Logic vs Religion

[GadFly]

That is a stupid statement.

iT WAS A RESPONSE TO A STUPID ASSERTION.

 

[GadFly]

OK, my original point was to point out that religion isn't something that only does good, and doesn't hurt anyone. That is all. I'm not saying we need to abolish it completely or anything, just keep in mind that it's not perfect, and causes possibly as much harm as it does good.

As does atheism. Anybody can say a ball is round but it adds little to our bank of knowledge.

 

[Magic Man]

As does atheism. Anybody can say a ball is round but it adds little to our bank of knowledge.

Would you care to go read the comment I originally responded to, and then make an informed comment? I never claimes atheism was perfect, or that it didn't have it's own set of problems. All I claimed was that religion is not perfect, and it has a set of problems.

 

[GadFly]

Would you care to go read the comment I originally responded to, and then make an informed comment? I never claimes atheism was perfect, or that it didn't have it's own set of problems. All I claimed was that religion is not perfect, and it has a set of problems.

That's right. That is what I thought you said. I did just remember that not all balls are round (football) but most balls are round. But that probably did not add anything to the discussion either. But we are doing better, right?

 

[Magic Man]

That's right. That is what I thought you said. I did just remember that not all balls are round (football) but most balls are round. But that probably did not add anything to the discussion either. But we are doing better, right?

So, I take it you're done then?

 

[MoonWater]

OK, my original point was to point out that religion isn't something that only does good, and doesn't hurt anyone. That is all. I'm not saying we need to abolish it completely or anything, just keep in mind that it's not perfect, and causes possibly as much harm as it does good.

I never claimed religion was perfect or only does good. But yet again your saying religion is a "cause". You seem to be ignoring the fact that I keep telling you religion is a tool. It doesn't "cause" things to happen whether they be good or bad. It is the people who use religion in any particular way that causes good or bad things to happen as a result. Thus the people are the cause, not the religion. I don't believe religion is perfect. It was created by man so how could it be. And besides I don't believe in perfection anyway.

 

[andys]

Charity
You say to me, "...anyone who serves a God can be called religious."
Then you say to me "Dunemeister's friends aren't religious, that term could be applied to anyone who worships a God.........PLEASE CALL US CHRISTIANS, because we know what God we serve..."

Run, don't walk to the nearest library and grab any book on logic or reasoning.

 

[andys]

Jay/Michel07/Dunmeister
All three of you took issue with me for saying evolution accounts for the ORIGIN of life. You all need reading glasses. Take a look at what I DID say about the origins of life (second sentence):

"The Theory of Evolution accounts for all life on the planet without any need for a mysterious supernatural intervention. For those seriously engaged in the study of the origin of life, sufficient evidence has been found to confirm that the first cells originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components. The focus of science today is finding which path was followed to produce the first cells. The history of science shows that what may have appeared to be a metaphysical problem (like this one) may yield the answers, given the fortitude to discover new facts and increase our knowledge. To reject this rational approach in favour of postulating a Creator—for which there is no need nor proof—serves only to self-destruct the problem-solving process by trading it in for a host of forever unanswerable questions. Postulating a "god" only raises more questions than it answers, and thrusts us back into the Dark Ages. A natural, evidence-laden explanation, William of Ockham would note, is far superior to a metaphysical evidence-lacking explanation".

It's easy to argue with me when you don't argue with me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay/Michel07/Dunmeister
All three of you both took issue with me for saying evolution accounts for the ORIGIN of life. You all need reading glasses. Take a look at what I DID say about the origins of life (second sentence):

"The Theory of Evolution accounts for all life on the planet without any need for a mysterious supernatural intervention. For those seriously engaged in the study of the origin of life, sufficient evidence has been found to confirm that the first cells originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components. The focus of science today is finding which path was followed to produce the first cells. The history of science shows that what may have appeared to be a metaphysical problem (like this one) may yield the answers, given the fortitude to discover new facts and increase our knowledge. To reject this rational approach in favour of postulating a Creator—for which there is no need nor proof—serves only to self-destruct the problem-solving process by trading it in for a host of forever unanswerable questions. Postulating a "god" only raises more questions than it answers, and thrusts us back into the Dark Ages. A natural, evidence-laden explanation, William of Ockham would note, is far superior to a metaphysical evidence-lacking explanation".

It's easy to argue with me when you don't argue with me.

The theory of evolution does not account for abiogenesis any more than it accounts for nucleosynthesis.

 

[Magic Man]

I never claimed religion was perfect or only does good. But yet again your saying religion is a "cause". You seem to be ignoring the fact that I keep telling you religion is a tool. It doesn't "cause" things to happen whether they be good or bad. It is the people who use religion in any particular way that causes good or bad things to happen as a result. Thus the people are the cause, not the religion. I don't believe religion is perfect. It was created by man so how could it be. And besides I don't believe in perfection anyway.

I didn't say you said it was perfect. I didn't say your way of thinking was wrong. All I did was point out that people shouldn't ignore the fact that religion also causes harm.

If I don't have a hammer (or something equivalent), then I can't put a nail into a wall. The hammer is only the tool, but it allows the action of putting the nail in the wall. You can see religion as a tool, but it gives people a reason to do bad as well as good. Would you say that mental illness doesn't cause people to do things?

 

[Dunemeister]

Jay/Michel07/Dunmeister
All three of you both took issue with me for saying evolution accounts for the ORIGIN of life. You all need reading glasses. Take a look at what I DID say about the origins of life (second sentence):

"The Theory of Evolution accounts for all life on the planet without any need for a mysterious supernatural intervention. For those seriously engaged in the study of the origin of life, sufficient evidence has been found to confirm that the first cells originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components. The focus of science today is finding which path was followed to produce the first cells. The history of science shows that what may have appeared to be a metaphysical problem (like this one) may yield the answers, given the fortitude to discover new facts and increase our knowledge. To reject this rational approach in favour of postulating a Creator—for which there is no need nor proof—serves only to self-destruct the problem-solving process by trading it in for a host of forever unanswerable questions. Postulating a "god" only raises more questions than it answers, and thrusts us back into the Dark Ages. A natural, evidence-laden explanation, William of Ockham would note, is far superior to a metaphysical evidence-lacking explanation".

It's easy to argue with me when you don't argue with me.

I have heard people call that stage "chemical evolution." And the problems posed at this level are deeply conceptual and beyond the range of science IMHO. You said, "For those seriously engaged in the study of the origin of life, sufficient evidence has been found to confirm that the first cells originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components." Sorry, not so. Scientists have concocted some stories, but how can you possibly conduct an experiment to determine what originally happened? The event was unique and unrepeatable. At best, you can only have reasonable guesses, where "reasonable" means merely "based on our assumptions of the original conditions." And of course, there's no way to test those assumptions.

It takes more credulity (faith?) to believe this theory than to believe that God created the universe. You are indeed a man of great faith.

 

[andys]

Dunmeister
You offer your informed opinion, saying. "I don't think evolution can account for the existence or the variety of life that we see. I don't claim to be a fully trained scientist, but I'm simply not convinced that evolution is true. I DO say that it's the best scientific story we have, however, so we're stuck with it, whatever its flaws. But flawed it is.
So, right back at you: WRONG!"

So you agree with me that Evolution is the best explanation, but say I'm "WRONG." (Dr. Phil would have a field day with that one!)

In any case, your opinion is but the empty cry of the believer who fears knowledge will expose the lies of his antiquated dogma. Well, like it or not, evolution is a FACT. Period. What is a "fact"? This quote explains it quite nicely:
"In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms". -- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981.

Is evolution a fact? This may help you to understand:
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact , not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism

This is a topic on another thread, but you opened the door to it on this thread, and I couldn't let it escape unchallenged.

 

[MoonWater]

I didn't say you said it was perfect. I didn't say your way of thinking was wrong.

Not saying you did, I was just making a point

All I did was point out that people shouldn't ignore the fact that religion also causes harm.

If I don't have a hammer (or something equivalent), then I can't put a nail into a wall. The hammer is only the tool, but it allows the action of putting the nail in the wall. You can see religion as a tool, but it gives people a reason to do bad as well as good. Would you say that mental illness doesn't cause people to do things?

Well first off mental illness isn't a tool. It doesn't help us do anything it hinders us. but I do see your point. I think perhaps your confusing cause with reason. Religion is one of the few tools that can act as a reason at the same time and is often used by people to do things both good and bad. They use reasons they have derived from their religion in order to use religion to either help or hurt others. A classic example would be the crusades. Their reasoning behind it was passages in the bible that spoke of the killing and converting of nonbelievers. That was their reason and then they used religion as a tool to convert others and/or convince their followers to kill those who wouldn't convert. As for the hammer thing you could always find a replacement; a glass, the metal casing of a tape measurer... I seem to remember using the but end of a screw driver once. So just you don't have a hammer doesn't mean you can't pound that nail into the wall. Just because something allows the action doesn't mean it causes the action.

 

[andys]

Dunmeister claims,
"There are Christian, pagan, and Jewish documents all of which attest to his [Jesus's ] existence. So once again, right back at you: WRONG!"

Do you honestly think if there were a shred of evidence that Jesus ever set foot on our planet (as god or man) that it would not be the greatest find, next to the existence of aliens on the planet? I'm reminded of words from John Lennon's Nowhere Man,.."just sees what he want to see..."

If such evidence existed, there would not be such a fuss over the Shroud of Turin to prove that JC existed. Such nonsense makes my head spin.

 

[andys]

MoonWater
P.S. It's "you're" not "your" e.g., "You're (you are) late." not "Your late late." (No condescension intended.) -Andy

 

[Charity]

Charity
You say to me, "...anyone who serves a God can be called religious."
Then you say to me "Dunemeister's friends aren't religious, that term could be applied to anyone who worships a God.........PLEASE CALL US CHRISTIANS, because we know what God we serve..."

Run, don't walk to the nearest library and grab any book on logic or reasoning.

:biglaugh:My that really hurt me, I won't be losing any sleep over it:sleep:

Get over yourself, Everyone else has!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you honestly think if there were a shred of evidence that Jesus ever set foot on our planet ...

I do, but that's a well worn topic.

 

[andys]

Dunemeister
In response to the news-breaking advances in understanding the origins of life at the molecular level, Dunemeister exposes his hidden agenda with these telling words:

"I have heard people call that stage "chemical evolution." And the problems posed at this level are deeply conceptual and beyond the range of science IMHO. You said, "For those seriously engaged in the study of the origin of life, sufficient evidence has been found to confirm that the first cells originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components." Sorry, not so. Scientists have concocted some stories, but how can you possibly conduct an experiment to determine what originally happened? The event was unique and unrepeatable."

How discouraging to learn from you that (in your "honest opinion") all the intense scientific research conducted by Nobel Prize winners around the globe, are in vain. You really ought to warn them.

In fact, what scientists are doing is finding how life emerges from within complex chemical systems. The goal is not necessarily to answer how life actually did emerge in our long-ago chemical world, but to discover how life does emerge in such a chemical world. The question is not what happened in the past, but what happens in general.

We have come a long way since the classic experiment conducted in 1953 (which still amazes me) in which scientist Stanley Miller placed a mixture of three gases present on primitive Earth (methane, ammonia, and hydrogen,) with water vapour into a small glass container, then exposed them all to an electrical discharge. A week later he examined the contents in the bottle and found amino acids, fatty acids, and other compounds necessary for the synthesis of amino acids. Incredible.

Nobel Laureate Francis Crick suggested, almost 40 years ago, that life may have started with two bases instead of four. Today, scientists (notably Reader and Joyce) have discovered exactly that—a two base enzyme. The latest findings are published anywhere you look, so you can readily quench your admirable thirst for knowledge.

You admit you are no scientist, (neither am I) yet you take it upon yourself to dismiss this research dead in its tracks and accuse scientist of concocting "stories". As a layman with no scientific credentials, one wonders what would prompt such outright condemnation of this ambitious scientific initiative. You also dismiss the science of evolution, don't you? What about the theory of general relativity or universal gravitation? Do you have any honest opinions about them? No, I didn't think so. Your interest in science is limited to these two particular areas that appear to challenge the stories concocted in the Bible.

Can it be that your honest opinions are not the result of an inquisitive mind seeking the truth—wherever it may lead—but a very closed mind afraid of the truth?

I wish to reassure you and all your religious friends, that once you open the door to reason and begin the process of cleansing your mind of the superstitions passed on by a handful of ancient Jews, a whole new world full of possibilities and beauty will greet you. Conspicuously absent in this natural world are vengeful gods, devils, evil, guilt, sexual repression, eternal damnation, dreary sermons, ten commandments, sin, swear words, church, bible study, condemnation of homosexuality, prayer, kneeling, original sin, irrational beliefs, religious authority, saints, prophets, self delusion, penance, fear of knowledge and science, and many more afflictions. It's a world with no gods to bow before. I highly recommend it.

 

[pray4me]

IMO it's lack of religion that causes the following abominations to occur:
Theft, vandalizm, bribery, prostitution, drug addiction, suicide, murder, pedophilia (I don't think that priests who do this believe in what their religion teaches so they must not have a religion), using people instead of cherishing them. In a world where you are accountable to no higher power, you can do anything you like as long as you don't get caught. I do not fear knowledge or science, I will believe it if you can prove it to me but since evolution (conveniently) takes millions of years, there's no possible way to prove that it's true unless you could build a time machine which would take you millions of years into the past or future. Logic only goes so far, then you have speculation. Create another big bang and a new universe if that's how the universe began. Combine chemicals and create life which evolves into new forms of life then wake me up in a million years and tell me I was wrong.

 

[Dunemeister]

Dunmeister
You offer your informed opinion, saying. "I don't think evolution can account for the existence or the variety of life that we see. I don't claim to be a fully trained scientist, but I'm simply not convinced that evolution is true. I DO say that it's the best scientific story we have, however, so we're stuck with it, whatever its flaws. But flawed it is.
So, right back at you: WRONG!"

So you agree with me that Evolution is the best explanation, but say I'm "WRONG." (Dr. Phil would have a field day with that one!)

In any case, your opinion is but the empty cry of the believer who fears knowledge will expose the lies of his antiquated dogma. Well, like it or not, evolution is a FACT. Period. What is a "fact"? This quote explains it quite nicely:
"In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms". -- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981.

Is evolution a fact? This may help you to understand:
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact , not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism

This is a topic on another thread, but you opened the door to it on this thread, and I couldn't let it escape unchallenged.

You make it sound as though I haven't heard this stuff before. I realize that the scientific community is fairly convinced. I find the arguments I've heard so far uncompelling. It's the best scientific theory we've got, so I suppose the scientists will have to get on with it. I hope they'll find something better.

And this may surprise you, but I'm not a big fan of so-called scientific creationism, either. Although I believe God is ultimately responsible for the existence of everything, physical and otherwise, I am agnostic about the means, time involved, and so forth. I remain open to being convinced about the truth of evolution, but so far I remain unconvinced.

But as you say, we shouldn't get into an evolution vs creationism debate, partly because it's not the topic of this thread, and partly because you and I probably agree too much (at least about the inadequacies of "scientific" creationism). If you'd like to start a thread about evolution where you would be willing to instruct people such as myself who need more education on the subject, feel free. I'd be happy to participate.