Evidence

[Sculelos]

We hardly "know" anything to be true. But we have our best guesses based on observation, logic and reason. That is what science is. Sceince is flawed but it gets better every day.

Religion of any and all kinds is a baseless claim. Bring forth evidence for god and I"ll believe it. However what people bring is not evidence but rather anecdoetes and nonesense.

Religion: The Pathway to form a personal opinion on how Energy Works.

Science: A wide examination of the way energy effects energy.

Science deals with outer causes but Religion deals with the inner causes. Only 1% of things are visible on the surface 99% lies deeper and can not be viewed by Science. To be overly focused on the 1% that is visible and not care about the 99% that science can not explain is pretty silly.

However Science as most people think of it is also a Religion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Religion: The Pathway to form a personal opinion on how Energy Works.

Science: A wide examination of the way energy effects energy.

Science deals with outer causes but Religion deals with the inner causes. Only 1% of things are visible on the surface 99% lies deeper and can not be viewed by Science. To be overly focused on the 1% that is visible and not care about the 99% that science can not explain is pretty silly.

However Science as most people think of it is also a Religion.

Science: Exanimations and best explinations based on evidence, reason and logic.

Religion: Claims that have yet to be backed up and yet still supported based on belief without reason (also known as "faith").

And no. Science is not a religion. The only people to have ever said that are religious people who continually loose arguments to people who use science. Its a last ditch effort to try and dismantle the credibility of science.

 

[Sculelos]

Science: Exanimations and best explinations based on evidence, reason and logic.

Religion: Claims that have yet to be backed up and yet still supported based on belief without reason (also known as "faith").

And no. Science is not a religion. The only people to have ever said that are religious people who continually loose arguments to people who use science. Its a last ditch effort to try and dismantle the credibility of science.

I say that because I know plenty of Scientist who say things work in a certain number of ways and even believe it when they lack proof. However I must admit at least Science is heavily subject to peer review and people are not afraid to bash stupid ideas. Bash religion though and people freak out. People act like your insulting their mother when you bash their religion however people just treat you like an idiot when you bash science.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I say that because I know plenty of Scientist who say things work in a certain number of ways and even believe it when they lack proof. However I must admit at least Science is heavily subject to peer review and people are not afraid to bash stupid ideas. Bash religion though and people freak out. People act like your insulting their mother when you bash their religion however people just treat you like an idiot when you bash science.

Well established science is .....well established. Usually when people bash science (especially using religion) it comes off like nonsese and does make someone look foolish. There are several parts of science that are not highly supported or well established. They are a work in progress and much of it will be abandoned as new evidence comes to light. If someone comes up with an idea it is run against a brick wall over and over and over just to make sure the idea is sound. If you bring a claim in science to your peers that means some of the smartest people in the world will be putting their full effort to prove you wrong. when they can't it means you've got a good idea.

Religion is different. Its unfalcifiable. Do you know what falcifiable means and why it is so important to give something validity?

 

[Thief]

A response has already been given that decimates your point but I want to break this down further.



Why do you call us a learning machine? There are several other ways to describe us. Why not use them? Just because we are capable of learning why is that our primary function? In reality all evidence seems to point to passing down our genes as the most important primary function. Learning is a means to and end.

Genetic variation is not evidence for god

What? I think you are missing a word or two that is vital to this sentence.

Quoting the bible to support belief in the bible is circular logic. I believe because I believe. Its true because it is held to be true.

There's nothing circular about your linear existence.
It's not your genetics that forms your spirit.

And your body is wired to show you this world.
You don't get to stay.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There's nothing circular about your linear existence.
It's not your genetics that forms your spirit.

And your body is wired to show you this world.
You don't get to stay.

What is circular is your evidence. ITs ture because this is true and this is true because the original is true. It has no independent evidence to support you claims.

LInear existance? I assume you mean the fact that we only go through one direction of time. The law of entropy? Though if you know much on quantem mechanics it states that we are not linear.

Even if we have a linear existence it is not evidence for god.

 

[Willamena]

Just because we are capable of learning why is that our primary function?

Because, unlike everything else about us, it's unusual. It's not only unusual, it's a bizarre practice. It's purpose serves its own growth--it is self-sustaining and self-justifying--and the extent to which we take it sets us apart from other creatures.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because, unlike everything else about us, it's unusual. It's not only unusual, it's a bizarre practice. It's purpose serves its own growth--it is self-sustaining and self-justifying--and the extent to which we take it sets us apart from other creatures.

Our higher intellegence is a product of this. Its an evolutionary advanage. Our primary function still is to continue to reproduce and have sucessful offspring. One of the means in which we do this is with our higher intellegence and a craving for knowledge. It has worked out favorably for us so far but it sitll doesn't yield evidence to god or that god has given us a function that is our independent purpose.

 

[Willamena]

Our higher intellegence is a product of this. Its an evolutionary advanage. Our primary function still is to continue to reproduce and have sucessful offspring. One of the means in which we do this is with our higher intellegence and a craving for knowledge. It has worked out favorably for us so far but it sitll doesn't yield evidence to god or that god has given us a function that is our independent purpose.

"Our primary function," according to you, fails to set us apart from all other life on this planet. So what makes it our primary function?

 

[adi2d]

"Our primary function," according to you, fails to set us apart from all other life on this planet. So what makes it our primary function?

Because if we fail at that purpose we are another failed species

 

[Willamena]

Because if we fail at that purpose we are another failed species

Something that happens regardless of humanity cannot be the purpose of humanity.

 

[adi2d]

Something that happens regardless of humanity cannot be the purpose of humanity.

It is the primary purpose of all of life. Everything else is secondary. Imho of course

 

[Willamena]

It is the primary purpose of all of life. Everything else is secondary. Imho of course

Right. It's the purpose of life, not the purpose of humanity.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"Our primary function," according to you, fails to set us apart from all other life on this planet. So what makes it our primary function?

Why do we have to be set apart? A primary function is the base function. A purpose is something we have invented. In nature a "purpose" is a meaningless statement. Function however serves its uses.

All life to be sucessful has to pass on its genetic coding. Its what drives evolution and every other organic mechanism. Nothing else matters except that. The way organism do this differs. Our evolutionary advantage is our high intellegence and questioning. We have others but this is our most noteable. Our ancestors lived and passed on their genes (their primary function) because of their developed cognitive problem solving and criticle thinking skills. The natural next step to further intelect is questioning and curiosity. This also fits in with evolutionary advantages and fitness.

So my point stands.

Humanity is just a construct without a purpose. Purpose is something we design. Purpose is not an inherent thing within our universe or not at least as far as we can tell. Function is a better word.

 

[adi2d]

Right. It's the purpose of life, not the purpose of humanity.[/QUOTE


I believe that we are part of all life.

I'm not trying to argue that we have no other purpose.

 

[Willamena]

Why do we have to be set apart?

If we're not, if we're not we vs. them, then we also have no primary function that is ours.

Humanity is just a construct without a purpose. Purpose is something we design. Purpose is not an inherent thing within our universe or not at least as far as we can tell. Function is a better word.

Or, alternately, humanity is a construct whose purpose is being ignored so that a point about life, rather than humanity, can be made.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The Truth is that a lot of evidence does exist that does support Biblical claims.

Such as?

in examining all the evidence I have personally found the Christian Bible to be closer to true observations then any other book in known history.

Really... That's a rather bold claim. What about my introduction to human anatomy textbook? Or any work in any academic field whatsoever?

The fact is, the people who wrote the Bible in all likelihood did NOT intend it to be understood as a history, geography, biology, or any other sort of textbook. It is closer to poetry than to prose- its primarily intent is not obviously to relate facts.

When we keep this in mind, the fact that the Bible is so frequently factually mistaken becomes less of a surprise, and less of an objection; after all, is it any knock against MacBeth that it is not factually accurate?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

We hardly "know" anything to be true.

That's unfortunate for you. Must be hard getting to work in the morning not knowing how to get there, and hard to cook your favorite dish since you don't know what the ingredients are, and hard for you to pass your math class since you don't know what any of the solutions are.

Sceince is flawed but it gets better every day.

Science as the cultural institution, or science as a method? The former is certainly flawed, seeing as it requires people to carry it out (and people necessarily bring flaws to the table), but the latter doesn't appear to be- in fact, the scientific method seems to be the most successful strategy for interacting with the world (in terms of obtaining evidence about it and navitaging in it) that we have.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Religion: The Pathway to form a personal opinion on how Energy Works.

Science: A wide examination of the way energy effects energy.

Needless to say, this is not how "religion" and "science" are defined in ordinary English.

Science deals with outer causes but Religion deals with the inner causes.

What is an "inner" cause as opposed to an "outer" one?

Only 1% of things are visible on the surface 99% lies deeper and can not be viewed by Science.

How on earth could you know such a thing? Pardon my french, but you simply pulled this number out of your behind...

However Science as most people think of it is also a Religion.

No, not really. Some people are overconfident in the results of science, displaying something an awful lot like religious faith, but that doesn't make science into a religion in any substantial sense.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Talking about the "purpose" of a species is incoherent. Purpose implies teleology.