Dr Zoidberg
Wanderer
Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution
Its an old discussion and it was quite obvious that some people had grossly erroneous thoughts. Based on the few pages i did read, i didnt feel like going through 15 more pages based on bullshit i have already heard but presented by the mind of a kindergartener. (i dont mean you, i mean the general person that tries to argue religion with logics, theres a lot of those yknow).
I just find it so incredibly ignorant. Its kinda like trying to discuss 20 century history whilst having no idea what Germany is.
Defenitly, it just so happens that the sort of consideration you are suggesting is ludacris since we have so many better things to consider. Everything is relative and one thing is more preferable than the other.
An explanation we can fully account for with 100% replicateable results. Dont try to apply it to anything religious. Just dont. Because in every religion theres someone that has seen something, which merited the religion, and it cannot be replicated today. Im trying to save you time here.
I mean "acceptable explanation" as the scientific term. Its not a new term.
If you want to claim that "god is reality period" then thats a definition made by you. You are trying to discuss, based on "logics", a manmade selfcontradictory concept. Its kinda like trying to unscrew a non-star screw with a star screwdriver.
You need to back up a few steps and instead of assuming that god exists, try to assume he dont. You will find valid explanations for virtually everything provided by the history of science. Why do you conciously throw away the facts we base our actual existence on? Its everywhere, its in your computer. Its man made miracles and you experience thousands of them every day. Youre just used to it that youre not impressed anymore. And then, since its not every day you hear of a white man with a long beard in the sky wanting you to do random shit, suddendly it catches everyones attention.
Its pathetic and its an abomination to man. People that reject science on such an ignorant level do not deserve to reap the benefits.
Now im not going to tell you that youre un-educated or anything, but if you went and read just the wikipedia article on Descartes Discource on The Method, you will see why the train of thought you are presenting is.. Well, just go read it, i dont want to influence your opinion about it, that wouldnt be fair.
Lets just say that Descartes is the father of modern philosophy (what we are attempting to discuss here) and he needs to give you a spanking.
Then whats the problem? We have so much we actually know, its incredible counterproductive that the entire world spends so many ressources on what we just agreed was an "ineffecient starting point".
Yes, i know. God works in mysterious ways. Btw, so do I and its actually me changing shit. If you have a good mind, put it to better use than the juvenile "what if a billion gods existed but we never met any!" crap and start pondering about what you DO know, but dont fully understand yet. Thats how soceity evolves and mankind became what it is today.
Vastar;1422140 said:Yes. I had made the assumption that you had read some of the rest of this thread. Many of the points he's made to me over the last 20 pages would apply here for you. It's odd for me to be posting them instead of him considering my position. That's all.
Its an old discussion and it was quite obvious that some people had grossly erroneous thoughts. Based on the few pages i did read, i didnt feel like going through 15 more pages based on bullshit i have already heard but presented by the mind of a kindergartener. (i dont mean you, i mean the general person that tries to argue religion with logics, theres a lot of those yknow).
I just find it so incredibly ignorant. Its kinda like trying to discuss 20 century history whilst having no idea what Germany is.
Vastar;1422140 said:That really depends upon how you value the consideration itself.
Defenitly, it just so happens that the sort of consideration you are suggesting is ludacris since we have so many better things to consider. Everything is relative and one thing is more preferable than the other.
Vastar;1422140 said:Could you expand on what you mean by "acceptable explanation"?
An explanation we can fully account for with 100% replicateable results. Dont try to apply it to anything religious. Just dont. Because in every religion theres someone that has seen something, which merited the religion, and it cannot be replicated today. Im trying to save you time here.
I mean "acceptable explanation" as the scientific term. Its not a new term.
Vastar;1422140 said:I'm saying that if god existed, the laws governing our environment would be overseen by him. The things we test to be true consistently would have yielded those consistent results because our higher power willed them to. In that situation, the scientific fact would represent properties of our environment that god has bothered to keep reliable so far. If god wishes to use any mixture of creation followed by evolution, it would be reasonable that he could.
If you want to claim that "god is reality period" then thats a definition made by you. You are trying to discuss, based on "logics", a manmade selfcontradictory concept. Its kinda like trying to unscrew a non-star screw with a star screwdriver.
You need to back up a few steps and instead of assuming that god exists, try to assume he dont. You will find valid explanations for virtually everything provided by the history of science. Why do you conciously throw away the facts we base our actual existence on? Its everywhere, its in your computer. Its man made miracles and you experience thousands of them every day. Youre just used to it that youre not impressed anymore. And then, since its not every day you hear of a white man with a long beard in the sky wanting you to do random shit, suddendly it catches everyones attention.
Its pathetic and its an abomination to man. People that reject science on such an ignorant level do not deserve to reap the benefits.
Now im not going to tell you that youre un-educated or anything, but if you went and read just the wikipedia article on Descartes Discource on The Method, you will see why the train of thought you are presenting is.. Well, just go read it, i dont want to influence your opinion about it, that wouldnt be fair.
Lets just say that Descartes is the father of modern philosophy (what we are attempting to discuss here) and he needs to give you a spanking.
Vastar;1422140 said:Well, I do certainly agree that the improbable would generally be an inefficient starting point.
Then whats the problem? We have so much we actually know, its incredible counterproductive that the entire world spends so many ressources on what we just agreed was an "ineffecient starting point".
Vastar;1422140 said:Again, if a higher power is in control of reality, why would it be out of the question for that higher power to decide not to reveal himself through a lack of consistency? Additionally, why would our previous test results prevent that higher power from changing in the future?
Yes, i know. God works in mysterious ways. Btw, so do I and its actually me changing shit. If you have a good mind, put it to better use than the juvenile "what if a billion gods existed but we never met any!" crap and start pondering about what you DO know, but dont fully understand yet. Thats how soceity evolves and mankind became what it is today.