The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by sycamorex You're missing one crucial bit:

I know what Blue has done, I also know what certain others have done. This thread is full of hypocrisy from both sides. How about moving on after making your points because the constant barrage coming from some people is typical and boring.

Originally Posted by sycamorex Absolute truths can only be present in Mathematics.

That is not true. you cannot tell me that if you are lucid (i.e. in your right mind and have nothing that is interfering with your mental faculties) that you cannot state that you see something and it is actually there. Example, I'm sitting in bed it is 5.16 am and I am typing this on the screen, that is an absolute truth and nothing mathematical on my part entered into it.

Originally Posted by reed9 1. Don't know. 2. Don't know. 3. Don't know. 4. Evolution and depending on what you mean by actual, there is. Plus, the evidence doesn't hinge on a particular "missing link". The problem of course if that you're just making an argument from ignorance, the famous God of the Gaps ploy. Hardly compelling.

4. You are using the same type of argument that Blue has been picked at for. Christians say the bible, evolutionist say evolution. Hardly compelling is it especially when people demand proof from others yet can only come out with one word to "prove" their stance.

I'm making an argument from ignorance am I? Well please set me straight Reed9. Last time I saw anything new in evolution was Homo Floriensis and that was discovered by Mike Morwood who was my lecturer at UNE.

The evidence for Human evolution does hinge on missing links. There is nothing that actually shows a progression from Ardepithecus to Australopithecine to Homo. There are very few remains from Ardi and Australo so it is basically extremely difficult to claim that Australo is a descendant of Ardi and very also very little to say that Homo is descended from Australo. This being the case where did Homo Sapien Sapien come from? Did he just materialise? I'm not saying he was created but if your arguing vehemently that he wasn't you need to show something to say where he come from.

The real issue with this thread is the way the "higher moral ground" is being claimed. As I said a few posts ago I know what Blue has done but I also know what others have done. A situation has been setup where a confrontation is inevitable. I was kind of hoping that sanity would prevail and instead of some people calling others idiots and liars they would start to show they aren't themselves brainiacs. Alas so far my suspicions have been well founded as only one person has answered simple questions (thank you Reed9) others are skirting the questions and the main person has totally ignored the question. Unfortunately this thread has become one of trolling, it is a pity really because I do like this type of discussion but I rarely get involved purely because of this type of behaviour.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 This thread is full of hypocrisy from both sides.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19468...you-think.html

Originally Posted by k3lt01 That is not true. you cannot tell me that if you are lucid (i.e. in your right mind and have nothing that is interfering with your mental faculties) that you cannot state that you see something and it is actually there. Example, I'm sitting in bed it is 5.16 am and I am typing this on the screen, that is an absolute truth and nothing mathematical on my part entered into it.

What I meant was that (areas of) mathematics is/are probably the only system where "the truth" is objective, not distorted by your individual perception of things. Having said that, it might just be my 'distorted' view of mathematics.

Originally Posted by sycamorex http://www.cracked.com/article_19468...you-think.html

So is this your way of excusing the behaviour contained in this thread from both sides?

Originally Posted by sycamorex What I meant was that (areas of) mathematics is/are probably the only system where "the truth" is objective, not distorted by your individual perception of things. Having said that, it might just be my 'distorted' view of mathematics.

What you meant and what you said are two different things though aren't they? That's ok people make mistakes, I'm not going to howl you down for 3 or 4 pages in this thread nor will I chase you in other threads for that simple error of judgement .

Originally Posted by k3lt01 So is this your way of excusing the behaviour contained in this thread from both sides?

No, this is my way of explaining why people behave certain way. I'm as guilty as charged also.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 What you meant and what you said are two different things though aren't they? That's ok people make mistakes, I'm not going to howl you down for 3 or 4 pages in this thread nor will I chase you in other threads for that simple error of judgement .

What can I say? I thought I said what I had meant. Obviously not. I'm really glad you're not going to chase me.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 4. You are using the same type of argument that Blue has been picked at for. Christians say the bible, evolutionist say evolution. Hardly compelling is it especially when people demand proof from others yet can only come out with one word to "prove" their stance.

Well, that's why I said depending on what you mean by actual. (By the way I meant evidence for evolution in general does not hinge on any particular fossil. We could have no fossils and the evidence for evolution would still be strong.) If you mean is there an undisputed line of fossils leading from a non-human ancestor to humans, as far as I know there is not. If you mean, is there a wealth of fossils for related species and fossils that might have be human precursors, we do.

And there is a massive difference between saying evolution and saying the Bible. Evolution is science, it makes testable predictions, it can be falsified. It also gives us real understanding on the underlying processes like natural selection, sexual selection, and of course with the discovery of genetics, we have even better understanding of how that all works.

I'm making an argument from ignorance am I? Well please set me straight Reed9. Last time I saw anything new in evolution was Homo Floriensis and that was discovered by Mike Morwood who was my lecturer at UNE.

If by asking those questions, you meant to imply a lack of answers supports the notion there is a god, yes, you're making an argument from ignorance.

The evidence for Human evolution does hinge on missing links. There is nothing that actually shows a progression from Ardepithecus to Australopithecine to Homo. There are very few remains from Ardi and Australo so it is basically extremely difficult to claim that Australo is a descendant of Ardi and very also very little to say that Homo is descended from Australo. This being the case where did Homo Sapien Sapien come from? Did he just materialise? I'm not saying he was created but if your arguing vehemently that he wasn't you need to show something to say where he come from.

We spent many pages on this earlier in the thread, so I'm going to be brief. It's wonderful that we have any many fossils as we do, all things considered. But we do not need an unbroken chain of fossils leading to humans to show that humans evolved and are evolving. There is powerful evidence coming from genetics.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 So is this your way of excusing the behaviour contained in this thread from both sides?

[angsty_cynicism]
You're assuming an axiom of "free will" when you claim that people can somehow act differently than what's described there. We can't. Like it or not, all behavior is explainable mechanistically (i.e. impersonally, without a "human" context, whatever that means), and thus "excusable" in a "human" context. Ultimately there's no escaping the mechanistic reality…whether evolution is working "for" or "against" us (again, whatever that means in an objective context ), there isn't sh*t we can do about it; all we can do is sit and "watch".
[/angsty_cynicism]

Originally Posted by reed9 And there is a massive difference between saying evolution and saying the Bible. Evolution is science, it makes testable predictions, it can be falsified. It also gives us real understanding on the underlying processes like natural selection, sexual selection, and of course with the discovery of genetics, we have even better understanding of how that all works.

The issue here is though you are comparing apples and oranges. They are not supposed to do the same thing. Science is not about faith, religion (in this context) however is. Religion is not about testable comclusions, science however is. Asking someone to prove something about religion shows a complete lack of understanding as to what religion is and thus negates the argument that one is better than the other.

Originally Posted by reed9 If by asking those questions, you meant to imply a lack of answers supports the notion there is a god, yes, you're making an argument from ignorance.

Ah, you made your statement in ignorance then because I have not implied anything except that the argument was one sided. I asked simple questions to see what people know about origins of the universe and life as we know it from a scientific pov. It is rather obvious that because people have concentrated so much on disproving there is or isn't a god they have neglected to study up on the opposing pov and because of that they have no real answer to simple questions.

Originally Posted by reed9 We spent many pages on this earlier in the thread, so I'm going to be brief. It's wonderful that we have any many fossils as we do, all things considered. But we do not need an unbroken chain of fossils leading to humans to show that humans evolved and are evolving. There is powerful evidence coming from genetics.

You do however need obvious links and there aren't any. Theorising is fine, stating it is reality because you believe "we do not need an unbroken chain of fossils" is putting the cart before the horse. Having a testable conclusion means you need to show a logical progression. That does not exist, yet. Sure you can surmise Ardi evolved in Australo which then evolved into Homo etc etc etc but you cannot prove it. This means there are holes in the argument that still need to be filled. Claiming otherwise shows you don't understand the scientific process and just believe what you are told because to your mind it is more logical than the opposing pov. This is fine, you are allowed your opinion and I am not going to pick at your personally for that unlike what has happened to Blue.

If the "science" people are going to keep claiming their way is the right way then they need to provide categorical proof of their claims for their versions of reality. It is neither here nor there if it has been supplied 100 pages ago, the same thing can be said about the religion pov. If they cannot they should admit this and then discuss things without calling people names or resorting to slack tactics. That is the point of my posting.

---------- Post added 27-11-11 at 11:27 AM ----------

Originally Posted by MrCode [angsty_cynicism] You're assuming an axiom of "free will" when you claim that people can somehow act differently than what's described there. We can't. Like it or not, all behavior is explainable mechanistically (i.e. impersonally, without a "human" context, whatever that means), and thus "excusable" in a "human" context. Ultimately there's no escaping the mechanistic reality…whether evolution is working "for" or "against" us (again, whatever that means in an objective context ), there isn't sh*t we can do about it; all we can do is sit and "watch". [/angsty_cynicism]

Nope I'm assuming we are supposed to be adults. Simple really.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 The issue here is though you are comparing apples and oranges. They are not supposed to do the same thing. Science is not about faith, religion (in this context) however is. Religion is not about testable comclusions, science however is. Asking someone to prove something about religion shows a complete lack of understanding as to what religion is and thus negates the argument that one is better than the other.

People say that a lot. And yet, religions and religious folks make testable, empirical truth claims all of the time. If no one ever claimed their religion said something true about the universe, I wouldn't have these conversations. But they do, and they act on their beliefs. Would that everyone viewed the Bible as Shakespeare, something to be aesthetically enjoyed, not as a guide to life. But if you make a truth claim about the universe, you have entered into the realm of science and reason, and your claim can be falsified. Religion should not have some privileged position in society making it immune from criticism and questioning. And so long as religious people are making claims like, I don't know, prayer cures AIDS, I will be out there fighting religion. I suggest you put your energies towards convincing believers that their belief is not about testable conclusions, since they seem far more confused than I am on the issue.

But, if religion is to refrain from making truth claims, such as "god exists", what in the world is it for? Moral claims? I grant it does that, though religious morality is pretty awful in many cases. And religions have not generally been on the forefront of morality, but rather dragged kicking and screaming along as the world changes.

Ah, you made your statement in ignorance then because I have not implied anything except that the argument was one sided. I asked simple questions to see what people know about origins of the universe and life as we know it from a scientific pov. It is rather obvious that because people have concentrated so much on disproving there is or isn't a god they have neglected to study up on the opposing pov and because of that they have no real answer to simple questions.

My mistake. But simple questions? The origins of the universe and life are not simple questions. We don't have good answers to these questions yet.

You do however need obvious links and there aren't any. Theorising is fine, stating it is reality because you believe "we do not need an unbroken chain of fossils" is putting the cart before the horse. Having a testable conclusion means you need to show a logical progression. That does not exist, yet. Sure you can surmise Ardi evolved in Australo which then evolved into Homo etc etc etc but you cannot prove it. This means there are holes in the argument that still need to be filled. Claiming otherwise shows you don't understand the scientific process and just believe what you are told because to your mind it is more logical than the opposing pov. This is fine, you are allowed your opinion and I am not going to pick at your personally for that unlike what has happened to Blue.

It depends on what you're trying to prove. You do not need missing links to prove that evolution is true. You might need them to prove humans came from a particular lineage.

If the "science" people are going to keep claiming their way is the right way then they need to provide categorical proof of their claims for their versions of reality. It is neither here nor there if it has been supplied 100 pages ago, the same thing can be said about the religion pov. If they cannot they should admit this and then discuss things without calling people names or resorting to slack tactics. That is the point of my posting.

I would offer the fact that you are typing on a computer as categorical proof that science works. It is the only thing that has reliably worked to give us knowledge about the universe.

Rank your religiousness

I am god.

Prove Im not.

Originally Posted by reed9 People say that a lot. And yet, religions and religious folks make testable, empirical truth claims all of the time. If no one ever claimed their religion said something true about the universe, I wouldn't have these conversations. But they do, and they act on their beliefs. Would that everyone viewed the Bible as Shakespeare, something to be aesthetically enjoyed, not as a guide to life. But if you make a truth claim about the universe, you have entered into the realm of science and reason, and your claim can be falsified. Religion should not have some privileged position in society making it immune from criticism and questioning. And so long as religious people are making claims like, I don't know, prayer cures AIDS, I will be out there fighting religion. I suggest you put your energies towards convincing believers that their belief is not about testable conclusions, since they seem far more confused than I am on the issue.

Religion itself teaches that what is contained in the bible is true, now whether you believe that or not is not the issue what the issue is the bible also teaches that faith in what is in the bible is paramount. Science however teaches that everything to be true has to be testable and verifiable. These are two opposing pov and cannot and will not ever work together. I have discussed topics like this everywhere from christianity.com to various cultural websites and I always get back to the point that the 2 beliefs are not compatible in execution.

Originally Posted by reed9 But, if religion is to refrain from making truth claims, such as "god exists", what in the world is it for? Moral claims? I grant it does that, though religious morality is pretty awful in many cases. And religions have not generally been on the forefront of morality, but rather dragged kicking and screaming along as the world changes.

Why should religion,being a faith based idea refrain from making truth claims? Your statement that religions have not generally been on the forefront of morality is an extreme,y wide ranging statement. Are you talking about faith based religions? If so you need to make it clear what ones you are talking about.

Originally Posted by reed9 My mistake. But simple questions? The origins of the universe and life are not simple questions. We don't have good answers to these questions yet.

If you, I mean you as a person who trusts science more than religion not as you individually, say science does not have good answers to these questions why on earth do you think Christians need to be subject to abuse just because they cannot answer your questions to your satisfaction?

Originally Posted by reed9 It depends on what you're trying to prove. You do not need missing links to prove that evolution is true. You might need them to prove humans came from a particular lineage.

I never said evolution wasn't true. I actually believe in evolution within a species but whether or not I believe in evolution from one species to another (ardi-australo-homo) is a completely different matter.

Originally Posted by reed9 I would offer the fact that you are typing on a computer as categorical proof that science works. It is the only thing that has reliably worked to give us knowledge about the universe.

And the fact you have good people doing good things in the name of christianity shows that christianity works. Do you see the dillema?

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Religion itself teaches that what is contained in the bible is true, now whether you believe that or not is not the issue what the issue is the bible also teaches that faith in what is in the bible is paramount. Science however teaches that everything to be true has to be testable and verifiable. These are two opposing pov and cannot and will not ever work together. I have discussed topics like this everywhere from christianity.com to various cultural websites and I always get back to the point that the 2 beliefs are not compatible in execution.

No argument there. Scientific and religious outlooks are incompatible.

Why should religion,being a faith based idea refrain from making truth claims? Your statement that religions have not generally been on the forefront of morality is an extreme,y wide ranging statement. Are you talking about faith based religions? If so you need to make it clear what ones you are talking about.

Well, there's a value judgement implicit there. I value knowledge and truth, free inquiry and curiosity. Religious truth claims are a mockery of that. As for the rest, I was thinking specifically of evangelical Christianity and most of Islam. The prime example these days in in regards to gay and lesbian rights and women's reproductive freedom.

If you, I mean you as a person who trusts science more than religion not as you individually, say science does not have good answers to these questions why on earth do you think Christians need to be subject to abuse just because they cannot answer your questions to your satisfaction?

The issue, as as been stated, is whether they claim to know something because of their faith. If they said, I don't know if God exists, or that he created the universe, then the issue wouldn't come up. But they claim God does exist and did make the universe, and so the burden of proof is on them. If they claim knowledge and cannot back it up, well, it demonstrates the intellectually bankruptcy of religious thought.

I never said evolution wasn't true. I actually believe in evolution within a species but whether or not I believe in evolution from one species to another (ardi-australo-homo) is a completely different matter.

Only to creationists.

And the fact you have good people doing good things in the name of christianity shows that christianity works. Do you see the dillema?

Nope. No dilemma there. Being christian is not required to do good works, nor is it required for morality. Whereas science is required to learn about the world enough to create computers. All your example shows is that religious people can do good things, just like non-religious people.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 That is not true. you cannot tell me that if you are lucid (i.e. in your right mind and have nothing that is interfering with your mental faculties) that you cannot state that you see something and it is actually there. Example, I'm sitting in bed it is 5.16 am and I am typing this on the screen, that is an absolute truth and nothing mathematical on my part entered into it.

I believe the brain in a vat scenario was already mentioned in this thread. Also, if you were not in your right mind, you would likely be unaware of that fact...

Originally Posted by ntubski I believe the brain in a vat scenario was already mentioned in this thread. Also, if you were not in your right mind, you would likely be unaware of that fact...

You don't have to go so extreme as that even. In the real world, people have terrible inattention blindness. This is probably my favorite example. There's a reason eye witness testimony is so unreliable. People, perfectly lucid and in their right minds, can and do fervently believe they see things that didn't happen all the time.