God and Science agree -why don't we?

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Are argument fallacies, lies, distortions, and theospamming all you can bring to the table?

Nothing you posted above comes close to addressing my point.

I don't know how badly he does that but I had to iggie him. Any sort of text based communication that lacks the advantages of vocal communication requires more specific and proper use of words than he seems to be able to provide. Playing fast and loose with words is a sure way to be mis understood.

 

[DarkSun]

And that which is written in the bible can be proven false by science.
So science and the bible do not agree.

Faith and science do not quarrel, they stand independent of one another.

But as far as objectivity and truth are concerned, I would be more inclined to side with the scientific method than a purely inductive method.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Faith and science do not quarrel, they stand independent of one another.

Assuming this means what I think it does I've always considered that idea a poorly thought out unnecessary concession to theism. Usually but not exclusively done to appease the whole idea of "belief in belief." All that non overlapping nonsense. It's never been shown that the supernatural exists in any capacity at all.

If I am wrong, disregard

 

[AxisMundi]

Then why concern yourself with it further? It does address your point -you simply won't accept it. You may not actually be able to for many possible reasons (God's direct intervention perhaps being the least likely -or necessary). You will eventually experience things which will make you think differently. You will gain understanding which will cause you to see all that you now see differently. If we have no common ground at this time, why bother? It's not about argument -it's about reality. I wish you well.

I think you labor under the misconception that I am an Atheist.

I happen to believe your god exists, one of the younger Deities created the combined will of Man from the stuff of the universe.

I do not for a moment consider Abrahamic scriptures anything other than what they are, Theopolitical Manifestoes intended purely to gather political power and wealth to the members of the church, mosque, or temple.

All Abrahamic scriptures suffer greatly, not only from their contents, which are easily disproven, but by people attempting to shoehorn said scriptures into science in an attempt to validate their religion.

And like I said earlier, your response did not address my statements in the least, as I am realizing now is standard procedure for you.

 

[AxisMundi]

Assuming this means what I think it does I've always considered that idea a poorly thought out unnecessary concession to theism. Usually but not exclusively done to appease the whole idea of "belief in belief." All that non overlapping nonsense. It's never been shown that the supernatural exists in any capacity at all.

If I am wrong, disregard

Just as Science cannot disprove the FSM (bless his noodly holiness), it canot, and indeed doesn;t attempt to disprove Deity.

Science DOES, however, tear religion a new one constantly.

 

[Willamena]

I like how "Get an idea" comes after "Start".

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Just as Science cannot disprove the FSM (bless his noodly holiness), it canot, and indeed doesn;t attempt to disprove Deity.

Science DOES, however, tear religion a new one constantly.

Never said it did. I have stated elsewhere though that such a thing is immaterial for me because in this case at least. Islam/Judaism/Christianity are not even in the hypothesis stage yet.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think you labor under the misconception that I am an Atheist.

I happen to believe your god exists, one of the younger Deities created the combined will of Man from the stuff of the universe.

I do not for a moment consider Abrahamic scriptures anything other than what they are, Theopolitical Manifestoes intended purely to gather political power and wealth to the members of the church, mosque, or temple.

All Abrahamic scriptures suffer greatly, not only from their contents, which are easily disproven, but by people attempting to shoehorn said scriptures into science in an attempt to validate their religion.

And like I said earlier, your response did not address my statements in the least, as I am realizing now is standard procedure for you.

I try not to assume things about people -especially online. People aren't always who they claim to be. If the above is actually what you believe, you do not believe "my" God exists. It would seem that the only way you might perceive that someone were addressing your statements would be if they were agreeing with them. I did address your statements. Addressing and refuting to your satisfaction are very different things. Perhaps nothing can refute what you believe or state to your satisfaction. I'm cool with that. You will see things differently later.

I may not have addressed all of your points, as it is made difficult by your anti-me-and-my-beliefs spamming. I understand that you have said you disagree. If you refrain from such spamming, I may have time to review your posts and address more points in more detail.

 

[Walkntune]

I like how "Get an idea" comes after "Start".

There is so much to what you are saying here.JUst as a person can not see a set of lost keys in front of there face when they panic,we can open and close awareness to reality.
Yet we choose to believe we can make reality conform to our awareness. Hmmm.
I read somewhere on here that science is evolving.I believe the scientific method is a restriction on awareness and as AWARENESS is evolving we loosen the grips of what we hold on to as facts.
I will be fair though in sharing my opinion and say I think thoughts don't just come but are intuitively driven.Introverts and extroverts have never seen the world from the same prospectives.Extroverts have always been more into materialism and would where bright colors and be more into sports as to be seen where an introvert tends to want to where more earth tone colors and be more camouflaged in the world and tend to be more artistic. I don't think it is coincidence that we also find both of these traits in the animal kingdom and could see how they could posibly have evolved and split.
It was interesting to me to see how during the American revolution the British Redcoats wore bright colors and came banging drums and being loud and in their mind they would be intimidating.I am sure some of the Americans were sitting in the woods camouflaged and waiting patiently and laughing as they knew the enemies were approaching for miles.I share this to say why I think thoughts are driven by lets say a force of nature and don't just appear.
There will always be two viewpoints on conscious reality just from the different perspectives between introverts and extroverts.
Extroverts seem to have more of a mainstream science and have a very materialistic view in science and introverts tend to connect intuitively with reality and seek metaphysically to understand this connection they understand beyond materialism.You can cross over from the different points of view as the consciousness will grab a hold of anything you choose to hold on too if you allow it but if you subject yourself to your intuition then you will tend to lean one way or the other.
This is a little of my viewpoint and for those who won't ponder on anything without evidence,I understand your point of view and why you need it too even consider an idea subjectively.

 

[AxisMundi]

I try not to assume things about people -especially online. People aren't always who they claim to be. If the above is actually what you believe, you do not believe "my" God exists. It would seem that the only way you might perceive that someone were addressing your statements would be if they were agreeing with them. I did address your statements. Addressing and refuting to your satisfaction are very different things. Perhaps nothing can refute what you believe or state to your satisfaction. I'm cool with that. You will see things differently later.

I may not have addressed all of your points, as it is made difficult by your anti-me-and-my-beliefs spamming. I understand that you have said you disagree. If you refrain from such spamming, I may have time to review your posts and address more points in more detail.

You god and your biblical god are two different things.

The gods cannot operate outside of Natural Law. Being a child of humanity, your god cannot be a demiurge, since a being cannot create the universe or the human race retroactively.

Secondly, you have not addressed my questions at all. And yes, I am anti-scripture. Any rational, thinking person should be, considering the rather blatant contradictions and disproven history and myths contained within.

Your last comments above merely shows me that you are incapable of answering my questions simply because you do not have an answer.

 

[Etritonakin]

I admire much about First Nation ways.

Marriage has been more the "norm" than not throughout recorded history, but I was focusing more on marriage, and less on gender, in reference to stability (as a stable, committed relationship between the married persons prvides a good foundation for raising a child), and I am personally accepting of all people....

To be more specific, I should point out that homosexuality, etc.. are very complicated issues, and my post concerned those with actual physiological gender issues. Those who engage in homosexual acts do not necessarily do so due to such issues. Outward physical gender issues are more obvious than potential issues related to the formation of the brain. It is possible in my estimation that a male in every other respect might have a brain that would be considered typical of a female. Scientists are researching how the subtle differences in male and female brains affect sexual attraction -and their research suggests that homosexuality is at least not purely biological/genetic. To what extent bias is affecting this sort of research is another question. Many non-physiological factors might lead one to find a same-sex physical relationship desireable. From those I have known and talked to, etc... Some choose to do so simply because it feels good and they have no aversion to it. Some do it because they are told not to. Some do it because it's more cool these days. Some have an aversion to the opposite sex due to the actions and attitudes of the opposite sex. Some find a same-sex relationship more available/comfortable/satisfying/emotionally fulfilling, etc... for reasons other than physiological gender issues -and some use the physiological possibilities as an excuse. Being homosexual does not decrease one's ability to be less than truthful -even with themselves.

As far as those who are interested in keeping God's commandments are concerned, they should research the issues for themselves, be honest with themselves and God about their own situation -and go to God for guidance. Those who are obviously male and female should seek marriage with one of the opposite sex (should they decide to marry -it's not commanded that we do, and some can live alone without temptation being an issue. There is at least one example in the bible of an apostle remaining unmarried so he could devote more time to God's work). Those who are truly not certain should seek the truth about their own situation -and seek God.
may edit later

 

[AxisMundi]

To be more specific, I should point out that homosexuality, etc.. are very complicated issues, and my post concerned those with actual physiological gender issues. Those who engage in homosexual acts do not necessarily do so due to such issues. Outward physical gender issues are more obvious than potential issues related to the formation of the brain. It is possible in my estimation that a male in every other respect might have a brain that would be considered typical of a female. Scientists are researching how the subtle differences in male and female brains affect sexual attraction -and their research suggests that homosexuality is at least not purely biological/genetic. To what extent bias is affecting this sort of research is another question. Many non-physiological factors might lead one to find a same-sex physical relationship desireable. From those I have known and talked to, etc... Some choose to do so simply because it feels good and they have no aversion to it. Some do it because they are told not to. Some do it because it's more cool these days. Some have an aversion to the opposite sex due to the actions and attitudes of the opposite sex. Some find a same-sex relationship more available/comfortable/satisfying/emotionally fulfilling, etc... for reasons other than physiological gender issues -and some use the physiological possibilities as an excuse. Being homosexual does not decrease one's ability to be less than truthful -even with themselves.

As far as those who are interested in keeping God's commandments are concerned, they should research the issues for themselves, be honest with themselves and God about their own situation -and go to God for guidance. Those who are obviously male and female should seek marriage with one of the opposite sex (should they decide to marry -it's not commanded that we do, and some can live alone without temptation being an issue. There is at least one example in the bible of an apostle remaining unmarried so he could devote more time to God's work). Those who are truly not certain should seek the truth about their own situation -and seek God.
may edit later

Feel free to link to these "scientists" you speak of.

Legitimate science states that the foundations of all three major classifications of human sexuality share the same foundations.

Just as you and I do not choose to be hetero, gays don't choose to be gay. Like us, it is a natural, inherent, unchangeable aspect of homosexuals.

Your attempt at anecdotal evidence simple doesn't pass muster. Someone who "does it to get their rocks off" or because they "were told not to" aren't homosexuals.

And if you are referencing the "ex-gay ministries"a above, got news for you. There is no such thing as an ex-gay. Those living the lie due to your religion admit that they are still gay and living a lie.

How some religion supposedly devoted to "peace and love" can urge someone to live in a loveless household is beyond me.

 

[Etritonakin]

You have a right to those opinions, but, again, legitimate science to you seems to be those scientists who agree with you. I reference scientists on both sides of the issue -TRIED TO FIND SCIENTISTS ON NEITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE (which would make them legitimate) - conversations I have had with homosexuals, and my own observations.

I didn't say "gays choose to be gays", and I'm not urging anyone to do anything. I said that some people engage in homosexuality due to reasons other than physiological.

You aren't making sense, and are being rather simplistic.

>an excellent suggestion>
El Guapo: Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?
Jefe: A what?
El Guapo: A *plethora*.
Jefe: Oh yes, you have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
Jefe: Why, El Guapo?
El Guapo: Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
Jefe: Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?

 

[AxisMundi]

You have a right to those opinions, but, again, legitimate science to you seems to be those scientists who agree with you. I reference scientists on both sides of the issue -TRIED TO FIND SCIENTISTS ON NEITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE (which would make them legitimate) - conversations I have had with homosexuals, and my own observations.

I didn't say "gays choose to be gays", and I'm not urging anyone to do anything. I said that some people engage in homosexuality due to reasons other than physiological.

You aren't making sense, and are being rather simplistic.

Legitimate science is, for example, the APA. People like NARTH, and anti-gay organization, are not legitimate science any more than scientists like Behe conduct legitimate science. The latter have an agenda and try to bend science to fit that agenda. Their "findings" simply skip much of the Scientific Method and do not stand up to simple peer review.

Much like the biblical Apoligist attempts to bend their scriptures to match modern sciencitific facts in the failed attempt to lend credibility and validity to their religion, instead of realizing that religion is based purely on faith and leaving it there.

And as noted, your ancetodal evidence attempt fails on three counts.

1. I cannot take your word at face value.
2. So few examples do not represent facts,which is why ancedotal evidence isn;t evidence.
3. The people you example to are not homosexuals.

Merely engaging in sex with the same gender does not qualify someone as homosexual. There is a wide range of criteria, and intimate relationships are but a small fraction.

Also, no, you did not say gay is a choice. Outright. Between your comments concerning biology, and especially your ancedotes, your implication is quite clear.

And if by "simplistic" you mean that I do not attempt to misdirect and confuse the issue, contradict myself, and introduce unneccessary, and unrelated, complications into a debate, then all I can say is "thank you".

 

[Etritonakin]

I did not imply anything (and even stated the possibility of the opposite of what you have implied that I implied) -that is an untrue assumption on your part -and now you are assuming my motives?

Iggy!

 

[AxisMundi]

I did not imply anything (and even stated the possibility of the opposite of what you have implied that I implied) -that is an untrue assumption on your part -and now you are assuming my motives?

Iggy!

I see nothing relating to any concession in your post above.

And your motives are quite open to anyone who can read simple English, particularly the last paragraph concerning marriage and your god.

 

[Zadok]

Feel free to link to these "scientists" you speak of.

Legitimate science states that the foundations of all three major classifications of human sexuality share the same foundations.

Just as you and I do not choose to be hetero, gays don't choose to be gay. Like us, it is a natural, inherent, unchangeable aspect of homosexuals.

Your attempt at anecdotal evidence simple doesn't pass muster. Someone who "does it to get their rocks off" or because they "were told not to" aren't homosexuals.

And if you are referencing the "ex-gay ministries"a above, got news for you. There is no such thing as an ex-gay. Those living the lie due to your religion admit that they are still gay and living a lie.

How some religion supposedly devoted to "peace and love" can urge someone to live in a loveless household is beyond me.

Wow – as one coming late to this discussion I am amazed how off topic we are. I work as a contract engineer. My background is math and physics although I have worked the last 30 years as a consultant for artificial intelligence applied to automation and robotics. I also served in the military during the Vietnam conflict (I was never in Vietnam) with an intelligence unit and have exposure to a wide variety of “brainwashing” and behavioral modification applications.

I am not aware of any scientific study that suggests that cognitive human behavior is “natural, inherent and unchangeable”. If you have any links to such studies I would be most interested. If you have questions about cognitive behaviors - it is in essence behaviors to which an individual is aware in order to take place. For example one does not have to be aware for their heart to beat but to experience fear there must be a cognitive trigger to which the individual is aware.
Zadok

 

[AxisMundi]

Wow – as one coming late to this discussion I am amazed how off topic we are. I work as a contract engineer. My background is math and physics although I have worked the last 30 years as a consultant for artificial intelligence applied to automation and robotics. I also served in the military during the Vietnam conflict (I was never in Vietnam) with an intelligence unit and have exposure to a wide variety of “brainwashing” and behavioral modification applications.

I am not aware of any scientific study that suggests that cognitive human behavior is “natural, inherent and unchangeable”. If you have any links to such studies I would be most interested. If you have questions about cognitive behaviors - it is in essence behaviors to which an individual is aware in order to take place. For example one does not have to be aware for their heart to beat but to experience fear there must be a cognitive trigger to which the individual is aware.
Zadok

Sexual orientation itself isn't a cognitive action.

And here's your links...

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

This one shows ow harmful attempting to force someone to be something they are not. This of course would not occur if sexual orientation is "cognative"...
Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation

 

[Zadok]

Sexual orientation itself isn't a cognitive action.

And here's your links...

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

This one shows ow harmful attempting to force someone to be something they are not. This of course would not occur if sexual orientation is "cognative"...
Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation

I will ask a simple question - If Sexual orientation isn't cognative - how does one know their orientation? There are no scientific studies referenced in your links that address my question. Lets not pretend science that does not exist.

Thank you

Zadok

 

[Etritonakin]

Better listen to the admittedly-ex-G-associated person before the new-gen spooks get wind of your perceived defiance and put the kybosh on ya.
hehehehehehehehe

Killing all birds with one psychological stone. Interesting -but not very effective or desireable.