this doesn't make all cars bad.But I respect your view. It's one I've held before but at present, regarding personal experience and otherwise, this one makes the most sense to me. I'll probably be saying something different five years down the line So true.You love it Edited September 26, 2009 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 You love it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christophe' Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Im just off out to ride/jump my mtb in the woods................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe O'Connor Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Well if god has never made a mistake then hes pretty useless at designing things. Think of the planet. Volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes. All natural disasters, most of which caused by flaws in the Earth, (tectonic activity). Id say in that respect god made some pretty severe mistakes designing the Earth.In the begining everything was good. There were no volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes etc. It was only untill man sinned that these things started to happen, all natural disasters, diseases etc are all punishment for our sin. God didnt originaly design it with the intent of these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat Tea Why Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 (edited) . Edited August 11, 2021 by Mat Tea Why Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 In the begining everything was good. There were no volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes etc. It was only untill man sinned that these things started to happen, all natural disasters, diseases etc are all punishment for our sin. God didnt originaly design it with the intent of these things.You see, that's the thing. If what you say were true it'd make your God a real cunt. If he punished the bad then that would make sense and he might be considered an all right sorta guy. However, I kinda doubt that the 230,000 people killed in the 2004 Tsunami were all sinners and if you try and tell me that things like 9/11 were 'God's will' I may have to buy a plane ticket to New Zealand so I can come and slap you.CHRISTIANITY CAME FROM THE WEST!!!!11!!!1!!!!We all know Jesus was a white man from Oxford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 In the begining everything was good. There were no volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes etc. It was only untill man sinned that these things started to happen, all natural disasters, diseases etc are all punishment for our sin. God didnt originaly design it with the intent of these things.our ? Punishment for 6000 years (people with free thought read millions) for something one pair of humans did sems pretty harsh - especially as he designed them and should have seen it coming ... God - Dont eat the fruit.Man - why not?God - just dontMan (behind gods back (which is impossible as god is all powerfull/knowing)) - Im gonna eat the f**king fruit...Honestly - its the biggest load of bull. Religion is all about control - and youve been had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 God - Dont eat the fruit.Man - why not?God - just dontMan (behind gods back (which is impossible as god is all powerfull/knowing)) - Im gonna eat the f**king fruit...Don't forget the talking snake... (don't laugh. What you've never seen a talking snake? You've never lived) whose punishment for coaxing them to eat the fruit was that that 'it shall crawl on it's belly for the rest of it's days'. Man that snake musta been pissed off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Lad Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 diseases etc are all punishment for our sin.Yeah, those still born babies have been sinning away like right little bastards inside the womb...You make me very angry but I also feel sorry for you. You're just a stupid child at the moment but hopefuly one day you will wake up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugbyman Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 In the begining everything was good. There were no volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes etc. It was only untill man sinned that these things started to happen, all natural disasters, diseases etc are all punishment for our sin. God didnt originaly design it with the intent of these things.you can't quote that without backing it up.you to explain your thoughts and beliefs much more if ever you're going to get anyone to listen to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 you have to explain your thoughts and beliefs much more if ever you're going to get anyone to listen to you.If only that were true, we wouldn't be in this pickle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Fel Posted September 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 If only that were true, we wouldn't be in this pickle.Ah yes but God did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Ah yes but God did it.Well that's me convinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totaltrials Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Well that's me convinced. I still haven't found God. Is he hiding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Do born again Christians have two belly buttons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Lad Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Do born again Christians have two belly buttons?No, two arseholes. One for shitting, one for talking. Diarrhoea can be excreted from either one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Do born again Christians have two belly buttons?Did Adam and Eve is a better question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belga Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 There is only one god, and he is the best friend of every poor student in the world http://www.venganza.org/On the serious side though, i think religion in any form is no more than the ultimate form of not believing in one self.Faith should be put in mankind and one self, not in some mystical being who in fact don't really gives a rats ass about anything but himself. I don't think it matters what people call it but i believe that people would be better off if they where dedicated to furthering themselfs instead of something that will give them no benefit what so ever other than something to blame when things go wrong. Everyone is responsible for their own life, their own choices and all that comes with it and since there is to my knowledge no god who will lift a finger to help anyone until it's too late i feel that it is also our own responsibility to make as much out of our life as possible. If my life or free will comes with strings or conditions attached, then i would not call it life and free will. I would call it servitude, and i'll pass on that anyday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Youtube Video -> ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Fel Posted October 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Once again the Christians etc decide to let the thread die rather than explain themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.