Fighting Fire With Fire

[quote]vroom wrote:
JPBear wrote:
Evolution is a theory. It is not proven and it is not provable. Screaming at the world that it is a fact does not make it so. There are many scientists out there who believe in the theory, but are honest enough to admit the many places where the theory is lacking.

This works well like this too…

Creation is a theory. It is not proven and it is not provable. Screaming at the world that it is a fact does not make it so.

[/quote]

You’re 10000000% correct sir. The point being is that it’s all based on faith in something. Nothing can really be proven either way and it just comes down what you want to believe in. After you decide what you want to belive in, you can take comfort in finding “evidence” to support your belief and to generally make you feel better about yourself through validation.

It’s all such crap really. I believe in God because even if i look at evolution it supports the existance of a higher being. In looking at the evolution of various forms of life, each one in the sequence being more and more complex and advanced. Would it not stand to reason that there should be a being more and further advanced from us? With infinitely more complexity? One that we are not aware of, much like an “ant” in an ant hill is not aware of us humans with great places like New Your City?

Just a thought to ponder.

[quote]Gregus wrote:
I believe in God because even if i look at evolution it supports the existance of a higher being. In looking at the evolution of various forms of life, each one in the sequence being more and more complex and advanced. Would it not stand to reason that there should be a being more and further advanced from us? With infinitely more complexity? [/quote]

I don’t see why science and religion have to be incompatible… well, unless you get into fundamental literalism.

Wasn’t there an outcry from the members here not too long ago about religious threads?

I’m not so sure how you can turn a blind eye to the hatred spewing from the left, and only see it coming from the right.

Hspder The Genius is nothing more than a partisan hack. But anyone with a functioning brainstem - evolved or not - should have that without him posting a thread to prove it.

This thread is as idiotic and self-serving as the ones Hspder The Great was railing against.

[quote]Gregus wrote:
vroom wrote:
JPBear wrote:
Evolution is a theory. It is not proven and it is not provable. Screaming at the world that it is a fact does not make it so. There are many scientists out there who believe in the theory, but are honest enough to admit the many places where the theory is lacking.

This works well like this too…

Creation is a theory. It is not proven and it is not provable. Screaming at the world that it is a fact does not make it so.

You’re 10000000% correct sir. The point being is that it’s all based on faith in something. Nothing can really be proven either way and it just comes down what you want to believe in. After you decide what you want to belive in, you can take comfort in finding “evidence” to support your belief and to generally make you feel better about yourself through validation.

It’s all such crap really. I believe in God because even if i look at evolution it supports the existance of a higher being. In looking at the evolution of various forms of life, each one in the sequence being more and more complex and advanced. Would it not stand to reason that there should be a being more and further advanced from us? With infinitely more complexity? One that we are not aware of, much like an “ant” in an ant hill is not aware of us humans with great places like New Your City?

Just a thought to ponder.

[/quote]

No no no no no no no.

Evolution is NOT based in faith. It is based in evidence. Whether or not you feel like putting the word ‘evidence’ in quotes doesn’t really matter.

Small difference, but an important one.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
This thread is as idiotic and self-serving as the ones Hspder The Great was railing against. [/quote]

Isn’t that the whole point?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Gregus wrote:
I believe in God because even if i look at evolution it supports the existance of a higher being. In looking at the evolution of various forms of life, each one in the sequence being more and more complex and advanced. Would it not stand to reason that there should be a being more and further advanced from us? With infinitely more complexity?

I don’t see why science and religion have to be incompatible… well, unless you get into fundamental literalism.[/quote]

I usually avoid these topics on here but I need to make this statement: Science and religion are not incompatible.

It only becomes incompatible when people make it so (i.e. they close their minds to possibilities). I am a scientist that happens to have very strong religious beliefs. However, I don’t let either side blind me to the other. I believe that they can coexist as do many religious scholars that I have talked to personally.

My church is around the corner from a seminary and our pastor has close ties to it. We get many of their students and teachers visiting our church for services and programs. The topics get very lively at times, but also very educational as well. The topic of science vs. religion has come up on many occasions. It is all about how you approach the topic that makes all the difference in the world. Attacking, yelling, arguing and screaming doesn’t do anything more except create more attacking, yelling, arguing and screaming.

I think when religion and science finally agree to the others right to exist, then we can truly get some progress made towards truth.

Using analogies and facts and logic to support an argument are fine, but is usually done so at the exclusion of other equally as valid analogies, facts and logic on the other part.

Much philosophical thought thru ages, which seems to omit religion and science to a degree seems to “revert” back to an idea of the “One”. Now you can call that concept what you will, but to me it denies neither science nor religion. But again, it is only “one” way of thinking taking down its own linear path.

The difference in western thought and eastern thought for instance. Both are valid, but wow, what a difference.

Maybe we should all quit dividing up into camps and under banners and labels and consider a search for truth, not a search to defend our label and discount that which does not perfectly fit that which know not perfectly, but choose to fight for so vehemently.

This reminds me of a certain conflict now going on in Lebanon. It seems that no progress towards truth or peace will happen until both sides work hand in hand and stop taking shots at the other. Both sides have equal valid points for their position.

It is also a very tired tactic to call a proponent of one view or another ignorant, or talk about how flawed their thinking is or how unenlightened they are.

I think the debates on the forum could be enhanced by allowing both viewpoints to grow without all the hostility. Surely that would be a better environment for ideas and concepts to grow?

Otherwise it is just ego masturbation exercise and we could post it in the sex forum.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Gregus wrote:
I believe in God because even if i look at evolution it supports the existance of a higher being. In looking at the evolution of various forms of life, each one in the sequence being more and more complex and advanced. Would it not stand to reason that there should be a being more and further advanced from us? With infinitely more complexity?

I don’t see why science and religion have to be incompatible… well, unless you get into fundamental literalism.[/quote]

You were on the right track till you chose sides. Live and let live dude. Your last sentence puts you in the same cesspool of shit as those you rail against, but on the other side of the pool. Get outta the pool, you guys are gettin all wrinkly.

I never said science and religion are incompatible. They’re both very compatible. It’s just amatter of what you want to believe in. For a cartain mind set they can be one and the same, for others mindset thay can be very separate. Again it’s all what you want to believe in. It’s all a matter of faith, really.

As for the evolutionary evidence. Sure, if evolution is your belief, you can interpret many things to be evidence. Same goes for religion.

I guess alot of people need to compartmentalise their thinking. The thought of us really just not knowing is too scary for most. They must define routes and confines of thought in “some” direction to make sense of it all.

But the reality of it is that the world around us and the world we live n are two totally different things. Once a person believes in something like religion or evolution or anything really, they will see what they want to see the longer they immerse themselves in it.

[quote]hspder wrote:

My American friends tell me that you are slipping towards a theocratic Dark Age. Which is very disagreeable for the very large number of educated, intelligent and right-thinking people in America.[/quote]

It was a nice read right up until this car crash. The sort of sentence that in the Middle East would be followed by ‘wiped from the face of the Earth’.

Because a leader you happen to disagree with got elected, everyone who supports or supported him is ignorant/uneducated.

It’s like a leftist fundamentalism wrapped up in a pseudo-intellectual message.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
hspder wrote:
WHEN you do open your mind…

This is the problem, pal. If they question the magic, it’s spoiled. That’s what faith is all about, right?

Asking a superstitious person to let go of their superstitions for a second and “think outside the box” is most likely a waste of time. The superstitions are accepted as fact before anything else is considered – especially if there are magical powers to be gained from doing so. The only viable worldviews to them are ones which incorporate the superstitions into them. Thus we have ID and other such nonsense.

It CANNOT occur to them that a basis for reality which is reliant upon faith might be a stumbling block. Here we see that need to be “special” overruling the truth of the matter which is simply the fact that we are nothing more than animals that have the “magical” ability to think – no more “magical” or special than a bird which has the “magical” ability to fly, or a fish which has the “magical” ability to breathe underwater.

Faith is chemical reactions in your brain; just like love, hate, envy, and all other metaphorical things. Does the fact that I have faith protect me from death? Duh. No. Just like any other imagining, it is something internal in my brain which has no effect on anything but my ideas and my behavior that arises from my ideas.

But you can’t explain this simple logic to them, because they MUST discard such a thing out of hand. Their primary motivation is the reinforcement of the superstition. All other mental stuff is tacked on in various different ways, depending on the kind of superstition, how they were raised, and what they have learned from their life experiences, and so forth.

It’s all very fascinating to me. The fundies especially. They are fucking fun.[/quote]

All these words, if written by another poster such as JPBear to you would be equally as valid.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
It’s like a leftist fundamentalism wrapped up in a pseudo-intellectual message.
[/quote]

You just summed up Hspder The Great in one sentence - especially the “pseudo-intellectual message” part.

[quote]btm62 wrote:
You were on the right track till you chose sides. Live and let live dude. Your last sentence puts you in the same cesspool of shit as those you rail against, but on the other side of the pool. Get outta the pool, you guys are gettin all wrinkly.[/quote]

I’m not choosing a side, I’m commenting of what I’ve seen from a certain subgroup of people. That subgroup rejects aspects of science that compete with their worldview.

My view is that no aspect of science needs to be rejected, but that does not make it incompatible with religion.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m not choosing a side, I’m commenting of what I’ve seen from a certain subgroup of people. That subgroup rejects aspects of science that compete with their worldview.

My view is that no aspect of science needs to be rejected, but that does not make it incompatible with religion.[/quote]

Actually, I have seen this dynamic on both sides. You have a subgroup on here that rejects aspects of religious thought that compete with their worldview and you have another subgroup on here that rejects aspects of science that compete with their worldview. There is close-mindedness on both sides. So long as this exists, these threads will exist.

I know, I know, I borrowed your phrasing, but I thought it was a good one and very accurate. :wink:

I have the same view that science should not be rejected simply because it challenges established religious doctrine. I also feel that religion should not be rejected simply because some people feel threaten by religious doctrine. In other words, each has its own merits and faults but that does not prevent them from coexisting.

If I were to reject science in favor of religion, I wouldn’t have my well paying job, I wouldn’t go to the doctor, use this computer, take supplements or have anything to do with what science has provided. Conversely, if I were to reject religion in favor of science, I wouldn’t have had the spiritual strength to deal with many of the tragedies and obstacles that I have delt with in my life. It has literally helped me to live, survive and thrive.

My point is, these two things can work together if you allow them to.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
vroom wrote:
I’m not choosing a side, I’m commenting of what I’ve seen from a certain subgroup of people. That subgroup rejects aspects of science that compete with their worldview.

My view is that no aspect of science needs to be rejected, but that does not make it incompatible with religion.

Actually, I have seen this dynamic on both sides. You have a subgroup on here that rejects aspects of religious thought that compete with their worldview and you have another subgroup on here that rejects aspects of science that compete with their worldview. There is close-mindedness on both sides. So long as this exists, these threads will exist.

I know, I know, I borrowed your phrasing, but I thought it was a good one and very accurate. :wink:

I have the same view that science should not be rejected simply because it challenges established religious doctrine. I also feel that religion should not be rejected simply because some people feel threaten by religious doctrine. In other words, each has its own merits and faults but that does not prevent them from coexisting.

If I were to reject science in favor of religion, I wouldn’t have my well paying job, I wouldn’t go to the doctor, use this computer, take supplements or have anything to do with what science has provided. Conversely, if I were to reject religion in favor of science, I wouldn’t have had the spiritual strength to deal with many of the tragedies and obstacles that I have delt with in my life. It has literally helped me to live, survive and thrive.

My point is, these two things can work together if you allow them to.[/quote]

Vroom,

I was gonna say basically the same thing here. Thanks AlDurr.

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
This thread is as idiotic and self-serving as the ones Hspder The Great was railing against.

Isn’t that the whole point?[/quote]

Yap. Rainjack likes to prove my points, as he has shown in the past many times…

Some of you are acting like those who believe in a literal six day creation flat outright reject all aspects of science. That is just not true. All of the theories we reject are just that - theories. For example, creationists believe in micro-evolution, because there actually is observable evidence for it.

And just to clarify, I never stated that my beliefs are an obvious fact and that you are an idiot if you reject them. It takes repentance and faith to believe it, and natural man is only enabled to repent and have faith through the Spirit of God. The Bible itself states that Christianity will appear to be foolishness to the world, and that most people will reject it.

I hope I have never come across as though I think the reason you reject my beliefs is because you are not intelligent enough. Quite the opposite, I think most of you are far more intelligent than I am.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I get tired of the endless evangelical threads myself and have stated so, but I’ve always thought the best way to fight fire is with water.

Hspder, another thread - even one from the opposite side - does nothing to steer us away from that exhausted debate.[/quote]

Of course it doesn’t. That was never the point – the point is to bring balance and show the completely opposite point of view. Some people might actually be interested in reading Dawkins’ work.

As long as we are debating things without turning to physical violence, it’s worth it… It’s when people stop talking and reach for the physical armament that things get nasty.

Some startling ideas in the minds of some of the forum users. I would be in great doubt that reality, if it is perceived at all, hardly penetrates the monomaniacal consciousness in any shape or form in some of you.

For those who don’t suffer from Monomania, seek out Edgar Allen Poes :

“The Black Cat and other stories”

paying particular attention to B?renice (about a madman who wants to marry his sick cousin only for her beautiful teeth)

Absolutely startling.

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Some of you are acting like those who believe in a literal six day creation flat outright reject all aspects of science. That is just not true. All of the theories we reject are just that - theories. For example, creationists believe in micro-evolution, because there actually is observable evidence for it.[/quote]

Parts of science have been rejected in the past as well. However, over time, whenever religion and science conflict, it is science that has always been the eventual victor.

Religion is best suited for dealing with issues of spirituality while science is best suited for dealing with issues of material.

Rejecting “parts of science” is very strange, because you use and depend on the fruits of science every day and in so many ways. I’m guessing we have “salad bar science” just as we have “salad bar religion”.

Anyhow, while the question of evolution is very intricate, and is difficult to prove without a doubt today, I am pretty sure that over time, perhaps centuries, as more evidence is gathered, religion will once again be forced to cede that reasonable evidence exists to support the issue.

This is traditionally how issues of friction between science and religion have been solved… precisely because of the nature of science and how it will over time zero in on the facts of material matters.

That this has happened, over and over again, trampling on some preferred interpretation or another, simply tells us that religion cannot be interpreted in such a fixed way. The message religion contains is a spiritual one and it is through time and the process of “diefication” that people accede to historical issues that greater claims are made.