|
| Thread: Intelligent Design / Creationism |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 06, 2012 08:47 PM |
|
|
|
I'm saying Stalin was the god
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 09:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You have to remember, though, that religion is founded on faith, which works in the heart without need of the head to interject.
Yes, but such discussions rarely have anything to do with faith as such. If a religious person believes strong enough in what his religion teaches, he doesn't need to find material evidences all the time just to keep his/her faith, on the contrary - the faith is an end in itself, it's self-sufficient. However, the western religions (which are, for some reason, regarded as THE religions in this forum, especially the Christianity) have never really been all about the spirituality, partially because of their historical evolution. And the main problem is the presence of an incontrovertible Truth (capital "T", yes) written in some holy book. There's nothing to discuss about the Bible's content, it's true and that's that, end of story, the end, period. If the science says that the content of the Bible is partially or fully incorrect, then the science is wrong so it can only prove that the content is correct. Which obviously doesn't work because science is not supposed to prove pre-defined "truths" (this makes no sense logically in the first place), that's against its method. This is the border of the reconciliation mentioned by you and it will never be crossed as long as the (western) religions remain religions and the science remains science. In the end, a religious person does not really need a scientific evidences for the credibility of his/her religion and a scientific person does not need a guidebook to what the universe should "correctly" look like. Unfortunately though, peaceful co-existence is not so simple due to the regular human being's various feats.
Great post by Shadowcaster. It was long so I might have gotten it wrong but I took it as you were trying to reach a middleground which I respect alot. But as we all know, true FAITH is believing, not knowing, while true SCIENCE is truth seeking. Zenofex explains very well in the quoted post that a religion like Christianity claims to KNOW(what they were told by trusted adults as children) everything based on FAITH without any real supporting evidence and everytime that religion try to compromise with scientific facts they only prove that they did not know everything afterall. For example, the bible and christians from 1000 years ago KNEW that homosexuality is immoral and a sin that will guarantee hell. Today times have changed(fortunatly) and homosexuality is very much alright in western society and even among some religions. But the bible and christians clearly KNEW the truth about homosexuality so are the modern more tolerant christians not real christians or were Christianity and fanatics wrong from the beginning? Clearly the credability of Christianity and other religions can be questioned and science has next to no place within religion unless it supports their FACTS.
Zenofex already covered most of this but it should not hurt hearing it from another brain.
____________
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 09:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just to set the record straight, atheism is the absence of belief in gods, which is not the same as being religious. So Zenofex is correct.
I don't think stalin and adolf were religious men but they weren't really the nicest guys in the 1940's...
An obvious fact about atheism that way to many theists never seem to understand. So many times have I read about theists calling atheism a religion and faith. Pure atheism is just as you say, not believing in religion at all. Pure atheism has nothing directly to do with morality, science or anything else like that. You can compare it to numbers by saying that a religion is ANY number and that atheism is 0(zero).
Therefore even if Stalin and Hitler were atheists, their actions has nothing to do with atheism because atheism is not even a proper ideology. Theists though can commit evil trough their religion while atheists can only do it through their godless ideologies like nazism.
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
while true SCIENCE is truth seeking.
Wrong. Truth is first hand knowledge, it may be taught, it may be explained, but it will never become truth (knowledge) unless one either has faith in ones teacher or experiences it. This counts for all aspects, knowing how much you 'truly' know can make one feel pretty small indeed.
And if one cannot experience/use what one has learned, then there was never a point to it.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 10:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wrong. Truth is first hand knowledge,
What is knowledge?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 12:17 AM |
|
|
'Know-ledge' is archived truth' derived from experience.
Until you put what you have learned to use it will never be 'real'/true, and until you've done so, everything you've learned you've learned under faith.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 12:44 AM |
|
|
So anything you experience is "the Truth"?
Hmm.
What if you are being deceived?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 01:05 AM |
|
|
Being decieved involves another person, more specifically them providing you with incorrect information/signals unbeknown to you. (hence the deception) Ergo you put your faith into someone else. (I.E you expected them to tell you the truth/provide their end of the bargain et cetera)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 01:44 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:59, 07 Mar 2012.
|
Quote:
Being decieved involves another person,
Not necessarily. A lot of people deceive themselves, or misinterpret what they "experience" out of ignorance, which essentially amounts to the same thing. And you can "experience" a lot of things that are not real, if, for example, you are impaired by chemicals or injury.
There's a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to knowledge, and the subject has been mused upon and argued over since before Aristotle all the way through to The Matrix (which is really just a borrowing of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, among other things). Knowledge is not such an easy term to define as you are making it out to be.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 01:47 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:50, 07 Mar 2012.
|
Well, thanks for helping out with my homework.
Well, basically I came to the conclusion that intelligent design isn't scientific in any way. I found zero scientific arguments supporting it. So yeah, Corribus was right with his first post in this thread.
I also learned stuff, like that it isn't the same as creationism and that they do actually support evolution to a degree.
... and apparently the thread is about all atheists being worse than Hitler now. >.>
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 02:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
... and apparently the thread is about all atheists being worse than Hitler now. >.>
Not worse, nor better
Quote:
A lot of people deceive themselves, or misinterpret what they "experience"
I'm going to require an example.
If a person believes something is real strong enough, then it will be real, for them. Do you feel it's right that if someone sees something as real, but it's not real for everone else, to force said individual into accepting your perspective~?
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 03:57 AM |
|
|
|
who is forcing who? as long as his ignorance doesn't drive him to harm other people...
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
posted March 07, 2012 04:43 AM |
|
|
Maybe I'm power sceptic! But I've seen a UFO and ghost. Bible said it's light of angel. Leave the matter Psychology  Much more!
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llbS9rDxHRQ[/url]
____________
Fight MWMs - stand teach
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 08:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
he doesn't need to find material evidences all the time just to keep his/her faith,
Actually in Hindu, the supreme god-head teaches the opposite, he knows that the faith of man wavers, so he manifests to rejuvenate man's faith when the last gasp of faith flutters from this world. (every aprox 5000 years)
So please don't generalise religion under one catagory, as much as you might think that they are the same, they are infact very different.
But mankind has nothing to do with a person, they are 2 distinctions of the social sphere.
A person who has acquired faith will never doubt and never waver.
A kid who is taught by that person may doubt, and that is where the Hindu teachings come from. Faith can be lost or gained for each generation, and we might as well view our current society as one without any real high religion beyond that fact we admit Christianity has/had some legitimacy culturally. So yes, I generalize religion, because it can be done, and there is nothing wrong with it, providing it is generalized a bit more than "Religious nutcases".
Then again, Hinduism is not 1 religion, but many religions in 1 area, where a lot of them has some common names and concept, but they are different religions. It ranges from Pantheism to Monotheism, but as India is connected today, some of the forms get more popular and others are forgotten. Back in the day there was roughly 1 form of worship per village too, but that is changing, just like Europa once was a place where there was a lot of different religions before Christians burned them.
Quote:
Not necessarily. A lot of people deceive themselves, or misinterpret what they "experience" out of ignorance, which essentially amounts to the same thing. And you can "experience" a lot of things that are not real, if, for example, you are impaired by chemicals or injury.
There's a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to knowledge, and the subject has been mused upon and argued over since before Aristotle all the way through to The Matrix (which is really just a borrowing of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, among other things). Knowledge is not such an easy term to define as you are making it out to be.
A comment to this:
If you have ever touched a bit of philosophy, you must after some point have heard "Descartes was criticized for not testing out his theories", and yet nobody is willing to write down what he sort of is the father of.
Descartes is sort of the father of statistics, and statistics core point is that instead of to really on single arguments or single observations to prove something about reality, you instead use gathered data and assume if there is enough data on something it can hold true for now. At the least its more true than something that was just argued for with logic, until its tested again and proven wrong, and in which case its wrong until tested to be correct again, ad infinitum.
And what is modern science? You gather data, a bit of statistics, and figure out what in the statistics make them behave different than the other data, and then generally attempt to find some conclusions from that. That, or you assume something holds true, and go out looking for it, and gather statistics and then attempt to cherry pick out data to make it seem true.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 09:03 AM |
|
|
I don't know whether this is really true, but my experience tells me, that this discussion is drifting into the realm of complete nonsense. 
The questions we are dealing with are all centered around a) "effects" and b) "causes" (and note, that this is already based on the assumption that there is something like a cause-effect chain as a one-way street).
Which gives us the problems:
1) Defining and isolating EFFECTS
2) Determining the CAUSE(S) (meaning the FORCES AT WORK)
Science is basically and fundamentally just A METHOD of how to do this, and this method is contrary to experience. The reason is that experience works intuitively and is centered around the individual (the most common ERROR here is to link two non-linked random events with a cause-effect relationship just because they are happening at the same or nearly the same time or place), while science is interested in GENERAL knowledge:
The scientific method is basically a way to determine and confirm cause-effect chains and the forces that are existing: If you do A, B happens because of C. All the time. Predictably, so that you can bet your life on it.
ALL religion is outside of this, because the predicted effects of assumed causes ARE NOT OBSERVABLE. Additionally, all or most parameters, that is, the effects, causes and forces, are ill-defined.
Example: "Homosexual behaviour will gain you eternal hell." This is basically a prediction of an effect ("eternal hell") that is the consequence of a certain cause ("homosexual behaviour"). Problems: "Eternal hell" isn't defined, as is "you" as in "your soul"; the "work-thesis" cannot be verified (you cannot observe what happens with homosexuals after they die).
So from a scientific view this statement is basically the same as, "Opening Pandora's Box will get us all killed."
The same is true for "intelligent design". As a "work-thesis" this cannot be verified - you could just as well say, life magically appeared and will disappear just as magically - because not only are THE FORCE(S) that CAUSED the EFFECT(S) unobservable, these FORCES (the intelligent designer) are basically postulated on the assumption that something like that is the only possible explanation for certain effects that are ill-defined at that.
That is part of the reason why this isn't taught in school as an alternative SCIENTIFIC theory: it simply IS NONE. It's just crudely masqued FAITH that is gaining attention only because money has been poured into it by interested groups to sell it as "scientific", but that is a rather crude deception.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 10:20 AM |
|
Edited by GunFred at 10:23, 07 Mar 2012.
|
Quote:
Quote:
while true SCIENCE is truth seeking.
Wrong. Truth is first hand knowledge, it may be taught, it may be explained, but it will never become truth (knowledge) unless one either has faith in ones teacher or experiences it. This counts for all aspects, knowing how much you 'truly' know can make one feel pretty small indeed.
And if one cannot experience/use what one has learned, then there was never a point to it.
I do not remember saying that science IS truth or knowledge. A perfect scientist try to get as close as possible to the truth based on logical research and this scientist must always understand that he could be wrong even though it seems he is right. So true science is all about seeking the truth(never completly knowing it).
But anyways, it seems that most people here already understand why science and religion can not hold hands without squeezing more or less. And Xerox got what he wanted(or not?) so... yeah...
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 10:33 AM |
|
|
Err, science is a method that seeks to gain KNOWLEDGE or INSIGHTS.
TRUTH is just a CONCEPT, because it basically means ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE, and we don't know whether there is something like that. It needs something like an absolute yardstick to compare it with.
Everything we KNOW is relative and limited by the fact that we know only PART of the whole.
Science gains KNOWLEDGE; Religion postulates TRUTH.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 02:21 PM |
|
|
|
absolute knowledge would probably be infinite. unless you talk about the awakening in buddhism for example, which doesn't mean knowing all, but seeing things for what they really are, to not deceive yourself.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted March 07, 2012 07:37 PM |
|
|
Knowledge is really power, I wonder... ?
Or is a little knowledge really a dangerous thing? I wouldn't say that.
The truth sets us free.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 08, 2012 02:27 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:28, 08 Mar 2012.
|
Quote:
Just to set the record straight, atheism is the absence of belief in gods, which is not the same as being religious. So Zenofex is correct.
To say "God does not exist" is a statement of faith for which there is less evidence that the statement "God exists." The US courts have correctly ruled atheism to be a religion. Atheists have no evidence for their cornerstone dogmas, they merely take them by faith.
Science does not lend credence to the position atheists have traditionally held until recently (that the universe is eternal) nor to the idea that the universe could produce itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing. Atheism is in no way more "scientific" than any other religion. In fact it is less in harmony with "known" science than say Judaism or Christianity.
Oh, comments that religion is not about seeking truth are untrue. Christianity certainly emphasizes a search for truth.
Quote:
Not necessarily. A lot of people deceive themselves, or misinterpret what they "experience" out of ignorance, which essentially amounts to the same thing. And you can "experience" a lot of things that are not real, if, for example, you are impaired by chemicals or injury.
A lot of people have been decieved into thinking God does not exist and dismiss every experience others have. As a Pentecostal I have had many "close encounters" with God.
One who already "knows" God does not exist certainly is highly unlikely to "find" him.
Quote:
TRUTH is just a CONCEPT, because it basically means ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE, and we don't know whether there is something like that. It needs something like an absolute yardstick to compare it with.
Everything we KNOW is relative and limited by the fact that we know only PART of the whole.
Science gains KNOWLEDGE; Religion postulates TRUTH.
Truth does mean something. 2+3=5. That is true. Truth is not just a concept. What is true is true regardless of your perception that it is true or untrue.
We have already seen that scientists are not always forthcoming with information that is counter to whatever sacred theories they hold to be true and that they are not beyond falsifying data.
Religion is seeking truth about the world around us, what is within us, the purpose of the world, the purpose of us individually and as a community, meeting the needs of our fellow man, discovering what God wants and expects from us, ect.
|
| |
|
|
