quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:


Some things espcially those which are extraordinary(rising from the dead, evolution, gravity, talking asses or snakes, global floods) require more evidence by a logical person - rightly so.

But for none of the extraordinary events that are now accepted but were at first difficult to accept was there ever any kind of extraordinary evidence. Simply because it was not required. Take Darwin's theory of evolution, it became accepted not because Darwin provided extraordinary evidence , Darwin simply presented some rather basic principles backed up by various observations that were weaved into the new perspective, which generated a track record of success when explainging the living world.

Take Kenneth Miller, he is a theistic evolutionist and a rabid ID critic. Heck take most theistic evolutionists, they all believe that the extraodinary event of God's creating and guiding evolution , the evidence for it is non-existant because, he argues, Chaos theory emphasizes the fact that enormous changes in physical systems can be brought about by unimaginably small changes in initial conditions, and this could serve as an undectable amplifier of divine action.

So there you have an evolutionary biologist saying extraodinary events require no evidence at all. I don't take his position but my position is similar, in that it allows that extraordinary events might leave only mundane clues that you need to follow and put together like a big puzzle.

Anyway, I see this is the 500th post, it's been fun talking with youze, got intense a couple of times but so what right? I wil be taking my leave probably return to a fresh thread and let this one run it's course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

GOD:

So, as far as I can tell we have defined god as a concept which exists in the mind.  The fact science has not proven how the universe was created, despite multiple theories exist, is used as evidence that this thing exists external to the human mind and is responsible for the ex-nihlo creation of everything.  This internal concept can be changed with personal imagination and seems to change as often as necessary to satisfy emotional needs of the individual.  Often ones belief in this thing is based upon the circumstances of the moment, geographic location of birth or social setting.  The individual typically adopts and adapts their personal definition of god from either a single or multiple ancient religions.

I have also learned that although it might be acceptable for me to question and challenge core irrational beliefs of a person about: social status, racism, sexism, math or supernatural things it is unacceptable to question modern religious beliefs.  This is due to the fact that science has not removed the shroud of mystery from the question most major religions seem to hinge their validity upon.  This is the fact that science has not conclusively demonstrated how the universe started.  So, like it or not NAY nay nay my personal core belief is beyond reason, logic, evidence and ultimate understanding so I am allowed to have it.  After all it makes me feel nice and warm inside.

The end?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:


Some things espcially those which are extraordinary(rising from the dead, evolution, gravity, talking asses or snakes, global floods) require more evidence by a logical person - rightly so.

But for none of the extraordinary events that are now accepted but were at first difficult to accept was there ever any kind of extraordinary evidence. Simply because it was not required. Take Darwin's theory of evolution, it became accepted not because Darwin provided extraordinary evidence , Darwin simply presented some rather basic principles backed up by various observations that were weaved into the new perspective, which generated a track record of success when explainging the living world.

Take Kenneth Miller, he is a theistic evolutionist and a rabid ID critic. Heck take most theistic evolutionists, they all believe that the extraodinary event of God's creating and guiding evolution , the evidence for it is non-existant because, he argues, Chaos theory emphasizes the fact that enormous changes in physical systems can be brought about by unimaginably small changes in initial conditions, and this could serve as an undectable amplifier of divine action.

So there you have an evolutionary biologist saying extraodinary events require no evidence at all. I don't take his position but my position is similar, in that it allows that extraordinary events might leave only mundane clues that you need to follow and put together like a big puzzle.

Anyway, I see this is the 500th post, it's been fun talking with youze, got intense a couple of times but so what right? I wil be taking my leave probably return to a fresh thread and let this one run it's course.

This is the 2nd or 3rd time you said you were done?

Little's Johnny's claim which suggests he risen from the dead demands more evidence

than

Little Johnny's claim that suggests he can ride his bike with no handle bars.

A blatant lie that most folks of science are religious.

Ken Miller does not hinge his belief on one event to believe in the extraordinary god concept.  He demands, details, documents and explains many forms of evidence for his belief in his book.  Therefore, the fact the some words in the bible, although words of(not from - in this case), were not merely enough to persuade him is clear & obvious evidence of my point.

Claims which seem to violate current understanding, are extraordinary or unique are held under the microscope and rightfully so.

Thanks for playing.

-E

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpK69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

GOD:

So, as far as I can tell we have defined god as a concept which exists in the mind.  The fact science has not proven how the universe was created, despite multiple theories exist, is used as evidence that this thing exists external to the human mind and is responsible for the ex-nihlo creation of everything.  This internal concept can be changed with personal imagination and seems to change as often as necessary to satisfy emotional needs of the individual.  Often ones belief in this thing is based upon the circumstances of the moment, geographic location of birth or social setting.  The individual typically adopts and adapts their personal definition of god from either a single or multiple ancient religions.

I have also learned that although it might be acceptable for me to question and challenge core irrational beliefs of a person about: social status, racism, sexism, math or supernatural things it is unacceptable to question modern religious beliefs.  This is due to the fact that science has not removed the shroud of mystery from the question most major religions seem to hinge their validity upon.  This is the fact that science has not conclusively demonstrated how the universe started.  So, like it or not NAY nay nay my personal core belief is beyond reason, logic, evidence and ultimate understanding so I am allowed to have it.  After all it makes me feel nice and warm inside.

The end?

Why does it matter to you so much?

Kim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

GOD:

So, as far as I can tell we have defined god as a concept which exists in the mind.  The fact science has not proven how the universe was created, despite multiple theories exist, is used as evidence that this thing exists external to the human mind and is responsible for the ex-nihlo creation of everything.  This internal concept can be changed with personal imagination and seems to change as often as necessary to satisfy emotional needs of the individual.  Often ones belief in this thing is based upon the circumstances of the moment, geographic location of birth or social setting.  The individual typically adopts and adapts their personal definition of god from either a single or multiple ancient religions.

I have also learned that although it might be acceptable for me to question and challenge core irrational beliefs of a person about: social status, racism, sexism, math or supernatural things it is unacceptable to question modern religious beliefs.  This is due to the fact that science has not removed the shroud of mystery from the question most major religions seem to hinge their validity upon.  This is the fact that science has not conclusively demonstrated how the universe started.  So, like it or not NAY nay nay my personal core belief is beyond reason, logic, evidence and ultimate understanding so I am allowed to have it.  After all it makes me feel nice and warm inside.

The end?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
A blatant lie that most folks of science are religious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
A blatant lie that most folks of science are religious.

So you are able to present data showing that less than 50 per cent of scientists are religious?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Noting i his case Esin you would simply have provided evidece to back a bold assertion. It would bolster your credibility if you do so and damage it if you do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Noting i his case Esin you would simply have provided evidece to back a bold assertion. It would bolster your credibility if you do so and damage it if you do not.

1. Leuba, J. H. The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study (Sherman, French & Co., Boston, 1916).
2. Leuba, J. H. Harper's Magazine 169, 291-300 (1934).
3. Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 386, 435-436 (1997).
4. Highfield, R. The Daily Telegraph 3 April, p. 4 (1997).
5. National Academy of Sciences Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Natl Acad. Press, Washington DC, 1998).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

 
The Daily Telegraph 3 April, p. 4 (1997).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09
Heh certainly an idea Gent.
Declining trends in religion in the west while indisputable are not in of themselves evidence of the beliefs, religous or otherwise of scientists Esinn. It could be that well over fifty percent of the scientific community are atheists but declining trends are not indicative either way for this issue. The link in your post while certainly interesting is also by no means definitive proof that less than fifty percent of scientists are religous. It is noteworthy and a decent starting point perhaps but not strong enough to use as a basis for calling someone a liar.