User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 163

  1. #81
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    It doesn't change religion being mythology. Nor did I ever deny that a religious person could also believe in science. That doesn't mean all scientists or more fact appreciative people, will accept fiction as truth.
    You get an A+ in sophistry.

  2. #82
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    It's highly ironic to posit a contrast between the Periodic Table and Christianity, when its own developer believed in Christianity. Kinda like how the first astronomer to develop the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest.

    So goes to further show that the ditchomy between religion and science is a false one.
    The two theories are separate, even if a single individual can hold both of them. So yes, there isn't a dichotomy between science and religion. They aren't both on the same scale, where an increase in one decreases the other, or something.

    However, there are people on both sides who think there is a dichotomy, and try to point out flaws in one by showing the strengths in the other, or there are others who think they are the same thing. Both these positions are incorrect.

    So um... I guess I agree with you.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolla View Post
    That isn't really the point. He just wanted to twist the issue so that religious hatred would seem like the same thing as defending your life.
    Religious crimes are among the worst that have happened in history. Really, none are honorable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    You get an A+ in sophistry.
    I learned from religious people. I should get an A++.

  4. #84
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolla View Post
    That isn't really the point. He just wanted to twist the issue so that religious hatred would seem like the same thing as defending your life.
    Considering that fighting for ones country is based upon devotion to a civil religion, trying to claim a difference between that and fighting for ones faith is once again hair-splitting.

  5. #85
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    I learned from religious people. I should get an A++.
    Ok if you say so...............

  6. #86
    Senior Member Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneWithSoul View Post
    I, honestly, don't see why people don't believe in it- it's stunning, and I find it common and practical sense for evolution to have and be taking place! I wonder what people think if they don't believe in evolution? So much of science is based around the theory of evolution, and there are facts regarding the theory. Is it those believing in Adam and Eve as the first humans that don't believe in evolution?
    If believing in evolution means disbelieving what you believe the world to be, it would be much harder for you to do so.

    I think a lot of people don't realize that science, while helpful in some regards, is ultimately as unreliable as religion. Neither adequately explains everything about life, or about the nature of the universe. You can't understand the box while you're inside it, and I think that's something a lot of people need to understand. We don't even know if the box we're in exists. To say that one thing is right, or wrong, is to say that we CAN know. And we simply can't. We have no idea who is right or who is wrong, and to believe completely and wholly that something is real, including the people and lives around you, is false.

    Question everything, but at the same time, accept everything. You'll be able to make some sense out of the chaos for yourself. But don't believe what others tell you blindly. They might think they know the truth. But don't let the truth be handed to you, because it may be a lie. You need to reach out to the truth.

    (Lol Persona 4)
    "Can you set me free from this dark inner world? Save me now, last beats in the soul.."

    Fonewearl and proud of it!

    I (85%) - N (80%) - F (35%) - P (90%)
    O: 94% C: 18% E: 21% A: 94% N: 38%
    9w1 (SP, SX, SO)
    (9, 5, 4)
    RCUAI (Primary Calm)

  7. #87
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The Jewish Existentialist Lev Shestov made an insightful remark on the issue:
    modern day 'reform' Judaism is practically a secular religion... (they make no comment on eschatology, they dont follow all of their own rules anymore, God is now all of the sudden not an asshole, even though they stopped making sacrifices...etc)


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Alright then, but let's also get scrap the erronous philosophy of scientism in order to achieve that.
    you know what your problem is? you're putting the HISTORICAL method above the method of science. There are 10 steps to showing why science is a superior method to reading out of a 2000 year old book:


    1. Religious people wish to make "Gods Word", the most undeniable truth there is (ahead of scientific studies, etc).

    2. However, even in a world where God's words were true, his *word* couldn't be the most undeniable thing there is because you have to be *here* *experiencing* the *reading/seeing* in order to read the word.

    3. The most *fundamental* anything is actually the fact that we are experiencing something.... right... *NOW*

    4. Math and Logic are the best truth seeking methods because they are the least ambiguous and have component simplicity.

    5. Science methodology attempts to apply these methods to repeatable experiences in the *now* in order to determine what is *NOW*

    6. Historical methodology attempts to determine what *NOW* was way back in the past.

    7. The two methods, when at their best, really have no difference! They both strive for convergence and consistency and make use of logic and math when possible, due to component simplicity and lack of ambiguity.

    8. The difference is that history has the disadvantage of trying to determine and work with *NOW*, LONG AFTER its already happened!

    9. You were not there to see if Jesus actually performed miracles (ie you are relying on the historical method to actually discern this)

    10. As methods go, the science method trumps the historical method simply because the farther you get from *NOW*, the more issues arise with accurately describing that moment.

    (PS - evolution of the past can be inferred because we can perform radio carbon dating *NOW* and observe virus/bacteria evolution *NOW* ... you cant exactly go see the burning bush *NOW*)

    Faulting the method of science is laughable when your proposed alternative is reliance on the historical method.

  8. #88
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    If believing in evolution means disbelieving what you believe the world to be, it would be much harder for you to do so.

    I think a lot of people don't realize that science, while helpful in some regards, is ultimately as unreliable as religion. Neither adequately explains everything about life, or about the nature of the universe. You can't understand the box while you're inside it, and I think that's something a lot of people need to understand. We don't even know if the box we're in exists. To say that one thing is right, or wrong, is to say that we CAN know. And we simply can't. We have no idea who is right or who is wrong, and to believe completely and wholly that something is real, including the people and lives around you, is false.[/URL]

    (Lol Persona 4)
    1. yes we do know! the reality we live in, IS the reality we experience. Even if there was some matrix or Cartesian demon, if we could never cross over to the "TRUE" reality, then this reality would for all intensive purposes BE our experiences. No need to "question reality".

    Therefore, unless you have some other existence to tell us about, you can simmer down about "well we arent even sure if any of this exists!"

    2. Science doesnt have an explanation for everything . Religion has no such monopoly. There are naturalistic explanations to everything from beauty, love, morality to existence, how we got here, etc. The very fact that naturalism can even postulate viable ideas, is a blow to religion. Naturalism talks about actual things. Religion talks about immaterial things. there is no fundamental difference between immaterial things and 'nothings'. There is your religion: nothing.

  9. #89
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    I don't believe in Gravity. Nor Germ Theory. Nor the Theory of the Atom.
    Which theory of the atom?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #90
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    So for those who don't believe in evolution, which part of the theory do you disbelieve?

    1) That generations of life have variation.
    2) That the environment culls which part of life survives to create the next generation

    Note, many scientists, ans religious people have stated that evolution and religion can co-exist.
    The objection I've run into most often is the arbitrary line they draw between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution".
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. What type do you think a majority of mafia/mobsters would be?
    By swordpath in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-07-2010, 11:05 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-18-2008, 12:08 AM
  3. Which Natural Disaster would be most interesting to see?
    By ladypinkington in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 04:00 AM
  4. [NF] If you've ever wondered what a world of NFs would be like...
    By wwbeachbum161 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 09:13 PM
  5. A fig by any other name would be a Newt!
    By TheNewt in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO