Religion
-
sleeper
Really? Tell that to the believers. The irony is appalling and laughable.O-Trap;1388148 wrote:Not that I vilify the practice itself, but using your context, this could just as easily read:
"assume based on appearance"
I didn't think appearance alone constituted proof. -
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Sleeper, I don't begrudge you your efforts to convince believers that your position is correct. I personally wrestle with questions of faith and I see the logic and merit of the secular worldview.sleeper;1388247 wrote:Really? Tell that to the believers. The irony is appalling and laughable.
That said, your condecension towards believers takes away all of your credibility. You think you are smart because you can quickly site facts that support your argument. And you continually mock those who believe - writing them all off as victims of parental abuse. That is such a simplistic, black and white viewpoint.
I am currently reading a biography of Robert Ingeroll. He did as much to progress the humanist movement in this country during the latter 19th century as anyone. He was a gifted orator who probably could have made a run at the White House were he not an outspoken athiest. He was certainly brilliant. In his effoirts to persuade, he acknowledged the belief of his opponents. He acknowledged that their belief was held for all variety of reasons, only one being that this is what they were taught as children. He also acknowledged the intellectual stripes of many of his opponents. He understood that while his position was correct to him, it too required some level of faith.
I suspect some of your efforts here are in part to get a response. That's fine for an internet forum. But I encourage you to grow up when it comes to evaluating your own "brilliance" in comparison to others. The great odds are that you're not nearly as clever as you think you are and those who attend church ever Sunday are not as stupid as you contend. -
sleeper
If one is being condescending by using facts, logic, and reason to construct an argument that directly counters the beliefs of others who base it purely on conjecture, faith, and youthful indoctrination, then I'll be condescending until the day I go into the dirt.
-
O-Trap
sleeper;1388247 wrote:Really? Tell that to the believers. The irony is appalling and laughable.
The difference, I would say, is that those espousing an ideational worldview don't claim that their own views are based on rigorous scientific scrutiny. Those who espouse sensate worldviews in our current time tend to. So, would it be ironic to see an ideational worldview believe something without basing it on just how things look? Not necessarily.
Would it, however, be ironic to see a modern sensate worldview do the same thing? If they are belligerent about their view, then I would say it does.
To accuse others of being out of touch with the truth, claim that scientific discovery is the only means of knowledge, and then to suggest that assumptions based on appearance constitute scientific proof is ... well ... seemingly hypocritical.
Logic and reason are as much philosophical disciplines as scientific. Do you think one can know something based on a philosophical construct, without scientific substantiation?sleeper;1388284 wrote:If one is being condescending by using facts, logic, and reason to construct an argument that directly counters the beliefs of others who base it purely on conjecture, faith, and youthful indoctrination, then I'll be condescending until the day I go into the dirt.
Moreover, is assuming something based on appearance your definition of using facts, logic, and reason? I'm just asking, because I'm willing to bet that if someone used the same plum line to assert an opposing view, you'd shit all over it. -
Dr Winston O'Boogie
I'm not talking about using facts an logic. I'm talking about insulting people who hold a different belief in you.sleeper;1388284 wrote:If one is being condescending by using facts, logic, and reason to construct an argument that directly counters the beliefs of others who base it purely on conjecture, faith, and youthful indoctrination, then I'll be condescending until the day I go into the dirt. -
jmog
I have yet to dodge anything, you my friend tend to dodge and throw in ad hominem attacks when something said fits logically but doesn't fit what you believe.sleeper;1388246 wrote:Way to dodge the facts when they hit you right in the mouth. -
sleeper
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1388315 wrote:I'm not talking about using facts an logic. I'm talking about insulting people who hold a different belief in you.
..Richard Dawkins, 2008 wrote:We should be offended when children are denied a proper education. We should be offended when children are told they will spend eternity in hell. We should be offended when medical science, for example stem-cell research, is compromised by the bigoted opinions of powerful and above all well-financed ignoramuses. We should be offended when voodoo, of all kinds, is given equal weight to science. We should be offended by hymen reconstruction surgery. We should be offended by 'female circumcision', euphemism for genital mutilation. We should be offended by stoning. -
sleeper
Appearance isn't the sole determining factor. It's the brevity, depth and overwhelming amount of scientific research that points to one conclusion and is constantly under attack by those who espouse no evidence other than irrationality and downright ignorance.Moreover, is assuming something based on appearance your definition of using facts, logic, and reason? I'm just asking, because I'm willing to bet that if someone used the same plum line to assert an opposing view, you'd shit all over it. -
sleeper
It's called faith jmog. You of all people should understand that one doesn't need evidence to draw a conclusion; just faith.jmog;1388317 wrote:I have yet to dodge anything, you my friend tend to dodge and throw in ad hominem attacks when something said fits logically but doesn't fit what you believe.
My suggestion is that next time you encounter significant harm or disease, don't go to the hospital where science, built on the same logical pathway that evolution is based on, will save your life. Just pray to god, he'll solve all your problems.
-
O-Trap
First, I'm not even attacking the reasons for asserting it as the likely truth. I'm suggesting that much of what people are calling "science" doesn't seem to be, a lot of times. Looking at the similarity between physiological characteristics doesn't inherently imply relation. DNA does, of course, but with so many of the fossils we see, the DNA has long since been gone.sleeper;1388339 wrote:Appearance isn't the sole determining factor. It's the brevity, depth and overwhelming amount of scientific research that points to one conclusion and is constantly under attack by those who espouse no evidence other than irrationality and downright ignorance.
So, I am absolutely okay with the view that the appearance of fossils, as well as the modern observation of environmentally-based physiological changes on a non-speciation scale (that's really annoying to say, but you apparently don't like the term "microevolution") might lead one to deduce that speciation eventually takes place and accounts for the diversity of living organisms today. I think it's exactly what happened, but both require some level of assumption (that appearance dictates genetic relation and that physiological diversification will eventually lead to full speciation), so let's not pretend it's the same as saying 2 + 2 = 4. -
sleeper
Ironic that direct observation is required for a minuscule scientific theory, but faith is the only thing you need to live your entire life by.
Like I said, we can extract DNA from every living object on the planet as it stands right now. Taking the DNA similarities between species, it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that "macro" evolution occurs, although much more slowly than so called "micro" evolution. The two are the same, and the goalposts are moved because it stands and smiles right in the face of those that preach that "God did it!" with zero evidence to the contrary. Religion is bliss, ignorance is bliss, religion by definition is IGNORANCE. -
O-Trap
First, faith is not what I base my belief on, so I'm not sure why you insist on using an untrue stereotype.sleeper;1388356 wrote:Ironic that direct observation is required for a minuscule scientific theory, but faith is the only thing you need to live your entire life by.
Second, the direct observation is required from someone who asserts that direct observation is the only way of knowing something. If that isn't the only epistemological tool I espouse, then why would it be ironic if I, myself, didn't use it? It wouldn't, because I have professed no such rule about knowledge. It WOULD be, and is, ironic if a person who DOES assert that it is the only mode to knowledge if his own beliefs on other subjects don't reflect it.
"... it's easy to draw the conclusion ..."sleeper;1388356 wrote:Like I said, we can extract DNA from every living object on the planet as it stands right now. Taking the DNA similarities between species, it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that "macro" evolution occurs, although much more slowly than so called "micro" evolution.
Because they are similar? Again, not that I disagree, but what scientific proof determines that if two things are similar, they must have a common root? Or, differently put, what in science suggests that two similar things could not have arisen separately?
By definition? How so? Please don't use that terribly fallacious syllogism, though.sleeper;1388356 wrote:The two are the same, and the goalposts are moved because it stands and smiles right in the face of those that preach that "God did it!" with zero evidence to the contrary. Religion is bliss, ignorance is bliss, religion by definition is IGNORANCE.
Also, what does evolution have to do with religion? -
sleeper
Ignorance equals drawing conclusions based on no evidence.By definition? How so? Please don't use that terribly fallacious syllogism, though. -
sleeper
I'd love to see what you base your belief on. Remember, you are subscribing to a particular brand of religion, so you not only have to show evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, but you have to show evidence that this god belongs to your religion over the thousands of competing religions.First, faith is not what I base my belief on, so I'm not sure why you insist on using an untrue stereotype. -
sleeper
Absolutely."... it's easy to draw the conclusion ..."
Because they are similar? Again, not that I disagree, but what scientific proof determines that if two things are similar, they must have a common root? Or, differently put, what in science suggests that two similar things could not have arisen separately? -
O-Trap
Isn't this very statement a conclusion based on no evidence?sleeper;1388363 wrote:Ignorance equals drawing conclusions based on no evidence.
Talk about trying to move goalposts.
Ignorance is an absence of knowledge.
Religion merely accepts other forms of epistemology IN ADDITION to the sensate -- things like philosophical constructs and existential experiences. The former can even be shared as leverage. The latter, while not viable as evidence for others, certainly bears some credibility to the person(s) involved. -
sleeper
And so is religion.Ignorance is an absence of knowledge. -
O-Trap
sleeper;1388365 wrote:I'd love to see what you base your belief on. Remember, you are subscribing to a particular brand of religion, so you not only have to show evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, but you have to show evidence that this god belongs to your religion over the thousands of competing religions.
History and philosophy, mostly. And I don't think any God belongs to anyone. I have gone through my own funnel of why I ended up where I did. From nontheism to theism to sentient theism to an involves theism to a single theism to the one I think best lines up with history and the philosophy of how the world seems to run.
However, anything after step 1 is fruitless, because we very obviously disagree at that point. It only stands to reason that we would, then, disagree on every other point.
That's not an answer to my questions.sleeper;1388366 wrote:Absolutely. -
O-Trap
Proof from the science community?sleeper;1388370 wrote:And so is religion. -
sleeper
Religion is an absence of knowledge.O-Trap;1388373 wrote:Proof from the science community?
They are easily substituted. There is no knowledge used in religion, just conjecture and faith. -
sleeper
History? LOL. The bible may have roots in history but so do TONS of fiction novels. You are really stretching it, but of course you have to when you are trying to rationalize an irrational belief.O-Trap;1388372 wrote:History and philosophy, mostly. And I don't think any God belongs to anyone. I have gone through my own funnel of why I ended up where I did. From nontheism to theism to sentient theism to an involves theism to a single theism to the one I think best lines up with history and the philosophy of how the world seems to run.
However, anything after step 1 is fruitless, because we very obviously disagree at that point. It only stands to reason that we would, then, disagree on every other point. -
Con_Alma
Wen referring to history you are assuming he was suggesting the Bible.sleeper;1388377 wrote:History? LOL. The bible may have roots in history but so do TONS of fiction novels. You are really stretching it, but of course you have to when you are trying to rationalize an irrational belief. -
sleeper
Yes it is. Given the fossil record and what we know about DNA, you can conclude that species turn into new species albeit over millions of years. Have you seen a fossil of an early human? It is virtually indistinguishable from that of a ape.That's not an answer to my questions. -
O-Trap
You didn't answer the question.sleeper;1388376 wrote:Religion is an absence of knowledge.
They are easily substituted. There is no knowledge used in religion, just conjecture and faith.
I didn't say the Bible had its roots in history. You're assuming what I mean when I say history.sleeper;1388377 wrote:History? LOL. The bible may have roots in history but so do TONS of fiction novels. You are really stretching it, but of course you have to when you are trying to rationalize an irrational belief. -
sleeper
Oh please clarify. I'd love to read about the history of the world through the eyes of a believer. Go on.O-Trap;1388380 wrote: I didn't say the Bible had its roots in history. You're assuming what I mean when I say history.