277 replies to this topic

[luvsmyncis]

There is no evidence that supports a creator hypothesis.

Faith needs no evidence. God. You're so ignorant.

[GhostMommy]

There is a faith in all things, just as we hold to an assumption that "All men are created equal" or "All human life is worthy of respect" or that "Living is better than dying", we all have a certain faith.   These are postulates we build upon just as we have faith that there is only a single line that can pass through any too points, or for the heretics that there are an infinite amount of unique lines that can pass through any two points.

 

I have faith, that there is something more than a decline into entropy.  That my life has some purpose, rather than eat drink be merry and gather a billion np for no apparent reason.

 

If you think all science is provable,  it is not.  Partially we  wrap our assumptions to the very fabric of the questions that we try to answer.

[artificial]

If you think all science is provable,  it is not.  Partially we  wrap our assumptions to the very fabric of the questions that we try to answer.

 

The very nature of science is based on evidence and peer review. Nobody is arguing that all science is provable, however a scientific approach to learning and furthering our understanding is infinitely more effective than a religious one. 

[GhostMommy]

Use science to prove that murder is wrong.  Use science to prove that torture is wrong.  Use science to prove that there is a point in living.

[Sweeney]

There is a faith in all things, just as we hold to an assumption that "All men are created equal" or "All human life is worthy of respect" or that "Living is better than dying", we all have a certain faith.

These things do not require faith. Wise people do not believe that they are true, more that such axioms are necessary to build a functional society.

 These are postulates we build upon just as we have faith that there is only a single line that can pass through any too points, or for the heretics that there are an infinite amount of unique lines that can pass through any two points.

I was going to say that your analogy is flawed, because mathematics is a human construct - a line is essentially defined as a one dimensional object that can be described by two points. However, on reflection, I think the comparison is apt, albeit in a way you did not intend. The ethical assumptions you described above are subsets of a likewise construct: ethics itself.
 

I have faith, that there is something more than a decline into entropy.  That my life has some purpose, rather than eat drink be merry and gather a billion np for no apparent reason.

You are wrong.
 

If you think all science is provable,  it is not.  Partially we  wrap our assumptions to the very fabric of the questions that we try to answer.

Science is, it is true, reliant on a number of base assumptions. But these do not require faith to hold to be true; they are held to be true because they are functional. Assumptions that cannot be verified, such as the assumption that reality holds an absolute truth that we can approximate through observation, do not matter. They do not matter because the universe behaves in a way such that they were true - their actual veracity is a non-issue.

Use science to prove that murder is wrong.  Use science to prove that torture is wrong.  Use science to prove that there is a point in living.

Define your terms.
"Wrong" has no rigorous scientific definition. Nor does "point", in this context.

[GhostMommy]

Sure Nitro.  We are transient events in a universe of increasing entropy sliding slowly tearing itself apart from dark matter expansion.  All that we accomplish will not last.  Nothing we do will change.  We're likely a cosmic fluke, a random event without meaning.  Based upon rational evidence, we've expanded our population past the carrying point of the planet and we're certainly on our way to ecosystem collapse.   At best we face a world hot, crowded and rapidly becoming unbearable, worst case is we're facing extinction.

 

Yet, people don't look at the rational facts and act accordingly.  

Edited by Mibs, 28 December 2013 - 08:48 AM.

[Sweeney]

Well, I'm afraid I find the fact that you felt it necessary to say that deeply insulting in and of itself.
That they both set out to explain the unexplained is meaningless. One attempts to do so by making things up, and the other by making rigorous inquiry.
You do not have to take anything on faith when it comes to science. The fact that people do is irrelevant - it is not required. Everything in science is repeatable and verifiable. It's practically part of the definition. In absolutely no way is this similar to the way that religion operates.
I find your references to the Higgs Boson and quantum entanglement in this context mind-boggling. 99.9% of people don't even know what those things are even vaguely referring to, let alone have them affect their life in a meaningful way. Can you explain how having "faith" in the existence of quantum entanglement is comparable to having faith that a deity will condemn you to eternal damnation for shagging a dude before marriage?

Wait what

Why did you not reply to my quoted post?

[Forms]

I believe in a higher power then us. As I research different things I'm not so sure there is one being as "the almighty" but rather a collective of higher beings if you will. I could go into great detail but I choose not to do so.

[Sweeney]

I could go into great detail but I choose not to do so.

Please do.
Armchair theology is desperately entertaining.

[Forms]

Explain what kind of higher beings. Like gods from all religions or spirits in general?

Yeah, Gods from all religions.

[ThatIsMe]

I think there are a lot of outdated ideals that religion offers as absolute truths. In today's more... Progressive society things like the bible shouldn't be read as anything more than a mythological text written thousands of years ago. Just like the epic of gilgamesh. The insight into the human's collective unconscious that can be derived from the bible is incredibly valuable to the psyche of anyone if they take the time to understand it; however, a literal interpretation of the bible is foolish in my opinion. 

 

I'm running short on time, but I'll make a larger post later today about the similarities between the epic of gilgamesh and the hebrew bible. The epic of gilgamesh is the oldest known piece of text in human history. It predated the bible by over a thousand years, and there are a lot of similar themes that run through both stories.

[GhostMommy]

Since religious people produce more children than areligious people then in a purely Darwinian judgment religion is a survival trait.  People often confuse Darwinian concepts as survival of the fittest.

[Waser Lave]

Since religious people produce more children than areligious people then in a purely Darwinian judgment religion is a survival trait.  People often confuse Darwinian concepts as survival of the fittest.

 

And people with lower education levels tend to have more children than those with higher educational attainment, does that mean that being uneducated is also a survival trait?

[GhostMommy]

Yes, obviously with insight like that you'll have many many children.

[Waser Lave]

Yes, obviously with insight like that you'll have many many children.

 

Clearly we'll both be competing for the world record then since you said essentially the same thing.

[GhostMommy]

Waser you missed the point.   I'm sad now.

[Waser Lave]

Waser you missed the point.   I'm sad now.

 

Was there a point to miss? There certainly hasn't been in most of this thread so far.

[Sweeney]

Since religious people produce more children than areligious people then in a purely Darwinian judgment religion is a survival trait.  People often confuse Darwinian concepts as survival of the fittest.

Not necessarily the case, you know. You'd have to demonstrate that religion causes a higher birth rate for it to be a survival trait in the manner that you have described. That said, the fact that religion persists in such numbers after such an extended period of time is evidence that it confers an evolutionary benefit. In turn, that does not necessarily imply that it is a good thing. So I don't really see why you brought it up at all.

There's a surprise.

It is also worth noting that Darwinian evolution is accurately summarised by "survival of the fittest", but many people misconstrue the meaning of "fittest" in that context. It may be that it is, in fact, you who does not fully understand the science.

[Sweeney]

What do you define as fittest then?

It's nothing to do with how I define it. The meaning of "fittest" in that context is "best adapted to the purposes of survival to breeding age and increasing fecundity".

[GhostMommy]

In Darwinian evolution, the term fittest is a circular definition.  Fittest means those aspects that allow an organism to pass on its genes to the greatest number of successive generations.  People then misunderstand the whole concept and think fit fits their own intellectual or political agenda.   Strongest, fastest or smartest do not appear to fit the evolutionary definition of fit.  At least in humans.

 

If nothing changes by 2215 half the U.S. population will be Amish.  We'll be up to our ass in apple butter.    

[Sweeney]

In Darwinian evolution, the term fittest is a circular definition.  Fittest means those aspects that allow an organism to pass on its genes to the greatest number of successive generations.  People then misunderstand the whole concept and think fit fits their own intellectual or political agenda.   Strongest, fastest or smartest do not appear to fit the evolutionary definition of fit.  At least in humans.

It is not circular. It is predictive, describing those individuals that would be expected to survive the best and not necessarily those that do.

For example, defining osteoporosis as a survival trait based an adult lion who survived to adulthood despite crippling bone problems would be erroneous - but appropriate if you take "survival of the fittest" as a circular definition. This is an absurd example, but it demonstrates why "survival of the fittest" is not tautological with reasonable clarity.

[GhostMommy]

There you go making a huge unsupportable assumption because they sound right to you. 

[Sweeney]

There you go making a huge unsupportable assumption because they sound right to you.

What assumption would that be?

[Shane]

Without. I do not believe the world is better off with it.

[best]

Religion makes us behave better since we believe there is a heaven exist