[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
… and I have YET to understand why people think SCIENCE and RELIGION are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
This is where I am… thus my previous post stating the bookmark in my Bible is from Scientific American magazine.
Faith is faith.
[/quote]
x2
PX, the more you keep bringing up cat pics, the more I want to post one.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
… and I have YET to understand why people think SCIENCE and RELIGION are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
This is where I am… thus my previous post stating the bookmark in my Bible is from Scientific American magazine.
Faith is faith.
[/quote]
Not here.
When you have guys literally responding to a post with “the spaghetti monster” I am guessing we won’t be seeing much entrenching mind expanding discussion on this topic.
Wait…CAT PIC!!![/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ano/Anto, the more you bark the more you expose your religiosity.[/quote]
As we converse, I have my feet up on a table, laptop in my lap, diet Dr. Pepper chilling by my side and 30 Rock on Netflix.
Trust me, I ain’t even mad.
But you’re dodging my concerns. You know it, I know it, and everyone following along knows it.
Again: how do you reconcile plagiarizing your debate sound bites from other web sites informing me and others that we are all intellectual lemmings?
Again: why did you think posting an article that states the universe is 13.5 billion years old while referencing data points originating 12.6 billion years ago would support YEC position?
Again: please see my additional questions regarding the article.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
… and I have YET to understand why people think SCIENCE and RELIGION are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
This is where I am… thus my previous post stating the bookmark in my Bible is from Scientific American magazine.
Faith is faith.
[/quote]
Not here.
When you have guys literally responding to a post with “the spaghetti monster” I am guessing we won’t be seeing much entrenching mind expanding discussion on this topic.
Wait…CAT PIC!!![/quote]
[/quote]
YES!!!
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I have faith in science because it is responsible for saving billions of lives and has no ego, dogma or tenets.
[/quote]
To think that, you’ve never been involved with scientists, then. It should be quite obvious to you that your statement is ridiculous even when confined to the science and scientists who are regularly quoted on this site regarding the human body, supplements, and exercise.
If you mean “science” as in the pure, theoretical, unattainable science, then, sure. Just like I’ve heard presentations in geophysics that start with “Let’s assume the Earth is a homogeneous cube…”
Read “Wheat Belly”. Leans very much toward “science saving the world” may not be “good science” at all. There is science, then there is applied science. Neither have much to do with religion and certainly do not render it null and void.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
As for Ano/Anto (why the need for two screennames, sport?) he is just the typical 20-something “I’ve been to university and am ready to invade the land of the creationist” smart ass. A dime a dozen.[/quote]
Because I needed the extra account to agree with myself… but I dun goofed when I made the names so similar and used the same avatar.
It’s actually because my post delays prevent me from actively participating in discussions. The new account let me contribute in real-time before they caught on and put the brakes on it.
Still looking forward to you addressing my concerns, btw.[/quote]
Sweetheart, your “concerns” are not intellectual in nature. Your “concerns” are to rabidly defend your faith and preach old fashioned fire and brimstone sermons to anyone who opposes it.
You’re here to clutch your atheistic crucifix and condemn with righteous indignation.
Now tell me, when do you plan to regroup and redirect your rage at Steely? After all, according to you he must be one of the 3% of scientists who are as dumb as a sack of rocks and should be excommunicated from the fraternity of “objective scientists,” right?[/quote]
Did SteelyD write that he doesn’t believe in evolution?
That the universe is only 6,000 years old?
Can’t pull your own weight in the debate anymore despite studying all of this since I was squirting mustard-colored shit out of my Pullups?
Still dodging my questions, btw.
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I have faith in science because it is responsible for saving billions of lives and has no ego, dogma or tenets. When new information comes to light, it corrects itself. It is the most reliable method for discerning the truth that humans have.
[/quote]
Ha! You obviously haven’t worked in academia before. Science should be all that you say it is, but sadly the folks involved are not so faultless. Pluto is no longer considered a planet largely because of ego. In place of dogma and tenets you have postulates, corollaries, and theorems. Heaven help you should you challenge those long held beliefs. Scientists and engineers are no less flawed then priests, presidents, you or I.
[/quote]
Is this meant to be satirical?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I have faith in science…
[/quote]
Finally.
You finally put into words what I’ve been telling you is your belief system, your faith.[/quote]
The sort of thing that we all do that might be labeled “faith”, at that rudimentary level, is definitely not the same sort of “faith” that religious people (you) are attempting to justify. It’s a dishonest word game to make your unjustified beliefs seem to be more plausible.
It’s like saying “When you really get down to it, we all occasionally have a desire for something that isn’t good for us…” in an attempt to make eating feces appear to be as justified as eating too much ice cream.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Like I said, the superiority complex exuded is why there can’t be discussion openly…at least not in this forum.
I will say that you are a little off if you think there isn’t a choice involved in the belief of God or atheism.
You would only have a point if screaming an agnostic point of view.[/quote]
This is a common misconception. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions. I’ve written this out many times so this time I’ll just paste it:
A: It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you know. For any particular god that you can imagine, a “theist” is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an “atheist” is one who does not have a belief in the god. A “gnostic” is one who knows about the existence of god and an “agnostic” is one who thinks that god is unknowable.
Notice that the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don’t think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don’t choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn’t strictly true and there is no proper word to describe this. You could call such a person an “untheist”, perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a “gnostic atheist”, one who doesn’t believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.
So there are four possible ways one could be.
Case 3 is sometimes referred to as “weak atheism” and case 4 is sometimes referred to as “strong atheism”. Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods.
Finally, it should be pointed out that when a person is asked about their beliefs and replies that they are agnostic, they are avoiding the question and answering a different one. Someone who can’t positively say he/she believes in a god is an atheist.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I just don’t understand why anyone thinks science is somehow “disproving religion”.[/quote]
I’m sure you’re aware, but the argument isn’t so much over whether God can or does exist or not, but that the God spoken of in the bible(and elsewhere) is entirely fabricated. Religious people seem to have a hard time dissociating the two b/c they have so much personal investment into their religion of choice, and no one wants to be told they’ve been believing in bullshit their entire life. A God could exist, but that doesn’t mean it’s the ______ God. There does appear to be a pecking order in nature, and it does seem unusual that we(humans) would be the at the top of that universal pecking order, even more so considering how much of our solar system>>galaxy>>>universe remains to be discovered.
For anyone interested, Robert Sapolsky has some interesting thoughts on religious people throughout history, and how they exhibited signs of schizotypal(sp?) personality.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sweetheart, your “concerns” are not intellectual in nature.[/quote]
Based on what you’ve shown me so far, I am not at all surprised that you do not consider reading comprehension, logic and critical thinking to be intellectual pursuits.
Answer them or admit you goofed. The hypocrisy and irony is an elephant in the thread that needs to be shooed out.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I have faith in science because it is responsible for saving billions of lives and has no ego, dogma or tenets. When new information comes to light, it corrects itself. It is the most reliable method for discerning the truth that humans have.
[/quote]
Ha! You obviously haven’t worked in academia before. Science should be all that you say it is, but sadly the folks involved are not so faultless. Pluto is no longer considered a planet largely because of ego. In place of dogma and tenets you have postulates, corollaries, and theorems. Heaven help you should you challenge those long held beliefs. Scientists and engineers are no less flawed then priests, presidents, you or I.
[/quote]
You can’t imagine how many times I’ve preached this sermon over the years and been ridiculed for it.[/quote]
if he’s not being satirical, he’s wrong, here’s why: Theorems have to be proved first. Dogmas do not.
Theorems and dogmas are very different.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Like I said, the superiority complex exuded is why there can’t be discussion openly…at least not in this forum.
I will say that you are a little off if you think there isn’t a choice involved in the belief of God or atheism.
You would only have a point if screaming an agnostic point of view.[/quote]
This is a common misconception. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions. I’ve written this out many times so this time I’ll just paste it:
[/quote]
None of that changes what I wrote. You can NOT claim you are going by science and state you flat out don’t believe in God and that it was not a choice to make that decision.
That was what I was responding to…someone claiming they weren’t even making a choice at all but that they also did not believe in God.
Reposting…
[quote]anonym wrote:
Oh, and how fucking classic is it that the 6,000yo YEC is citing an article that references data points about shit 12.6 billion years ago as proof?
You’re gonna have to tryharder than that, man.[/quote]
I’m actually gonna go ahead and quote that so you don’t skip over it.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE try and explain how these dots connect in your ahead in a logical manner.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
None of that changes what I wrote. You can NOT claim you are going by science and state you flat out don’t believe in God and that it was not a choice to make that decision.
That was what I was responding to…someone claiming they weren’t even making a choice at all but that they also did not believe in God.[/quote]
Okay, now answer this:
Do you choose to believe mixing red paint and blue paint will yield purple paint? Or does the overwhelming evidence for this force you to believe it?
I did not choose my disbelief in a god, I just haven’t been presented with good evidence for any god claims. If they ever met their burden of proof I would believe.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
None of that changes what I wrote. You can NOT claim you are going by science and state you flat out don’t believe in God and that it was not a choice to make that decision.
That was what I was responding to…someone claiming they weren’t even making a choice at all but that they also did not believe in God.[/quote]
Okay, now answer this:
Do you choose to believe mixing red paint and blue paint will yield purple paint? Or does the overwhelming evidence for this force you to believe it?
I did not choose my disbelief in a god, I just haven’t been presented with good evidence for any god claims. If they ever met their burden of proof I would believe.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, what in science equals the paint analogy? You haven’t been presented with any evidence that our existence was not guided by some force that we don’t understand either.
What you do have…is an astounding amount of order in a system of chaos and randomness that is literally so rare it is mind boggling.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally would find living in a world with the assumption that chaos just accidentally threw it together to be pretty un-fulfilling. I am glad I didn’t make that choice.
[/quote]
There is no CHOICE involved, you…-bite on tongue-!
Let’s see,
“I don’t wanna live in a world where X died and I’m not a superhero, so guess what- I’ll just BELIEVE that”.
We have a mind that is capable of reasoning.
That only works when we constantly try to map our subjective reality to an objective idea of reality -
as precisely as we honestly manage to!
“Religion” (btw, this is just a very weak and vague concept; it’s practically unfit for a real discussion which borders philosophy; it shouldn’t be treated as more then a lemma) really managed to introduce a legion of strawmen to obfuscate open, rational inquiry in modern human societies.
Sometimes T-Nation makes me sad.
[/quote]
Like I said, the superiority complex exuded is why there can’t be discussion openly…at least not in this forum.
I will say that you are a little off if you think there isn’t a choice involved in the belief of God or atheism.
You would only have a point if screaming an agnostic point of view.[/quote]
Where is this aloofness you speak about?
Is it my sense of bewilderment concerning your choice of supernatural faith?
If you define this “god” concept as something that is pretty close to a quasi-literal bible exegesis, then there is no question as to a rational mode of choice.
There might be a lot of wiggle room for various “god” concepts, the vast majority being non-literal regarding holy texts of all kinds.
But now we approach a semantic game of fetch, where you play tortoise and I have to be hare.
If you are even remotely bible-christian in your view of “god”, you have to undertake leaps of faith where your ability to reason is compromised with intent.
“Choice”, however, without some sense of rationality is just instinctive, base behaviour.
If we go so far as to define everthing as a potential “belief” (as push demonstrated so willingly again) , then we can just as well name everyone a believer according to their tastes, whims and emotions.
“Oh, he’s drinking a coke, he’s devout cokian no doubt…”
Of course, there are lots of decisions we reach because of external sources.
But the rational mind is pretty good at veryfying data en passant, as well as damanding proof according to the quality of the claim.
The bible’s trick here is that it’s practically a game without entry fee, without stakes - nobody ever veryfied anything here.
Try to do that within a non-religious complex and tell me it’d be rational to do so.