55 posts in this topic

Thing is, in my view, 'God' is never meant as any kind of scientific answer to anything. Its just a way to personify the philosophical idea of a 'first cause'. People believe that there must be a first cause, religious people believe it can't be something material, physical, because anything physical or material can't be pre-existing, by any logical reasoning. Asking what created God is as pointless as asking what created the 'first cause'.

The problem is when people take 'God' too literally and don't understand its just a personification. And religious people do that too, a lot; take things way too literally. Which is a mistake on their part. But when atheists take it literally too, they're committing the same error, in my view.

The problem is, most creationists don't present it as a philosophical idea of a first cause, they present it as "<insert name of holy book here> says so, therefore it's true"

Sounds like what most people do with science, too. People filter out what scientific evidence they don't like and only accept the evidence they do like. Which I see all the time. And that includes a lot of superstitious kind of beliefs, I see superstition passed off as science all the time.

There are two parts to major aspects to religious belief, anyway -- religious philosophy, and the stories, parables, etc., which are examples of the philosophy. The Bible is like literature, you have to separate the meaning from the details. And from what I've experienced, most people who are religious don't believe something just because their book says it, just like science evangelists don't believe something just because a textbook says it.

Completely false. Any real scientists out frauds within their ranks faster than any creationist will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, most creationists don't present it as a philosophical idea of a first cause, they present it as "<insert name of holy book here> says so, therefore it's true"

I don't think there are are as many people who say "the bible says it, so its true" as people think there are, so I don't worry about that. Most religious people aren't like that.

Ok.

What created cause-and-effect? If you can't answer that, give up your belief in cause-and-effect, and if you don't, you're doing logical pleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Aliens engineered us, that would make them god to us.

100% correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely false. Any real scientists out frauds within their ranks faster than any creationist will.

It has nothing to do with fraud. Spontaneous generation was once a very popular theory in science, and germ theory was criticized for 400 years as idiotic before scientists accepted it.

And I'm not talking about scientists, but people on the street who say they have all their opinions from science, and it turns out they have a lot of really silly, sketchy ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who believes in Aliens but insults people who believe in God are actually the dumb ones, neither beliefs have any solid proof and to believe in Aliens requires a faith in something you can not see, only from stories and discoveries throughout history, exactly like God.

Do the Alien believers have an Alien Bible ?

aliens are not a belief but rather a theory based on mathematics and probabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is only the tip of the iceberg, as there are too many differences to be carried out by only one gene. For instance: the aids virus does not affect apes, but it does heavily affect humans. It is not only about intelligence...

Conclusions like this are really worrisome because science funding is getting scarce and things are looking ugly. :|

Junk genes are as junk as the ignorance of the ones who give it's name.

I don't think they meant it in that way. Rather, they're looking for a trigger which led us on different evolutionary paths. I think this story was written in a sensationalist fashion. This article is very scientific and difficult to understand, but I can see they aren't making such stark claims: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n10/full/ncomms2146.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like what most people do with science, too. People filter out what scientific evidence they don't like and only accept the evidence they do like. Which I see all the time. And that includes a lot of superstitious kind of beliefs, I see superstition passed off as science all the time.

There are two parts to major aspects to religious belief, anyway -- religious philosophy, and the stories, parables, etc., which are examples of the philosophy. The Bible is like literature, you have to separate the meaning from the details. And from what I've experienced, most people who are religious don't believe something just because their book says it, just like science evangelists don't believe something just because a textbook says it.

There's a huge difference between religion and science, which you're ignoring. One is that religion is based on stories that may or may not be true. Science (the correct one) is based on experiments and observations. Of course that there's bad science as there are bad professionals everywhere, but at least science can correct itself and make use of theories that may or may not be proven. If it can be proven, than it becomes some kind of law. As knowledge over the topic improves, it can change. Religion doesn't change based on proofs: it changes according to each of the evangelists interpretation and there lies the danger: there's no unity, there's no proof, there's nothing, except beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What created cause-and-effect? If you can't answer that, give up your belief in cause-and-effect, and if you don't, you're doing logical pleading.

Well that's some messed up logic you have there, First of all its a descriptive law not a prescriptive one. What caused it ? The universe its a description of how the universe behaves. Nice try though :rolleyes:

And lol @ the end that's the cherry on the turd, Like saying because you don't know that a human killed jimmy Hoffa you have a faith based position that it was a human and not a shape shifting alien from mars :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they meant it in that way. Rather, they're looking for a trigger which led us on different evolutionary paths. I think this story was written in a sensationalist fashion. This article is very scientific and difficult to understand, but I can see they aren't making such stark claims: http://www.nature.co...ncomms2146.html

Much better now. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe in advanced alien life, so guess who genetically engineered us!

How can you believe such a thing when there is absolutely no evidence or proof to support that? It might be fine to suspect, of course, but to actually believe that? What led you to believe it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's some messed up logic you have there, First of all its a descriptive law not a prescriptive one. What caused it ? The universe its a description of how the universe behaves. Nice try though :rolleyes:

And lol @ the end that's the cherry on the turd, Like saying because you don't know that a human killed jimmy Hoffa you have a faith based position that it was a human and not a shape shifting alien from mars :rofl:

Yea that's my point. Concepts like "first cause", "providence", etc. are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive.

God is just a personification of that, because people don't always talk about life in scientific or abstract terms, but also more lyrical ones also. "Fate brought me here." Fate is talked about in personification to. Roman myth talks about the three Fates. "What does life want from me?" That's a personification too, life doesn't want anything.

People misunderstand it when they think its prescriptive.

There's a huge difference between religion and science, which you're ignoring. One is that religion is based on stories that may or may not be true. Science (the correct one) is based on experiments and observations. Of course that there's bad science as there are bad professionals everywhere, but at least science can correct itself and make use of theories that may or may not be proven. If it can be proven, than it becomes some kind of law. As knowledge over the topic improves, it can change. Religion doesn't change based on proofs: it changes according to each of the evangelists interpretation and there lies the danger: there's no unity, there's no proof, there's nothing, except beliefs.

Religion doesn't make people stupid. Stupid makes people stupid. Stupid religious people are stupid. Stupid scientists are stupid. There's what I'd argue is a superstition right there -- "Religion makes people stupid."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's what I'd argue is a superstition right there -- "Religion makes people stupid."

I would suggest the wording "religion encourages stupidity".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest the wording "religion encourages stupidity".

Not anymore than philosophy, literature, poetry, reading history, etc., encourages stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion doesn't make people stupid. Stupid makes people stupid. Stupid religious people are stupid. Stupid scientists are stupid. There's what I'd argue is a superstition right there -- "Religion makes people stupid."

Actually religion does make people stupid. You know... The day has 24 hours. If you spend some hours of the day reading religion BS instead of preparing yourself to one day be able to understand this, which requires a lifetime of studies and diplomas, than yes... it makes you stupid, because it's easier to just hear an evangelist tell you that humans were created by Adam and Eve, made by god.

Got it?

But... if you need spiritual advice, maybe you can have your beliefs without being too stupid. But a little stupid you'll always be, because ethics, moral, dealing with life and death and respect can be learned without any kind of religion: it's called education.

Not anymore than philosophy, literature, poetry, reading history, etc., encourages stupidity.

There are people with low IQs everywhere... We can't really get rid of them, that's true. But we can at least try to educate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But... if you need spiritual advice, maybe you can have your beliefs without being too stupid. But a little stupid you'll always be, because ethics, moral, dealing with life and death and respect can be learned without any kind of religion: it's called education.

Its called philosophy. And philosophy has been done in dry, abstract ways, and has also been told through parables, using devices such as dialogues, metaphors, and using less than literal concepts. Stoic philosophers, who weren't religious, and predated Christians, talked about 'God' to make a philosophical point.

If you study microRNA and don't understand that, then I have a right to be skeptical about how smart you are, too.

I had a physics teacher who used to talk about how people who went into fields like poetry and art were wasting their time. Kind of a philistine attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its called philosophy. And philosophy has been done in dry, abstract ways, and has also been told through parables, using devices such as dialogues, metaphors, and using less than literal concepts. Stoic philosophers, who weren't religious, and predated Christians, talked about 'God' to make a philosophical point.

If you study microRNA and don't understand that, then I have a right to be skeptical about how smart you are, too.

I had a physics professor who used to talk about how people who went into fields like poetry and art were wasting their time. Kind of a philistine attitude.

There's no objective in philosophy if not to make you think. It is a tool to make you think about life in peculiar and distinctive ways. It is not a dogma, or science.

You're the one telling me that I don't understand that, not me.

Your physics professor thinks the world is only mathematical, which is as stupid as thinking that the world is only philosophical.

Just take a look at my avatar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not anymore than philosophy, literature, poetry, reading history, etc., encourages stupidity.

true, but its a two way street. Some good, some bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no objective in philosophy if not to make you think. It is a tool to make you think about life in peculiar and distinctive ways. It is not a dogma, or science.

You're the one telling me that I don't understand that, not me.

Your physics professor thinks the world is only mathematical, which is as stupid as thinking that the world is only philosophical.

Just take a look at my avatar.

That's a narrow characterization philosophy is about. You can also convince people of things that are wrong, that's called sophistry. You can also be a contrarian and object to everything no matter how true it is. Philosophy is about making people think, but ultimately the point is to get at some truths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a narrow characterization philosophy is about. You can also convince people of things that are wrong, that's called sophistry. You can also be a contrarian and object to everything no matter how true it is. Philosophy is about making people think, but ultimately the point is to get at some truths.

There are many truths for the same fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many truths for the same fact.

And yet they fit together and make sense somehow don't they? That's what's been referred to in Christianity and Western philosophy as "theodicy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet they fit together and make sense somehow don't they? That's what's been referred to in Christianity and Western philosophy as "theodicy".

"Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. This use is found in such phrases as, It is a fact that the cup is blue orMatter of fact,[3] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination." Filmmaker Werner Herzog distinguishes clearly between the two, claiming that "fact creates norms, and truth illumination"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

So, maybe yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. This use is found in such phrases as, It is a fact that the cup is blue orMatter of fact,[3] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination." Filmmaker Werner Herzog distinguishes clearly between the two, claiming that "fact creates norms, and truth illumination"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

So, maybe yes.

Fact isn't synonymous with truth but they overlap, and aren't quite opposites.

Anyway, the fact that there may be many truths is also compatible with the idea that there's one ultimate truth; those are also two truths to the same fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact isn't synonymous with truth but they overlap, and aren't quite opposites.

Anyway, the fact that there may be many truths is also compatible with the idea that there's one ultimate truth; those are also two truths to the same fact.

They don't overlap. Fact is a fact, a description... it is more towards the scientific way of seeing things. The truth is an interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't overlap. Fact is a fact, a description... it is more towards the scientific way of seeing things. The truth is an interpretation.

That's a forced definition. Its true that I'm typing out a response to you, and its a fact that I'm typing out a response to you, mean pretty much the same thing, and neither statement is a misuse of the word 'truth' or 'fact'. Both are correct language. The words have different connotation, but most of the time have the same denotation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a forced definition. Its true that I'm typing out a response to you, and its a fact that I'm typing out a response to you, mean pretty much the same thing, and neither statement is a misuse of the word 'truth' or 'fact'. Both are correct language. The words have different connotation, but most of the time have the same denotation.

Not forced... You have to think. It is true for you that we're typing. But it is actually a fact that we're having a conversation, not that you are typing. Because see... you could be a robot. I wouldn't know that. So you are not you... you may be a robot. But for you it is true that YOU are typing, but for me, that may not be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.