The Faith & Religion mega Thread

The (no pun) epiphany of the circle going in the round hole can leave one feeling any direction...

Originally Posted by OregonJim Originally Posted by enorbet OregonJim if you actually think that list constitutes "a large percentage" on a planet with nearly 8 BILLION people on it and it is estimated that there are 30,000 professional scientists working in the USA alone, then seriously you need a deep rethink. The list was merely a tiny representative example, but you knew that. Your only goal in any of your responses is a deceitful attempt to make me out a 'fool'.

I don't think that enorbet is trying to "make you out a fool". Your list of sources was copied and pasted from the "Discovery Institute" website. The declared mission of the institute is to promote their view of an alleged "intelligent design" of the universe: just another clever name for "creationism". Hence they support their own opinion by listing controversial papers written by controversial authors, which are not representative of the scientific community. The institute's mission doesn't allow much space for doubt either, just as in similar religious outlooks of the world:

The mission of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture is to advance the understanding that human beings and nature are the result of intelligent design rather than a blind and undirected process.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix I don't think that enorbet is trying to "make you out a fool". Your list of sources was copied and pasted from the "Discovery Institute" website. The declared mission of the institute is to promote their view of an alleged "intelligent design" of the universe: just another clever name for "creationism". Hence they support their own opinion by listing controversial papers written by controversial authors, which are not representative of the scientific community.

The list was in a response to enorbet's inaccurate statement:

"Science most definitely does NOT postulate that any Intelligence is required. You, Sir, are in error."

That a list of scientific journal articles was compiled by someone in support of one position does not somehow invalidate the list itself. Of course the list is biased - that is the intention. It was meant to show the error in the statement above - that intelligent design is not in the realm of science. The intelligent design theory is most definitely a part of science and scientific study, whether he (or anyone) likes it or not.

One cannot limit the definition of science to "just the parts I believe". That's called your "faith".

By the way, I provided the link to the Discovery Institute DIRECTLY ABOVE THE LIST in my post so that there would be no question what the source was. I 'copied and pasted' the list as a convenience in case the reader was too lazy or disinterested to follow the link.

It is rather amusing to me to hear people describe this Universe as the product of "intelligent design," because to me this implies "human, or at least human-like" intelligence. Face it: we don't have a freakin' clue.

Whether you choose to believe that the Judaeo-Christian "God" created the Universe in six days, or something else, or "Big Bang," you never will know, and "Science" is quite incapable of telling you. I suggest that we simply should not ask it to. Science is great as far as it goes, but it, like human intelligence, only goes so far. It can't go nearly as far as you'd like it to do in this case.

Therefore ... don't dismiss out-of-hand, nor dismiss as "irrelevant," "pagan," or "ignorant," what your fellow human beings have done, during their lifetimes. Have done, each in their own way, as far back as history can see. Maybe they weren't ignorant, weren't unintelligent, weren't backwards, and weren't wrong!

Why do you feel the urgent need to "choose between" science, philosophy, and religion? And, for that matter, what's wrong with intuition? With, "trust your gut?" You won't find any "scientific affirmation," nor even any "evidence," to support you feeling this way ... but, why not also have a little faith in yourself?

If we have a clue that we will never have all the clues then it's kinda a dumb argument to believe just in ca$e... but, I forgot "we."

It actually matters little how many believe a thing. That in itself even if a majority does not make it "scientific". If it does not adhere to the rules of evidence... if it is not falsifiable, then it is not scientific not are the subscribers scientists. The Discovery Institute not only does not subscribe to the scientific method they want to be viewed on a par with Science without earning the stature by doing the work. They wish to procure it by decree which as an organization provably involved in knowingly lying in a court of law they will never get the respect but rather the derision they so richly deserve as cranks of the worst kind.

Phillip is correct. I'm not trying to make OregonJim seem a fool. I'd actually prefer he stop being fooled by double speak a la 1984. A good start would be for him to stop trying to force his definition of terms on others since that is a tactic of agenda pushers and not seekers of truth.

Originally Posted by enorbet Phillip is correct. I'm not trying to make OregonJim seem a fool. I'd actually prefer he stop being fooled by double speak a la 1984. A good start would be for him to stop trying to force his definition of terms on others since that is a tactic of agenda pushers and not seekers of truth.

I only defined my terms because I was asked to - because, as was correctly pointed out by others, we needed common ground to avoid arguing in circles.

I asked you plainly to redefine those terms in a form you agreed with, if you so desired. You did not do so. How is that considered 'forcing an agenda' by me?

Logic, reason, and, most of all, honesty need to be present for some semblance of a rational conversation to take place. I do not see that here. You may disagree with my views, and I with yours - but we can't get anywhere without those attributes present on both sides.

@OregonJim - I clearly stated in more than one post that I agree with the dictionary definitions. The only value words have is for communication which implies the need for agreement. "A rose by any other name is still a rose..." but if I'm speaking to someone who insists "The word "rose" includes nightshade" it is they that must do the taste test, not me. This is exactly why dictionaries exist. It is you that seems to want to modify dictionary terms to suit your agenda of lending credibility to so-called "Intelligent Design". That you use The Discovery Institute as a reference when they are proven liars, even under oath in a court of Law (and in the interest of forcing their will on others, especially children), reveals your "dedication to truth". Since I have remained utterly consistent and even admitted a mistake and have not tried to alter anything to suit my views, I think people in this thread see right through your deceptions and twists and recognize who is actually dedicated to logic, reason and honesty and here's a clue - It isn't you.

Originally Posted by enorbet @OregonJim - I clearly stated in more than one post that I agree with the dictionary definitions. The only value words have is for communication which implies the need for agreement.

You have just invalidated all of science which you hold so preciously sacred.

Science requires one to DEFINE THE TERMS. Not to rely on "dictionary definitions". You are playing the bait & switch game with every post you make.

Why was I asked to define my terms? Just so you could ignore them (without even telling me)? You did not state ANYTHING until much, much later when I called you on it.

THIS is what I mean by dishonesty.

Originally Posted by enorbet That you use The Discovery Institute as a reference when they are proven liars

You, sir, are in error. But you knew that. I did NOT use the Discovery Institute as a reference. A list of references from the scientific community is not invalidated simply because the "list maker" is someone whom you believe to be a "liar". Do you invalidate all of evolution simply because Ophrah endorses it (another proven liar)? Check out the references themselves. That's the HONEST way of evaluating something.

We must assume that any list YOU produce, compiled by yourself, is EQUALLY INADMISSABLE simply because YOU compiled it.

Another sacred scientific principle violated. Crass hypocricy on your part.

THIS is what I mean by dishonesty.

Oh dear "god,,," can we open your brain to see how it works?

Found on a billboard ... very apropos to the present discussion:

Originally Posted by Charles Fillmore: "Anyone who will search for the science in religion and the religion in science will find they harmonize and prove each other."

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Found on a billboard ... very apropos to the present discussion: ...

You're right, utter nonsense... religiou$ buy add space, how can they afford that? LOL Kill in god$ name and f charity for them and them and them!!!

We are all born human but that's not a problem it's the others* who defined "you!"

Kids learn best at 2 and I wish many of you were. Babies are stupid tho most could go on to doctorets if "we"'d end these dark ages... with this many full grown adults believing Tinkerbell can fly (and all other quite-obvious fairy tails) I can see why we have so-many holocausts (this far!)

Even Jesus was a realist about such things. There's the quote as he was telling the disciples what was going to be ahead of them ... "people will believe that they are doing Me a service when they kill you."

Same with guns if you own them then you were more than likely born or swayed in to it (from younger the worst,) obvious to "common sense" no good for humans plus dare I say evolution... Lets not confuse people ( or like they may think, trick them(?)) and exclude biological evolution here. (Not complete tho would "we" learn anyways(?):) first math, then radio waves, TV, color, digital and now. Then evolution means progress so ignore that. Good job everyone! Slow♪clap♫...

A friend of mine had a male cat and a female cat. When the female cat went into heat the male literally became "The Terminator" in that

Originally Posted by Kyle_Reese Kyle Reese: Listen, and understand! That Terminator is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever....

he would make for the female and if a human placed the palm of his hand on the male cats forehead he wouldn't scratch or fight or in anyway try to remove the hand but he would press on, with his paws sliding on the hardwood floors as if in mechanical mode just waiting for the moment that must surely come when he could, by force of relentless determination, slide past the hand and reach the female. Not even his favorite food would prevent his zombi-like state and total obsession with getting his way. That strategy didn't work for the cat and it won't work for Oregon Jim. Plonkk!