RE: Evolution vs. Religion

RE: Evolution vs. Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

lickenforyou -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/5/2011 6:41:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou This is a perfect example of what religion is for - to make people feel better about things that they have no control over. Well unh, no... possibly you are unaware, but... that's what friends are for. [:D] K. True, but friends are real. My brother and his wife who sent me that joke are quite real, thank you very much. Huh? That was a response to Kirata. I meant that gods aren't real but friends are.

tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/5/2011 10:32:26 PM)
quote: Kirata I take a Buddhist view on this one: Asking whether or not God exists is not a "skillful question." Perhaps a way of expressing this that might have more currency among those unfamiliar with Buddhist concepts is to say it's not an answerable question. I for one do not believe that the question of the existence of a deity is answerable rationally. As you stated earlier in the thread that neither the pro-theist or a-theist positions could be proved (presumably on a rational basis), would I be correct in assuming this to be your position? If this is the case, and the proposition is unresolvable rationally, do you feel there may be another basis on which it can be resolved (for instance, experientially, emotively .......)? Equally, if it is the case the the question cannot be answered rationally, wouldn't the only rational options left be agnosticism and/or disbelief in a deity (until such time as it's existence could be established/disproved rationally)?

Edwynn -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 1:12:22 AM)
~ FR ~ I think that some here seem to have the notion that science is inextricably linked with 'certainty' or 'reality,' etc. Some reading into theoretical physics, the study of particle physics, black holes, string theory, particle vs. wave vs. particle/wave duality theory, et al. should dispel such notions adequately enough. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, "Schrödinger's cat," and other conundrums of scientific study are still with us. While speaking of Schrödinger, we have it from Wiki that "He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, which influenced his speculations at the close of What is Life? about the possibility that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe." He and other scientists who have and still do delve into 'the mysteries of life' by any avenue are considered rational by the majority of their peers. We can't all agree on everything, and I think that some accept this from the outset and pursue their own course even with acknowledgment that there not be a single explanation nor a precisely mapped path for all things.

lickenforyou -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 2:48:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Kirata I take a Buddhist view on this one: Asking whether or not God exists is not a "skillful question." Perhaps a way of expressing this that might have more currency among those unfamiliar with Buddhist concepts is to say it's not an answerable question. I for one do not believe that the question of the existence of a deity is answerable rationally. As you stated earlier in the thread that neither the pro-theist or a-theist positions could be proved (presumably on a rational basis), would I be correct in assuming this to be your position? If this is the case, and the proposition is unresolvable rationally, do you feel there may be another basis on which it can be resolved (for instance, experientially, emotively .......)? Equally, if it is the case the the question cannot be answered rationally, wouldn't the only rational options left be agnosticism and/or disbelief in a deity (until such time as it's existence could be established/disproved rationally)? VERY well said

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 5:31:53 AM)
quote: Equally, if it is the case the the question cannot be answered rationally, wouldn't the only rational options left be agnosticism and/or disbelief in a deity (until such time as it's existence could be established/disproved rationally)? Why would the only rational answer be disbelief? Why should someone stop doing something because someone else insists its "rational"? Careful, state religion can harm... so can state atheism.

lickenforyou -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 4:51:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Equally, if it is the case the the question cannot be answered rationally, wouldn't the only rational options left be agnosticism and/or disbelief in a deity (until such time as it's existence could be established/disproved rationally)? Why would the only rational answer be disbelief? Why should someone stop doing something because someone else insists its "rational"? Careful, state religion can harm... so can state atheism. If there is no proof that an object or entity exist then the only rational choice IS agnostic or disbelief. If there is no tangible proof of the existence the object or entity how can the rational choice be that it does exist? Rational: based on, or derived from reasoning Also, I don't know anyone who advocates state atheism

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 4:52:57 PM)
quote: If there is no proof that an object or entity exist then the only rational choice IS agnostic or disbelief. If there is no tangible proof of the existence the object or entity how can the rational choice be that it does exist? Yet how many times have people been so sure that something didnt exist, to later be proven wrong. quote: Also, I don't know anyone who advocates state atheism Would not advocating making religion illegal be advocating state atheism?

lickenforyou -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 5:18:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: If there is no proof that an object or entity exist then the only rational choice IS agnostic or disbelief. If there is no tangible proof of the existence the object or entity how can the rational choice be that it does exist? Yet how many times have people been so sure that something didnt exist, to later be proven wrong. quote: Also, I don't know anyone who advocates state atheism Would not advocating making religion illegal be advocating state atheism? Give me an example of people using rational thought to conclude that something didn't exist and then were proved wrong. Who is advocating making religion illegal?

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 5:31:38 PM)
quote: Give me an example of people using rational thought to conclude that something didn't exist and then were proved wrong. Science is full of those moments. But, your use of the phrase "rational thought" can be objective. Bacteria were believed to be nonexistent. Despite the initial success of Van Leeuwenhoek's relationship with the Royal Society, this relationship was soon severely strained. In 1676 his credibility was questioned when he sent the Royal Society a copy of his first observations of microscopic single-celled organisms. Previously, the existence of single-celled organisms was entirely unknown. Thus, even with his established reputation with the Royal Society as a reliable observer, his observations of microscopic life were initially met with skepticism. Eventually, in the face of Van Leeuwenhoek's insistence, the Royal Society arranged to send an English vicar, as well as a team of respected jurists and doctors, to Delft, to determine whether it was in fact Van Leeuwenhoek's ability to observe and reason clearly, or perhaps the Royal Society's theories of life itself that might require reform. Finally in 1680, Van Leeuwenhoek's observations were fully vindicated by the Society.

lickenforyou -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 5:49:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Give me an example of people using rational thought to conclude that something didn't exist and then were proved wrong. Science is full of those moments. But, your use of the phrase "rational thought" can be objective. Bacteria were believed to be nonexistent. Despite the initial success of Van Leeuwenhoek's relationship with the Royal Society, this relationship was soon severely strained. In 1676 his credibility was questioned when he sent the Royal Society a copy of his first observations of microscopic single-celled organisms. Previously, the existence of single-celled organisms was entirely unknown. Thus, even with his established reputation with the Royal Society as a reliable observer, his observations of microscopic life were initially met with skepticism. Eventually, in the face of Van Leeuwenhoek's insistence, the Royal Society arranged to send an English vicar, as well as a team of respected jurists and doctors, to Delft, to determine whether it was in fact Van Leeuwenhoek's ability to observe and reason clearly, or perhaps the Royal Society's theories of life itself that might require reform. Finally in 1680, Van Leeuwenhoek's observations were fully vindicated by the Society. The Royal Society were skeptical until they applied rational thought and sent experts to observe Leeuwenhoek's claim. Rational thought is not an objective term. The application of it can be debated, but not the term itself. You also never told me who wants to make religion illegal.

FullCircle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 5:53:01 PM)
People used to think white light was made up of different stuff than that of red green and blue but there was no rational thought behind such ideas. Your bacteria example doesn't really answer the question without stating what rational explanation lead to that initial thinking in the first place? Nobody is saying that the scientific establishment has always been right and nobody can pretend that everyone that has called them self a scientist has actually been one or had an understanding of the scientific approach. Scientists are people. The theory shouldn't be so precious to the individual that it being disproven would make the person try and find evidence to back up the theory rather than looking at it objectively. God and science don't mix, it's irrational for anyone to think they can prove or disprove god through rational thought alone.

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 5:59:49 PM)
I completely agree, FC. Which is my point here. Science has been "skeptical" over many things. Even over bacteria, the scientists almost lost his credibility. Only to be shown they were wrong in that skepticism. ~licken... http://godlessons.com/2010/03/04/why-teaching-religion-to-children-should-be-illegal/ A sentiment that has been echoed recently on these boards.

FullCircle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 6:11:36 PM)
There is only one position to take, that of agnostic. It's not anymore rational to believe something doesn't exist than it is to believe it does. You could be in a cave thinking there is no outside world. That would be considered rational if you've never seen the outside world.

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 6:15:17 PM)
I dont believe in "God". Im also not agnostic. I defy anyone to try and tell me there isnt a spirit in nature. I suppose thats why I take the religious side so much, I can relate. I do not tell an atheist that their position isnt rational. Why? Because to them, it is rational. To a believer, their position is just as rational. To you, agnostic is the only rational choice. Rational is subjective.

lickenforyou -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 6:19:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I completely agree, FC. Which is my point here. Science has been "skeptical" over many things. Even over bacteria, the scientists almost lost his credibility. Only to be shown they were wrong in that skepticism. ~licken... http://godlessons.com/2010/03/04/why-teaching-religion-to-children-should-be-illegal/ A sentiment that has been echoed recently on these boards. OK, so to address the original point, which was that the default position for lack of proof of a god is agnostic or non belief. How is that statement not true? Leeuwenhoek offered measurable proof of what he was saying. Theist have not offered any evidence that can be substantiated. And, I concede, there are some nuts out there who would want to make the teaching of religion in the home illegal. But, it's not a serious argument made by serious people.

FullCircle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 6:23:42 PM)
What is in this box in front of me you've never opened before? It's not difficult to give the right answer in this situation. You can start guessing what you think is in the box but don't equate that guessing with fact. Why is this concept so complicated? Why are we so willing to think we know the answer to something we have no insight into?

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 6:26:39 PM)
Laws have been created from less serious people. quote: OK, so to address the original point, which was that the default position for lack of proof of a god is agnostic or non belief. How is that statement not true? The position was that those were the only rational choice. I disagree. Rational is subjective.

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 6:32:19 PM)
quote: Why is this concept so complicated? Why are we so willing to think we know the answer to something we have no insight into? Exactly. Everyone's experiences varies. Why are we so quick to discount an experience we have not experienced ourselves?

lickenforyou -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 6:36:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Laws have been created from less serious people. quote: OK, so to address the original point, which was that the default position for lack of proof of a god is agnostic or non belief. How is that statement not true? The position was that those were the only rational choice. I disagree. Rational is subjective. Please tell me your rational thought process for disagreeing.

tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/6/2011 6:44:24 PM)
What is rational to you may not be to me. Life experiences do make up a portion of what we believe. If you live in a mansion, would you think its rational to wait outside a restaurant for the leftovers they throw away? Of course not... but the homeless and the poor see it as a very rational way to deal with hunger. I had a friend who thought I was crazy for buying a huge bag of kitty litter every fall when I didnt own a cat. Imagine a woman who has been told repeatedly that she cannot get pregnant, only to discover one day that she is. Can you explain the rationality behind that? Or the child who suddenly goes into remission. People find their rationality where they chose to look. You may see it as irrational acts or occurances. Others may have a perfectly sane reason for what they do. Just because you dont know the reason doesnt make it less rational.

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875