RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it....

RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (Full Version)

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

Message

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/2/2016 8:11:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML So, what do unconscious people believe? Hmmmm. . . .? Pondering, I am. That they "know" things they don't know. K. Very clever. Kudos. [:D]

Edwird -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/2/2016 3:45:16 PM)
The zen of Rumsfeld, soon to come in a politico-theology class near you! "But there are also unknown unknowns." It's not "clever," it's dumbshit at its finest. But then, 'dumbshit' is the new 'clever,' according to contemporary media.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/2/2016 7:46:45 PM)
quote: It is true that Kirata is not the definitive authority but it is also true that I was replying to Kirata when you inserted the listless, overused, overly convenient, trite defense that "there may be alternate forms of whatever." which signals to me that you really have nothing of substance to contribute to the conversation and are only grasping for phantom, unknowable shit, which is basically religion that we were going to stay away from. Oh bullshit. And as I have already pointed out, the topic cannot be discussed without religion because religion is the only source we have on the topic.

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/3/2016 5:25:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird The zen of Rumsfeld, soon to come in a politico-theology class near you! "But there are also unknown unknowns." It's not "clever," it's dumbshit at its finest. But then, 'dumbshit' is the new 'clever,' according to contemporary media. It's even worse than that, sadly: 'clever' is bad because it's elitist and makes smartarses believe they're better informed than the fuckwits the media is there to talk down to. That's not just elitist, it's deeply unamerican, isn't it? Conservative values are built on dumbshittery, and all of these elitist smartarses who think they're clever are liberals...

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/4/2016 1:46:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: It is true that Kirata is not the definitive authority but it is also true that I was replying to Kirata when you inserted the listless, overused, overly convenient, trite defense that "there may be alternate forms of whatever." which signals to me that you really have nothing of substance to contribute to the conversation and are only grasping for phantom, unknowable shit, which is basically religion that we were going to stay away from. Oh bullshit. And as I have already pointed out, the topic cannot be discussed without religion because religion is the only source we have on the topic. Only because you cannot free yourself from the tiny, constrictive box of magical thinking.

PeonForHer -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/4/2016 2:53:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: It is true that Kirata is not the definitive authority but it is also true that I was replying to Kirata when you inserted the listless, overused, overly convenient, trite defense that "there may be alternate forms of whatever." which signals to me that you really have nothing of substance to contribute to the conversation and are only grasping for phantom, unknowable shit, which is basically religion that we were going to stay away from. Oh bullshit. And as I have already pointed out, the topic cannot be discussed without religion because religion is the only source we have on the topic. Me, I can't help thinking, so often, that religion is just the 'middle man'. There's us, on one side, and the truth, on the other - and in the middle are the retailers, who claim they can connect the one side with the other. I don't believe them. I can't see that religion is a viable source. Certainly not an 'original source', anyway. This or that religion might look as though it's got wisdom that would build on what I've learned, for myself ... but they're still only retailers, to me. That's my own feeling and view, as it's so far developed, at any rate.

dcnovice -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/4/2016 3:05:35 PM)
FR I'm far from a Rumsfeld fan, but I find "unknown unknowns" a handy turn of phrase. It certainly rings true for my medical misadventures.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/4/2016 4:35:57 PM)
quote: Only because you cannot free yourself from the tiny, constrictive box of magical thinking. No. I say that because I am in fact thinking entirely scientifically. See there simply is zero actual scientific explanation for the emergence of either life or sentience, and there is also no actual accepted scientific definition of what constitutes sentience. It was not so long ago that science did not believe plants were sentient, but with the advancement of measuring technology we have come to understand that plants are indeed imbued with a form of sentience, one very different from our own, in as much as they react to external stimulus. Therefore it is fact unscientific to say that rocks and minerals are categorically non-sentient. The best that can be said while remaining within the bounds of actual scientific inquiry is that to date there is no evidence of either life or sentience in rocks and minerals. Remember, a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of something.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/4/2016 4:39:08 PM)
quote: I can't see that religion is a viable source. I will agree that it is a very shaky source, but it is the only source we have. As imperfect as it is, it is the only basis on which we can discuss the topic, as science simply has nothing to say on the subject. Basically the scientific explanation is: "Some weird shit happened and then there was life, then some other weird shit happened and there was sentience, but don't ask us what that weird shit was, because we don't have a clue." And that is basically the same explanation religion gives, except that religions claim to have a clue. Personally I believe that the universe was self created, and that life was self-generated, and that sentience was self-generated as well. The universe exists because it wants to exist, life exists because it wants to exist, and sentience exists because it wants to exist.

MasterBrentC -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/4/2016 9:51:15 PM)
After reading some of the posts here, I've come to the conclusion that if you are going to discuss the origins of the universe or the existence of mankind on this planet, you absolutely have to bring God into the discussion. I believe he exists and he is alive. The evidence is overwhelming. Some people refuse to see the presence of God because they cannot or will not believe that God was here from the beginning of time and he will be here forever in the future. But for those that want to argue the existence of God, here is a challenge for you. Prove to me that air exists.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 12:50:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Because they are inanimate... I don't see why being animate would be a requirement for having an interior awareness of being. K. Because the concept of awareness requires recognition, the concept of determining there is a there...there. That requires the electro-chemical activity in a brain to create the thought required to conceptualize that recognition.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 1:04:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC After reading some of the posts here, I've come to the conclusion that if you are going to discuss the origins of the universe or the existence of mankind on this planet, you absolutely have to bring God into the discussion. I believe he exists and he is alive. The evidence is overwhelming. Some people refuse to see the presence of God because they cannot or will not believe that God was here from the beginning of time and he will be here forever in the future. But for those that want to argue the existence of God, here is a challenge for you. Prove to me that air exists. Science is not on your side here in any way. To tell me I must bring in the unprovable into any discussion, renders the debate...meaningless and becomes intellectually insulting. Because you believe it is also meaningless and there is no evidence that god exists. Air is the what I feel on my skin and what I physically feel I breathe in and out. Air is what moves things in my surroundings when I turn on the AC and thus proves it existence. All of that is the vapor, the mixture of gases we generally call air.

MasterBrentC -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 5:01:49 AM)
Religion is all about faith. It can't be proven scientifically so each person has to rely on faith to either believe or disbelieve. But I will tell you this, it takes more faith from you to not believe that God exists. Let's look at just a few examples. The "Big Bang" theory, when was the last time a huge explosion created anything? An explosion of any size destroys, it doesn't create. If the earth was any close or farther away from the sun, life old not exist on this planet. If the earth was not tilted exactly as it is, life could not exist on this planet. If the forces of gravity weren't so exactly balanced in the heavens the earth would plunge headlong into the sun and burn up or it would shoot off into space and freeze. Explain how any of this happens but accident. Allegedly we all crawled out of the water and evolved into human beings which took place over millions of years. Where is this five million year old person? If something did happen to crawl out onto dry land, what happened when it reached the end of its life? How many other genetic accidents would need to happen over millions of years for life to continue to exist? How can you account for the multitude of different plant and animal species here on earth? Is everything here on this planet the decedent's of ONE genetic accident? Let's take a look at the human body for a moment. All of the chemical elements that are present in your body are in such perfect balance that you are able to be healthy. If they get out of balance in a miniscule amount, you would get sick and possibly die. The bacteria in your digestive system were anywhere else in your body, you would get sick and die. Back in the ' 70's a room full of computers were all given the task of designing something to do the job that a single red blood cell does. After one week of continuous analysis they came up with a red blood cell. I could go on and on with hundreds of other examples but I trust I've proven my point. The existence of God cannot be proven scientifically so we rely on faith. But the result of his handiwork cannot be denied. By faith I believe he is real. But after all of the examples that I have given you and the thousands that I have not, you must have more faith to believe he does not. Everyone makes his own choice but I know what I believe.

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 5:18:12 AM)
The watchmaker argument is an old, and slightly tiresome one, however, to address your point that the nature of life on this planet implies an intelligent designer, there are a few simple points worth raising. First and most obviously: if this planet was created by God solely for our benefit, why is so much of its surface uninhabitable by human beings? Why are there so many repulsive parasites, diseases and predators that prey on the species that is supposed to be God's last word on His creation? Second: regarding the very limited range of physical conditions that made the genesis and evolution of life possible here, it's a very big universe. Even the longest odds will arise eventually somewhere. Third: the ingenious engineering of the human body. A lot of it doesn't quite work properly. You would agree that having knees that are likely to wear out twenty or thirty years before the rest of your skeleton is not a very clever piece of design work? Similar objections can be raised to the presence of the appendix and wisdom teeth, the fragility of several other organs, and probably a lot of other stuff somebody with more of a grounding in physiology could point out. If anything was designed, rather than just happening, why are there similar species and forms evolving independently, rather than standardisation? The panda's thumb is a good example of this one.

Staleek -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 5:43:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods The watchmaker argument is an old, and slightly tiresome one, however, to address your point that the nature of life on this planet implies an intelligent designer, there are a few simple points worth raising. First and most obviously: if this planet was created by God solely for our benefit, why is so much of its surface uninhabitable by human beings? Why are there so many repulsive parasites, diseases and predators that prey on the species that is supposed to be God's last word on His creation? Second: regarding the very limited range of physical conditions that made the genesis and evolution of life possible here, it's a very big universe. Even the longest odds will arise eventually somewhere. Third: the ingenious engineering of the human body. A lot of it doesn't quite work properly. You would agree that having knees that are likely to wear out twenty or thirty years before the rest of your skeleton is not a very clever piece of design work? Similar objections can be raised to the presence of the appendix and wisdom teeth, the fragility of several other organs, and probably a lot of other stuff somebody with more of a grounding in physiology could point out. If anything was designed, rather than just happening, why are there similar species and forms evolving independently, rather than standardisation? The panda's thumb is a good example of this one. Good points, but here is some food for thought. 1. This point assumes hypothetical god created life for humans. While this does diminish the argument for many religious ideas it doesn't diminish all religious ideas (deism or nature religions for example). Also presumes that hypothetical god is not a cockroach (a distinct possibility), as a cockroach is a considerably more "favoured" organism than human. 2. Belief in aliens is also based on faith. There is zero evidence for such things and good arguments against (Fermi paradox). Life could be a completely unique occurrence, perhaps just a chemical process that started long ago and hasn't finished yet. That isn't to say that belief in aliens is wrong, merely that it is a belief. 3. Cycle of life and the finite world we inhabit demands death. Organisms having a limited shelf-life could be part of a design. Each version of windows gets quietly sabotaged so that the next version can be sold.

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 7:29:09 AM)
I think it was George Bernard Shaw who observed that if anything could be said to be proven about God, it was that He really likes beetles, wasn't it? As far as death and entropy goes, no question that everything needs to break down eventually. My point about the human body, though is that it often tends to break down piecemeal, with certain parts packing up catastrophically while the rest of it is still ticking over nicely. This is a really weird approach to built in obsolescence that implies even incompetence or a lack of forethought on the part of the designer. [:D]

Edwird -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 8:32:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrent But for those that want to argue the existence of God, here is a challenge for you. Prove to me that air exists. Oh! What a dagger to the metaphysical heart that one is! Well, being that a thermal conductivity detector or a gas chromatography device and the measurements obtained thereby are just figments of our imagination, ignore the millions in sales on those items ... But in any case, here's an ancient Druid-Hindu-Celtic-JuJu walk-around that uses those devices to come up with in answer to your thoughtful question; http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/aircomposition.htm

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 8:35:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Only because you cannot free yourself from the tiny, constrictive box of magical thinking. No. I say that because I am in fact thinking entirely scientifically. See there simply is zero actual scientific explanation for the emergence of either life or sentience, and there is also no actual accepted scientific definition of what constitutes sentience. It was not so long ago that science did not believe plants were sentient, but with the advancement of measuring technology we have come to understand that plants are indeed imbued with a form of sentience, one very different from our own, in as much as they react to external stimulus. Therefore it is fact unscientific to say that rocks and minerals are categorically non-sentient. The best that can be said while remaining within the bounds of actual scientific inquiry is that to date there is no evidence of either life or sentience in rocks and minerals. Remember, a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of something. quote: No. I say that because I am in fact thinking entirely scientifically. See there simply is zero actual scientific explanation for the emergence of either life or sentience, and there is also no actual accepted scientific definition of what constitutes sentience. 1. Actually, there are scientific explanations for the emergence of life. I have referred above to the evidence for abiogenesis. 2. I don’t know of any scientific explanation specifically for the emergence of sentience but I don’t see that it would be any different than that for the emergence of consciousness out of structure, which I also referred to above. 3. Since by definition sentience predicts the feeling of pain in some fashion that process is subject to scientific exploration. quote: It was not so long ago that science did not believe plants were sentient, but with the advancement of measuring technology we have come to understand that plants are indeed imbued with a form of sentience, one very different from our own, in as much as they react to external stimulus 1. the ability to react to a stimulus may be evidence of life but it is not evidence of consciousness or sentience. A bivalve will close if stimulated but that does not mean the clam has consciousness. Humans react autonomically to stimuli but doing so does not prove awareness of internal subjectivity or feeling, although that may follow the reaction. 2. It has been a long while since I took my plant physiology class, so I searched the topic on the internet. From what I found the notion still remains within the realm of the paranormal. Some plants do react to stimuli. Some grow toward the sun. That is not proof of subjectivity. It is simply the production of chemicals that cause an uneven production of cell division lengthening the plant on the side away from the light and creating the bending. 3. What technology has become so advanced to lead us to the alleged sentience in plants? Specifics, please. quote: Therefore it is fact unscientific to say that rocks and minerals are categorically non-sentient. The best that can be said while remaining within the bounds of actual scientific inquiry is that to date there is no evidence of either life or sentience in rocks and minerals. “There is no evidence for either life or sentience in rocks” is in fact a scientific statement because it leads to predictions that can be tested or falsified. I can hypothesize: If a rock is sentient it will feel pain. I can then go on and smack it with a hammer and observe any chemical or electrical changes that might indicate a sentient response to the hammer blow. Finding none does not give you license to presume there is an alternative mechanism. Not at all. It is incumbent upon you to propose a hypothesis that can be falsified. Otherwise, your statement falls within the wishful category of “gods of the gaps.” quote: Remember, a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of something. Nor is it doing science, which rests entirely on evidence. So, scientifically, a lack of evidence is simply made up shit.

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 8:38:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrent But for those that want to argue the existence of God, here is a challenge for you. Prove to me that air exists. Oh! What a dagger to the metaphysical heart that one is! Well, being that a thermal conductivity detector or a gas chromatography device and the measurements obtained thereby are just figments of our imagination, ignore the millions in sales on those items ... But in any case, here's an ancient Druid-Hindu-Celtic-JuJu walk-around that uses those devices to come up with in answer to your thoughtful question; http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/aircomposition.htm I'd be interested to know how a fire can be lit, or any other kind of combustion can occur, without the oxygen content of air being on hand to let stuff burn...

Edwird -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 8:42:49 AM)
Oh yeah, and those wing flaps on planes when taking off? Most people don't know this, but in the cockpit, those pilots are pulling on a big lever labeled as "god, push me up please."

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625