[Terez]

Epiph, on Dec 2 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

Terez, on Nov 26 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

...the fear of death creates the need for the supernatural, and also, the fear of life (the fear that our actions are futile, and our lives meaningless, struggles against the world with fleeting moments of happiness).

As an interesting side note, the book Blue Zones details the 4 places in the world where people live the longest and one of the common factors is religious belief. It makes a lot of sense for two reasons: those involved in religion are generally involved in a community, which in turn gives one's life purpose, neatly avoiding the mires of depression; and by giving up the responsibility of one's life to God, one releases a certain amount of stress from one's life.

I find it hard to believe that religion could be one of the "common factors", as opposed to the rest of the world, when most of the world is religious. Notice where faith falls in this image:



It appears as though faith is only a mid-level correlation, and considering the fact that faith is widespread, it doesn't seem likely that it has much to do with longevity (correlation does not infer causation - other factors must be considered).

Epiph said:

Terez said:

Additionally, it does not seem that religion, whether organized or individual/personal, has served us very well in conquering these fears, or addressing them in a manner consistent with the philosophy that we do not know if there is life after death, and our the impact of our efforts is most evident when we focus them on that which we can know, and that which we can do in the here and now.

I know a lot of people for whom spiritual belief acts as a soothing tonic. My grandmother, a Southern Baptist of the thrice weekly church going sort, is "ready for the Lord to take her," and my mother, a New Age hippie sort, cannot get through the day without meditating and finds a great deal of relief in the idea of reincarnation.

I know a lot of people that take comfort in religion as well (I did mention that as being the main reason for religion's continued existence, after all). I just don't think that it is in any way productive on a large societal scale, nor necessarily productive on an individual level, either - drug addicts find comfort in their drugs. Does this mean that they are productive? The ability to moderate is useful.

[Aleksandrov]

My computer/internet died so haven't logged in a week.

Epiph said:

If not that, then why? If religion is not harmful in some way, why try to dissuade people from taking comfort in it? Because if religion is anything, it is comfortable for its subscribers. I know plenty of atheists/agnostics who feel this way, and even Dawkins mentions it. I'm not implying that it's any kind of "revenge," I'm saying that it is a belief based on historical knowledge that religion is harmful and should be done away with to prevent future harm. And to win an argument...because that always feels good.

Religion is comfortable for it's "believers". That's why so many believe in it. Karl Marx, I quoted before, provides a very good argument on how religion is created to feel better by it's worshipers, thus it's the opium of the masses. I won't argue on the morality of "believing" in it, you already know how I feel on it. Historically religion was harmful and I agree it should be removed to prevent any more future fanaticism. I see to promote a more scientific approach to "proving" religion is irrelevant/fake, regardless of it's good/harm it does to people.

Looking forward to the next excerpt, Frook.

EDIT: Sorry got your gender wrong Gem. I thought Silencer was kidding me. >_>

This post has been edited by Aleksandrov: 04 December 2008 - 07:55 PM

[Epiph]

Terez, on Dec 3 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

It appears as though faith is only a mid-level correlation, and considering the fact that faith is widespread, it doesn't seem likely that it has much to do with longevity (correlation does not infer causation - other factors must be considered).

This just an instinctive gut reaction, but surely Sardinia is largely Catholic and so has faith in common with the other two?

Terez said:

I know a lot of people that take comfort in religion as well (I did mention that as being the main reason for religion's continued existence, after all). I just don't think that it is in any way productive on a large societal scale, nor necessarily productive on an individual level, either - drug addicts find comfort in their drugs. Does this mean that they are productive? The ability to moderate is useful.

Oh, and I totally agree with you. I think Marx was right on all kinds of fronts when he said that religion was the opiate of the masses. The belief that religion instills in people that somehow humans are special and more valuable than the rest of creation, and their religion specifically better than the rest of humanity, is about as harmful as they come.

Aleksandrov, on Dec 4 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

Religion is comfortable for it's "believers". That's why so many believe in it. Karl Marx, I quoted before, provides a very good argument on how religion is created to feel better by it's worshipers, thus it's the opium of the masses. I won't argue on the morality of "believing" in it, you already know how I feel on it. Historically religion was harmful and I agree it should be removed to prevent any more future fanaticism. I see to promote a more scientific approach to "proving" religion is irrelevant/fake, regardless of it's good/harm it does to people.

Yes, I totally agree with you. Since I'm not about to reread my epic post, I'm not really sure what my point was...so...we'll just let it lie at that.

[frookenhauer]

Still too fuzzy to want to do a rendition today...Is that a Venn diagram? Or doth my eyes deceiveth me...

[Terez]

That's the charm of the Bible. Reading it induces apathy that allows you to boil the whole of the Scriptures down into the verses you like best. And that's how religious interpretation goes.

[teholbeddict]

So what's the deal Frookie? We've had no Genesis updates for quite some time! Get to posting Mr. ASAP! (Oh and I'm not really angry, just trying to be stern! I still love you!)

[Gem Windcaster]

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Nov 26 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

Hey, let me first say that I find myself enjoying this discussion/exchange of thought I have with you, Epiph.

Happy to oblige

Sorry I haven't answered in a while, I am busy playing mafia, so be patient with me.

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Literal: in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer, I understand what the word means, but what does it mean in this context? What is this literal interpretation according to you? I'll explain more below.

It means exactly that definition. It means a day is a 24-hour solar cycle, that the God created the world in those 7 24-hour solar cycles, the specific order mentioned, that Adam was created from dust and Eve from an actual rib in Adam's actual chest cavity, and that they lived the number of years accorded to them. The only thing that is open for discussion in a literal interpretation is the translation from the original Hebrew. If somehow the Hebrew suggests that one of those 7 days was not a 24-hour solar cycle, then ok, otherwise, a literal interpretation means exactly what it is says.

Well, I am totally open for it to have meant actual 7 24-hour cycles. But to me it doesn't have to be that. I don't know what the text means, practically. If 'literal interpretation' is what you say it is, then I suppose I don't interpret it literally. Newsflash!

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Science, as I understand its laws, principles, and generally accepted as proven by time theories cannot coexist with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

You bind together the conclusions drawn and the scientific proven data then?

I'm pretty sure that's how the scientific method works: question, research, hypothesize, test, analyze, draw conclusions.

Oh, what I mean is, can there only be one, and only one, conclusion drawn? No. I separate the conclusions in this instance, because they are beside the point I am trying to make. I am well aware that sounds crazy to you. But hey, maybe, if we keep going at this, you'll understand it.

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem said:

I understand that we might be defining science differently. Maybe I am alone in defining science this way, and that is why science don't clash with my faith. To me science is neutral, not clogged by the conclusions drawn for the benefit of one single ideology. I realize it may well be a completely new way of looking at science, but I can't help but think I am not alone in this.

(My emphasis) Conclusions drawn from scientifically rigorous experiments, conducted according to the scientific method as outlined above are not being drawn to benefit any ideology but humanity's incessant search for truth.

Incorrect, IMO. This is exactly my point. Science needs to see what ideology it is built on to draw the correct conclusions. There is no such thing as ideology free science. The scientist will always build its conclusions on it's own world view. I'm not saying that is wrong - what's wrong is denying it, ignoring the fact.

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

I will always be swayed by a good argument, which is why I now count myself among the ranks of the atheists, agnostics, and non-believers of the world; Dawkins makes a good case. In any case, I have never been Christian, though I used to be deist, and I still greatly admire the faith and belief of religious people. Socrates seems to have been opposed to religious thought, while Plato thought that religion was useful in that it gave a populace a reason for morality, and Marx called it the opiate of the masses; and that's pretty much where I stand on religion. I only wish it were an opiate that worked for me.

I am not one of those people that wants religion for religions sake. I want the truth. I guess that's why I have no problem incorporating science in my worldview - it's a tool for truth and nothing else. As it happens I can't deny God any more than I can deny my bodily senses.

And by God, you mean Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? What is it about Christianity that is as undeniable to you as the need for breath? I can understand someone believing in God, in a generic deist or theist sense, simply believing there is something more than what we can quantitatively measure, but I don't understand how one's faith gets anymore specific than that.

Oh, I am well aware that you can't understand it - to do that you'll have to experience the love of Christ. I know this sounds mystical, even crazy, and possibly pretentious. But what I feel and believe goes beyond any other human experience - there is no comparison - I can't explain it to you, nor measure it, nor draw you a picture that would make you understand. The best I can do goes like this: It's like a weight is lifted from you, like the mind suddenly works after being sick, it's like there is light where it before was darkness. It doesn't mean I become perfect, I am the same, but still not the same, and the paradox in this is that, through Christ, I am perfect.


I had to split the post - to be continued.

[Gem Windcaster]

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

Well, yes, that is part of my point. But does that mean it opposes science? Imo it doesn't. It opposes certain conclusions drawn from science, but that is another story altogether.

But many of those conclusions make up the body of scientific knownledge currently held to be true, which is what I think most of us mean when we say "science." Inaccurate terminology. I'll try to be more precise.

So yes, science to you seems to be what the majority of the scientific community holds as true, while I see science as a neutral force for truth. I think that makes me both more skeptical than the average scientist and more open to changes in my worldview at the same time.

When you disagree with the conclusions of the majority of the scientific community, what are you basing your disagreement on? As far as I know, the people who generally disagree with the majority of the scientific community either do so because they are experts in a field and have drawn different conclusions (see global warming), or because their faith doesn't line up with the scientific conclusions (see evolution). The rest are withholding judgement: one reads up on a body of knowledge and isn't convinced by the available data (my boyfriend feels this way about a lot of dietary research, and is probably right to doubt it, because our understanding of diet seems to change every 10 years or so).

"majority of the scientific community." I doubt that, actually. That might have been true 10 years ago, but this fanatical insanity can't go on for long, pardon me being frank. And why can't I have a decent opinion even without being 'an expert'? I resent that. It's the same old bullshit argument that people of faith lack in judgment and intelligence - that we are stupid. Don't go there please (if I misunderstood, I apologize).

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem said:

Back to the literal discussion. My point here is that it's not so clear what exactly the bible means regarding certain points. For example. It says God created the world in 7 days. But what does that mean, practically? Was the time even the same? 1000 years is like one day for God, and one day is like 1000 years. Meaning, that likely the time frame of 7 days wouldn't make sense to us, here today. If we assume that light is linked to time, which Einstein hinted at, then at what point did God create time? Did he manage to create time before the sun? Or is the 'let there be light' phrase actually meant to indicate the creation of time?`The sun was created later, so there is some mystery what is really meant? Does it even matter? Each and every one of the phrases in the Genesis story can be dismantled in similar ways. Meaning science doesn't have enough data to compare to the bible story.
I know, it looks like cheating from my part, but I am honestly not trying to!

It's totally fine to look at the Bible that way. I prefer to look at the Bible more in a more historical context, and, honestly, if one is being revisionist anyway, I don't see any reason for Christian or Jew to not look at the Bible within its historic context: God would reveal himself to his worshipers in whatever way was appropriate to their current development. My point is that looking at the Bible that way is not interpreting it literally.

Ah, I guess your definition of "literal interpretation" gets in the way again. I do look at the bible in an historical context, too. I try to look at it from every possible angle.

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem said:

Using the word literal in this context doesn't help us at all, because there is no such thing as literal with large parts of the bible. It is simply not written for the purpose of us knowing everything. It tells us things on a need to know basis - and there can be tons of different reasons - among them that we simply wouldn't accept it or even understand it. I don't have the answer. Most Christians never really ponder on it, because all they really need is to trust God. But that doesn't mean that the answers doesn't exist, just that we might not get them. Yet. (I believe we will get them)

Right. Exactly. Because you can't interpret the Bible literally and accept that the universe operates in the way that science explains it.

Oh but I could, that's my point. But lets not be so generic about this thing - "the way science explains it" is not just one theory. There isn't just one possible theory in any given scientific field. Which leads me back to my original point. Science uses circular arguments to hold up its theories. It discards what it proposes to be 'crazy', due to it's inherent ideology, and searches for the theories that will confirm the 'safe' ideologies.

In the case with evolution, the "universe came from nothing" theory has even less content than the "God created everything from nothing" theory. You're welcome to disagree, but I think this stance is pretty easy to understand. I don't deny that I am building my worldview on something that I can't prove, while some scientists keep denying they are doing the same.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 11 December 2008 - 03:10 AM

[frookenhauer]

Okay guys, I've been apathetic of late, but it has no relation to the Genesis thread, I love it, its my baby...But I've been putting a lot of effort elsewhere (Sounds like an excuse...)

There will be more within the next 24 hours and you can take that to the bank

[Epiph]

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 10 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Science, as I understand its laws, principles, and generally accepted as proven by time theories cannot coexist with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

You bind together the conclusions drawn and the scientific proven data then?

I'm pretty sure that's how the scientific method works: question, research, hypothesize, test, analyze, draw conclusions.

Oh, what I mean is, can there only be one, and only one, conclusion drawn? No. I separate the conclusions in this instance, because they are beside the point I am trying to make. I am well aware that sounds crazy to you. But hey, maybe, if we keep going at this, you'll understand it.

No, certainly different conclusions can be drawn from the same data set, but it's not going to vary drastically. You're looking at the same observations and there's generally only a few logical ways you can interpret them.

The problem I'm having with your thought process here has to do with discarding conclusions and data simply because you don't like them. Which is how you're coming across, even if you don't think that's what you're saying. The way you keep expressing that you separate the conclusion from the data just sounds like you're saying that you can't deny the data, so you deny the conclusion, because they disagree with your belief system. If that's not what you're intending to say, please clarify.

Gem said:

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem said:

I understand that we might be defining science differently. Maybe I am alone in defining science this way, and that is why science don't clash with my faith. To me science is neutral, not clogged by the conclusions drawn for the benefit of one single ideology. I realize it may well be a completely new way of looking at science, but I can't help but think I am not alone in this.

(My emphasis) Conclusions drawn from scientifically rigorous experiments, conducted according to the scientific method as outlined above are not being drawn to benefit any ideology but humanity's incessant search for truth.

Incorrect, IMO. This is exactly my point. Science needs to see what ideology it is built on to draw the correct conclusions. There is no such thing as ideology free science. The scientist will always build its conclusions on it's own world view. I'm not saying that is wrong - what's wrong is denying it, ignoring the fact.

Ok, clearly we're just not going to agree here. But I'll say one last thing: you are misrepresenting the majority of the scientific community. While there are some people who undertake scientific research to prove their particular point of view, most scientist become scientists because, from an early age, they are fascinated by the hows and whys of the world. As they grow up and grow into more complex knowledge, they undertake their own search for answers. But just as you don't (often) see Christian scientists being motivated in their research by their faith, skeptical scientists aren't being motivated by their lack of faith. In both cases, they are operating from their curiosity about the world. Most scientists will tell you that they do what they do because they wish to be objective observers.

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 10 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

Epiph, on Dec 3 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

Gem said:

So yes, science to you seems to be what the majority of the scientific community holds as true, while I see science as a neutral force for truth. I think that makes me both more skeptical than the average scientist and more open to changes in my worldview at the same time.

When you disagree with the conclusions of the majority of the scientific community, what are you basing your disagreement on? As far as I know, the people who generally disagree with the majority of the scientific community either do so because they are experts in a field and have drawn different conclusions (see global warming), or because their faith doesn't line up with the scientific conclusions (see evolution). The rest are withholding judgement: one reads up on a body of knowledge and isn't convinced by the available data (my boyfriend feels this way about a lot of dietary research, and is probably right to doubt it, because our understanding of diet seems to change every 10 years or so).

"majority of the scientific community." I doubt that, actually. That might have been true 10 years ago, but this fanatical insanity can't go on for long, pardon me being frank. And why can't I have a decent opinion even without being 'an expert'? I resent that. It's the same old bullshit argument that people of faith lack in judgment and intelligence - that we are stupid. Don't go there please (if I misunderstood, I apologize).

I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. I merely asked why you held that opinion: have you looked into the data and used it to draw a different conclusion, or have you rejected the majority conclusion because it doesn't jive with your faith, or is there some other reason that you hold that opinion? I resent being attacked when I'm just asking for clarification; how about responding to the question instead of throwing an ad hominem at me?

I'm sorry, but "this fanatical insanity can't go on for long"? Have you taken a look at the history of religion lately? I'm not taking at dig at your faith, but you are assuredly calling the kettle black here. Also, where did you pull this 10 years number? Is it just a number you're throwing out, or is there some evidence that people are flocking away from evolutionary theory? As far as I know, less that 1% of scientists doubt that evolutionary theory explains the complexity of life, which is a concern that, coupled with a belief in God, can simply be explained by God's guiding hand on the tiller of evolution.

Gem said:

Ah, I guess your definition of "literal interpretation" gets in the way again. I do look at the bible in an historical context, too. I try to look at it from every possible angle.

It is not my definition...it's the definition that I understand to be common among people who DO interpret the Bible literally. Like my grandmother's pastor.

Gem said:

Science uses circular arguments to hold up its theories?.

I'm sorry...what? Could you, uh, expound on that?

Gem said:

It discards what it proposes to be 'crazy', due to it's inherent ideology, and searches for the theories that will confirm the 'safe' ideologies

OH FOR EFF'S SAKE! Science doesn't have an ideology! Everyone defines science the way you do, as a tool for the discovery of truth! What you keep describing is simply the aspect of human nature that clings to any dogma, because it's comfortable and easy to see the world in black and white, and that applies to scientists as well as Christians.

Gem said:

In the case with evolution, the "universe came from nothing" theory has even less content than the "God created everything from nothing" theory. You're welcome to disagree, but I think this stance is pretty easy to understand. I don't deny that I am building my worldview on something that I can't prove, while some scientists keep denying they are doing the same.

I don't have a great enough understanding of the Big Bang Theory to get into this as at all, but as far as I understand, in as much as it can be proved, it can be proved with math...far more than God creating the universe can. Terez said it excellently, though, when she said...somewhere...that for atheists and agnostics, acceptance that the universe comes from nothing is not as concrete as a theist saying that God created everything, because for atheists and agnostics, it's simply a matter of figuring it out, which, admittedly, is a form of faith.

[D Man]

You have to wonder why god didnt just not make the tree or let the snake in.

[Epiph]

D Man, on Dec 18 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

You have to wonder why god didnt just not make the tree or let the snake in.

I think Milton pretty much covers that.

[Gem Windcaster]

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

No, certainly different conclusions can be drawn from the same data set, but it's not going to vary drastically. You're looking at the same observations and there's generally only a few logical ways you can interpret them.

Hmm. This sounds very nice, admittedly. But science is very versatile, and 'drastically' as a concept becomes useless when suddenly a slice of the scientific world shifts. Almost every scientific concept has been considered illogical or not possible until someone actually dares to think differently. You argument doesn't hold water.

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

The problem I'm having with your thought process here has to do with discarding conclusions and data simply because you don't like them. Which is how you're coming across, even if you don't think that's what you're saying. The way you keep expressing that you separate the conclusion from the data just sounds like you're saying that you can't deny the data, so you deny the conclusion, because they disagree with your belief system. If that's not what you're intending to say, please clarify.

If I am discarding data because I don't like them, what are the scientific community doing then? It seems that discarding data because it doesn't 'fit is exactly what certain scientists do on a daily basis. This is not necessarily wrong, depending on how aware you are of the fact that you're doing it. Which leads me back to my point about ideology. I don't deny any data, I just don't think the conclusions are as set in stone as some think.

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Ok, clearly we're just not going to agree here. But I'll say one last thing: you are misrepresenting the majority of the scientific community. While there are some people who undertake scientific research to prove their particular point of view, most scientist become scientists because, from an early age, they are fascinated by the hows and whys of the world. As they grow up and grow into more complex knowledge, they undertake their own search for answers. But just as you don't (often) see Christian scientists being motivated in their research by their faith, skeptical scientists aren't being motivated by their lack of faith. In both cases, they are operating from their curiosity about the world. Most scientists will tell you that they do what they do because they wish to be objective observers.

As far as that goes, I agree with what you're saying. However you misunderstood my point. Let me explain. Every scientist has a motivation. It can contain a number of things, based on education, lifestyle, personality etc. And as a whole the scientific community thrives for truth. It's what I like about it. However, the objectivity that you talk about derives from a certain ideology. Science as we know it has not always existed in it's current form. It has but barely existed a couple of hundred years at most, depending on how you count. Scientists existed before that, but with a different ideology as a basis. That didn't stop the inherent nature of science or the inventions and discoveries it nurtured. But just as scientists back then were coloured by their view of themselves and the world around them, so is the scientists of today. To say that science is uncolored, without influence, is not only naive, it's completely non-intellectual. There are very strong ideals and notions of what an "objective data" is and what conclusions that are "acceptable". It's the very reason for the existence of pseudo science. I'm not saying pseudo science is all of it, and I am not trying to say that pseudo science should be more incorporated into 'real' science (not sure what I think about that subject actually), I am just viewing this from a historian of ideas' perspective.

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. I merely asked why you held that opinion: have you looked into the data and used it to draw a different conclusion, or have you rejected the majority conclusion because it doesn't jive with your faith, or is there some other reason that you hold that opinion? I resent being attacked when I'm just asking for clarification; how about responding to the question instead of throwing an ad hominem at me?

You're welcome to ask for clairfication, and I wasn't trying to attack you. As for your question, I really don't feel comfortable using the term "majority of the scientific community" in any sentence, especially in this context. I have been generalizing, which I hate doing. What I am discussing though is hard to explain without using general terms and specific examples. Although I am really using the theory of evolution as an example for my 'theory' or whatever you want to call it. I wonder how you got the idea that I am discarding data because I don't like them? First I don't discard any data at all. It's the conclusions drawn from them that I discard. And that's not because I don't like them (even if I actually do dislike them). I discard the conslusions because they don't make sense. They're illogical. Any logical conclusions I perfectly accept.

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but "this fanatical insanity can't go on for long"? Have you taken a look at the history of religion lately? I'm not taking at dig at your faith, but you are assuredly calling the kettle black here. Also, where did you pull this 10 years number? Is it just a number you're throwing out, or is there some evidence that people are flocking away from evolutionary theory? As far as I know, less that 1% of scientists doubt that evolutionary theory explains the complexity of life, which is a concern that, coupled with a belief in God, can simply be explained by God's guiding hand on the tiller of evolution.

Hmm, why would you think I would even feel inclined to defend religious fanaticism? And that is taking a dig at my faith, in my humble opinion. But hey, I'm used to it. As for numbers, I have heard quite the contrary, that todays scientific giants are discarding the theory evolution as nonsense. Doesn't have any sources for you though. Yet. I think our different views on this might need us to dig deeper and get some numbers, do you think? I am honestly curious what's the correct data.

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Gem said:

Ah, I guess your definition of "literal interpretation" gets in the way again. I do look at the bible in an historical context, too. I try to look at it from every possible angle.

It is not my definition...it's the definition that I understand to be common among people who DO interpret the Bible literally. Like my grandmother's pastor.

Fair enough, but I doesn't have much to do with me.

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Gem said:

Science uses circular arguments to hold up its theories.?

I'm sorry...what? Could you, uh, expound on that?

That was badly formulated. I simply meant that the inherent ideas (you seem to dislike the concept of ideology in this context) of science as we know it today, generally (not among the top scientists I don't think), stops it from searching certain solutions and makes it look for others. It's perfectly natural, and I still love science. I am simply saying that it should be taken into account, and sometimes even challenged.

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Gem said:

It discards what it proposes to be 'crazy', due to it's inherent ideology, and searches for the theories that will confirm the 'safe' ideologies

OH FOR EFF'S SAKE! Science doesn't have an ideology! Everyone defines science the way you do, as a tool for the discovery of truth! What you keep describing is simply the aspect of human nature that clings to any dogma, because it's comfortable and easy to see the world in black and white, and that applies to scientists as well as Christians.

Oh yes it has. Se above.

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Gem said:

In the case with evolution, the "universe came from nothing" theory has even less content than the "God created everything from nothing" theory. You're welcome to disagree, but I think this stance is pretty easy to understand. I don't deny that I am building my worldview on something that I can't prove, while some scientists keep denying they are doing the same.

I don't have a great enough understanding of the Big Bang Theory to get into this as at all, but as far as I understand, in as much as it can be proved, it can be proved with math...far more than God creating the universe can. Terez said it excellently, though, when she said...somewhere...that for atheists and agnostics, acceptance that the universe comes from nothing is not as concrete as a theist saying that God created everything, because for atheists and agnostics, it's simply a matter of figuring it out, which, admittedly, is a form of faith.

Umm, yeah, I am prefectly aware of how Terez and others view this, and for them it makes sense. I'm not saying it's wrong. It's because I understand their stance so well that I can argue with it. What I am striving for is a sort of opening of the mind, a sort of self discovery. I am not trying to be condenscending here; I am simply acknowledging that people can learn from each other - and as well as I can learn from Terez (which I already have), I can bring something to the table aswell.
We can agree to disagree on certain points, because they derive from deep differences in view. I think that is a marvellous thing, don't you?

[Darkwatch]

D Man, on Dec 18 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

You have to wonder why god didnt just not make the tree or let the snake in.

The greater question is why he cared that we not be granted immortal life.

Many answers could be had depending on how you interpet the book, which is of course the whole point of the thread.

But as usual, it has devolved into science (more specifically evolution) versus religion (more specifically fundementalism).

Which makes me wonder why there's a religion sub forum. It should just be one thread. Since it always devolves to the same thing given enough time.

[Terez]

Darkwatch, on Dec 19 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

Which makes me wonder why there's a religion sub forum. It should just be one thread. Since it always devolves to the same thing given enough time.

We like to tackle the question from different angles. No one's complaining about threads getting hijacked - why are you?

[Gem Windcaster]

Darkwatch, on Dec 20 2008, 12:21 AM, said:

D Man, on Dec 18 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

You have to wonder why god didnt just not make the tree or let the snake in.

The greater question is why he cared that we not be granted immortal life.

Many answers could be had depending on how you interpet the book, which is of course the whole point of the thread.

But as usual, it has devolved into science (more specifically evolution) versus religion (more specifically fundementalism).

Which makes me wonder why there's a religion sub forum. It should just be one thread. Since it always devolves to the same thing given enough time.

LOL DW, you have a point about the one thread thing. But would you care to explain the fundamentalism part? Are you saying religion has to fundamentalism when it opposes the theory of evolution?

And God did give us immortality, but then we screwed up.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 20 December 2008 - 12:42 AM

[frookenhauer]

I'm back, nobody move! Or the bible gets it! I'm not bluffing...

I'm off out for a night on the town and I have a tin of paint that is red, but I'll be back....soon

[Dolorous Menhir]

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 20 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

And God did give us immortality, but then we screwed up.

Good old God, eh. He's like a dad who takes away your toys because you played with them.

This post has been edited by Dolorous Menhir: 20 December 2008 - 06:56 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Dolorous Menhir, on Dec 20 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 20 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

And God did give us immortality, but then we screwed up.

Good old God, eh. He's like a dad who takes away your toys because you played with them.

Haha, not exactly...

[Darkwatch]

Terez, on Dec 19 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

We like to tackle the question from different angles. No one's complaining about threads getting hijacked - why are you?

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 19 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

LOL DW, you have a point about the one thread thing. But would you care to explain the fundamentalism part? Are you saying religion has to fundamentalism when it opposes the theory of evolution?

Answers to both questions will probaly show up tuesday when I'll have time to expound the subjects clearly.