Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Still fun though...I liked the part where you couldn't contradict me when I called you antirational. That was my favorite.
can i try for just a minute Red? I have merely one point to make, and it is unlikely to make YOU change YOUR mind, but it might make the religious group look just a tad bit less hypocritcal. (or anti-rational)
Originally posted by truejedi
can i try for just a minute Red? I have merely one point to make, and it is unlikely to make YOU change YOUR mind, but it might make the religious group look just a tad bit less hypocritcal. (or anti-rational)
I will (of course) tear it to pieces, but it might be fun?
Also: I can't see why you would be so sure; what if it changes my mind because of its flawlessly executed logical form? (lol)
The phrases are becoming more and more vague. "Believe in humanity"? If that was supplied by me then I formally retract it. If it was yours (or your strawman) then you might wish to do the same. Believe in humanity to do what?
"Human comprehension is limitless." Comprehension of what? Limited in what way?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Couldn't have said it better. Interestingly enough, it usually comes from the secularists who think they are too smart to believe in an omnipotent being.::::Tear::::
I'm fine with secularists and atheists and non-believers and infidels. There really isn't a rational argument that can be made to convert someone to, well, any monotheistic or polytheistic religion.
The bottom line, however, is that when one concludes that one's understanding of the universe is infallible and perfect, and thus rules out the possibility of a higher being, one is retarded.
Originally posted by Gideon
I'm fine with secularists and atheists and non-believers and infidels. There really isn't a rational argument that can be made to convert someone to, well, any monotheistic or polytheistic religion.The bottom line, however, is that when one concludes that one's understanding of the universe is infallible and perfect, and thus rules out the possibility of a higher being, one is retarded.
This is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
The phrases are becoming more and more vague. "Believe in humanity"? If that was supplied by me then I formally retract it. If it was yours (or your strawman) then you might wish to do the same. Believe in humanity to do what?"Human comprehension is limitless." Comprehension of what? Limited in what way?
Believe in humanity, just what I said. If you don't believe an omnipotent being passed down certain laws and morals/ethics, then you have to believe that humanity has and is capable of passing down morals and ethics and you follow humanity's morals and ethics. I think we've had this discussion before. For one to believe in humanity, one must believe in humanity's goodness.
Originally posted by Gideon
I'm fine with secularists and atheists and non-believers and infidels. There really isn't a rational argument that can be made to convert someone to, well, any monotheistic or polytheistic religion.
The bottom line, however, is that when one concludes that one's understanding of the universe is infallible and perfect, and thus rules out the possibility of a higher being, one is retarded.
No one's understanding of the universe in infallible. We don't have a unified theory yet, let alone universal awareness. What I refuse to do, however, is leave what foundation we have in order to imagine what might be nice; that's all religion can ever hope to do. Faith is explicitly poor in facts.
I like facts.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Believe in humanity, just what I said. If you don't believe an omnipotent being passed down certain laws and morals/ethics, then you have to believe that humanity has and is capable of passing down morals and ethics and you follow humanity's morals and ethics. I think we've had this discussion before. For one to believe in humanity, one must believe in humanity's goodness.
So belief in secular morals. I'm sure you're aware that an evolutionary explanation of morals exists? And a purely utilitarian one? (Tribes w/morals similar to ours survived better than those that encouraged intertribal rape & thievery etc.) I don't believe that humanity is inherently good. I don't think it is inherently bad. I, personally, find no use for those terms, but even within their assumed context I would not classify humans as being inside one or the other category.
Red Nemesis
This. As long as you acknowledge that theism is not rational then we're cool.
As I have said before, it is a personal and emotional acceptance that cannot be quantified or logically explained.
Red Nemesis
Again with the 'r' word. Can you use your allegedly exceptional intellect to reach a bit more, delving into your presumably vast vocabulary to find a less offensive word?
The 'r' word is appropriate. The mentality I mentioned above is an arrogance of the most dangerous sort.
Red Nemesis
No one's understanding of the universe in infallible. We don't have a unified theory yet, let alone universal awareness. What I refuse to do, however, is leave what foundation we have in order to imagine what might be nice; that's all religion can ever hope to do. Faith is explicitly poor in facts.I like facts.
You're fine to like facts, but you will acknowledge that you (and mankind in general) is far from omniscient and that your understanding of the universe is painfully limited; thus you will acknowledge the possibility of a higher power.
If you're as logical as you say you are.
Edit: Since you have conceded, I'm off to watch Die Hard.
Love you!
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
So belief in secular morals. I'm sure you're aware that an evolutionary explanation of morals exists? And a purely utilitarian one? (Tribes w/morals similar to ours survived better than those that encouraged intertribal rape & thievery etc.) I don't believe that humanity is inherently good. I don't think it is inherently bad. I, personally, find no use for those terms, but even within their assumed context I would not classify humans as being inside one or the other category.
I don't understand how you can believe in human morals without believing humans are inherently good. Are you saying you believe in select humans' morals? Morals you deem to be logical?
First: I am hoping that we are agreed that all life came from evolution, or from intelligent design. (you would obviously say only the former, while myself would pull for the latter).
Let us look at the substantiation for the claim:
First, Creation:
If we were to consider an absolute infallible argument for one or the other to be 100% scientific proof, I would be the first to tell you that creation loses scientific proof by a LONG shot. I'll give, just for sake of making an argument, 10% proof to the side of creation. It is thereby missing NINETY PERCENT of what is needed to physically prove creative design. Pathetic.
What does creation use for that other 90% then?
Well, when you consider Christians believe the bible, they are able to fill that 90% void with Faith. What is faith to a christian you ask? Well, Hebrews 11:1, and 11:3 state:
11:1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
11:3 Through Faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things that do appear.
So, in essence, if a Christian chooses to believe the Bible at all (kinda pantamount to being a Christian really) Then these verses use FAITH to fill that entire void of scientific evidence. so its 10% proof (basic land structures, rivers, etc, that match Genesis) (90% Faith)
This argument, at this point, appears very weak.
I am a scientifically minded fellow myself, so I will naturally be swayed by something with more evidence than that. Faith is unprovable. Faith is for the IGNORANT. This is the freaking 21st century. We can do better than BELIEVE that what the book says is true without evidence, can we not?
Which brings us to Evolution.
Without a question, without a doubt, there is more scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution than will ever exist for intelligent design. I'm not a deep scholar of the theory myself, but too many men more intelligent than myself swear by it for me to write them all off as morons.
So I start looking into evolution, and almost every t is crossed, and almost every i is dotted, and this looks very good to me. But, every scholar of evolution will tell you, there ARE holes in the theory. There are unexplained instances of fossils being in the wrong places or time periods, there are mixed up sedimentary levels, and other problems. (i said before i'm not an expert, I'm sure Knightfall could provide a few more) These do NOT undo all the evidence that point towards evolution being correct, however, even the leader's in the field acknowledge they exist.
They do assure us that science will be able to find the evidence needed to fill in those gaps in the coming years. So to conclude on Evolution: let's say 90-95% of the theory is provable with physical evidence. (i'm making numbers up here understand, the exact percentages are immaterial to the point i'm about to make.) Plus, there is 5-10% of the theory pending evidence.
Sounds MUCH MUCH MUCH more viable than a 90% faith intelligent design.
Except for one thing.
Do you realize science is in essence asking us to have faith in its ability to produce evidence of that other 5-10%? The very medium we turned to in order to avoid the necessity of believing in something we couldn't absolutely prove asks to have faith IN SCIENCE. This is illogical. We have faith in something that's very EXISTENCE is supposed to mean we have no need for something as primitive as faith.
So now we see the crux of the matter: Either way we go, we must have SOME faith that our side of the debate is correct. A video-tape of the entire proceeding of the beginning of life would count as 100% evidence, but that's impossible. Faith is necessary regardless.
Should I put my faith in the theory that by its very existence denies the necessity of faith?
Or should I put my faith in the theory that tells me from the very beginning that the only possible way to believe the theory is through faith?
Both positions as of yet lack some "evidence of things not seen" If evolution should ever be able to slam shut the door on all possibilities of Creation, where 0% faith is needed to believe in evolution, i'll study the crap out of it, and change sides. As of now, that isn't the case. As of now, I choose to place my faith in the theory that acknowledges the necessity of said faith.
I hope this shows you that Christians aren't all blindly following a book without considering other alternatives. I know believing in something that takes so much faith can come across as irrationality if you don't understand WHY we choose to put our faith there.
Bro, creation with science and creation with the bible both makes sense. I wish I had that damn lecture from the astrophysicist.
And I don't know what bible you've been reading but in Judaism, science and Torah go 100% hand in hand. Neither one contradicts the other and if that ever WAS the case, we'd be instructed to follow the science.