The Religion subforum.
- Thread starter Jaster Mereel
- Start date
Cris said:
I'm not here to debate. If you're right about everything then everyone must agree with you.
By the way, I don't see you supplying links.
What's your idea of abiogenisis - perhaps panspermia? Would these be called micro-UFOs? LOL
Q: What's the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation?
A: None
Q: Wasn't spontaneous generation discarded way back by Louis Pasteur?
A: Yes, but don't tell anyone. If you have to use an assumption to help support your world view, do it. -- Right Cris?
This is called science. *** Tee ***Hee
Gotta Woody original quote for you:
If you build your fortress big enough, someday it will be your own prison.
Last edited:
Alright, I've cooled off now. I'll address your post in a civilized manner. I'll try not to rant this time.
I apologize for the long-winded, rant-like (ok, not rant-like. it was actually a rant) quality of my response. I'll try to keep it shorter.superluminal said:
Ok, I understand what you mean. My point, however, is that you cannot debate the axioms of religion by using the axioms of science, because they both fall into the category of foundational axioms. This is what bothers me so much. I agree that science is the best way to gain reasonably objective knowledge of the universe. Most of the time (except for this message board) I am dealing with the subject in a very concise, scientific manner. The reason why I am always defending theists here is because I find the assumption by many that the axioms of science are superior to the axioms of religion to be unfounded hubris. It's a result of our very secular, humanistic society that this idea is so popular (And yes, secular humanism does indeed dominate our society, if not our politics. Even there, when a religious overtone is used, the reasons for action usually have to do with something secular), for the same reason that, several hundred years ago, the axioms of scientific thought were considered subordinate to the axioms of religion. I am not saying that secular humanism is evil, or even that I disagree with it because most of my attitudes would fall under this philosophical tradition. I'll get more into this further down.
I realize that. I have used the same argument on numerous occasions. I'm sure many of the people here have made this same argument. It's used over and over because it's a good argument. I'm glad we agree on that, at least.
Good man. I don't care that we disagree on the other stuff. This is, by far, the most important point.
That's the idea. It's another one of those axioms of religion.
Actually, this is another part of the point I made above. How do you find internal inconsistencies? By using the axioms of science to examine religious ideas. This is what I was talking about. People around here place scientific axioms on a pedestal over all other philosophical positions. And scientific thought is a philosophical position, which few of the atheists around here recognize. That's what bugs me. I usually try and view the world based upon these axioms, but I at least recognize that there is nothing fundamentally superior about them. They work in a broad range of circumstances, but in a few specific areas, they aren't useful. Religion is one such area. The idea that, if the axioms of science are not useful in religion, then religion must be flawed, is simply silly because it's a position that lacks the necessary philosophical and historical perspective. I'm sure I'll touch on this again. This is getting long-winded again. Please be patient.
Ok, I made an assertion which is not true for everyone around here, but you must admit that what I said is the prevalent attitude of people attacking religion in this place. That was my point. I understand what you are saying, but again this has to do with using the axioms of science to dissect religion when religion is founded upon different axioms (I've been using this word a lot lately). The nature of religion is that the supernatural is not a phenomenon but a root cause, i.e. you do not observe it's effects on the cosmos a part from the religious interpretation. As in, you observe a lead weight dropping to the ground, and you know it's gravitational force which is causing that lead weight to fall, but the root cause of that natural force is considered to be something external to existence as you observe it.
I do see your point. I told you already that I am not a theist. I do not believe that it's God communicating with the person, but I at least understand that the supernatural is considered external to the observable universe. This is a point that I think bugs most anti-theists in the extreme, because it really does place belief in the supernatural beyond the scope of science because science relies on your observations, and if the nature of the belief says that it's beyond the range of your observations then you cannot simply point to a lack of observation as a reason not to believe in it. Certainly you see this?
I agree with you. The point is, the concept itself places the supernatural outside of the objective universe. It's considered something that you can only understand through subjective experiences. It's another one of those foundational axioms of religion. You cannot use the same tools to study something which is considered only reachable through subjective experiences that are used for gaining objective knowledge.
It's not irrelevant. It's very important to the argument. It's quite important, actually, when you are arguing philosophy, which is why it's used so often.
The best way we have of assessing objective reality, i.e. religion is not included because the beliefs of religion can only be experienced subjectively. You know this. That being the limitation on understanding things which are supernatural, you cannot, therefore, use the the same tools for assessing subjective reality. This has been said of religious experiences many times on this board before.
I agree, but we are not talking about objective knowledge.
Look, objective phenomena and subjective phenomena both exist in equal measure. Subjective things don't exist "less" than objective things. Things just exist. Subjective things have a different way of existing, and you know this. I'll ask you, what differentiates objective and subjective phenomena?
This was a part of my frustration getting out. My point was that there is no humility around here. We are all guilty of it. I was pissed off.
Look, you cannot debate the validity of foundational axioms with the axioms of another philosophy. You cannot debate the validity of any axiom at all because there is no ultimate foundational axiom, not really anyhow. And if there is, it's not the axioms of science. The only axiom that can be argued as being the foundational axiom is the famous one from Descartes, you know "Cogito, ergo sum"? That's about it, and that says nothing about the existence or non existence of anything except yourself. You are judging religion using the axioms of science, and that simply cannot be done because they look at completely different types of phenomena.
And here, we come to the core of the issue. This is, actually, the reason why I wanted the Religion subforum shut down. The atheists on this board who continually attack religion can't seem to seperate the philosophical discourse that the subforum is obviously meant for (hence the reason why it's under the "Philosophy" section) from the very real, political implications of the beliefs. I think that you're right about religious ideas being dangerous in a public policy sense, but we here at Sciforums are not the people making the decisions. We don't decide public policy here, we discuss interesting topics. We are all philosophers and scientists, not politicians. This message board, clearly, is intended for intellectual discourse and not generating useful ideas with real world applications, but you (probably one of the few atheists who are honest about the reason why they attack religion so often around here, and probably one of my favorite posters even though all we do is argue), and the others (more the others than you), immediately react to the opening of a thread about religion from the context of religious axioms with a very terse, disrespectful, emotional response. And that's the problem, as Woody so clearly pointed out. The Religion subforum is accompanied by too much emotion because no one around here (and this has nothing to do with age) has the maturity to sit back, relax, and engage in a very civilized philosophical discussion about their opposing beliefs. No, all everyone does is trash the thoughts and feelings of everyone else, not through reason and honest conversation, but through beating each other over the head with a stick every time someone hits an emotional chord. I think I've made my point, but if you'd like to continue this discussion go right ahead. I think the best thing for everyone here to do is to develop a little bit of apathy towards religious discussion on this board, or else the administration should shut it down.
Last edited:
Look's like I've failed to make it short. I had a lot to say. Sorry.
i don't think this applies.Woody said:
pasteur was observing flies
but i do find it amazing that science treats evolution and the origins of life differently.
when a laymen hears evolution he automaticly assumes that it also means origins of life.
how many debates were started on this board alone where the poster was talking about evolution and the origins of life as the same thing?
in my opinion science has done a fine job of deceiving the public when it comes to what is taught in our schools.
It's JM, Woody.
im jewish.Woody said:
Woody,
Uh huh! So, what, you simply want the last word, is that it?
Only if everyone agrees that I’m right about everything.
Why should I make an effort when you clearly have no intention of supporting your fantasy?
No woody, this is the strawman technique, and you seem pretty hopeless at it.
There is no fortress just as there is no spoon. That is just your world of fantasy in which you live.
Cris said:
I have a bible. It's real.
That's fine Cris, you can think what you want to about it. You just don't understand philosophy -- that's my conclusion, and I can accept that about you.
You have a theist and an atheist both telling you the same thing using two different logical arguments. Maybe that should tell you something. In logic, it's proof and check.
So go measure a mud puddle with a micrometer if that makes you happy.
Last edited:
I see we have a different set of world views here. My understanding of your new favorite word is this. An axiom is an idea at the base of some philosophy or world view that is not subject to the requirements of proof. The truth of it is deemed to be self evident. From it, you develop a self-consistent system. Yes? This "system" may or may not say anything useful about what we all commonly hold to be "reality". The world of agreed upon things like rocks, trees, and fundamentalist xians.Jaster Mereel said:
Some axioms I remember:
"Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another."
and,
"The earth is flat"
and,
"There is a creator"
The first one is one of several foundational axioms from which mathemetics is developed. Math has some very useful and provable things to say about reality.
The second one spawned a complete philosophy of error regarding "reality" that was easily demonstrated by anyone who cared to look around a bit.
The third one apparently has zero useful things to say about "reality" other than as they apply to the subjugation of masses of people throughout history.
The point I'm trying to make is that questioning the choice and validity of axioms has been essential to the advancement of humankind throughout history.
Your statement that you cannot debate foundational axioms across philosophies and that you really can't debate the validity of axioms at all is highly problematic to me (see how nice and civilized I can be in a debate?).
Here's another axiom I can effectively debate using a variety of different philosophies: Humans that are not of my "race" are fit only to be my servants. Quite the accepted axiom for most of human history.
Or that it is self evident (axiomatic) that women are generically inferior to men.
I think I will continue to debate the choice of axiom that theists have adopted, using the axioms of science, philosophy, and common sense that have led to the enlightenment and personal freedom of millions of humans over hundreds of years.
Think of it this way. If you preclude the analysis of one set of axioms from the perspective and analysis of a different set of axioms, you are stuck in the analytical equivalent of marrying your sister and teaching your children (if they are functional) to marry each other, and on down the line.
It's just a book Woody. And you accept it based on its own self-referential claims of authority. Can you not see the absurdity of this?Woody said:
superluminal said:
There are two different definitions of the word "Axiom". I'll link you to Wikipedia, even though I don't quite like them as a source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Wikipedia said:
Quite different, and much more basic, than how you seem to be using it.
I think I'm using in exactly that way. Where's the discrepancy?
Woody,
A key issue here that JM does not seem to realize with his suggestion that the atheists should attempt to see the theist perspective and engage in reasoned methodical debate is that many seasoned atheists, having tried this countless times, soon realize that the theist does not play by the same rules. After long discussions to be met with “the bible says so”, which is essentially what you have just done here, is simply totally frustrating. Ultimately such atheists when finding a theist that begins with such assertions, simply cuts through all the inevitable expected pointless swordplay and points out the obvious – the theist only has a fantasy and has nothing worthwhile to offer, so why not go straight to the end game and point out his delusion right from the start?
Yes, and they are great for log fires when the logs run out.
And here you are trying imply you do but you do not argue from a philosophical perspective but rather from a position of blind conviction. These are different.
No Woody. Both are coming from very different perspectives and while the request is similar there is little to no agreement on why. And your claim to logic is highly dubious.
A key issue here that JM does not seem to realize with his suggestion that the atheists should attempt to see the theist perspective and engage in reasoned methodical debate is that many seasoned atheists, having tried this countless times, soon realize that the theist does not play by the same rules. After long discussions to be met with “the bible says so”, which is essentially what you have just done here, is simply totally frustrating. Ultimately such atheists when finding a theist that begins with such assertions, simply cuts through all the inevitable expected pointless swordplay and points out the obvious – the theist only has a fantasy and has nothing worthwhile to offer, so why not go straight to the end game and point out his delusion right from the start?
Perhaps if you had spent far less time constantly constructing childish pithy remarks in attempts to score meaningless points, then you might have gained more respect and learnt something.
Mmmmmm... Holy log smoked sausages... Mmmmm....Cris said:
nobody has, at yet, ruled out the supernatural as to how life came to be on this planet.
as a matter of fact when i look around at the rest of the solar system it is easy for me to conclude that life is un-natural, therefor something supernatural must have spawned it.
god, if there is such a thing, is not a being or an entity but a process.
as a matter of fact when i look around at the rest of the solar system it is easy for me to conclude that life is un-natural, therefor something supernatural must have spawned it.
god, if there is such a thing, is not a being or an entity but a process.
"My" cosmological argument is a classical philisophical argument that's been around for ages, before either of us were born. "Dubious claim" you call it. There really is no dialogue here.
I learned that I get nowhere with you, period. Have fun with your so-called religion forum. It won't change. I'm done with my feedback. Adios.
Last edited: