Awesome, we achieved something like freedom of religion and now a couple of dumpasses try to use it to keep authorities busy and criticize others believes. I'd love to wait several months until a court deals with my problems because they are busy with guys like him.
I am a pastafarian as well, and will not stand for the oppression of my pastafarian brothers & sisters! Rise Pastafarians, Rise & take back our holy land of Newark NJ!
[ QUOTE ]
Awesome, we achieved something like freedom of religion and now a couple of dumpasses try to use it to keep authorities busy and criticize others believes. I'd love to wait several months until a court deals with my problems because they are busy with guys like him.
Really raises some interesting questions about freedom of religion and stuff though - there has been a lot of controversy in the UK recently about Muslim dress code, like pupils being forced not to wear veils due to them making the child hard to understand and difficult to interact with other kids.
If other religions are allowed to practise their dress codes with impunity, why shouldn't a Pastafarian be allowed to dress like a pirate? The only thing it's lacking compared to, say, Christianity or Islam is just a lack of a thousand odd years of tradition.
[ QUOTE ]
Next thing ya know, pastafarian zealots will be chopping their own legs off just to get a peg leg. OR hands chopped off for a hook?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hahaha, in Puzzle pirates, our players are routinely intentionally crashing their hard earned ships at sea, chock full of players in hopes that they lose an appendage or eye. So strange.
Christians question a theory that explains the development of life in the past millions of years. A pastafary guy wants to wear pirate costumes in class. If you even think about comparing those 2 concerns I don't think you keep in mind how scientific progress works, what scietific theories are and what exactly the right of freedom of religion protects and what abuse of rights is.
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing it's lacking compared to, say, Christianity or Islam is just a lack of a thousand odd years of tradition.
[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds really overconfident. If you could prove this or find enough circumstantial evidence to convince a good judge, then you'd be rich by now and very famous too. You would instantly end one of the most important discussions of mankind. It's very well possible, that christianity is true (whatever that means with all the different interpretations of the bible) while the probability of Pastafary being true is really low (I admit it's there though, but It would be pure coincidence).
But seriously, anyone saying a traditional religion is more true than say being a Jedi or a Pastafarian, etc is just plain ignorant. A religion is a belief someone follows based on faith regardless of how true it is. Some will die for their beliefs, as it is plain to see in today's society.
Sure, you may think a flying spaghetti monster isn't real, and what a stupid religion that is dressing up light pirates. Oh, but this all mighty "God" created everything and a dude rises from the death and walks on water (and sorts of other things you read about in fantasy novels) and that's just fine and dandy.
I put this question forth to you, if "God" created everything, then who or what created "God"?
-caseyjones
Disclaimer:If anything I say is offensive to anyone, I apologise for I mean no disrespect.
[ QUOTE ]
If you could prove this or find enough circumstantial evidence to convince a good judge, then you'd be rich by now and very famous too. You would instantly end one of the most important discussions of mankind. It's very well possible, that christianity is true (whatever that means with all the different interpretations of the bible) while the probability of Pastafary being true is really low (I admit it's there though, but it would be pure coincidence).
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, the only major difference between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and God, is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't first written about thousands of years ago.
Why would I possibly want to try and convince a judge about something that can, as far as we know, never be proven to be true?
In fact the ONLY information about the existance of any Christian god is contained in the Bible.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that points to a god of any sort, be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Pastafarian.
I refer you to Russell's teapot argument... IMHO it's a very good analogy for the belief in a god.
You can believe in anything you like, however if it's something that has zero scientific evidence for its existence, then it's up to you to prove its existence, not up to other people to disprove it.
You keep saying the word "scientific" ... can you please point me to one single piece of scientific evidence that there is a god of any sort?
You should check out this lecture by Ken Miller - he's a Christian theist who nevertheless believes in evolution, and rightly discards many of the Bible's verses which blatantly contradict solid scientific evidence. He's a sensible man, and well worth listening to.
I've been sitting here for 5 minutes now, thinking what I should answer to this (caseyjones post). But it's so hard since you just expressed your opinion without any argument. I think bunnies are dump, anyone believing something else is plain ignorant?
Who says god was created? In our experience (it's more complicated now with quantum physics though) every effect has a cause. But it also seems that this pattern relies on time. If now god created time, how can we be sure effect and cause or causality are still the categories we should be using?
And if you read the first sentences of the bible, you'll notice that it says "in the beginning, god created...). I don't know if you make the difference in english, but in hebrew the word used is the one for a place, not a time. This could suggest that there was no time back then.
and @ MoP: God might only be referred to in a Christian bible, but Jesus is referred to in many religious texts. and the texts that have Jesus in them also have a God. Be it Allah, or whatever. who says they're not one in the same?
Limecat. And Happy BDay Justin! Too many birthdays as of late *NO THREAD FOR YOU* Edit: Dammit, was wrong.
And eh, there's nothing retarded about regarding the beginning as a crash of particles and gasses. It's fully probable, we've had quite a few millenia to get to where we are, methinks. : ) Saying that's impossible is like saying we couldn't have evolved from a primordial soup. That would have blown, it would have been like playing the first boring minigame of spore for your entire lifespan. (Avg 30 seconds?)
Seeing as all of religious texts refering to Jesus were born in a decently localized area, and were quite a bit more homogenous than they are right now, you can't rule out that they simply influenced eachother. If I made the King Uly's Bible of Pastafarianism, I would have still believed in his great noodly appendage, and the great thread lock apocalypse that was soon to come.
Either way, I vote we all shut our godda- oop, fucking mouths!
On second thought... *This* time we'll convince eachother to throw away their beliefs.
Seriously, the only major difference between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and God, is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't first written about thousands of years ago.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's wrong. The early christians said they made spiritual experiences of some sort, while the Pastafaris came up with their theory to criticize others. Of course there are hundrets of other differences, but that's the one that matters for this discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact the ONLY information about the existance of any Christian god is contained in the Bible.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that points to a god of any sort, be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Pastafarian.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is also no evidence against a god. Yes, we can describe the way nature works very well with the language of mathematics. But it's a really fundamental mistake if you believe our description of nature is it's explanation. I suggest you read Wittgenstein if you never thought about this.
And once you found out we're sitting in a world we can describe to some extend, but not explain at all, you'll begin to wonder.
This is the beginning point of thousands of years of philosophy. Modern scientific cognitions add interesting points to the discussion. Once you'll read about non-determinate events in quantum physics, you can't help but wonder where the new "information" comes from. Many people believe it's not coming from nowhere, including people like Einstein (he was trying to solve this riddle by searching for hidden variables).
There is certainly no evidence in a scientific way, but many things that make you wonder.
[ QUOTE ]
You can believe in anything you like, however if it's something that has zero scientific evidence for its existence, then it's up to you to prove its existence, not up to other people to disprove it.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you're talking about is called burden of proof. A rule of burden of proof is only used in a process because the judge does not want to find material truth, he's looking for formal truth. If you're interested in material truth, then you can't use rules for the burden of proof. You'll find this in any book about the basics of law.
[ QUOTE ]
You keep saying the word "scientific" ... can you please point me to one single piece of scientific evidence that there is a god of any sort?
[/ QUOTE ]
There is none as mentioned above, but none against it either. I still find the thought of a prima causa interesting though and never heard a solution to this scientific problem. I guess you could consider an insolvable scientific problem an evidence for metaphysical reality.
[ QUOTE ]
You should check out this lecture by Ken Miller - he's a Christian theist who nevertheless believes in evolution, and rightly discards many of the Bible's verses which blatantly contradict solid scientific evidence. He's a sensible man, and well worth listening to.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are hundreds of ways to read the bible. I don't know which one I prefer and I respect if he's trying to bring the two ideas theories together.
LordScottish, if you think bunnies are dump, then so be it. I respect that if that's your belief. If I didn't really have an argument that is probably because I don't care much for religion and don't want to get involved in a massive debate. Religion is a touchy subject to debate over because most people will get defensive when you start saying shit about their beliefs.
I guess my argument was that people who dismiss other religions as hokey or stupid is ignorant. Sure there are some pretty questionable religions out there and certainly a lot I don't agree with, but I'm not going to dismiss the religion or the people that follow it.
[ QUOTE ]
Who says god was created?
[/ QUOTE ]
I know I don't. As far as I'm concerned, God doesn't exist.
-caseyjones
Yeah, I'm done with this topic. I can feel this is going to get pretty nasty soon. Once again, I apologise to anyone I've offended.
if there is no evidence for or against a god then this whole debate is highly subjective, if i want to believe that the supreme being is a spaghetti monster who are you to question my beliefs, and you better respect and recognize my beliefs if you want your beliefs to recieve the same treatment.
henceforth with that said i believe any kind of rules, dogmas or teachings for every religion should have a "BTW we could all be wrong and you need to decide for yourself" stated at the end.
I for myself believe that there is no god, and there is no fate, i believe i'm a sack of meat, and when i die i die, all of the things that i achieve are undone and whatever form of temporary immortality i may have achieved in my lifetime is all swept away, and therefore i need to reaffirm my existance with every breath.
To question my beliefs would be an exercise in ludicracy, since god presents no proof of its existance it is therefore impossible for any human being to convince me with any degree of certainty that my beliefs are wrong and unjust. Which renders this debate pointless and entirely offensive to anyone and everyone who believes anything. why isn't this thread closed?
LordScottish: [ QUOTE ]
That's wrong. The early christians said they made spiritual experiences of some sort, while the Pastafaris came up with their theory to criticize others.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I accept that the Pastafarian "religion" is an idea designed to criticise religion in general, you cannot possibly argue that using "the early Christians said..." has any sort of meaning at all.
The Mahabharata (the main Hindu text) dates from around the 5-6th century BCE, it contains many things that early Hindus "said", about many gods, reincarnation and things. Does that mean it's true? Just because it's been around for a long time does not mean it has any more credibility.
[ QUOTE ]
There is also no evidence against a god.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is also no evidence against pink candyfloss unicorns, is that any reason to believe they are true? Would it help if someone had written a book on pink candyfloss unicorns 2000 years ago? Could it be possible that the person who wrote such a book 2000 years ago was a deluded or insane old man?
[ QUOTE ]
But it's a really fundamental mistake if you believe our description of nature is it's explanation.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said this. I have never attempted to say I have an explanation for nature or the universe - we have theories and starting points, we have descriptions for nature, but surely it's OK for us humans to say "we don't know", rather than relying on some ancient texts to lend us some comfort in the world we don't understand? I don't think it's reasonable to jump to a conclusion concerning a deity without actually examining the world around us - just because we don't have explanations for things, does not automatically mean it's a creation of some divine power. Please do not assume that you have thought about this any more than I may have. We have different viewpoints and have read different texts on the subject, but that does not make either of us uninformed or foolish, so please don't try to put words in my mouth.
[ QUOTE ]
There is certainly no evidence in a scientific way, but many things that make you wonder.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they make me wonder how life on this planet (and maybe others) began - and it is precisely this wonder which drives science to discover more about this world and universe.
[ QUOTE ]
What you're talking about is called burden of proof. A rule of burden of proof is only used in a process because the judge does not want to find material truth, he's looking for formal truth. If you're interested in material truth, then you can't use rules for the burden of proof. You'll find this in any book about the basics of law.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you keep referring to law? I'm not trying to prove any of this in a court, in front of a judge or anything... although if I tried I'm pretty sure my side of the argument would have more tangible evidence than yours
If you must mention burden of proof, though, I think it's more reasonable to use it in the philosophical sense, rather than the legal sense. I'm not sure why you're talking about material truth and formal truth, it seems like you're using overly technical jargon where it's not required, to confound the subject matter and make it sound more intelligent than it is.
[ QUOTE ]
There is no scientific evidence as mentioned above, but none against it either. I still find the thought of a prima causa interesting though and never heard a solution to this scientific problem. I guess you could consider an insolvable scientific problem an evidence for metaphysical reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not an insolvable problem... it's just that we haven't got round to solving it yet. To say it's insolvable now is just giving up without any effort to explore the possibilities. Theoretical physicists are working on solving this problem right now. No argument in science is, in principle, unsolvable. As soon as the problem becomes unsolvable then it isn't science at all. It may just be that we do not currently have the means to test the problem - that does not mean that we will never be able to test it.
The "none for, none against" argument isn't any help either. If you're comparing one form of creationist belief with another, then I agree - there is no evidence for a divine creator, and none against either - how could there be? However, as soon as you compare creation with evolution, you will find that while there is no evidence for or against creation, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, and none against. This tends to tip the balance somewhat, when it comes to empirical scientific theories...
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know which one I prefer and I respect if he's trying to bring the two ideas theories together.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ken Miller is not trying to bring the two ideas together. It is impossible to reasonably believe all parts of the Bible, and simultaneously accept the theory of evolution. What Miller does is compartmentalise the two - he keeps the theory of evolution purely in the field of science and empirical evidence, and keeps his religious beliefs entirely separate to that - he does not let religious dogma or ancient bible verses get in the way of solid scientific evidence.
He is a very good case for showing that one can have religious beliefs, while still pursuing acceptable and rational scientific explanations for the world and the universe without resorting to the fall-back position of "it's in the Bible, it must be true!".
Animatr: I'm not even going to attempt to refute your "it's retarded" post ... it's fairly obvious that you haven't researched any actual science relating to the development of the universe as we know it.
saying that God shows no proof of its existence is like saying that emotions show no proof of their existence. you cant quantify or explain love for instance, but it's a real thing.
i will say that, I don't believe in any religion. but I also dont think there isnt a god. I don't believe in religion because it is created by men, not by any one up high.
god prooves he exists all the time. if he hasnt to you yet, then one day he will, and you'll either recognize it, or blow it off as coincidence, or just something weird. and all I have to do is look outside to see proof. nature is so systemmatical that it would be very hard for anyone to try and convince me that it was all a happy accident. and evolution makes no fucking sense if you ask me. maybe this is explained, but if man evolved from a monkey, then why are there still monkies? why didnt they all evolve? you could continue to ask that question all the way down the line of things we evolved from.
i guess the way I look at it, is what if you're wrong? what if there was a god and you chose not to believe he even existed, and then you die, and now you're eternally screwed?
that's a big lottery you're playing. I don't think you have to go to church every Sunday and chant and speak in weird tongues and shit, I certainly don't. But i think if you follow the 10 rules and just try and be a decent person, and beleive that there is a possibility that God exists, then you're set.
I've reserachedit MoP, I just think it's not logical. Im not saying that the world being created in seven days is logical either, it isn't. I don't know what to believe about creation honestly and I don't think anyone will ever truly know and I'm fine with that. to me, that shits in the past and it doesnt matter. what matters to me is my future.
didnt mean to come off as saying it was retarded or anything, so I apologize. just, that it doesnt make much sense to me is all.
Okay Animatr, but if I am going to believe in a god, which one should I believe in?
It is not hard to educate yourself about evolution, but to answer your question, the reason that humans and other primates both still exist is because they evolved in different environments. Speciation is cause by a population being trapped in one area and then adapting to it.
What I don't understand is how can anyone who believe in cancer and not believe in evolution-- it boggles my mind.
[ QUOTE ]
Christians question a theory that explains the development of life in the past millions of years. A pastafary guy wants to wear pirate costumes in class. If you even think about comparing those 2 concerns I don't think you keep in mind how scientific progress works, what scietific theories are and what exactly the right of freedom of religion protects and what abuse of rights is.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only real difference between Intelligent Design and the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is that one is dogma masquerading as science (in order to inject religion into public schools), while the other is a satire on the former; neither is more scientifically valid than the other. Intelligent Design isn't science, even if you have a VERY loose definition of "science."
You should look up the history of "Intelligent Design." It all started in the 80s, when the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in public schools. In response to the ruling, a company that was publishing a creationism textbook titled "Of Pandas and People" decided to change every occurrence of the word "creationism" with "intelligent design" and "creator" with "intelligent designer", and thus, Intelligent Design was born (i.e. it's just creationism with a different label).
[ QUOTE ]
i think that if anybody believes that there is not a greater existence of some kind and that the world and everything in it was a crash of particles and gasses, then I just have to say WTF at that. it's just retarded. put whatever name to the higher existence you want, but thinking otherwise is silly and ignorant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Am I retarded if I believe neither? I don't know if there is a "higher existence" (what ever the hell that means... the term is ambiguous to the point of being meaningless), and I honestly don't care. I am completely agnostic. If some "higher existence" can be proven, or if it can be disproven, what would that change? Everything would be the same as it's always been, so what's the point in clinging to one unprovable belief and then calling people "retarded" for rejecting that belief?
I can't answer that man. I guess Im not a scince guy. I have an open mind and am willing to listen to all sorts of ideas. I don't want to tell people what to beleive. I guess I'll back out of this since it kind of seems silly. it's a good debate, but nothing can ever come out of it. to me evolution will never make sense. not because i dont grasp the concept, just becuase it seems wrong to me, like it doesnt add up.
to others, evolution is the only way they can explain their existence and that's cool.
at keysersoze:
not trying to call you retarded man. I apolopgize. I'll edit that comment in a sec. i guess proving if there was a higher existence(i used that term to cover any religion )wouldnt change a lot on a global scale. you cant change anyone's mind uness they want it to be changed.
Animatr: Heh, I totally agree with you on what you say about religion being created by men.
That said, you seem to be quite confused about how the whole evolution thing is working. It's not like it happened in the past and reached a point. It's going on right now...
Check this link out for a fairly concise definition of evolution, maybe that will help you understand why, as you put it, "there are still monkies". There's also a ton of other useful information relative to that on TalkOrigins, and I highly recommend you pick up Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker", it's quite an entertaining read and does a very good job of explaining many elements of evolution and natural selection that you don't seem to grasp fully right now.
My girlfriend also recommends you read "The Ancestor's Tale", also by Dawkins, which explains more about the monkeys thing. I haven't read it so I can't speak for myself there, I try only to recommend texts which I have read and understand myself.
Even if you don't agree with Dawkins' writings, he makes for damn interesting reading, and you'll definitely come away feeling generally more knowledgeable and confident about the whole subject.
As for what you say in your last paragraph, that's called Pascal's Wager... I agree that living by sensible rules is a good idea, you have a better chance of doing good things and helping others - but where those rules come from is entirely up to the individual. If someone is a good person, why should it matter what makes them do good things? If I went around the world giving as much help as I can to all the needy people in the world, surely it doesn't matter if I was doing it thinking I'd go to Valhalla for my good deeds and avoid having the wolf eat the sun and the serpent wrap around the earth, than if i was just doing it out of a genuine feeling of goodwill to other people?
There's no reason that one single set of rules (like the Bible's 10 commandments) are the only way that any person can live a good life. I'm pretty sure that's what you're getting at anyway.
Sorry for being so long-winded, I genuinely find this topic interesting, and I'd be happy to try and help explain any of the things you don't understand about the science of evolution and the universe.
cool MoP. thanks for the link. I guess when it concerns evolution, I've made up my mind. if it's real, then I personally believe it was assisted. if that makes sense.
eh, I'm done for now. I genuinely respect all of your opinions and look forward to reading the rest of this.
Evolution is certainly not the only way I can explain my existence. It could be that 3 seconds ago I was made by some god, or that space aliens bred and populated the planet, but the one that seems the most likely to be true is evolution. I have done the lab experiments, and I have seen it. I haven't ever seen a god make a person.
[ QUOTE ]
What I don't understand is how can anyone who believe in cancer and not believe in evolution-- it boggles my mind.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or HIV... or influenza... or DNA... or heredity... the list goes on and on. If evolution didn't occur, then HIV wouldn't be a problem because it wouldn't be able to mutate in order to defeat our immune system.
While it's good that this is going through the proper legal motions, to re-enforce all these rights, I don't really think an Atheist dressing like a pirate for a religion he doesn't believe is true in hopes of making a n anti-christian statement is exactly the same as some fundamentalists truly believing some theory is an affront to their god.
Edit: - Also, with how much of the bible and all is metaphor, I don't really understand why most Christians have a propblem with evolution, personally; who's to say, if their god's real, he isn't just guiding all that stuff?
I dunno. I don't really like to get into religious debates, so I'll probably bow out now.
Edit2: Rawkstar wins the thread.
Edit2390239: [ QUOTE ]
Okay Animatr, but if I am going to believe in a god, which one should I believe in?
It's true that many believe in the Bible because someone told them so, and shun those who disagree, but it's also true that many immediately choose not to believe in the Bible simply because it contains supernatural events.
My belief in the Bible, among other evidence, is based on the *historical* evidence of Jesus' life and resurreciton. Most of the New Testament is made up of historical accounts or letters that contain historical accounts. These were selected by the early church as being accurate accounts of events and written by those who were "inspired by God." Notice the phrase "historical accounts." These accounts were witnessed by living people and recorded by multiple other people. Some of those that witnessed the accounts met gruesome deaths through tortune, and continued to support their account until their last breath. The combination of these provides a lot of historical evidence.
If you don't want to believe in the Bible, that's fine. But please do so because of a lack of historical evidence, not because of some grudge. I'm sure many of you have had bad experiences with religion. Christian living is supposed to show others how amazing God's love is. I'm sorry many of you haven't caught the same glimpse I have. Please just try not to judge Christianity by hysterical people who freak out about various cultural media. People are dumb, not religions.
Oh, and for the record, Darwin wrote in his memoirs that much of his theory of evolution relied on how simple cells were supposed to be - the "basic building blocks of life" as he called them. If they turned out to be complicated, he felt that the strength of his case would be much weaker. Considering how incredibly complicated cells are turning out to be, it'd be interesting to see what he'd have to say about this if he were still around.
i wasn't aware that internet memes were now a recongnized religion in the US... and i wouldn't be surprised if the kid wore the suit just to claim discrmination and sue when the school told him to take it off.
[ QUOTE ]
i wasn't aware that internet memes were now a recongnized religion in the US...
[/ QUOTE ]
Religions themselves are memes. In fact, Richard Dawkins (who is credited with creating the term "meme") has referred to religious memes as sorts of "mind viruses." If you read animatr's post where he suggests to believe in God as a sort of insurance just in case God really does exist, then you might see how religious dogma perpetuates itself much in the same way than an internet viral ad does.
If by "historical" evidence you mean - Written by men at a time when...
- The world was flat (and the center of the universe certainly)
- The oceans were ruled by sea monsters
- The first passages were written by a man who knew someone who knew someone, 60 years after that persons death.
Is it that surprising that people question these texts as historical fact?
Why are the other old religions - i.e. Zoastrianism, Islam, Buddism, Judism, Hindu etc., not historical fact as well?
You also make reference to the New Testament. You realize that the original "historical" facts/bible was edited/re-written/amended because it was so un-pallatable? Shouldn't the Old Testament be the historical fact..the original texts? Couldn't Zoastrianism be re-written to be more reasonable as well?
There is SOME (not much) physical/scientific evidence that Jesus was a human being, thats the only true "historical" evidence on the matter. You can believe what you want, but the bible is not a historical account by todays means IMO.
While I accept that the Pastafarian "religion" is an idea designed to criticise religion in general, you cannot possibly argue that using "the early Christians said..." has any sort of meaning at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you say makes it impossible to research history at all. If you say what early christians said isn't of any value at all (although the bible has been a historical source in the past that taught us about certain civilisations quite some time before we found the first evidence for their existence), you'll get into a series of problems. I could understand if you said they all lied or they had mental problems. It's up to us now to decide whether they lied, they were mistaken, said the truth, had mental problems or any mixture of the above.
I myself wouldn't easily call all of them mistaken and obiviously also all of nowadays people who have spiritual experiences.
Who knows what the authors of the Mahabharata have seen? There is a passage in the first book of moses which speaks about how the great heroes of the old times and the giants were created. This passage could explain everything from the greek myths to other religions.
[ QUOTE ]
There is also no evidence against pink candyfloss unicorns, is that any reason to believe they are true? Would it help if someone had written a book on pink candyfloss unicorns 2000 years ago? Could it be possible that the person who wrote such a book 2000 years ago was a deluded or insane old man?
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no empirical evidence for an endless amount of things, would you really say none of them exist? The probability of you being right is very low. And if you look into modern theories of multiversum (spelling?) or the string theory, you'll notice that this doesn't prevent scientists to speculate about them either. Why shouldn't we speculate about other things we can't find empirical evidence for?
[ QUOTE ]
I never said this. I have never attempted to say I have an explanation for nature or the universe - we have theories and starting points, we have descriptions for nature, but surely it's OK for us humans to say "we don't know", rather than relying on some ancient texts to lend us some comfort in the world we don't understand? I don't think it's reasonable to jump to a conclusion concerning a deity without actually examining the world around us - just because we don't have explanations for things, does not automatically mean it's a creation of some divine power. Please do not assume that you have thought about this any more than I may have. We have different viewpoints and have read different texts on the subject, but that does not make either of us uninformed or foolish, so please don't try to put words in my mouth.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand those are fundamental borders of knowledge. We don't have any scientific theories about what causality exactly is because you can't find empirical evidence for it. This is the realm of philosophy, not science. Scientific methods are not suited for this kind of question. We simply have to rely on speculation there, so it's definately smart to look at the attempts we have in the history of our world, and religions are among those attempts.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they make me wonder how life on this planet (and maybe others) began - and it is precisely this wonder which drives science to discover more about this world and universe.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the kind of wondering I was talking about. There are some areas in science we are bound to not make any progress anymore. There are absolute borders of cognition, most scientists agree on this. With modern physics we're coming closer to them. Those borders are NOT the motivation to make scientific progress obviously.
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you keep referring to law? I'm not trying to prove any of this in a court, in front of a judge or anything... although if I tried I'm pretty sure my side of the argument would have more tangible evidence than yours
[/ QUOTE ]
I keep refering to law because it has in my opinion the most disciplined argumentation and use of language. It's a huge help to apply this knowledge to any debate with philosophical content.
[ QUOTE ]
If you must mention burden of proof, though, I think it's more reasonable to use it in the philosophical sense, rather than the legal sense. I'm not sure why you're talking about material truth and formal truth, it seems like you're using overly technical jargon where it's not required, to confound the subject matter and make it sound more intelligent than it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
You could also say truth doesn't care if it's proved or not. If someone murdered someone, his acquittal will not change this, although the sentence was correct due to the burden of proof. He is technically innocent due to the burden of proof though. This example shows that you can't use the burden of proof argument if you're interested in truth. It great to organize a good discussion, but all you'll achieve is formal truth.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not an insolvable problem... it's just that we haven't got round to solving it yet. To say it's insolvable now is just giving up without any effort to explore the possibilities. Theoretical physicists are working on solving this problem right now. No argument in science is, in principle, unsolvable. As soon as the problem becomes unsolvable then it isn't science at all. It may just be that we do not currently have the means to test the problem - that does not mean that we will never be able to test it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most like this is exactly the case. Several absolute borders of cognition are known today.
[ QUOTE ]
The "none for, none against" argument isn't any help either. If you're comparing one form of creationist belief with another, then I agree - there is no evidence for a divine creator, and none against either - how could there be? However, as soon as you compare creation with evolution, you will find that while there is no evidence for or against creation, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, and none against. This tends to tip the balance somewhat, when it comes to empirical scientific theories...
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not as clear as you think it is. I'd rather not discuss evolution against creation here though. But you should know that there are many scientists who criticize macroevolution in general and that the exact way evolution would have taken place is highly disputed . But don't bother to answer this here, this discussion is taking enough time the way it is.
[ QUOTE ]
Ken Miller is not trying to bring the two ideas together. It is impossible to reasonably believe all parts of the Bible, and simultaneously accept the theory of evolution. What Miller does is compartmentalise the two - he keeps the theory of evolution purely in the field of science and empirical evidence, and keeps his religious beliefs entirely separate to that - he does not let religious dogma or ancient bible verses get in the way of solid scientific evidence.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, that's another way to read the bible. I can see you like this one the most.
To question my beliefs would be an exercise in ludicracy, since god presents no proof of its existance it is therefore impossible for any human being to convince me with any degree of certainty that my beliefs are wrong and unjust. Which renders this debate pointless and entirely offensive to anyone and everyone who believes anything. why isn't this thread closed?
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no prove for anything outside a formal system (for example mathematics) and law, and this isn't heavily disputed knowledge. If you think your attitude through, you'll end up believing nothing. Not even you being a piece of meat.
It's not an insolvable problem... it's just that we haven't got round to solving it yet. To say it's insolvable now is just giving up without any effort to explore the possibilities. Theoretical physicists are working on solving this problem right now. No argument in science is, in principle, unsolvable. As soon as the problem becomes unsolvable then it isn't science at all. It may just be that we do not currently have the means to test the problem - that does not mean that we will never be able to test it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most like this is exactly the case. Several absolute borders of cognition are known today.
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, why are we even arguing about this? There is, as with most religious arguments, no evidence been shown for either side. Just nonsensical 'My theory is better than your god' 'Hey man, don't say that' and chest beating.
Replies
Awesome, we achieved something like freedom of religion and now a couple of dumpasses try to use it to keep authorities busy and criticize others believes. I'd love to wait several months until a court deals with my problems because they are busy with guys like him.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, man... you wanna talk about keeping courts busy? Check out what the fundamentalist Christians have been doing in America!
By comparison this is small potatoes and actually quite amusing, as opposed to drastically non-constitutional and actually quite scary.
Really raises some interesting questions about freedom of religion and stuff though - there has been a lot of controversy in the UK recently about Muslim dress code, like pupils being forced not to wear veils due to them making the child hard to understand and difficult to interact with other kids.
If other religions are allowed to practise their dress codes with impunity, why shouldn't a Pastafarian be allowed to dress like a pirate? The only thing it's lacking compared to, say, Christianity or Islam is just a lack of a thousand odd years of tradition.
Discuss!
Next thing ya know, pastafarian zealots will be chopping their own legs off just to get a peg leg. OR hands chopped off for a hook?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hahaha, in Puzzle pirates, our players are routinely intentionally crashing their hard earned ships at sea, chock full of players in hopes that they lose an appendage or eye. So strange.
Oh, man... you wanna talk about keeping courts busy? Check out what the fundamentalist Christians have been doing in America!
By comparison this is small potatoes and actually quite amusing, as opposed to drastically non-constitutional and actually quite scary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Christians question a theory that explains the development of life in the past millions of years. A pastafary guy wants to wear pirate costumes in class. If you even think about comparing those 2 concerns I don't think you keep in mind how scientific progress works, what scietific theories are and what exactly the right of freedom of religion protects and what abuse of rights is.
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing it's lacking compared to, say, Christianity or Islam is just a lack of a thousand odd years of tradition.
[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds really overconfident. If you could prove this or find enough circumstantial evidence to convince a good judge, then you'd be rich by now and very famous too. You would instantly end one of the most important discussions of mankind. It's very well possible, that christianity is true (whatever that means with all the different interpretations of the bible) while the probability of Pastafary being true is really low (I admit it's there though, but It would be pure coincidence).
( i can see where this is headed now )
But seriously, anyone saying a traditional religion is more true than say being a Jedi or a Pastafarian, etc is just plain ignorant. A religion is a belief someone follows based on faith regardless of how true it is. Some will die for their beliefs, as it is plain to see in today's society.
Sure, you may think a flying spaghetti monster isn't real, and what a stupid religion that is dressing up light pirates. Oh, but this all mighty "God" created everything and a dude rises from the death and walks on water (and sorts of other things you read about in fantasy novels) and that's just fine and dandy.
I put this question forth to you, if "God" created everything, then who or what created "God"?
-caseyjones
Disclaimer: If anything I say is offensive to anyone, I apologise for I mean no disrespect.
If you could prove this or find enough circumstantial evidence to convince a good judge, then you'd be rich by now and very famous too. You would instantly end one of the most important discussions of mankind. It's very well possible, that christianity is true (whatever that means with all the different interpretations of the bible) while the probability of Pastafary being true is really low (I admit it's there though, but it would be pure coincidence).
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, the only major difference between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and God, is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't first written about thousands of years ago.
Why would I possibly want to try and convince a judge about something that can, as far as we know, never be proven to be true?
In fact the ONLY information about the existance of any Christian god is contained in the Bible.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that points to a god of any sort, be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Pastafarian.
I refer you to Russell's teapot argument... IMHO it's a very good analogy for the belief in a god.
You can believe in anything you like, however if it's something that has zero scientific evidence for its existence, then it's up to you to prove its existence, not up to other people to disprove it.
You keep saying the word "scientific" ... can you please point me to one single piece of scientific evidence that there is a god of any sort?
You should check out this lecture by Ken Miller - he's a Christian theist who nevertheless believes in evolution, and rightly discards many of the Bible's verses which blatantly contradict solid scientific evidence. He's a sensible man, and well worth listening to.
Who says god was created? In our experience (it's more complicated now with quantum physics though) every effect has a cause. But it also seems that this pattern relies on time. If now god created time, how can we be sure effect and cause or causality are still the categories we should be using?
And if you read the first sentences of the bible, you'll notice that it says "in the beginning, god created...). I don't know if you make the difference in english, but in hebrew the word used is the one for a place, not a time. This could suggest that there was no time back then.
from:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=limecat
And eh, there's nothing retarded about regarding the beginning as a crash of particles and gasses. It's fully probable, we've had quite a few millenia to get to where we are, methinks. : ) Saying that's impossible is like saying we couldn't have evolved from a primordial soup. That would have blown, it would have been like playing the first boring minigame of spore for your entire lifespan. (Avg 30 seconds?)
Seeing as all of religious texts refering to Jesus were born in a decently localized area, and were quite a bit more homogenous than they are right now, you can't rule out that they simply influenced eachother. If I made the King Uly's Bible of Pastafarianism, I would have still believed in his great noodly appendage, and the great thread lock apocalypse that was soon to come.
Either way, I vote we all shut our godda- oop, fucking mouths!
On second thought... *This* time we'll convince eachother to throw away their beliefs.
Seriously, the only major difference between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and God, is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't first written about thousands of years ago.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's wrong. The early christians said they made spiritual experiences of some sort, while the Pastafaris came up with their theory to criticize others. Of course there are hundrets of other differences, but that's the one that matters for this discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact the ONLY information about the existance of any Christian god is contained in the Bible.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that points to a god of any sort, be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Pastafarian.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is also no evidence against a god. Yes, we can describe the way nature works very well with the language of mathematics. But it's a really fundamental mistake if you believe our description of nature is it's explanation. I suggest you read Wittgenstein if you never thought about this.
And once you found out we're sitting in a world we can describe to some extend, but not explain at all, you'll begin to wonder.
This is the beginning point of thousands of years of philosophy. Modern scientific cognitions add interesting points to the discussion. Once you'll read about non-determinate events in quantum physics, you can't help but wonder where the new "information" comes from. Many people believe it's not coming from nowhere, including people like Einstein (he was trying to solve this riddle by searching for hidden variables).
There is certainly no evidence in a scientific way, but many things that make you wonder.
[ QUOTE ]
You can believe in anything you like, however if it's something that has zero scientific evidence for its existence, then it's up to you to prove its existence, not up to other people to disprove it.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you're talking about is called burden of proof. A rule of burden of proof is only used in a process because the judge does not want to find material truth, he's looking for formal truth. If you're interested in material truth, then you can't use rules for the burden of proof. You'll find this in any book about the basics of law.
[ QUOTE ]
You keep saying the word "scientific" ... can you please point me to one single piece of scientific evidence that there is a god of any sort?
[/ QUOTE ]
There is none as mentioned above, but none against it either. I still find the thought of a prima causa interesting though and never heard a solution to this scientific problem. I guess you could consider an insolvable scientific problem an evidence for metaphysical reality.
[ QUOTE ]
You should check out this lecture by Ken Miller - he's a Christian theist who nevertheless believes in evolution, and rightly discards many of the Bible's verses which blatantly contradict solid scientific evidence. He's a sensible man, and well worth listening to.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are hundreds of ways to read the bible. I don't know which one I prefer and I respect if he's trying to bring the two ideas theories together.
I guess my argument was that people who dismiss other religions as hokey or stupid is ignorant. Sure there are some pretty questionable religions out there and certainly a lot I don't agree with, but I'm not going to dismiss the religion or the people that follow it.
[ QUOTE ]
Who says god was created?
[/ QUOTE ]
I know I don't. As far as I'm concerned, God doesn't exist.
-caseyjones
Yeah, I'm done with this topic. I can feel this is going to get pretty nasty soon. Once again, I apologise to anyone I've offended.
henceforth with that said i believe any kind of rules, dogmas or teachings for every religion should have a "BTW we could all be wrong and you need to decide for yourself" stated at the end.
I for myself believe that there is no god, and there is no fate, i believe i'm a sack of meat, and when i die i die, all of the things that i achieve are undone and whatever form of temporary immortality i may have achieved in my lifetime is all swept away, and therefore i need to reaffirm my existance with every breath.
To question my beliefs would be an exercise in ludicracy, since god presents no proof of its existance it is therefore impossible for any human being to convince me with any degree of certainty that my beliefs are wrong and unjust. Which renders this debate pointless and entirely offensive to anyone and everyone who believes anything. why isn't this thread closed?
That's wrong. The early christians said they made spiritual experiences of some sort, while the Pastafaris came up with their theory to criticize others.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I accept that the Pastafarian "religion" is an idea designed to criticise religion in general, you cannot possibly argue that using "the early Christians said..." has any sort of meaning at all.
The Mahabharata (the main Hindu text) dates from around the 5-6th century BCE, it contains many things that early Hindus "said", about many gods, reincarnation and things. Does that mean it's true? Just because it's been around for a long time does not mean it has any more credibility.
[ QUOTE ]
There is also no evidence against a god.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is also no evidence against pink candyfloss unicorns, is that any reason to believe they are true? Would it help if someone had written a book on pink candyfloss unicorns 2000 years ago? Could it be possible that the person who wrote such a book 2000 years ago was a deluded or insane old man?
[ QUOTE ]
But it's a really fundamental mistake if you believe our description of nature is it's explanation.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said this. I have never attempted to say I have an explanation for nature or the universe - we have theories and starting points, we have descriptions for nature, but surely it's OK for us humans to say "we don't know", rather than relying on some ancient texts to lend us some comfort in the world we don't understand? I don't think it's reasonable to jump to a conclusion concerning a deity without actually examining the world around us - just because we don't have explanations for things, does not automatically mean it's a creation of some divine power. Please do not assume that you have thought about this any more than I may have. We have different viewpoints and have read different texts on the subject, but that does not make either of us uninformed or foolish, so please don't try to put words in my mouth.
[ QUOTE ]
There is certainly no evidence in a scientific way, but many things that make you wonder.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they make me wonder how life on this planet (and maybe others) began - and it is precisely this wonder which drives science to discover more about this world and universe.
[ QUOTE ]
What you're talking about is called burden of proof. A rule of burden of proof is only used in a process because the judge does not want to find material truth, he's looking for formal truth. If you're interested in material truth, then you can't use rules for the burden of proof. You'll find this in any book about the basics of law.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you keep referring to law? I'm not trying to prove any of this in a court, in front of a judge or anything... although if I tried I'm pretty sure my side of the argument would have more tangible evidence than yours
If you must mention burden of proof, though, I think it's more reasonable to use it in the philosophical sense, rather than the legal sense. I'm not sure why you're talking about material truth and formal truth, it seems like you're using overly technical jargon where it's not required, to confound the subject matter and make it sound more intelligent than it is.
[ QUOTE ]
There is no scientific evidence as mentioned above, but none against it either. I still find the thought of a prima causa interesting though and never heard a solution to this scientific problem. I guess you could consider an insolvable scientific problem an evidence for metaphysical reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not an insolvable problem... it's just that we haven't got round to solving it yet. To say it's insolvable now is just giving up without any effort to explore the possibilities. Theoretical physicists are working on solving this problem right now. No argument in science is, in principle, unsolvable. As soon as the problem becomes unsolvable then it isn't science at all. It may just be that we do not currently have the means to test the problem - that does not mean that we will never be able to test it.
The "none for, none against" argument isn't any help either. If you're comparing one form of creationist belief with another, then I agree - there is no evidence for a divine creator, and none against either - how could there be? However, as soon as you compare creation with evolution, you will find that while there is no evidence for or against creation, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, and none against. This tends to tip the balance somewhat, when it comes to empirical scientific theories...
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know which one I prefer and I respect if he's trying to bring the two ideas theories together.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ken Miller is not trying to bring the two ideas together. It is impossible to reasonably believe all parts of the Bible, and simultaneously accept the theory of evolution. What Miller does is compartmentalise the two - he keeps the theory of evolution purely in the field of science and empirical evidence, and keeps his religious beliefs entirely separate to that - he does not let religious dogma or ancient bible verses get in the way of solid scientific evidence.
He is a very good case for showing that one can have religious beliefs, while still pursuing acceptable and rational scientific explanations for the world and the universe without resorting to the fall-back position of "it's in the Bible, it must be true!".
Animatr: I'm not even going to attempt to refute your "it's retarded" post ... it's fairly obvious that you haven't researched any actual science relating to the development of the universe as we know it.
i will say that, I don't believe in any religion. but I also dont think there isnt a god. I don't believe in religion because it is created by men, not by any one up high.
god prooves he exists all the time. if he hasnt to you yet, then one day he will, and you'll either recognize it, or blow it off as coincidence, or just something weird. and all I have to do is look outside to see proof. nature is so systemmatical that it would be very hard for anyone to try and convince me that it was all a happy accident. and evolution makes no fucking sense if you ask me. maybe this is explained, but if man evolved from a monkey, then why are there still monkies? why didnt they all evolve? you could continue to ask that question all the way down the line of things we evolved from.
i guess the way I look at it, is what if you're wrong? what if there was a god and you chose not to believe he even existed, and then you die, and now you're eternally screwed?
that's a big lottery you're playing. I don't think you have to go to church every Sunday and chant and speak in weird tongues and shit, I certainly don't. But i think if you follow the 10 rules and just try and be a decent person, and beleive that there is a possibility that God exists, then you're set.
didnt mean to come off as saying it was retarded or anything, so I apologize. just, that it doesnt make much sense to me is all.
It is not hard to educate yourself about evolution, but to answer your question, the reason that humans and other primates both still exist is because they evolved in different environments. Speciation is cause by a population being trapped in one area and then adapting to it.
What I don't understand is how can anyone who believe in cancer and not believe in evolution-- it boggles my mind.
Christians question a theory that explains the development of life in the past millions of years. A pastafary guy wants to wear pirate costumes in class. If you even think about comparing those 2 concerns I don't think you keep in mind how scientific progress works, what scietific theories are and what exactly the right of freedom of religion protects and what abuse of rights is.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only real difference between Intelligent Design and the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is that one is dogma masquerading as science (in order to inject religion into public schools), while the other is a satire on the former; neither is more scientifically valid than the other. Intelligent Design isn't science, even if you have a VERY loose definition of "science."
You should look up the history of "Intelligent Design." It all started in the 80s, when the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in public schools. In response to the ruling, a company that was publishing a creationism textbook titled "Of Pandas and People" decided to change every occurrence of the word "creationism" with "intelligent design" and "creator" with "intelligent designer", and thus, Intelligent Design was born (i.e. it's just creationism with a different label).
[ QUOTE ]
i think that if anybody believes that there is not a greater existence of some kind and that the world and everything in it was a crash of particles and gasses, then I just have to say WTF at that. it's just retarded. put whatever name to the higher existence you want, but thinking otherwise is silly and ignorant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Am I retarded if I believe neither? I don't know if there is a "higher existence" (what ever the hell that means... the term is ambiguous to the point of being meaningless), and I honestly don't care. I am completely agnostic. If some "higher existence" can be proven, or if it can be disproven, what would that change? Everything would be the same as it's always been, so what's the point in clinging to one unprovable belief and then calling people "retarded" for rejecting that belief?
to others, evolution is the only way they can explain their existence and that's cool.
not trying to call you retarded man. I apolopgize. I'll edit that comment in a sec. i guess proving if there was a higher existence(i used that term to cover any religion )wouldnt change a lot on a global scale. you cant change anyone's mind uness they want it to be changed.
That said, you seem to be quite confused about how the whole evolution thing is working. It's not like it happened in the past and reached a point. It's going on right now...
Check this link out for a fairly concise definition of evolution, maybe that will help you understand why, as you put it, "there are still monkies". There's also a ton of other useful information relative to that on TalkOrigins, and I highly recommend you pick up Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker", it's quite an entertaining read and does a very good job of explaining many elements of evolution and natural selection that you don't seem to grasp fully right now.
My girlfriend also recommends you read "The Ancestor's Tale", also by Dawkins, which explains more about the monkeys thing. I haven't read it so I can't speak for myself there, I try only to recommend texts which I have read and understand myself.
Even if you don't agree with Dawkins' writings, he makes for damn interesting reading, and you'll definitely come away feeling generally more knowledgeable and confident about the whole subject.
As for what you say in your last paragraph, that's called Pascal's Wager... I agree that living by sensible rules is a good idea, you have a better chance of doing good things and helping others - but where those rules come from is entirely up to the individual. If someone is a good person, why should it matter what makes them do good things? If I went around the world giving as much help as I can to all the needy people in the world, surely it doesn't matter if I was doing it thinking I'd go to Valhalla for my good deeds and avoid having the wolf eat the sun and the serpent wrap around the earth, than if i was just doing it out of a genuine feeling of goodwill to other people?
There's no reason that one single set of rules (like the Bible's 10 commandments) are the only way that any person can live a good life. I'm pretty sure that's what you're getting at anyway.
Sorry for being so long-winded, I genuinely find this topic interesting, and I'd be happy to try and help explain any of the things you don't understand about the science of evolution and the universe.
eh, I'm done for now. I genuinely respect all of your opinions and look forward to reading the rest of this.
What I don't understand is how can anyone who believe in cancer and not believe in evolution-- it boggles my mind.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or HIV... or influenza... or DNA... or heredity... the list goes on and on. If evolution didn't occur, then HIV wouldn't be a problem because it wouldn't be able to mutate in order to defeat our immune system.
Edit: - Also, with how much of the bible and all is metaphor, I don't really understand why most Christians have a propblem with evolution, personally; who's to say, if their god's real, he isn't just guiding all that stuff?
I dunno. I don't really like to get into religious debates, so I'll probably bow out now.
Edit2: Rawkstar wins the thread.
Edit2390239: [ QUOTE ]
Okay Animatr, but if I am going to believe in a god, which one should I believe in?
[/ QUOTE ]
Just to jump in, I don't think it's anyone but you's place to answer that question. People don't even have to elect to believe in a god; agnostic theism is neat if you can't spare the effort.
My belief in the Bible, among other evidence, is based on the *historical* evidence of Jesus' life and resurreciton. Most of the New Testament is made up of historical accounts or letters that contain historical accounts. These were selected by the early church as being accurate accounts of events and written by those who were "inspired by God." Notice the phrase "historical accounts." These accounts were witnessed by living people and recorded by multiple other people. Some of those that witnessed the accounts met gruesome deaths through tortune, and continued to support their account until their last breath. The combination of these provides a lot of historical evidence.
If you don't want to believe in the Bible, that's fine. But please do so because of a lack of historical evidence, not because of some grudge. I'm sure many of you have had bad experiences with religion. Christian living is supposed to show others how amazing God's love is. I'm sorry many of you haven't caught the same glimpse I have. Please just try not to judge Christianity by hysterical people who freak out about various cultural media. People are dumb, not religions.
Oh, and for the record, Darwin wrote in his memoirs that much of his theory of evolution relied on how simple cells were supposed to be - the "basic building blocks of life" as he called them. If they turned out to be complicated, he felt that the strength of his case would be much weaker. Considering how incredibly complicated cells are turning out to be, it'd be interesting to see what he'd have to say about this if he were still around.
(*like threads about peg legs)
smaybe this is explained, but if man evolved from a monkey, then why are there still monkies? why didnt they all evolve?
[/ QUOTE ]
They did:
i wasn't aware that internet memes were now a recongnized religion in the US...
[/ QUOTE ]
Religions themselves are memes. In fact, Richard Dawkins (who is credited with creating the term "meme") has referred to religious memes as sorts of "mind viruses." If you read animatr's post where he suggests to believe in God as a sort of insurance just in case God really does exist, then you might see how religious dogma perpetuates itself much in the same way than an internet viral ad does.
- The world was flat (and the center of the universe certainly)
- The oceans were ruled by sea monsters
- The first passages were written by a man who knew someone who knew someone, 60 years after that persons death.
Is it that surprising that people question these texts as historical fact?
Why are the other old religions - i.e. Zoastrianism, Islam, Buddism, Judism, Hindu etc., not historical fact as well?
You also make reference to the New Testament. You realize that the original "historical" facts/bible was edited/re-written/amended because it was so un-pallatable? Shouldn't the Old Testament be the historical fact..the original texts? Couldn't Zoastrianism be re-written to be more reasonable as well?
There is SOME (not much) physical/scientific evidence that Jesus was a human being, thats the only true "historical" evidence on the matter. You can believe what you want, but the bible is not a historical account by todays means IMO.
While I accept that the Pastafarian "religion" is an idea designed to criticise religion in general, you cannot possibly argue that using "the early Christians said..." has any sort of meaning at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you say makes it impossible to research history at all. If you say what early christians said isn't of any value at all (although the bible has been a historical source in the past that taught us about certain civilisations quite some time before we found the first evidence for their existence), you'll get into a series of problems. I could understand if you said they all lied or they had mental problems. It's up to us now to decide whether they lied, they were mistaken, said the truth, had mental problems or any mixture of the above.
I myself wouldn't easily call all of them mistaken and obiviously also all of nowadays people who have spiritual experiences.
Who knows what the authors of the Mahabharata have seen? There is a passage in the first book of moses which speaks about how the great heroes of the old times and the giants were created. This passage could explain everything from the greek myths to other religions.
[ QUOTE ]
There is also no evidence against pink candyfloss unicorns, is that any reason to believe they are true? Would it help if someone had written a book on pink candyfloss unicorns 2000 years ago? Could it be possible that the person who wrote such a book 2000 years ago was a deluded or insane old man?
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no empirical evidence for an endless amount of things, would you really say none of them exist? The probability of you being right is very low. And if you look into modern theories of multiversum (spelling?) or the string theory, you'll notice that this doesn't prevent scientists to speculate about them either. Why shouldn't we speculate about other things we can't find empirical evidence for?
[ QUOTE ]
I never said this. I have never attempted to say I have an explanation for nature or the universe - we have theories and starting points, we have descriptions for nature, but surely it's OK for us humans to say "we don't know", rather than relying on some ancient texts to lend us some comfort in the world we don't understand? I don't think it's reasonable to jump to a conclusion concerning a deity without actually examining the world around us - just because we don't have explanations for things, does not automatically mean it's a creation of some divine power. Please do not assume that you have thought about this any more than I may have. We have different viewpoints and have read different texts on the subject, but that does not make either of us uninformed or foolish, so please don't try to put words in my mouth.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand those are fundamental borders of knowledge. We don't have any scientific theories about what causality exactly is because you can't find empirical evidence for it. This is the realm of philosophy, not science. Scientific methods are not suited for this kind of question. We simply have to rely on speculation there, so it's definately smart to look at the attempts we have in the history of our world, and religions are among those attempts.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they make me wonder how life on this planet (and maybe others) began - and it is precisely this wonder which drives science to discover more about this world and universe.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the kind of wondering I was talking about. There are some areas in science we are bound to not make any progress anymore. There are absolute borders of cognition, most scientists agree on this. With modern physics we're coming closer to them. Those borders are NOT the motivation to make scientific progress obviously.
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you keep referring to law? I'm not trying to prove any of this in a court, in front of a judge or anything... although if I tried I'm pretty sure my side of the argument would have more tangible evidence than yours
[/ QUOTE ]
I keep refering to law because it has in my opinion the most disciplined argumentation and use of language. It's a huge help to apply this knowledge to any debate with philosophical content.
[ QUOTE ]
If you must mention burden of proof, though, I think it's more reasonable to use it in the philosophical sense, rather than the legal sense. I'm not sure why you're talking about material truth and formal truth, it seems like you're using overly technical jargon where it's not required, to confound the subject matter and make it sound more intelligent than it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
You could also say truth doesn't care if it's proved or not. If someone murdered someone, his acquittal will not change this, although the sentence was correct due to the burden of proof. He is technically innocent due to the burden of proof though. This example shows that you can't use the burden of proof argument if you're interested in truth. It great to organize a good discussion, but all you'll achieve is formal truth.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not an insolvable problem... it's just that we haven't got round to solving it yet. To say it's insolvable now is just giving up without any effort to explore the possibilities. Theoretical physicists are working on solving this problem right now. No argument in science is, in principle, unsolvable. As soon as the problem becomes unsolvable then it isn't science at all. It may just be that we do not currently have the means to test the problem - that does not mean that we will never be able to test it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most like this is exactly the case. Several absolute borders of cognition are known today.
[ QUOTE ]
The "none for, none against" argument isn't any help either. If you're comparing one form of creationist belief with another, then I agree - there is no evidence for a divine creator, and none against either - how could there be? However, as soon as you compare creation with evolution, you will find that while there is no evidence for or against creation, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, and none against. This tends to tip the balance somewhat, when it comes to empirical scientific theories...
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not as clear as you think it is. I'd rather not discuss evolution against creation here though. But you should know that there are many scientists who criticize macroevolution in general and that the exact way evolution would have taken place is highly disputed . But don't bother to answer this here, this discussion is taking enough time the way it is.
[ QUOTE ]
Ken Miller is not trying to bring the two ideas together. It is impossible to reasonably believe all parts of the Bible, and simultaneously accept the theory of evolution. What Miller does is compartmentalise the two - he keeps the theory of evolution purely in the field of science and empirical evidence, and keeps his religious beliefs entirely separate to that - he does not let religious dogma or ancient bible verses get in the way of solid scientific evidence.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, that's another way to read the bible. I can see you like this one the most.
To question my beliefs would be an exercise in ludicracy, since god presents no proof of its existance it is therefore impossible for any human being to convince me with any degree of certainty that my beliefs are wrong and unjust. Which renders this debate pointless and entirely offensive to anyone and everyone who believes anything. why isn't this thread closed?
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no prove for anything outside a formal system (for example mathematics) and law, and this isn't heavily disputed knowledge. If you think your attitude through, you'll end up believing nothing. Not even you being a piece of meat.
God kills dinosaurs
God makes Man
Man kills god
Man makes dinosaurs
[ QUOTE ]
It's not an insolvable problem... it's just that we haven't got round to solving it yet. To say it's insolvable now is just giving up without any effort to explore the possibilities. Theoretical physicists are working on solving this problem right now. No argument in science is, in principle, unsolvable. As soon as the problem becomes unsolvable then it isn't science at all. It may just be that we do not currently have the means to test the problem - that does not mean that we will never be able to test it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most like this is exactly the case. Several absolute borders of cognition are known today.
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, why are we even arguing about this? There is, as with most religious arguments, no evidence been shown for either side. Just nonsensical 'My theory is better than your god' 'Hey man, don't say that' and chest beating.
ehhh, everythings so complicated these days ...
Robots, is that it? Did you go to a robot school?
This stems way back to Pope John Paul II's statement that 'evolution seems like it might make a whole lot of sense', some 15 years ago.
Interesting that the catholics aren't the ones who are behind the times this time, as far as religions go