Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Evolution vs. Religion


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution vs. Religion Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/5/2011 6:41:31 PM   
lickenforyou


Posts: 379
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
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.

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.


_____________________________

I changed my profile name to - toserveonlyYou - but am having trouble posting in the forums with that profile.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 441
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/5/2011 10:32:26 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
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)?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 5/5/2011 10:36:00 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 442
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 1:12:22 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline


~ 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.








< Message edited by Edwynn -- 5/6/2011 1:22:05 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 443
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 2:48:53 AM   
lickenforyou


Posts: 379
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

I changed my profile name to - toserveonlyYou - but am having trouble posting in the forums with that profile.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 444
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 5:31:53 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 445
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 4:51:20 PM   
lickenforyou


Posts: 379
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

I changed my profile name to - toserveonlyYou - but am having trouble posting in the forums with that profile.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 446
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 4:52:57 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 5/6/2011 4:54:01 PM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to lickenforyou)
Profile   Post #: 447
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 5:18:22 PM   
lickenforyou


Posts: 379
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

I changed my profile name to - toserveonlyYou - but am having trouble posting in the forums with that profile.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 448
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 5:31:38 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to lickenforyou)
Profile   Post #: 449
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 5:49:09 PM   
lickenforyou


Posts: 379
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

I changed my profile name to - toserveonlyYou - but am having trouble posting in the forums with that profile.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 450
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 5:53:01 PM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline 		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.


< Message edited by FullCircle -- 5/6/2011 6:03:17 PM >

_____________________________

∞ ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 451
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 5:59:49 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 452
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 6:11:36 PM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

∞ ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 453
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 6:15:17 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 454
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 6:19:37 PM   
lickenforyou


Posts: 379
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

I changed my profile name to - toserveonlyYou - but am having trouble posting in the forums with that profile.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 455
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 6:23:42 PM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline 		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?

_____________________________

∞ ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 456
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 6:26:39 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to lickenforyou)
Profile   Post #: 457
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 6:32:19 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 458
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 6:36:04 PM   
lickenforyou


Posts: 379
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

I changed my profile name to - toserveonlyYou - but am having trouble posting in the forums with that profile.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 459
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 5/6/2011 6:44:24 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to lickenforyou)
Profile   Post #: 460
Page:   <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution vs. Religion Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094