Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 84
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    If taken to an extreme science can be equated to religion.
    Science is a method, not a belief system. That science is an extremely successful method for gaining insights into the reality we live in is proven beyond doubt - just look at the tremendous developments in medicine, engineering, technology etc. thanks the the method of science.
    ...and the funny thing is, science has problems explaining bunches of things. One scientist says ... another says ... and to say Darwin
    No doubt science cannot explain everything (yet?). On the other hand, religion doesn't explain anything.

    In religion, somebody comes along and simply claims A or B to be the ultimate, eternal truth, without a trace of evidence. Parallel to this, somebody else will come along (again with nothing to support his claim other than him saying so) and says A and B are crap while C and D are the eternal truth.

    I find it quite ironic that you mention disputes among scientists. For most basic things such as evolution, there is a very broad consensus, with ongoing research and discussion about details of the process. But apart from that, what about consensus among religions? Most religions are mutually exclusive. They promise (based on no evidence at all) eternal life for their group and damnation for the rest - unfortunately only one group can be right (in your case your group, I presume). Disagreement in the world of science is handled in an extremely civilised way, while it is more a "kill the infidels" approach among religions.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Science is a method, not a belief system.
    I think science is a method of acting on a belief. If someone didn't believe something, they wouldn't act on it, they wouldn't conduct experiments to attempt to confirm or discount that belief. I have said this over and over that I Love science and I am religious and I feel that science and religion can co-exist and complement each other more than many on either side can realize....or probably more true to the point willing to admit.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    No doubt science cannot explain everything (yet?).
    I heard on Sat radio about a book or article from some recent science symposium or something where they concluded that science can only explain about 4% of the universe and they don't have a clue about remaining 96% of what it is or how it works or how it came to be or .........

    I found it interesting when the question was posed that if science does not have a clue about 96% of what the universe is all about, how can they be 100% confident that there is no God?

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It is in the sense of the school science content argument. Darwinism is being framed as teaching atheism.
    You totally flipped the argument and avoided the whole main point I made. I made no mention of the evolution vs creationism debate, which is a totally different topic and has been hounded in several VERY LONG threads.

    My example was when history books are excluded from students or requested to be rewritten because it mentions the role that religion played in our HISTORY. This same topic could be applied to County Seal issue as well. There are those who desire to exclude (aka rewrite by exclusion) any historical facts, events, influences, etc... that in anyway relates to any form of religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by perditac
    I'm having a little trouble believing that there is a powerful group of atheists out there trying to force its beliefs on the susceptible religious majority.
    First of all I agree with you that atheism is a form of belief about Religion /God or even a belief system and has in many aspects taken on a organized form with groups of people with the same belief. Just like many who believe in God feel the necessity to share (and sometimes force) their beliefs with (or on) others, there are atheists who also feel compelled to share (and sometimes force) their beliefs with (or on) others. On the same token just like those who believe in God have a strong desire to prove to those who do not believe that there is a God, many atheists have the same desire to prove to those who do believe that there is not a God.

    The main difference I see, is that those who believe in God admit that they want to share their beliefs, but many of the atheists refuse to admit it it happens on their side as well with explanations avoiding this fact like Da's just protecting you, etc... The fact that none of the Atheists in this thread gave even an centimeter of consideration to the examples I listed seems to be an example in this as well.

    Again, I am not promoting one form of belief over another, just observations of one's recognition of the acts of one's beliefs from both sides. Or even one recognizing they have a belief of one form or another.

    As I noted in the very beginning with Da.....
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I think the the majority fall in the middle where they are happy with their views and are fine with people having other and even opposing views. Just because I am strongly religious does not make me a bible thumping evangelist who demands that you pray at least 5 times a day and are baptized by next week or you are doomed. Just like since you do not believe in a God, I would hope you are not one to impose your agnostic views on the rest of the citizens that do have a strong belief in God. It often times (but not always) holds true that the extremes are the loudest and get the most attention with the quiet vast majority are shaking their heads walking away.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/29/2007 at 10:35 AM.
  3. #63  
    To bring this thread back on topic, as we have no proof of the influence of an all powerful being, why wound anyone think God was involved in creating morality? Thats an explanation out of ignorance. A better question would be why people are compelled to create a God figure, and ascribe all kinds of mythos to it.

    Surur
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    To bring this thread back on topic, as we have no proof of the influence of an all powerful being, A better question would be why people are compelled to create a God figure, and ascribe all kinds of mythos to it.

    Surur
    Bravo ! Thats a good question . The first thing that came to my mind was: How does one stretch his understanding beyond his own limited perceptions ?
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    A better question would be why people are compelled to create a God figure, and ascribe all kinds of mythos to it.

    Surur
    Really? Knowing human nature, why is that a good question? Seems fairly obvious to me.
  6. #66  
    I think it might be related to rearing and parent figures, which imprint patterns of thinking and behavior in young malleable minds, which then gets transferred to nebulous figures in later years.

    Surur
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I think it might be related to rearing and parent figures, which imprint patterns of thinking and behavior in young malleable minds, which then gets transferred to nebulous figures in later years.

    Surur
    Well yes that would be the dark side but but I wouldn't discount supernatural ponderings for access to new ideas and insights
    Last edited by byronchurch; 03/29/2007 at 12:24 PM.
  8.    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I think science is a method of acting on a belief. If someone didn't believe something, they wouldn't act on it, they wouldn't conduct experiments to attempt to confirm or discount that belief.
    Science is the believing in evidence: evidence that is repeatable, reproducible. Explaining known evidence and making predictions that eventually get proven.

    In other words, put simplistically, Science is about believing one's eyes.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I heard on Sat radio about a book or article from some recent science symposium or something where they concluded that science can only explain about 4% of the universe and they don't have a clue about remaining 96% of what it is or how it works or how it came to be or .........
    Hard to respond to this without knowing how credible these people you heard were. In any case, I have no problems in saying "I don't know". Better that than making something up that cannot be proven/observed.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I found it interesting when the question was posed that if science does not have a clue about 96% of what the universe is all about, how can they be 100% confident that there is no God?
    No evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    My example was when history books are excluded from students or requested to be rewritten because it mentions the role that religion played in our HISTORY. This same topic could be applied to County Seal issue as well. There are those who desire to exclude (aka rewrite by exclusion) any historical facts, events, influences, etc... that in anyway relates to any form of religion.
    I disagree with this approach of excluding religion from curriculum. ALL religious beliefs should be taught without the attempt to persuade that any one of those is the CORRECT belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    First of all I agree with you that atheism is a form of belief about Religion /God or even a belief system and has in many aspects taken on a organized form with groups of people with the same belief. Just like many who believe in God feel the necessity to share (and sometimes force) their beliefs with (or on) others, there are atheists who also feel compelled to share (and sometimes force) their beliefs with (or on) others. On the same token just like those who believe in God have a strong desire to prove to those who do not believe that there is a God, many atheists have the same desire to prove to those who do believe that there is not a God.
    I disagree that atheists proselytize like the religious do. By it's very nature, atheists encourage free thinking.. think for yourself and don't believe what someone says "just because". Demand evidence. In my experience, most atheists are shy about "coming out". Personally, I don't care if the rest of the world goes about believing in whatever the heck they do .. as long as they don't FORCE their beliefs on others.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  9. #69  
    Several years ago I worked with an atheist into actively proselytizing, very actively. He made it a point to actively negate the opposing view. So yes, atheism is in a sense a religion. I have no problem in teaching all religion; but the left wants none of it taught, only its side and that is just plain wrong. So hang the crap, one view and only one view - the way of the left and it holds little value for many.

    Ben
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I have said this over and over that I Love science and I am religious and I feel that science and religion can co-exist
    Science and religion can co-exists. But one cannot accept the validity of science and at the same time believe in creationism/reject evolution or claim earth is only a few thousand years old, as at least one person whom I have met in this forum does.

    People who believe earth is a few thousand years old or those who think species have not evolved over the millenia from common ancestor forms of life should have the decency of not using airplanes, Treos or modern medicine because those are based on the same scientific methods as evolution.

    Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but science and the Middle Age interpretation of the bible called creationism are.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #71  
    I think we danced this dance before and though we didn't come to an agreement we came to a mutual understanding of each other's point of view.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Science and religion can co-exists. But one cannot accept the validity of science and at the same time believe in creationism/reject evolution or claim earth is only a few thousand years old, as at least one person whom I have met in this forum does.

    People who believe earth is a few thousand years old or those who think species have not evolved over the millenia from common ancestor forms of life should have the decency of not using airplanes, Treos or modern medicine because those are based on the same scientific methods as evolution.

    Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but science and the Middle Age interpretation of the bible called creationism are.
    Exactly. If one believes in the validity of the scientific method, one really have to ask people what they end up believing of the religion they also claim to hold dear. Do they accept uranium decay and also the garden of Eden? Do they accept inertia and also the earth being reversed to lengthen the day? For scientists who also 'believe' they often end up espousing only the feeling that there is an original cause and 'something more', which lead many to ask whats the point in believing in so little? You may as well hold no supernatural beliefs at all.

    Surur
  13. #73  
    See some of my links in my last post.....
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo View Post
    here in Portland
    I can't remember if we talked about this before or not....but we are neighbors. I am in Vancouver, just across the river from you.
  15. #75  
    Sure enough. You should join me for one of those Atheists meetings sometime.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    To bring this thread back on topic, as we have no proof of the influence of an all powerful being, why wound anyone think God was involved in creating morality? Thats an explanation out of ignorance. A better question would be why people are compelled to create a God figure, and ascribe all kinds of mythos to it.

    Surur
    "Morality" deals with oughts. It is a measure of what is right and wrong; appropriate and inappropriate. The sense of right and wrong that is seemingly inherent to humanity (and perhaps other species) frequently prompts behavior counter-intuitive to our sense of the type of advantage requied for survival.

    That mismatch propmts us to consider other sources of origination.

    In as much as there is credible evidence (note, I did not say proof) for the existence of an all powerful being, we have no reason to rule out such a being as a source.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    In as much as there is credible evidence (note, I did not say proof) for the existence of an all powerful being, we have no reason to rule out such a being as a source.
    Well, thats where the argument falls down. Considering God as an explanation for an unexplained phenomena is extremely self-defeating.

    If morality is present in animals, it suggest it precedes humans and human explanations (like God), and the causation should thus be sought in evolutionary imperatives and behavior prompts. If we can explain why a rat is 'moral', we wont need to explain why a human is moral by looking to God.

    Surur
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    ...People who believe earth is a few thousand years old or those who think species have not evolved over the millenia from common ancestor forms of life should have the decency of not using airplanes, Treos or modern medicine because those are based on the same scientific methods as evolution....
    Such statements contribute to the "science is a religion" thinking.

    I presume your point is that the same disciplined approach used in testing the applicability of principles underlying the function of airplanes, Treos and medicine, is used in testing the applicbility of principles underlying the theory of evolution.

    That, as I understand, is science.

    On the other hand, a conclusion that one should not use a Treo if s/he does not accept totally the theory of evolution is religion.

    Of course, as wonderful as the Treo is, there are functional gaps that one must accept in its use. Such gaps don't not render the Treo inoperative. Rather, they just keep faithful users looking for the 900P.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Well, thats where the argument falls down. Considering God as an explanation for an unexplained phenomena is extremely self-defeating.

    If morality is present in animals, it suggest it precedes humans and human explanations (like God), and the causation should thus be sought in evolutionary imperatives and behavior prompts. If we can explain why a rat is 'moral', we wont need to explain why a human is moral by looking to God.

    Surur
    Understood. I just haven't seen a presentation of "morality" in animals.

    This thread was initiated with reference to observation of behavior in animals wherein one member of the species acted in a manner which put at risk its own survival while furthering the likelihood of survival of another member. It did not provide explanation as to the motivation for the behavior.

    Do apes "believe" it is "wrong" to act in a manner that harms another ape? Doubtful, since we've seen scenarios where one ape kills another, or drives others away.

    But, that would be a measure of morality.

    Logically speaking, morality seems counter-productive to survival. Yet, morality is prevalent. Things like justice, honesty, fidelity, peace, and liberty help preserve the species well, but do not give advantage to any particular member. Yet, somehow, we each tend to suscribe to the sense that such characteristics are worthy of promotion.

    Perhaps the case could be made that we are each "wired" with a tendency towards promotiong the survival of the species, even at the expense of our own individual survival. If that is the case, though, we have moved out of the realm of morality.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Do apes "believe" it is "wrong" to act in a manner that harms another ape? Doubtful, since we've seen scenarios where one ape kills another, or drives others away.
    We see the same in humans all the time. Does not mean we do not have the capacity for moral behavior. The more closely we observe animals, the less unique humans appear. If a dolphin is prepared to exert itself to support an ill partner, who are we to say we are more moral for looking after an ill family member? And when an animal adopts another's child, why are we suddenly more moral for doing the same?

    We may feel our behavior is more sophisticated and well developed, but it does not mean our behavior is unique in any way.

    Surur
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions