Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Love, hate, humor, passion, etc etc etc. Emotion is the exact opposite of logic. Logically, I should not waste gasoline on a unnessary trip to Upstate New York later this month. I, however, love the fall colors and hiking, which is nowhere near as efficent an excercise as walking on a treadmill in the basement. I have no logical, rationally reason to go to Upstate New York just to walk in the woods...but I am irrationall and hence, I go because I love the woods (love is an emotion, btw, and hence, it is irrational)
Straw Vulcan anyone?
You like walking in the woods. This gives you a logical and rational reason to spend gasoline to go to Upstate New York, if you think happiness is the ultimate goal in life (which is a reasonable goal if you ask me). Your decision is only irrational if you like owning gasoline more than spending time in the woods or if you have given your life another arbitrary goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
And, as I said, there is plenty of evidence for what a world ruled by logic would look like...logically, one could concur, that those unfit should not be allowed to bread, and spread their worthless genes to the next generation, and we, logically, should not listen to irrational, emotion based arguments about "their rights" because, as we see from evolution, the only ultimate truth of how we became the dominate species, the weak must be controled and only the strong should pass on their genes and thus... Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In what way is it "logical" to decide that survival of the fittest is a good thing just because it's what makes evolution work? By the same reasoning, we might as well not bother flying planes because we're working against the natural law of gravity. See Naturalistic fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
The argument that someone with Down's Syndrome should be allowed to reproduce is one devoid of any logic...
...if you arbitrarily decide that handicaps should be eradicated, and that we cannot let natural selection do the job alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Now, the whole point of this post is to show that people like Peter Arkins are wrong. To say that "only idiot believe in GOD" [snip]
...which is a gross misrepresentation of what Arkins actually said, let alone Dawkins. See the Pharyngula article I previously posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
No, it is the way it is. I am allot less likely to get Swine Flu if I never have physical contact with another human being and hence, if I give in to emotion and have physical contact I am, indeed, being irrational.
...if you value your physical health more than your mental health, your social status and your income (among other things that would be threatened if you lock yourself in and stop meeting anyone directly). But who's to say that physical health is the most "logical" goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Also, urinating when frightened is an instinct, but does that mean we should go ahead a pee every time we are affraid? No. It is called EVOLUTION. So, we should continue evolving away from the petty need for emotions and become cold, hard machines, which is the end result of rationalism...unless of course, you don't believe in evolution...
Uh, what? We're evolving away from emotions? Emotions are products of evolution! Although they can occasionally backfire, they are vital to our survival. To take the most obvious example, love is the reason why we are both there to hold this conversation (and curiosity is the reason why we can have it on the internet).
Dr. Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI...a Christian!
NIKK NIKK NIKKKkkkkkk... up to your old tricks again? Do I have to come over there and smack you, man?
Christians have regularly trotted out lists of people who have been trained and "degreed" in the scientific method (which by no means makes them scientists, BTW.) I can read, and perhaps even understand, the memorizable parts of brain physiology and structure, and get a degree in mammalian anatomy, but would you want me to then operate on your brain tumor? Even PhDs get all hussy about their supposed superiority in thinking. Lots of them agree in the facts of Evolution for example. Richard Dawkins, for instance.
Science-hating Christians criticize "scientists" for their correct application of their simple & logical toolset that has evolved over the past few centuries. It has evolved precisely to minimize (though of course, not eliminate...) errors, assumptions and false conclusions.
How? Simply by setting up a rigorous set of invariant procedures and standards that delimit how information is collected, sorted, analysed and used to support rational, conservative conclusions. It's highlighted by peer-review and publication for any and all to question, re-evaluate and re-confirm or deny. Unlike Christian statements.
Oh heavens no! Not "rational conclusions"! Heaven help us!
Because of this pretty effective process, a staggering amount of questions, based on unsuppressed curiosity, have been SUCCESSFULLY answered in medicine, physics, automotive engineering, plant and animal husbandry (also known as genetics, which means DNA. "Oh no, not DNA!") , geology, astrophysics and even pyschology and philosophy.
It is, of course, open to later correction, improvement and re-assessment in light of newer, better methods, but we all know that. No reasonable person expects science, unlike Christianity, to remain mired in one luckless location, unsuportable and unconfirmable. A master wishlist of hopes and dreams, but essentially unprovable. And in many cases, easily disproved.
So. You have a short list, perhaps 200? 5000? 100,000? Christians who utilize the scientific method in their day jobs to answer questions unrelated to God. "How does this PC work, and how can I improve it's design?" "How can we come up with a better vaccine for H1N1?" Or "how can we improve the fuel economy of this new car?" Again, so what?
What, again, is your point?
But... as specifically regards the life sciences and Evolution, and the possible origins of the universe, and geological facts and interpretations, there are literally, hundreds of millions of students graduating each and every year who have been taught the infallible logic, the proofs, the evidence and the reality of Evolution, and they've been given some thought-provoking points on how our universe most likely might have originated. Add their numbers to those professionals who practice their skills and we have, quite literally, billions of knowlegeable, trained and rational believers in a more practical and provable story. In other words, a non-supernatural, non-spiritual one.
Anyone at all, with ANY educational background and accreditation, can also attend their own church; no-one's stopping them, unlike what the fundy Christians would like to do about the teaching of evolutionary science. . They can go there for their spiritual health and needs, and they can assume, believe or profess anything their little hearts desire.
So what?
The OP incorrectly suggests or implies that being a Christian scientist "proves" or supports Genesis, God and all the other biblical stuff of dreams.
How so?
As I've said before, if it's a case of a "majority of believers" vote wins, then Evolution does by a landslide. There's waaaaayyy more rational scientists who understand and accept the proofs of, say, Evolution, than the headcount of a few hundred or even a few thousand Christian "scientists" who outright reject it because of their personal biases.
You want a "list" for "our side" (aka: "truth & light")? We'd give it to you, but C-D would be clogged for the next two months by the wallpost size.
No, because it is open to scrutiny and verification, retesting et al.
By humans.
Look I'm actually pro-science and believe in science as the best way to understand repeatable natural phenomenon. I just don't try to pretend it transcends human weaknesses, that everything in the Universe is a repeatable natural phenomenon, or that science is really "the only valid Quest for Truth."
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme58
I have just posted in another thread that if the bible is to be taken allegorically or metaphorically, then the existence of god should be conceded to those same two attributes, metaphorical and allegorical.
Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory, but that doesn't mean John Bunyan was an allegory.
Someone else indicated all the people named are dead or may not believe in God, but that's not necessarily true as I named several living people.
Robert Aumann - Game theory and Nobel Laureate in Economics. (Orthodox Jewish)
Robert T. Bakker - Paleontologist and Pentecostal.
R. J. Berry - Former President of the Linnean society.
Francis Collins - National Institutes of Health.
Guy Consolmagno - Planetary scientist.
Benjamin Fain - Orthodox Jewish, physicist.
John T. Houghton - Several meteorological and climate awards, shared a Nobel Peace Prize.
Simon C. Morris - British paleontologist.
William Daniel Philips - Nobel Laureate.
Allan Sandage - Award-winning astronomer.
Moshe David Tendler - Rabbi
Charles Hard Townes - Nobel laureate, lasers.
Rosalyn Sussman Yalow - Nobel Laureate in Medicine. (Judaism, her husband apparently got her more into it though and she might be dead)
Look I'm actually pro-science and believe in science as the best way to understand repeatable natural phenomenon. I just don't try to pretend it transcends human weaknesses, that everything in the Universe is a repeatable natural phenomenon, or that science is really "the only valid Quest for Truth."
In am of the opinion that truth does not just come from speculation.
Quote:
Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory, but that doesn't mean John Bunyan was an allegory.
True, but god did not write the bible
Quote:
Someone else indicated all the people named are dead or may not believe in God, but that's not necessarily true as I named several living people.
Robert Aumann - Game theory and Nobel Laureate in Economics. (Orthodox Jewish)
Robert T. Bakker - Paleontologist and Pentecostal.
R. J. Berry - Former President of the Linnean society.
Francis Collins - National Institutes of Health.
Guy Consolmagno - Planetary scientist.
Benjamin Fain - Orthodox Jewish, physicist.
John T. Houghton - Several meteorological and climate awards, shared a Nobel Peace Prize.
Simon C. Morris - British paleontologist.
William Daniel Philips - Nobel Laureate.
Allan Sandage - Award-winning astronomer.
Moshe David Tendler - Rabbi
Charles Hard Townes - Nobel laureate, lasers.
Rosalyn Sussman Yalow - Nobel Laureate in Medicine. (Judaism, her husband apparently got her more into it though and she might be dead)
Most of the heroes of theists are dead, not necessarily scientists but folk like Calvin, Martin Luther etc. Dead scientists may be respected for their contributions to science but really science has no qualms of the personal theistic beliefsIOW, great scientist belief in god =/= god exists. In fact the whole thread is one big strawman. In the same vein I suppose we could throw out a few names of theists with doctorates in theology who became agnostic or atheist but that in itself is no proof of no god either.
So, believing that every religion is right in it's own way and that neither science nor religion can answer all the questions and that the only answers to anything can be achieved by an indivividual on an individual basis makes me a fundie? Yahh, okay...unlike people like Peter Atkins, who say things like this, 1:20 into the video....
Now, does that sound like a Atheist fundamentalist, or what?
I don't have a clue who Peter Atkins is and I don't care to know. But seriously, you have it ingrained in your head that every single atheist in the world is a hardcore nutjob fapping over The Origin of Species or something. Let it go, it's a ridiculous premise. You're just as fundamental about your brand of belief as the Christians and random atheist spokespersons you denounce.
Not just me. There are posters here who also think you are only referring to the Christian God.
Than they, too, are ignorant...but than again, as I said, Atheistic fundies, like Christian fundies, claim to no more about rival faiths than the members of those faiths no about them themselves: http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...religious.html
Than they, too, are ignorant...but than again, as I said, Atheistic fundies, like Christian fundies, claim to no more about rival faiths than the members of those faiths no about them themselves: http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...religious.html
See Point "2"
lol. saying atheistic fundies, like like say "non-astrologers fundies"
Not really, I do not believe in Tinkerbell (although there is more evidence for her than your gawd) hence the gawd you believe in is in the same category as elves, fairies, fire breathing
This is too easy...
First of all, what the hell do you know about my GOD? what religion am I? I never even mentioned it in this thread. Again, anti-theistic fundies, like Chriatian fundies, claim to know more about my religion then I do. See point 2 here: http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...religious.html
Man, it's so not easy being right so often...
...anyway, for your information, I am a Gnostic, which means that I believe it is most likely that the Gnostic Myths are just allegories and metaphors for the greater truths of life and that, most likely, GOD is just a metaphor for something inside the human mind. But, by following the teachings of the Myth and the Mythology character of Christ, we can gain a intutive understanding of the greater truth of human life and the condition of existince, a understanding which is called "Gnosis". I will, again, for about the 20th time in this form, prove the existince of my GOD in less then ten sentences....
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that."- Joseph Campbell (who, unlike Dawkins, Hitchens, and Atkins or any other guru of Atheism, actually studied religion at a university and therefore knows what he's talking about)
Metaphor:
Quote:
[SIZE=4]met⋅a⋅phor[/SIZE] /ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [met-uh-fawr, -fer] Show IPA
–noun
1.a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
So, either the words "metaphor" does not exist in the English language or I, once more, just proved that my GOD does indeed exist. Please provide similar evidence that Tinkerbell does indeed exists.
Once again, an ignorant, half thinking anti-thesis get's owned by the Gnostic
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
"Lists? Lists? WE dohn need no stinkin' LISTS!"
əˌfɔr, -fər/ 
