Question with Boldness

[LIGHTBEING]

I'm an American and I don't think that.

The basic principle of the United States is separation of church and state. Religious belief is a matter of individual choice and conscience. That's an expression of America's larger principle of individual feedom and popular soverignty.

The Constitution expressly forbids the government from favoring any particular religion, even Christianity, as a state faith.

Having said that, the great majority of Americans are at least nominally Christians. About 76% according to the latest ARIS survey. Even most of our atheists seem to be fixated on and strongly influenced by Christianity. The European ancestry of a large amount of American thought ultimately has medieval Christian roots.

So there's probably some truth in saying that American society is strongly influenced by Christian cultural presuppositions.

Agreed and when I said a Christian Nation ofcourse I didn't equate that with the entire United States belonging to Christian Faith. However, the majority is and it's worth noting that yes, 76% are Christian according to the survey but only 2.39% in that same survey represent "other religious groups". The US is heavily influenced and dominated by Christian principles in our society and culture, regardless of the Constitution.

My point was regardless of the worldview of the US is and regardless of what our forefathers believed, how and why does this validate anything to believers of the Christian Faith?

 

[spidergoat]

There indeed is no scientific evidence for God.

Theists need to stop talking as if there was.

Indeed, it's projection on their part. Saying that God is beyond investigation and yet affects the material world all the time is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

And this "true nature of religion" is what? To call people rascals?

Maybe.

Scriptures say so many things many things.

Yet for some reason, many theists pick out only the negative things to say to other people, especially to outsiders/newcomers.

Do they?

If beating others (or oneself) would make them good people, then the whole world would be full of angels.
No, one cannot punish and criticize others into becoming good people.
And no, one cannot punish and criticize oneself into becoming a good person.
It doesn't work that way.
Punishment, ridicule, criticism may give the critic some personal satisfaction, and it may produce temporary compliance, but it does not motivate and inspire the punished person to change.

How is this relevant?


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

My atheism has nothing to do with your inability (or more likely 'refusal') to acknowledge something as perfectly obvious as the fact that religious people have made a habit of rejecting scientific discovery whenever it doesn't fit in with their preexisting views about the world.

Religious people conclude that god did it, and the reason may be simple, or even blind faith, but they have some justification. They just don't arrive at ''god did it''.

'both' meaning believing in God as well as seeking to gain a deeper appreciation of the true nature of reality.

How do you determine the difference between a theist who apreciates from one who doesn't?

I'm sorry, but it doesn't make more sense to me. It used to, many many years ago when I didn't know the first thing about science, but I've since educated myself.

So, scientists to whom Intelligent design makes sense, don't know the first thing about science?

As I've said before, in my day to day dealings with people, I don't give anyone a hard time no matter what they believe. Several of my acquaintances are religious in one way or another (one is even a Raelian) and my closest friends are all agnostic or deistic.

I wasn't refering to you personally.

But, once again, like so many other theists here, you have forgotten where you are. You're on a science forum, and you have chosen to engage in debate. In this context, then, I certainly am going to give you a hard time as long as you continue to do what it is that you're doing (which aside from endlessly making claims that are unsupported by reliable evidence, is an awful lot like evangelism).

You skipped over my question;

Regarding TOE, why is it such a big deal if someone disagrees that the evidence amounts to molecule to man?
How does it impact upon society, and the future of society if some people don't accept it?

What? It is these ancient scriptures that so often lead people to reject important science. I mean, just take a look at this guy:

http://krishna.org/life-comes-from-life/[/QUOTE]


Then you're willfully rejecting something that's cruical to to any serious discussion on religion or God.
How can you be objective?

jan

 

[Arioch]

So, scientists to whom Intelligent design makes sense, don't know the first thing about science?

Well that makes sense, ID isn't science.

 

[Rav]

They just don't arrive at ''god did it''.

That's exactly what they do. 'God did it' has so often been the default explanation for everything we didn't have a naturalistic explanation for, and still is today. 'God did it' is also essentially the argument against any scientific theory that happens to contradict scriptural teachings (in cases where the theist(s) in question hold steadfastly to them in spite of available overwhelming evidence to the contrary). The fact that no-one has ever developed a robust scientific theory that could stand up to peer-review that demonstrates the existence of God's hand at play in the natural world is testimony to this. How and why theists arrive at 'God did it' is immaterial to this discussion point.

How do you determine the difference between a theist who apreciates from one who doesn't?

By observing whether or not they substitute a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation with 'God did it'.

So, scientists to whom Intelligent design makes sense, don't know the first thing about science?

No, I'm sure many of them know plenty of science. What you have replied to was me talking about myself many years ago. But since you've brought it up, I will repeat here what I said in another post earlier this morning, which is something the geologist Kurt Wise shared:

"...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Here we have a man who is obviously intelligent and very well educated. Yet he has stated openly that he would reject 'all the evidence in the universe' in favor of what scripture teaches. In other words, he's a perfect example of what I have been talking about, and there are many more like him, especially in the creationist camp.

You skipped over my question;

Regarding TOE, why is it such a big deal if someone disagrees that the evidence amounts to molecule to man?
How does it impact upon society, and the future of society if some people don't accept it?

What, apart from allowing our children to be taught unscientific bullshit at school, so they grow up to be just as ignorant and close-minded as the religious zealots who put it into the curriculum?

But even if I leave that out, shouldn't we be living in a society that is enlightened enough not to deny it's true origins? The 'truth' seems to be important to religious people, so why shouldn't it be important to everyone else? This is to say nothing of the fact that the only way to reconcile a rejection of the TOE with the fact that countless evolutionary biologists and other scientists (including all the worlds foremost experts on the topic) accept it as fact is to conclude that they are all either engaged in some conspiracy of misinformation, or that none of them actually know what the fuck they are doing. Such a position breeds an implicit mistrust of the scientific method and indeed scientific knowledge in general. What a great way to move toward a future where science is going to become more important than ever, and will be in need of as much public (voter) support as possible.

http://krishna.org/life-comes-from-life/


Then you're willfully rejecting something that's cruical to to any serious discussion on religion or God.
How can you be objective?

What in the world does that even mean?

 

[wynn]

What in the world does that even mean?

It's in the same class with statements like
"By not accepting Him as your Lord and Savior, you are making Jesus Christ a liar."

Talking about religion requires immense political and psychological proficiency ...

 

[wynn]

Do they?

When a theist assassinates the character of the person he is talking to or about, once per paragraph, yes.

If beating others (or oneself) would make them good people, then the whole world would be full of angels.
No, one cannot punish and criticize others into becoming good people.
And no, one cannot punish and criticize oneself into becoming a good person.
It doesn't work that way.
Punishment, ridicule, criticism may give the critic some personal satisfaction, and it may produce temporary compliance, but it does not motivate and inspire the punished person to change.

How is this relevant?

I am referring to the use of words like "rascal," "fool," "idiot," "hypocrite," and such, and the effect they have in communication, especially when used by someone in position of (presumable) authority.

 

[wynn]

Then you're willfully rejecting something that's cruical to to any serious discussion on religion or God.

It has not been established that the material in the posted link is in any way relevant, much less crucial to any serious discussion on religion or God.

 

[wynn]

Religious people conclude that god did it, and the reason may be simple, or even blind faith, but they have some justification. They just don't arrive at ''god did it''.

Oh, but they should. On principle so!

Attempting to justify sabda with anumana and pratyaksa is categorically wrong.

We cannot use one pramana to justify another one; at least we cannot use a lesser pramana to justify a higher one.


Please see this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2802504#post2802504
(You liked Fr. Barron, so this will probably interest you)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

That's exactly what they do. 'God did it' has so often been the default explanation for everything we didn't have a naturalistic explanation for, and still is today.

Show me something in which a theist, in discussion, or debate, claims ''god did it'' as an answer to naturalistic explanations with no other reason or justification other than ''god did it''?

The fact that no-one has ever developed a robust scientific theory that could stand up to peer-review that demonstrates the existence of God's hand at play in the natural world is testimony to this.

To what?

How and why theists arrive at 'God did it' is immaterial to this discussion point.

No. You've accused me and others of having nothing in our heads but ''god did it'', no reason, or justification.
So prove it.

By observing whether or not they substitute a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation with 'God did it'.

Example?

"...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Here we have a man who is obviously intelligent and very well educated. Yet he has stated openly that he would reject 'all the evidence in the universe' in favor of what scripture teaches. In other words, he's a perfect example of what I have been talking about, and there are many more like him, especially in the creationist camp.

He didn't say he would ''reject'' the evidence, he said he would be the first to admit it. :shrug:

What, apart from allowing our children to be taught unscientific bullshit at school, so they grow up to be just as ignorant and close-minded as the religious zealots who put it into the curriculum?

Can you repeat the question?
Then, can you answer it?

But even if I leave that out, shouldn't we be living in a society that is enlightened enough not to deny it's true origins?
The 'truth' seems to be important to religious people, so why shouldn't it be important to everyone else? This is to say nothing of the fact that the only way to reconcile a rejection of the TOE with the fact that countless evolutionary biologists and other scientists (including all the worlds foremost experts on the topic) accept it as fact is to conclude that they are all either engaged in some conspiracy of misinformation, or that none of them actually know what the fuck they are doing.

So we should just accept it as fact, whether we understand it to be so or not?

Such a position breeds an implicit mistrust of the scientific method and indeed scientific knowledge in general.

No it doesn't.
Personally I don't understand the evidence, the makes molecule to man a fact.
How can I therefore accept it as such?

What in the world does that even mean?

It means you're notion of recorded history, seriously lacking.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

When a theist assassinates the character of the person he is talking to or about, once per paragraph, yes.

That's a bummer.

I am referring to the use of words like "rascal," "fool," "idiot," "hypocrite," and such, and the effect they have in communication, especially when used by someone in position of (presumable) authority.

I don't see the relevance to anything we're discussing.
You should perhaps revisit one of your threads that deal with this,
and enter these points.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It has not been established that the material in the posted link is in any way relevant, much less crucial to any serious discussion on religion or God.

The context is whether or not Rav's claim to know all of recorded history is correct, wishful thinking, oversized ego, or just plain lies.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oh, but they should. On principle so!

Attempting to justify sabda with anumana and pratyaksa is categorically wrong.

We cannot use one pramana to justify another one; at least we cannot use a lesser pramana to justify a higher one.


Please see this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2802504#post2802504
(You liked Fr. Barron, so this will probably interest you)

None of this has anything to do with my point, Signal.
Link your point to my statement so that it becomes obvious what you're saying.

jan.

 

[wynn]

None of this has anything to do with my point, Signal.
Link your point to my statement so that it becomes obvious what you're saying.

At this point, I am tempted to tell you to "just try and understand."

 

[wynn]

The context is whether or not Rav's claim to know all of recorded history is correct, wishful thinking, oversized ego, or just plain lies.

Oh. You're playing "let's juxtapose my presumption of omniscience with your presumption of omniscience."
Excellent. Have fun with it!

 

[Jan Ardena]

At this point, I am tempted to tell you to "just try and understand."

I have, and I conclude that it's irrelevant.
If I'm incorrect then feel free to correct me.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oh. You're playing "let's juxtapose my presumption of omniscience with your presumption of omniscience."
Excellent. Have fun with it!

No I'm not.
I've already explained.


jan.

 

[Rav]

Show me something in which a theist, in discussion, or debate, claims ''god did it'' as an answer to naturalistic explanations

I'm sick of you not using your brain, or pretending to be an idiot for the purposes of making me do extra work, or remaining so comfortable in your own ignorance that you never bother to learn enough to legitimately qualify you to participate in discussions like this, or whatever it is that you're doing. I say this because even in spite of our previous exchanges, I'm finding it difficult to believe that you are really, genuinely, unable to see what goes on in the religious (creationist especially) camp. Perhaps it is simply more likely that you don't want to.

Evolution is still the perfect modern-day example, since so many people who don't understand enough about it to appreciate the full force of it's explanatory power reject it in favour of 'God created biological entities fully-formed' ('God did it').

with no other reason or justification other than ''god did it''?

Interesting how you're trying to place a condition on this to give yourself a better chance of racking up a score, but it wont work. Unless that 'other reason or justification' includes a scientific theory that details the mechanisms that God employed to create life, then it still amounts to 'God did it'.

To what?

It's testimony to the fact that 'God did it' is all that can be produced as an alternative to a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation, since again no-one has ever developed a robust scientific theory that could stand up to peer-review to put in it's place instead.

No. You've accused me and others of having nothing in our heads but ''god did it'', no reason, or justification.
So prove it.

Actually, the original point I made was pretty simple:

Many religious people have a tendency to substitute "God did it" for a proper understanding of how the universe works.

Since then you have tried to morph it into more than it actually was, and then demand that I defend that.

Example?

Evolution.

He didn't say he would ''reject'' the evidence, he said he would be the first to admit it. :shrug:

Again, your inability (or refusal) to take even a single baby step along the path of deductive reasoning is, well, 'unbelievable' is the only word I can find for it.

If all the evidence is there to see, and you choose to ignore it anyway, that is indeed a rejection.

Can you repeat the question?
Then, can you answer it?

Once more with the feigned stupidity for the sake of being annoying. It was clearly one of my answers to your question.

So we should just accept it as fact, whether we understand it to be so or not?

No, actually. You should bother to learn more about it. One of the fundamental problems is that people don't.

No it doesn't.
Personally I don't understand the evidence, the makes molecule to man a fact.
How can I therefore accept it as such?

But this is not how you typically characterize your position in the course of discussion here. You tend to speak with a tone of authority and even condescension about how it doesn't make sense, and imply that others feel the same way but just accept it anyway.

EDIT: FYI, Abiogenesis is not part of the TOE. Evolutionary theory starts with the first simple biological organisms and works from there. So when you say 'molecule to man' when discussing evolution, you are inadvertently including a seperate theory in the discussion. Abiogenesis is not nearly as well evidenced as the TOE, but it's a very active area of research. Thus far, in labs, we have artificially created the chemical conditions within which organic compounds necessary for life are sythesized, and have had quite astonishing success creating complex self-replicating molecules. Even so, it must be said that we have only barely sighted the shore in terms of mapping out a workable theory of abiogenesis, but we have, afterall, only just begun.

It means you're notion of recorded history, seriously lacking.

I really don't see how that follows from a link I posted as an example of a religious person rejecting the most well evidenced scientific theory we have in favour of scriptural teachings.

 

[wynn]

I have, and I conclude that it's irrelevant.
If I'm incorrect then feel free to correct me.

Some things one "just needs to accept."
You expect that of others often.
But you are not doing us the same favor.