[undotwa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
No, he isn't.

After being shot down so horribly so many times in the past, and after short sabbatical, he's learned how to copy and paste things from the Internet.

Still Cipher - you are as stubborn and stuck up as ever.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Still Cipher - you are as stubborn and stuck up as ever.

Stuck up? No.
Stubborn? Of course.
Either way - beats being wrong.

Originally posted by undotwa:
All true, but many are arguing that evolution is a fact, which it isn't (it's just an extremely good theory). If it was fact, one would not be able to prove against it.

Nobody can prove against it, and it has been shown to be true many, many times.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Stuck up? No.
Stubborn? Of course.
Either way - beats being wrong.



Nobody can prove against it, and it has been shown to be true many, many times.

One can not be so certain. You sound like the Church in the 15th century saying that the Universe beyond doubt orbits around Earth.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by undotwa:
One can not be so certain. You sound like the Church in the 15th century saying that the Universe beyond doubt orbits around Earth.

Ahh, will you stop with the stupid historical references you randomly pull of Google? It is not making you appear intelligent; just narrow in scope (yes, everything must be a religious reference, right?)

One can indeed be quite certain. Comparing my "faith" in evolution to the Church's inane scientific ramblings is just idiotic.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Ahh, will you stop with the stupid historical references you randomly pull of Google? It is not making you appear intelligent; just narrow in scope (yes, everything must be a religious reference, right?)

One can indeed be quite certain. Comparing my "faith" in evolution to the Church's inane scientific ramblings is just idiotic.

Why do you think I pull it out of Google?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Ahh, will you stop with the stupid historical references you randomly pull of Google? It is not making you appear intelligent; just narrow in scope (yes, everything must be a religious reference, right?)

One can indeed be quite certain. Comparing my "faith" in evolution to the Church's inane scientific ramblings is just idiotic.

Both you and the 15th century Church believe that if someone saids something contrair to what you think it is automatically wrong. For something to be proven, the theory in its current state has to be what is so, and at least the concept have no need for corrections. We have much more work before we can really prove evolution, it's almost an impossible feat.

Sure we have the evidence, and lots of it, but it isn't proof.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Stuck up? No.
Stubborn? Of course.
Either way - beats being wrong.



Nobody can prove against it, and it has been shown to be true many, many times.

can, to be more precise of a possibility.

The universe is made of four elements earth, fire, water, air. It was unquestioned, for so long. Supposedly it was fact. There was massive evidence, one could just look around him. Why do you think that the concept of evolution is unquestionable?

Scientific observation, research, and conclusions are NOT infallible and this can be shown by history.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Both you and the 15th century Church believe that if someone saids something contrair to what you think it is automatically wrong. For something to be proven, the theory in its current state has to be what is so, and at least the concept have no need for corrections. We have much more work before we can really prove evolution, it's almost an impossible feat.

Sure we have the evidence, and lots of it, but it isn't proof.

Go read the previous 16 pages of this thread before you go back to that argument.

You're not worth my time. I'm not explaining again. Others have explained, also, better than I have. Read the damn thread.

Heh. "Your intelligence gives you nothing to mask your ignorance" - Goldfinger.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Go read the previous 16 pages of this thread before you go back to that argument.

You're not worth my time. I'm not explaining again. Others have explained, also, better than I have. Read the damn thread.

Heh. "Your intelligence gives you nothing to mask your ignorance" - Goldfinger.

I have, yet am not satifactorily pursuaded. Why does my disagreement make me ignorant? Do you set the benchmark of wisdom?

What am I ignorant of?

[Scientist]

I still have breasts...just different ones. ;-)

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Breasts are pleasant and not worth giving up because their owner has a different irrelevant theory than you do.
That was it. I think.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by undotwa:
can, to be more precise of a possibility.

The universe is made of four elements earth, fire, water, air. It was unquestioned, for so long. Supposedly it was fact. There was massive evidence, one could just look around him. Why do you think that the concept of evolution is unquestionable?

Scientific observation, research, and conclusions are NOT infallible and this can be shown by history.

I am NOT speaking of the MECHANISMS of evolution; just the CONCEPT of it.

It is FAR from unquestionable, but as it stands, it is correct. GET it through your head - I don't know HOW it works, exactly. I'm not claiming I do!

Your example of the elementary forces of nature - fire, water, whatever - is completely inappropriate, given what I've just said.

Oh, and do not tell me that was unquestioned; it's just that those who opposed the ideas weren't looked too kindly upon, were they, now?

Oh, and learn to use the goddamn edit button - or post all at once.

[undotwa]

Cipher - an argument is only won when either the audience or the opponent is pursuaded. Noone of an opposing view has been convinced to change his opinion because of your superb debating skills, so don't assume you've won.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I have, yet am not satifactorily pursuaded. Why does my disagreement make me ignorant? Do you set the benchmark of wisdom?

What am I ignorant of?

Many things.

Finish high school, then come back and discuss evolution with us.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I am NOT speaking of the MECHANISMS of evolution; just the CONCEPT of it.

It is FAR from unquestionable, but as it stands, it is correct. GET it through your head - I don't know HOW it works, exactly. I'm not claiming I do!

Your example of the elementary forces of nature - fire, water, whatever - is completely inappropriate, given what I've just said.

Oh, and do not tell me that was unquestioned; it's just that those who opposed the ideas weren't looked too kindly upon, were they, now?

Oh, and learn to use the goddamn edit button - or post all at once.

I may of not made myself clear, I was referring to the concept of it.

In addition, opponents of evolution aren't looked kindly upon by the scientific community either are they (BTW I'm not trying to defend any view like Creationism or Darwinism, rather all I'm doing is arguing against the belief that the concept of evolution is unquestionable).

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Many things.

Finish high school, then come back and discuss evolution with us.

That does not automatically make one ignorant. 'Many things' is too general - I want a specific answer. No one wins an argument with generalizations, as generalizations are always faulty (funny, that was a generalization too wasn't it?).

[Scientist]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Scientific observation, research, and conclusions are NOT infallible and this can be shown by history.

But blind faith is extraordinarily fallible*. This has been proven time and time again by history....


*Fallible in regards to its ability to assertain the source and direction of physical phenomena.

This whole argument is silly really. I think a lot of it boils down to pride. A lot of people here, both theist and atheist, are intelligent people who put a lot of thought into what they believe. For scientists, thought is their career and most of them put pride into their work. If the scientist deals with matters that causes him doubt the existence of god(s) or of certain religious belief, they, as professional thinkers and investigators, expect to be given some level of respect for their opinions. I can understand why people who are atheists because of their quest for accurate understanding are offended by religious people trying to convert them. Similarly, anyone who disagrees with them (and concurrently most other relevant scientists as well) is insinuating that these people and their work is worthless.

Religious people are on the defensive because these scientists believe that theists, and generation upon generation of the theists' ancestors, have expended and wasted great energy and devotion performing silly rituals, making sacrifices, being martyred and commiting acts of war, violence and genocide. Their heros, including mythical ones, by implication, were being strange and incorrect as well. Their entire society (in many cases) was then apparently centered around foolishness. They and their ancestors must have also been greatly manipulated by their church or sect or leaders in general.

Pride is responsible for a lot of the arguing we are seeing here. (There is obviously a lot more to the story) Scientific atheists want to have their authority recognized (that is why many people become academics, in the first place). Many religious people are too prideful to admit that maybe it is possible that they and their ancestors have been misled. Or they may be like the scientists and want respect for the great thought that they put into their beliefs (in some cases, such as with most of the theists here who are able to make complex arguments and understand the POV of the atheists). Many theists might feel a lot like this guy.

Notice how you don't see people here arguing about color. You don't here scientists crying foul when someone mentions the color blue as if it is the 'TRUTH'. Color isn't truth. It is an arbitray mechanism of the human brain to model light wavelength information for human use. We could have a different 'mental palette' and it would function equivalently (w/some possible, probably minor, exceptions). In fact if someone had a visual palette with the same tolerances but using different colors, he would likely grow up calling our perceived blue (and his perceived red), blue because he would have no idea people were seeing things differently than him. I notice thus idea is even hard to communicate in a concise manner because most people take color to be 'truth'. Try using the 'invert' command in photoshop to alter a color photograph. Your neighboor might see the world that way and noone would even know the difference.

Belief is like color. It is a model for understanding how the world works so people can survive in it. Since it is generally not maladaptive, religion was far more useful than science, in ancient times, for understanding how the world worked. I think the understanding sought by both religion and science is, to a large part, irrelevant to surival but does satisfy an innate curiosity which is, itself, a vital survival mechanism for humans.

So use what works for you. I think religions add a lot of color to the world. They are also very interesting to study and do provide some insights into topics that cannot yet be adequately described (especially to the lay person) by science such as the mechanics of morals and the origin of the universe and of consciousness.

So yea, pride. I think a lot of this argument is a result of pride. Like someone else said earlier, you don't see people arguing about what the one true language is (except in France ;-)), so why argue about what the one true belief system is? It really just depends on your needs...


Edit: Massive spelling and grammer problems fixed. More are probably remaining but it is 4:33 in the morning here, so forgive me.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Scientist:
This whole argument is silly really. I think a lot of it boils down to pride. A lot of people here, both theist and atheist, are intelligent people who put a lot of thought into what they believe. For scientists, thought is their career and most of them put pride into their work. If the scientist deals with matters that causes him doubt the existence of god(s) or of certain religious belief, they, as professional thinkers and investigators, expect to be given some level of respect for their opinions. I can understand why people who are atheists because of their quest for accurate understanding are offended by religious people trying to convert them. Similarly, anyone who disagrees with them (and concurrently most other relevant scientists as well) is insinuating that these people and their work is worthless.

That's one thing Cipher, Scientist, Boots, myself, etc. have in common. We've spent and "ungodly" amount of time and money on our educations... and dammit, we won't be told that we spent all that for nothing!

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Scientist:
But blind faith is extraordinarily fallible*. This has been proven time and time again by history....

That is irrelevant as I was not trying to prove anything using my religious beliefs as evidence.

You can not treat religious beliefs like a scientific belief, they are completely different, and is difficult to explain with logic. Many have tried to put reason to it, like St. Thomas Aquinas, however they still fall short. It is somewhat logical to acknowledge a supreme deity, however the picking process of the a particular religion seems to the outside observer completely illogical, however all within reason to the person involved. How do I know what I believe in is correct? I just believe, that is what makes it [bfaith[/b].

I think you misunderstand me - I do believe in evolution, because it's the best theory we have, however I don't believe that the concept of evolution is the be all and end all of theories.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by undotwa:
That is irrelevant as I was not trying to prove anything using my religious beliefs as evidence.

You can not treat religious beliefs like a scientific belief, they are completely different, and is difficult to explain with logic. Many have tried to put reason to it, like St. Thomas Aquinas, however they still fall short. It is somewhat logical to acknowledge a supreme deity, however the picking process of the a particular religion seems to the outside observer completely illogical, however all within reason to the person involved. How do I know what I believe in is correct? I just believe, that is what makes it [bfaith.

I think you misunderstand me - I do believe in evolution, because it's the best theory we have, however I don't believe that the concept of evolution is the be all and end all of theories. [/B]

Oh, alright, I missed that because I wasn't following the thread very closely because it is just so long.

I saw your comment and it would make a good platform for some other stuff I wanted to say to the readers in general.

[olePigeon]

Archimedes formulated integral calculus equations in the 4th century B.C., 1300 years before Isaac Newton.

So why wasn't it until the 1990s we find this out; that Archimedes was one of the smartest people in the history of our planet and that his knowledge could have pushed philosophy, science, and technology a thousand of years ahead of its time?

We didn't figure this out because the Christians thought his writings were heretic and tools of the Devil. His manuscripts were bleached and rebinded as prayer books.

When anyone tells me Creation is "truth" it just makes me want to kick them in the ass.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Archimedes formulated integral calculus equations in the 4th century B.C., 1300 years before Isaac Newton.

So why wasn't it until the 1990s we find this out; that Archimedes was one of the smartest people in the history of our planet and that his knowledge could have pushed philosophy, science, and technology a thousand of years ahead of its time?

We didn't figure this out because the Christians thought his writings were heretic and tools of the Devil. His manuscripts were bleached and rebinded as prayer books.

When anyone tells me Creation is "truth" it just makes me want to kick them in the ass.

How is this relevant?

And what is your source? I was always taught it was Isaac Newton who invented Calculus. In addition Archimedes was before Christianity, and was never a Christian so it is impossible for him to be a heretic.

' The term heretic describes individuals who dissented from the beliefs or practices of the controlling Christian religious authorities. This is different from the non-believer such as the Jew or Muslim who operated outside the Christian faith. In the Middle Ages, heretical beliefs, for example the Lollard's rejection of the Trinity or the Albigensian's belief in both a good and an evil god, were invariably tied to political dissent, challenging not only the issues of faith but also the secular powers of church authorities. Fierce persecutions, and in the extreme, public executions, were therefore supported since the dissenters were seen as both heretical and treasonous. [Chapter 13] [Chapter 52] [Chapter 53] [Chapter 57] [II: Chapter 10]
http://www.holycross.edu/departments...xt/gloss2.html'

And since he lived before Christianity, and because of Greek cultural influence which stretched to India, where Christianity did not penetrate and learning/study of Ancient Greek science was cultivated by Moslem scholars (again later), I would doubt very much this 'conspiracy'.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by undotwa:
How is this relevant?

Christian ignorance proclaimed as the truth. They repeat this throughout history. Murdering those who think differently or provide even the smallest bit of evidence that contradicts their "truth."

And what is your source? I was always taught it was Isaac Newton who invented Calculus. In addition Archimedes was before Christianity, and was never a Christian so it is impossible for him to be a heretic.

It's a book by Archimedes called "The Method." PBS recently did a show on it. You can rent it, it's really good. You can also do a search on google, there's literally hundreds of links regarding it.

Yes, Archimedes was before Christianity, but when Christians became the dominant force in Europe they deemed a lot of science and mathematics evil and had it destroyed, some of which included Archimedes' "The Method." We didn't know Archidmedes was the first to do calculus until 2001 or 2002 when the book was rediscovered.

Many philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists were murdered by Christians because their work "defied" the scriptures. Astronomy is a perfect example of Christian influence prohibiting the pursuit of science. If Christians had their way we'd be the center of the universe and the moon would be made of cheese.

The term heretic describes individuals who dissented from the beliefs or practices of the controlling Christian religious authorities. This is different from ...

Ok, heathen, pagan, evil, tools of Satan. Better? The point being his mathematical proofs were considered evil by the and therefore had to be destroyed.

And since he lived before Christianity, and because of Greek cultural influence which stretched to India, where Christianity did not penetrate and learning/study of Ancient Greek science was cultivated by Moslem scholars (again later), I would doubt very much this 'conspiracy'.

See my above post. Rome conquers Greece, his book is moved to Alexandria. Christiandom takes over and his book is destroyed. Many years pass. Christians are the dominant force, the "Dark Ages" are in effect, Christiandom falls, Renaissance runs rampant... no Method to study during Renaissance, valuable information and scientific study is lost until book is rediscovered in the 1920s. Book lost again, book found again in 2000s.

The reason this is all relevant is because history is filled with Christians stifling the real truth with their own version of it. Anyone should take Creation with a enough salt to have a heart attack.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Christian ignorance proclaimed as the truth. They repeat this throughout history. Murdering those who think differently or provide even the smallest bit of evidence that contradicts their "truth."



It's a book by Archimedes called "The Method." PBS recently did a show on it. You can rent it, it's really good. You can also do a search on google, there's literally hundreds of links regarding it.

Yes, Archimedes was before Christianity, but when Christians became the dominant force in Europe they deemed a lot of science and mathematics evil and had it destroyed, some of which included Archimedes' "The Method." We didn't know Archidmedes was the first to do calculus until 2001 or 2002 when the book was rediscovered.

Many philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists were murdered by Christians because their work "defied" the scriptures. Astronomy is a perfect example of Christian influence prohibiting the pursuit of science. If Christians had their way we'd be the center of the universe and the moon would be made of cheese.



Ok, heathen, pagan, evil, tools of Satan. Better? The point being his mathematical proofs were considered evil by the and therefore had to be destroyed.



See my above post. Rome conquers Greece, his book is moved to Alexandria. Christiandom takes over and his book is destroyed. Many years pass. Christians are the dominant force, the "Dark Ages" are in effect, Christiandom falls, Renaissance runs rampant... no Method to study during Renaissance, valuable information and scientific study is lost until book is rediscovered in the 1920s. Book lost again, book found again in 2000s.

The reason this is all relevant is because history is filled with Christians stifling the real truth with their own version of it. Anyone should take Creation with a enough salt to have a heart attack.

OK - I checked up and you were correct, he did develop some kind of Calculus, accuracy uncertain.

BTW - The Great Library of Alexandria was destroyed by a great fire, probably lit by the Romans (who weren't Christian at the time). What evidence do you have that it was the Christians suppressing the book? Christian philosophy is based upon Ancient philosophy (especially Aristotle).

[undotwa]

Christianity was the force that actually preserved the ancient texts. We know today much of it wasn't preserved, because the monks felt it wasn't worth copying. So the fact that we have the Method today shows that it couldn't of possibly been suppressed.

[undotwa]

I can't find anything on the suppression of the Method by Archimedes on Google. Maybe a link would help?

The monks preserved Plato (definitely contraire to Christian philosophy), Catullus, Martial, Socrates, Aristotle, etc. Why would the Church think of a mathematical theorem as 'a work of Satan'.

The common stereotype of the Church is that they suppressed science like fundamentalist Moslems, but answer me this: Why is it that the Renaissance started in Italy rather than in the lands up north?

The Catholic Church was a great patronage of science, it was the Catholic church that commissioned scientists like Galileo. Sometimes the scientist could be punished when there was a conflict of interest, especially when the conclusion went against common Church beliefs (not necessarily the actual dogmatic view of the Church, but the common belief).

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I can't find anything on the suppression of the Method by Archimedes on Google. Maybe a link would help?

The monks preserved Plato (definitely contraire to Christian philosophy), Catullus, Martial, Socrates, Aristotle, etc. Why would the Church think of a mathematical theorem as 'a work of Satan'.

The common stereotype of the Church is that they suppressed science like fundamentalist Moslems, but answer me this: Why is it that the Renaissance started in Italy rather than in the lands up north?

The Catholic Church was a great patronage of science, it was the Catholic church that commissioned scientists like Galileo. Sometimes the scientist could be punished when there was a conflict of interest, especially when the conclusion went against common Church beliefs (not necessarily the actual dogmatic view of the Church, but the common belief).

It was mostly local patriarchs who funded the Renaissance. My family were one of those who funded artists and musicians...and were then persecuted by the Church and also by Napoleon.

The Enlightenment wasn't funded by the Church either and was the latter part of that Humanist movement towards science, the arts and democracy.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Christianity was the force that actually preserved the ancient texts. We know today much of it wasn't preserved, because the monks felt it wasn't worth copying. So the fact that we have the Method today shows that it couldn't of possibly been suppressed.

Nope, try the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire). A large part of what sparked the Renaissance was the fall of Constantinople and the philosophers feeling the city. Not to mention the fact that we only have access to a lot of Aristotle's works though Islamic secondary sources.

The church of Western Christendom did preserve some very small portion of what came before, but, it seems, only because the books could be scraped and reused as prayer books.

Just like what happened to Archimedes' work.

BlackGriffen

[undotwa]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Nope, try the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire). A large part of what sparked the Renaissance was the fall of Constantinople and the philosophers feeling the city. Not to mention the fact that we only have access to a lot of Aristotle's works though Islamic secondary sources.

The church of Western Christendom did preserve some very small portion of what came before, but, it seems, only because the books could be scraped and reused as prayer books.

Just like what happened to Archimedes' work.

BlackGriffen

a) Both east and west preserved ancient texts.
b) The Byzantine Empire (really a continuation of the Roman Empire), was Christian (Eastern Orthodox is almost exactly the same to Roman Catholicism).

The Renaissance was already starting unfold well before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, especially in Italy. Have a look at some 13th century art, already more humanist approaches had started to be used. The Renaissance was a process over hundreds of years which can not be explained by one event.

There was extensive contact with the east through the spice trade, occupation of Greece by Venice, Crusaders etc. so the two central cities - Rome and Constantinople, were not completely isolated.

Saying the Catholic Church suppressed or did not sponsor the preservation of ancient texts is ludicrous. That was almost the sole occupation of the thousands of Catholic monks (besides maintaining the monasteries and teaching).

Yes a lot of the texts we have today are from Arabic translations, as the Arabs too copied texts, and many of it. However one must realise that since there are such a vast quantity of texts, one can't copy all. What we have today is only a sample of the ancient texts. However the ancient philosophers were held in high regard in the west and a lot of the work was deemed to be 'unquestionable'. A man could finish an argument by simply quoting Aristotle.

However monks don't copy everything. They only copy what THEY think would be useful (they are not trying to suppress anything). It is hard work making copies and copies of books (before the printing press), and many monks would simply think (incorrectly) that some texts aren't worth copying.

[ramble]
East & Western Christendom preserved many ancient Greek and Latin poems, plays and stories. Many people today would find the stories a bit much because of low level of morality (at least to Christian tastes). If the love letters of Catullus and the erotic stories about little boys and girls written by Martial are too much for for most of today's readers (and since the monks would only copy the cream of the cake, the most 'Christian' texts), wouldn't that mean that rest of the pre-Christian texts be 10x more foul?
[/ramble]

[undotwa]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
It was mostly local patriarchs who funded the Renaissance. My family were one of those who funded artists and musicians...and were then persecuted by the Church and also by Napoleon.

The Enlightenment wasn't funded by the Church either and was the latter part of that Humanist movement towards science, the arts and democracy.

Partly true. First off, the Enlightenment was not a Catholic movement (and much of the philosophy which came out of it the Catholic Church rejects, while agrees with a bit of it too). There were plenty of Catholics involved with the movement though, although it was predominately Protestant.

Patrons for the Renaissance could include patriarchs, bishops, merchants, Popes (after all it was the Pope who commissioned Michelangelo Buonarroti). The Church was not a minor player. Heaps of works such as churches (the WHOLE VATICAN was rebuilt around this time), the commissioning of astronomers (to calculate Church feasts on the correct day), painters, scientific inquiries in general etc.

[benign]

People like undotwa are just moderately
learned minions of a slave morality
lost in love of living an eternity kissing
the feet of a myth.

Religion does not grow or develop our
understanding, it stagnates.
Religious dogmas are just allegories
in order to comprehend and empower
the powerless.

It is a cruel man-made joke to control
the mass and has worked on the credulous
for centuries.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by undotwa:
[ramble]
East & Western Christendom preserved many ancient Greek and Latin poems, plays and stories. Many people today would find the stories a bit much because of low level of morality (at least to Christian tastes). If the love letters of Catullus and the erotic stories about little boys and girls written by Martial are too much for for most of today's readers (and since the monks would only copy the cream of the cake, the most 'Christian' texts), wouldn't that mean that rest of the pre-Christian texts be 10x more foul?
[/ramble]

Intriguing.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
People like undotwa are just moderately
learned minions of a slave morality
lost in love of living an eternity kissing
the feet of a myth.

Seems I picked a good time to check up on this thread again. It seems that you're up to your old trick of ad hominem attacks.

Religion does not grow or develop our
understanding, it stagnates.

Show us this process in the lab, then. No fair using a specific example of this; I want to see how this is inherent to religion itself, rather than a specific sect you hold bitterness towards. If what you say is true, then there is some process inherent to religion itself, as a concept and not just in implementation, which causes this phenomenon. Show it to me.

Religious dogmas are just allegories
in order to comprehend and empower
the powerless.

Might the same be true of your own beloved secular humanism? I am not saying that it necessarily is or isn't; I just want to see if you can comprehend the possibility that it, too, might be a force for stagnation.

It is a cruel man-made joke to control
the mass and has worked on the credulous
for centuries. [/B]

For all your bluster, you have never shown a shred of evidence of this.

[Millennium]

I find it interesting, by the way, that people have taken the actions of a single institution which was horribly corrupt at the time and even freely admits this today (Catholicism) and then projects this corruption onto Christianity as a whole.

I find it even more interesting that the corruption of a single sect of a much larger religion has spread, in so many minds, not only to all religions, but to the concept of religion in general. It seems to me as though this is rather like calling all men evil because of Ted Bundy's murders.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by benign:
People like undotwa are just moderately
learned minions of a slave morality
lost in love of living an eternity kissing
the feet of a myth.

Religion does not grow or develop our
understanding, it stagnates.
Religious dogmas are just allegories
in order to comprehend and empower
the powerless.

It is a cruel man-made joke to control
the mass and has worked on the credulous
for centuries.

Well that's your opinion.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Partly true. First off, the Enlightenment was not a Catholic movement

Didn't say it was. So scratch the rest.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I find it interesting, by the way, that people have taken the actions of a single institution which was horribly corrupt at the time and even freely admits this today (Catholicism) and then projects this corruption onto Christianity as a whole.

I find it even more interesting that the corruption of a single sect of a much larger religion has spread, in so many minds, not only to all religions, but to the concept of religion in general. It seems to me as though this is rather like calling all men evil because of Ted Bundy's murders.

I once attended a rape counseling class (I was an RA in the dorm at the time, and one guy on my floor's girlfriend was raped, and I needed to know how to help him deal with it.

I was one of only two men in the class. The teacher started off by saying "All men are potential rapists" At first I thought she was speaking figuratively, as a way to assess risk...but as the class wore on, I realized she meant "All men are rapists, they just haven't all acted on it yet".

That's the way I view some people's objections to religion on this board: they think all religious people are horrible monsters, because they COULD become so at some future point.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I once attended a rape counseling class (I was an RA in the dorm at the time, and one guy on my floor's girlfriend was raped, and I needed to know how to help him deal with it.

I was one of only two men in the class. The teacher started off by saying "All men are potential rapists" At first I thought she was speaking figuratively, as a way to assess risk...but as the class wore on, I realized she meant "All men are rapists, they just haven't all acted on it yet".

That's the way I view some people's objections to religion on this board: they think all religious people are horrible monsters, because they COULD become so at some future point.

Absolutely, and well said. I know a woman who was raped in prison, by another woman (she was serving 2 years for cocaine posession, but that's another story).

The point is, ANYONE can be a monster... if they act upon it. Whether a person "has religion" or not is irrelevant. It's all about control and want; Do you have control of yourself? Do you desire anything badly enough to take it from someone else? If you have control, it matters little what you want. In the same vein, if you desire nothing, then control is unnecessary.

That's the way I look at the followers of most modern philosophies. Secular Humanists, if good, control their wants. Spiritualists and religious sorts, if good, desire nothing (of a worldly nature). It just depends on whether you're the sort to "hold on" or "let go".

[undotwa]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Didn't say it was. So scratch the rest.

Yes, but saying the Catholics weren't involved with the enlightenment and it as a reason why Catholics did not sponsor scientific research is stupid, because the Catholic Church had a reason for not sponsoring it - the main philosophy driving the movement was heretical.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Yes, but saying the Catholics weren't involved with the enlightenment and it as a reason why Catholics did not sponsor scientific research is stupid, because the Catholic Church had a reason for not sponsoring it - the main philosophy driving the movement was heretical.

And that's precisely why many people associate religion with backwardness and stagnation. The very concept of classifying an idea as heretical/unthinkable is anathema to any change at all, even good change that we call progress.

Now, I don't know if all religions do this, but it is something that seems to pop up in every society, even our own.

BlackGriffen

[Gee4orce]

Heheh - this is a long thread, and I haven't read even half of it.

Evolution does have a few problems that are not widely discussed. For one, there just hasn't been enough time for it to have happened if you assume the earth is about 4 Billion years old. Another is that genes apparently are formed before they have a useful purpose.

I am very interested in the idea of Panspermia. The basic idea os this theory is that life evolved 'elsewhere', over billions and billions of years, and that genes arrived pre-built from space. Life was then built from these 'building blocks' on earth. It even, at a push, allows creationists some solace - it's plausible that the genes themselves were created, and that life has subsequently evolved from these building blocks.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
And that's precisely why many people associate religion with backwardness and stagnation. The very concept of classifying an idea as heretical/unthinkable is anathema to any change at all, even good change that we call progress.

Now, I don't know if all religions do this, but it is something that seems to pop up in every society, even our own.

BlackGriffen

No one would support something that goes against their own beliefs.

This doesn't mean Catholicism is 'backward', all it means is that they're consistent. Catholicism's philosophy will develop according to its own pace.

You have to realise something - Catholicism has had the same fundamental truths for 2,000 years. Catholicism will not endorse philosophy which is contrary to the fundamental truths, ever.

Oh and another thing - why is it that when an organisation rejects recent philosophical movements, it is automatically classed as backward? Everyone, every organisation is entitled to their own opinion on how the world is, and no one should be deemed 'backward' for their view. For the world is incredibly diverse, and there are many opinions - and philosophy and ethics are something that is constantly argued over. So calling someone backward is not intelligent - it's arrogant, because you automatically close your mind to the philosophical realm of thought that you are most familiar with.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Heheh - this is a long thread, and I haven't read even half of it.

Evolution does have a few problems that are not widely discussed. For one, there just hasn't been enough time for it to have happened if you assume the earth is about 4 Billion years old. Another is that genes apparently are formed before they have a useful purpose.

I am very interested in the idea of Panspermia. The basic idea os this theory is that life evolved 'elsewhere', over billions and billions of years, and that genes arrived pre-built from space. Life was then built from these 'building blocks' on earth. It even, at a push, allows creationists some solace - it's plausible that the genes themselves were created, and that life has subsequently evolved from these building blocks.

There are numerous theories around - however I believe that evolution is more plausible. It has immense weighting by the scientific community. As soon as it is shown that the theory is inaccurate, the scientific community can revise their understanding of process.

However this isn't proof that this is the correct concept, it could be that evolutionists (including me ) are way off - and the truth be something unthoughtof. You never know (that has to be one of the most true colloquialisms ever!).

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by undotwa:
No one would support something that goes against their own beliefs.

This doesn't mean Catholicism is 'backward', all it means is that they're consistent. Catholicism's philosophy will develop according to its own pace.

You have to realise something - Catholicism has had the same fundamental truths for 2,000 years. Catholicism will not endorse philosophy which is contrary to the fundamental truths, ever.

Consistently incorrect is still incorrect. Consistency (saying the same thing) should not be valued above flexibility to admit one was (and is probably) wrong, and change one's mind.

BG

[undotwa]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Consistently incorrect is still incorrect. Consistency (saying the same thing) should not be valued above flexibility to admit one was (and is probably) wrong, and change one's mind.

BG

a) I have edited the post

b)... Consistency is important. Otherwise it undermines the religion as a whole. However, it is possible to be consistent, and argue against new philosophical trends by using philosophical arguments.

You see - the Church already has philosophical arguments for the fundamental truths. A lot of the philosophy that came out in the Enlightenment were arguing against those philosophical arguments which the Church set forth. A lot of it comes down to, which argument convinces you?

Calling the philosophical arguments of the Church backward is like calling the arguments of the Greeks backward. What is more modern is not necessarily more correct. Our scientists aren't infallible. Our university ethics professors aren't the be all and end all of ethics. You just can't say that. Because while Philosophy is the science of rational thinking towards the ultimate questions, people do think differently. It's like politics, some people are left wing, some are right wing (to be extremely simplistic). Each convinced of their philosophy, yet unconvinced by their opponent's.

Open your mind.

[benign]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
life evolved 'elsewhere', over billions and billions of years, and that genes arrived pre-built from space. Life was then built from these 'building blocks' on earth. It even, at a push, allows creationists some solace - it's plausible that the genes themselves were created, and that life has subsequently evolved from these building blocks.

How to explain a paradigm-shift,
well the religious way is to do what
you just did and push the problem
somewhere else.

If a divine being made this universe
and sits about looking after a small
bunch of humans in a far of distant
part of it - where did he come from
in the first place - who made him ?

Apart from appearing in a puff of
superstitious nonsense - the question
will always remain.

Just an hypothesis, but the missing link
has yet to be found by an atheist.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Consistently incorrect is still incorrect. Consistency (saying the same thing) should not be valued above flexibility to admit one was (and is probably) wrong, and change one's mind.

BG

Just because a group is incorrect about some things (*the RC Church, IMO, is the most wretched of all religious institutions) doesn't mean they're incorrect about all things.


*their "catholicos", quite simply, isn't "Catholic" (in the literal sense). Most denominations, most fundamentalists excluded, believe in evolution and accept scientific principles.

Case in point, most Orthodox jurisdictions have worked with, and even funded, scientific study and experimentation since the time of the industrial revolution. Most notably would be the Greek church.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Oh and another thing - why is it that when an organisation rejects recent philosophical movements, it is automatically classed as backward? Everyone, every organisation is entitled to their own opinion on how the world is, and no one should be deemed 'backward' for their view. For the world is incredibly diverse, and there are many opinions - and philosophy and ethics are something that is constantly argued over. So calling someone backward is not intelligent - it's arrogant, because you automatically close your mind to the philosophical realm of thought that you are most familiar with.

First of all, where did I call the church backwards? I said that they were wrong for inflexibly clinging to dogma, because it limits their ability to change and progress.

b)... Consistency is important. Otherwise it undermines the religion as a whole.

Only because they claim to be the sole holder of the All that is True. If they didn't claim that then they could adapt to new information like science does without having to worry about being undermined.

However, it is possible to be consistent, and argue against new philosophical trends by using philosophical arguments. You see - the Church already has philosophical arguments for the fundamental truths. A lot of the philosophy that came out in the Enlightenment were arguing against those philosophical arguments which the Church set forth. A lot of it comes down to, which argument convinces you?

Don't try to equate science and philosophy. While I admit that there is some similarity between theorists and philosophers, the theorists have one important difference: they limit themselves to arguments that can be independently observationally disproven. So while philosophy depends upon what you believe and what you are convinced by, science does not. If you think a theory is wrong, fine, go find data that runs counter to it.

What about when two theories fit existing data equally well? We appeal to laziness - KISS - Occam's razor.

If that doesn't break the tie, we appeal to a sense aesthetics (symmetry, elegance, but yeah, this is just taste), and either try to show them logically identical or await further data to break the tie.

Calling the philosophical arguments of the Church backward is like calling the arguments of the Greeks backward. What is more modern is not necessarily more correct. Our scientists aren't infallible. Our university ethics professors aren't the be all and end all of ethics. You just can't say that. Because while Philosophy is the science of rational thinking towards the ultimate questions, people do think differently. It's like politics, some people are left wing, some are right wing (to be extremely simplistic). Each convinced of their philosophy, yet unconvinced by their opponent's.

Philosophy is not, not, not a science! Neither is mathematics, for that matter. Please, look back in the thread at some of my posts, I gave pretty clear definitions for what science is.

Now, as for why old philosophies are called backwards by some, look here.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Just because a group is incorrect about some things (*the RC Church, IMO, is the most wretched of all religious institutions) doesn't mean they're incorrect about all things.

I think that you misread what I meant by "consistently wrong." I didn't mean consistently wrong across the board. I meant consistently wrong about something over time. For instance, say you have a metal compass that you've positioned so that each of its four arrows points in a cardinal direction. Now, suppose I bend the N so that it is off. That compass will now be consistently wrong about which direction it says is North, despite being right about the other three directions.

Basically, the point I'm trying to get across is that nobody should cling to any idea dogmatically, with blind faith, or whatever.

As for evolution, come up with a falsifiable theory that either fits the data better or is more simple, then we'll talk. Until then, I'm sicking with the most accurate ting we've got.

BlackGriffen

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by benign:
How to explain a paradigm-shift,
well the religious way is to do what
you just did and push the problem
somewhere else.

If a divine being made this universe
and sits about looking after a small
bunch of humans in a far of distant
part of it - where did he come from
in the first place - who made him ?

Apart from appearing in a puff of
superstitious nonsense - the question
will always remain.

Just an hypothesis, but the missing link
has yet to be found by an atheist.

Or perhaps you just lack imagination or the capacity to grasp the idea? Want to believe that you're your "own man". Blah. Standing on your own two feet. Hogwash. Very few of us could get by without others, and just who do you think Christ, Bhuddah, Krishna, etc. is? It's US on our best days, helping each other, learning from mistakes and the past.

Who made whom? Why would "God" have to be made? You continue using references to time and space when quite frankly, those attributes as we commonly know them are completely relative. Hawking, Sagan, Einstein, Rosenburg, etc. all understood that the existence of a "thing" outside of our continuum isn't just possible, it's probable. Ants can't know that there's much beyond the two panes of glass and 1/2 cup of sand they live in, and we aren't much different.

We aren't even "children", we're nothing more than infants. We know there's a car, even know what a small part of it looks like. Through our elementary studies and observation, we've deduced that there are seats, doors, a roof, a stereo... which we can hear with our telescopic "ears". And we wonder at what it's all made of... the fabric, upholstery, carpet, glass. Most of all, though, we know the car is moving. However, we don't know who made the car, or even if cars are made. We don't know who's driving, if "anyone" truly is. Why. Why are we going somewhere. And the most damnedable question of all, "Where are we going?". It's been, so far, one long trip and we haven't made any stops, no references to point to. No hints, `cept what's been scrawled on the glass and upholstery by kids who aren't even riding with us anymore. Yeah, we're hungry, sleepy, gotta pee, and then comes our inevitable question, "Are we THERE yet?" No, we just aren't there yet.


And, as far as, "a divine being made this universe and sits about looking after a small
bunch of humans in a far of distant part of it". We're simply a small cog in a giant machine. No one with any sense would believe that any "God" would create a universe simply for our amusement. Is there sentient life on other planets? I'd bet on it, and I'm sure they're dealing with their own philisophical place in this whole thing too. They have their own clues to it all, their own science... and yes, their own belief in a creator.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Just because a group is incorrect about some things (*the RC Church, IMO, is the most wretched of all religious institutions) doesn't mean they're incorrect about all things.


*their "catholicos", quite simply, isn't "Catholic" (in the literal sense). Most denominations, most fundamentalists excluded, believe in evolution and accept scientific principles.

Case in point, most Orthodox jurisdictions have worked with, and even funded, scientific study and experimentation since the time of the industrial revolution. Most notably would be the Greek church.

Do you not know that the Catholic Church believes that there is no conflict between the belief of evolution and Catholicism?

And the reason why the Catholic church believes it is universal is because the Catholic Church believes (while there being evidence that this is so as well) that it was founded by Jesus Christ. In the same way the Greek Church was founded by Jesus Christ (having been founded by Apostles who Jesus Christ told to found Churches). The Catholic Church believes itself to be the head church because it was founded by Peter (the head apostle according to Catholics). It's all in the Bible