User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 67

  1. #31
    Member JediVulcanisim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    43

    Default

    From what I can tell there are 5 optional conclusions to derive from this thread:

    Humanoid species were created by another intelligent life form.

    Humans developed into their current existence via micro-evolution over millennia.

    We do not know our biological origin, because genetic material has not been produced to confirm relation. (Sadly, speculation based on observation of the similarities of bone structure can not be considered an absolute science), (And basing our collective understanding of our genetic origins on the musings of a book that can be comparable to a collection of fairy tales can not be considered empirical data).

    Human beings only have the ability to trace their origins based on genetically based data. (Family trees, physical genetic data, etc.)

    OR....

    All of these understandings of origin exist simultaneously and are all 100% truthful.
    Jedi Code (revised by Moi)

    With emotion one must search for peace.
    With the understanding of ignorance one must search for knowledge.
    In passion one must seek serenity.
    In chaos, one must search for harmony.
    In death one may become one with The Force.

  2. #32
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JediVulcanisim View Post
    From what I can tell there are 5 optional conclusions to derive from this thread:

    Humanoid species were created by another intelligent life form.

    Humans developed into their current existence via micro-evolution over millennia.

    We do not know our biological origin, because genetic material has not been produced to confirm relation. (Sadly, speculation based on observation of the similarities of bone structure can not be considered an absolute science), (And basing our collective understanding of our genetic origins on the musings of a book that can be comparable to a collection of fairy tales can not be considered empirical data).

    Human beings only have the ability to trace their origins based on genetically based data. (Family trees, physical genetic data, etc.)

    OR....

    All of these understandings of origin exist simultaneously and are all 100% truthful.
    Now wouldn't that be a thought..
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  3. #33
    Senior Member Mephistopheles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    160

    Default

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no...ger-advocates/

    Definitely related.

    €: Actually, it's quite shocking to me how high the expectations of many people of scientific theories are.... They really think that they have to say us what is TRUTH, and so they deny every theory which isn't 100% true... But I don't think it's even possible to know the truth itself - We just can measure the input we get and look for patterns, and, through scientific methods, explain these patterns, verify them and set them together. And that's exactly what scientific theories are - One way how the world COULD work, and which proved itself as best-working so far. Therefore, they're all-time open for change, if you find a theory which works even more precise.
    They say I only think in form of crunching numbers.....
    -Fall Out Boy

  4. #34
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    What if its the athiests who've been deluded and whose use of reasons to fit their purposes has been ill conceived?

  5. #35
    Senior Member Thisica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    What if its the athiests who've been deluded and whose use of reasons to fit their purposes has been ill conceived?
    Or that no one knows, and in this case, we should all say to ourselves honestly: we don't know!
    “To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.”—Statement from unpublished notes for the Preface to the Opticks (1704) by Newton.

    What do you think about me? And for the darker side, here.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thisica View Post
    Or that no one knows, and in this case, we should all say to ourselves honestly: we don't know!
    To an extent I agree.

    I posted because the original post was, from the very first sentence, extremely loaded and generalising. It was taken as rote that theists forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the finality of death, what if its atheists who forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the existence of a God?

    These sorts of reasoning loops bother me, not just in religion or philosophy. Its dismissive in the extreme, simplistic and content with treating challenging opinions as a "fools paradise" or "bigot's delusion".

    Too often people can find or invent straw men who exemplify, or seem to exemplify, the characteristics they know others beside themselves arent going to like, affect being more powerful than reason, that's often sufficient for their argument to rule the day.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I posted because the original post was, from the very first sentence, extremely loaded and generalising. It was taken as rote that theists forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the finality of death, what if its atheists who forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the existence of a God?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...belief_and_I.Q

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thisica View Post
    Or that no one knows, and in this case, we should all say to ourselves honestly: we don't know!
    This

  9. #39
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into It View Post
    I met these Young Earth Creationists on campus. They're nice guys, but I figured they must be terribly misinformed to deny evolution (at this time, I was totally ignorant of how frequently evolution was denied in America.) So, after determining that they were willing to take a hard look at both sides of this issue (look they did, reason they did not) I wrote them an e-mail in the form of a rebuttal against the evolution page in Answersingenesis.c0m, which is a website they recommended. By the time I was done with the e-mail, it was just over twenty pages long and was bullet-proof (accepting the assumption that my information was accurate). Well, they weren't convinced - they weren't even sold on the age of the earth (not ~6000 yrs), which was the first section of my e-mail.

    (By the way, if any of you are not as well informed about evolution as you should be and either believe it is false, are on the fence, or have no good justification for your belief that it is true, I will send you this e-mail happily).

    I was more distraught about this than I perhaps should have been. It wasn't just that they wasted my time - it was frustrating in a different sense...in the same sense as someone denying the conclusion of a simple and sound deductive argument. It was perplexing.

    It must be partially due to this interaction that I began reading the Bible. I was struck by its potential utility as a tool for spreading atheism. The claims made within are so utterly incredible that I would expect any reasonable person to demand massive amounts of corroborative documentation. There are simply a lot of problems with some of the claims made, and this should be readily evident, but I'm still going to make a couple comments on this, so bear with me for a moment.

    Noah's Ark:
    Where'd the water go?

    How did Noah and his family survive the incredible air pressure that would result from a world-wide flood?

    How did a random catastrophe deposit all fossils all over the world in their proper strata, in the order that evolution would predict?
    (By the way, Creationists account for the splitting of Pangea and other phenomena with a massive catastrophe, and a catastrophe is never even mentioned in Genesis - only rain.

    How did eight people (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives) feed and care for so many animals? I can't even imagine eight people running a zoo, which is a mere fraction of what would be required of them.

    How did we get all of our genetic variation (hundreds of alleles) if all of our genetic information came from only a few people (the maximum number of alleles that can come from the offspring of eight individuals is sixteen). In the case of the animals, each specie should only have four alleles and there would be lots of genetic problems from inbreeding to boot.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    You can go on and on in this fashion without difficulty.

    Richard Dawkins has a quote which I don't exactly recall that says something along the lines of 'those who don't accept evolution are either stupid or ignorant.' This sounds about right to me - if you have the information, it is impossible to deny....right?

    I thought about it, and it isn't true. People who accept the Bible literally are not necessarily stupid, even if they are informed about Biology. So what's the solution to this problem?

    It is rational to hold a level of belief according to the amount of evidence in favor of a claim. That's the obvious objective standard. So how does a fairly intelligent person believe that Jesus walked around casting demons out of people left and right (rather than the more reasonable assumption that what were considered a result of demon-possession thousands of years ago were misdiagnoses and it was most likely sickness caused by germs, not spirits)?

    The solution is simple: They get into a mindset in which evidence is no longer an important factor for their belief about what is true. When I tell you that I have a living great great grandfather who is over four hundred years old, an alarm sounds in your head which can be explained by a quote from Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

    When I tell you of my great grandfather, the alarm sounds and you demand evidence. Yet, when these same people are told of generation after generation of people exceeding six and nine hundred years, as in Genesis, they don't demand evidence. This begs for an explanation - what can account for this discrepancy of standards?

    I have one idea. These people don't demand evidence because they have found a way to live forever. How is it that I can imagine nothing more frightening in principle than the discontinuation of my consciousness, and yet the thought of death does not really scare me? It's not so comfortable to think about, but it certainly is not as horrifying as it should be. Perhaps the recognition of my mortality came coupled with a sort of subconscious block so that I may function without obsession? So, when I find a way to defy death, I tend to hold on to it so dearly as to subconsciously allow myself to lower my rational standard. This accounts for both the denial of Biology and the belief in sacred texts.
    I've just found a concept that sums up the origin of this approach to "faith":
    http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner...hat_is_Re.html

    Pillar #3: Presuppositionalism
    Presuppositionalism is the self-sufficiency of an authoritative Bible. This is the sovereignty of God in revelation. Pesuppositionalism defines our approach to the sovereign Word of God. Too often Christians try to “prove” the Bible to the natural man by presenting evidences from creation or logic. They assume the problem is merely intellectual and that belief will flow naturally from an airtight presentation of the facts.

    But the Bible says that natural man willfully suppresses the truth (Rom. 2:15). The problem is not, therefore, a lack of evidence, but the basic tendency to set oneself up as the ultimate judge of truth. The heart of Eve’s sin lay in exalting herself as the judge of what God had said. (Gen. 3:5,6).

    These presuppositions radically alter our approach to the non-believer. If our defense of the faith consists solely of presenting evidences to his supposed independent reason, we are simply encouraging his independence, Instead of a focus on persuasion with facts and logic, Christian Reconstruction challenges the natural man, who presumes himself to be the ultimate judge of truth. The sword of the Spirit does not need to be proved, it needs to be used. We presuppose that the sword of the Spirit will penetrate the hearts of natural men knowing that the Law of God in their hearts confirms its truth.
    Even though these Reconstructionists are the primary ones advocating the concept under this term, inasmuch as they draw it from Reformation principles, it is basically the foundation of much of Christian argumentation methods.

    It always bothered me, as I believe, yet tend to favor reason and logical arguments. Yet, anytime they run out of logic, they hide behind presupposition, and it employes an ingerious defense mechanism: Notice the reference to the verse Rom.2:15. They interpret this to mean that everybody really knows all the necessary truth about God, but "suppresses" it; basically, pretending not to know.

    So no reason is needed; all you need to do is hit the people with their [willfully committed/known] sin and error (as forceful and vitriolically as needed), and if elect, they'll be convicted and respond (eventually, at least), and if "reprobate", it will just "harden" them as God "willed" (according to chapter 9, their other favorite passage).
    So you can teach that 1 + 1 equals one-in-a-bun, (if you can find the right proof-text for it), and horribly lose any argument on science and reason, yet still walk away smugly confident you "refuted" those "blinded fools".

    Most Christians are not this radical with this system, but they have basically softened it down or de-emphasized it, leading to a bunch of of conflicts in the church with the more hard-liners condemning all the "compromise" in the "modern Church" (with many, this has even surpassed denouncing the non-Christian world!)

    I still struggle with being able to prove the faith. I've come to adopt a more preteristic eschatology (which, ironically, the Reconstructionists hold) in which Romans is describing the Israelites, not all men. The whole system of their arguments on judgment collapses on that point. But of course; we all know that their interpretations are right!

    Otherwise, if YEC and the Flood are to be taken literally, then there must have been some very different laws of the universe back then. Something has got to give on that one, if people are going to be so insistent on it. This is hypothetically possible, as God could have changed them as time went on (though scientists will still look for evidences against that. Like there's even a theory that light moved faster, then slowed down, allowing for a smaller, younger universe).
    I even wonder if it may involve parallel realities, especially when you look at where the Garden of Eden might have been, and why the topography are the area seemed to be different as some have noted. Perhaps Adam was created directly like that, but when he fell, his banishment was to a "copy" of the universe, basically, where entropy reigned, and he was a descendant of the other creatures, and roses bore thorns, the rivers formed differently, etc. and all that other stuff that changed. Again, God could certainly have done that. Perhaps some stuff like the centuries lifespans of humans, plus the water canopy that could be held up above the earth, were retained for a bit, and then sometime after the flood, god made a final change, to the state of the universe we are familiar with today. Sounds farfetched, but it seems some more Ne was needed in these debates as serious as they get!
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  10. #40
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    I'm still reading through this thread I somehow missed last year, but this part rang true to my experience in evangelicalism and with family:

    The solution is simple: They get into a mindset in which evidence is no longer an important factor for their belief about what is true.
    Yes, either that... or at least not needing conclusive evidence.

    But in general, evidence doesn't matter a ton, as long as it's not a smoking gun bit of evidence. There's a lot of evidence one can provide that I've been replied to with, "Well, maybe that's true, but in the end I think just don't believe the overall conclusion is true and/or I still think I'll be proven right in the end." A lot of stuff along the lines of "No, i don't understand why what you're saying seems to true, but I have faith it's not right."

    Different priorities/standards of criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    I posted because the original post was, from the very first sentence, extremely loaded and generalising. It was taken as rote that theists forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the finality of death, what if its atheists who forfeit their reason because they cant deal with the existence of a God?
    Well, all of that is supposition.

    I think the most that can be said is that someone has chosen to believe, and their faith overrides other measures of criteria. It's values-based.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Type and the Use of Emoticons
    By MerkW in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 12:59 PM
  2. Death and the Forfeit of Reason
    By Into It in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 01:24 PM
  3. The Enemies of Reason by Richard Dawkins
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-20-2007, 12:26 PM
  4. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" review...
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 03:34 AM

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