[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


You could. But there is no need. You could also say that the murder was committed by a giant tapdancing mongoose but why say that unless you've got even some slight proof?

Just tryin' to generate some mutual understanding/respect, that's all.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by aldo_14


I think you missed my point - I never made, nor intended to make,  an argument for creationism.  I was making an argument for belief in it.

unless the dictionary has been suddenly changed in the last 30 seconds making an argument for the belief in something is same as making the argument for something - exactly the same.

Stop dodging the challenge, even if you cannot beat it and know it

Originally posted by aldo_14
Now, I am not a devout person or whatnot.  But it's pretty obvious that B) in particualr is a pointless statement.  Because there's no way to define natural forces in a completely neutral way.

bull**** - a natural force is effect due to non-biological processes (which is a very rough definition.. a physics professor could give you a better definition)

it's not difficult to define them nuetrally - it's not abritrary - stop running from the challenge

Originally posted by aldo_14
What I mean, is that you can say it's down to themodynamics, and then someone religious can hit back with 'well, thermodynamics were created by God'....

that's not a logically valid argument and you know it

 

Originally posted by aldo_14
and there's no real way to logically contest it (because the existence of God can neither be proven or disproven - or at least, not by anyone still alive ).

this statement is half true - yes we cannot PROVE their is a god, yes we cannot DISPROVE it

You however cannot even SUPPORT the existance of one - is it is illogical and irrational to believe in one.  If you cannot logically support something then safe and logical position is to not believe in it.  This makes faith patently a fallacy.

Originally posted by aldo_14
So ,you see that B) is supportable if your belief structure allows it.  yours doesn't, but it doesn;t mean that someone else doesn't.  And it doesn't prevent them wanting to explore it, either.

"belief structure" - I don't havge a belief structure, stop trying to project your ideas and violations of logic onto me

Originally posted by aldo_14
And the problem is that you seem unable to grasp that side of it (the whole essence of faith)-

I grok the essence of faith beyond your aprehnsion - Neurotheosis, find out waht is is

Originally posted by aldo_14
you seem to show unmitigated contempt for anyone who has religious beliefs

fanatical adherance to the illogical and unsupporable is by definition insane and thus i do hold contempt for them

I am contemptious of any person who tosses themselves into lies instead of facing the unromantic/unexciting/non-emotionally appealing truth

I am contemptious of anyone who scoffs at things that have undeniable evidence because it conflicts with that which they only have faith in.

Originally posted by aldo_14
, which is just daft, really

so now you're calling me names

Originally posted by aldo_14
.  And I think that you're so set in that mindset, that you'll porobably miss my point in this post too.

and trying to insult my intelligence

Originally posted by aldo_14
Because you don;t seem to want to accept the possibility that science is not the antithesis of religion.

actually if scientific evidence came up supporting religion and it was independantly verifiable i would support that position, but because of it being supported by science it is no longer a religious view by definition

Code: [Select]


re·li·gion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-ljn)
n.

   1.
         A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.


This is because it's no longer "Supernatural" - anything that exist is natural

Originally posted by aldo_14
C'est la vie.

Ainsi vous réclamez

Wegen dich

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan



unless the dictionary has been suddenly changed in the last 30 seconds making an argument for the belief in something is same as making the argument for something - exactly the same.

Stop dodging the challenge, even if you cannot beat it and know it

no, it isn't.  i'm making an argument towards understanding that belief & the reasons for it, not the validity of that belief.  Frankly, i dbout i can make this any more blatant.

The whole point of this is to encourage a bit of polite respect and consideration.  You seem to be the one objecting to it.

 

Originally posted by Kazan

bull**** - a natural force is effect due to non-biological processes (which is a very rough definition.. a physics professor could give you a better definition)

it's not difficult to define them nuetrally - it's not abritrary - stop running from the challenge

Actually, I think you'll find that it is impossible to define the root cause of a natural force without finding some conflict as to it.  

 

Originally posted by Kazan

this statement is half true - yes we cannot PROVE their is a god, yes we cannot DISPROVE it

You however cannot even SUPPORT the existance of one - is it is illogical and irrational to believe in one.  If you cannot logically support something then safe and logical position is to not believe in it.  This makes faith patently a fallacy.

The whole point of faith is that it does need proof.  Besides which,  what would qualify as proof?

 

Originally posted by Kazan

"belief structure" - I don't havge a belief structure, stop trying to project your ideas and violations of logic onto me

I grok the essence of faith beyond your aprehnsion - Neurotheosis, find out waht is is

you have a clearly defined set of beliefs.  You've been very open with them when showing contempt for others beliefs.  you're belief is that there is no God, and that science holds all the answers to human existence.  i make no criticism of that, it's very close to what I believe (although I don't outright reject the possbility of a higher power)

 

Originally posted by Kazan

fanatical adherance to the illogical and unsupporable is by definition insane and thus i do hold contempt for them

I am contemptious of any person who tosses themselves into lies instead of facing the unromantic/unexciting/non-emotionally appealing truth

I am contemptious of anyone who scoffs at things that have undeniable evidence because it conflicts with that which they only have faith in.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, and I'm not sure what it has to do with what i said.

 i am, however, saddened by the fairly reprehensible fact that you are so quick to hold contempt for people because you disagree with them or their beliefs.  It's also interesting in that you take issue with me for defiending their right to have that belief.

 

Originally posted by Kazan

so now you're calling me names

and trying to insult my intelligence

No, you're being sensitive and insecure.  If I wanted to call you names, I'd be far more blatant and call you something like an "arrogant, egotistical prick".  But that would be very rude, so i won't.

 

Originally posted by Kazan

actually if scientific evidence came up supporting religion and it was independantly verifiable i would support that position, but because of it being supported by science it is no longer a religious view by definition

Code: [Select]


re·li·gion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-ljn)
n.

   1.
         A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

[/B]

Why the definition?  What is your argument here?  That you believe in science alone?  We've established that already.

 

Originally posted by Kazan

This is because it's no longer "Supernatural" - anything that exist is natural

your definition of 'natural' may vary widely from that of a religious person.  You - or my - consideration of supernatural may be viewed as part of Gods actions by that person.

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by Kazan
You however cannot even SUPPORT the existance of one - is it is illogical and irrational to believe in one.  If you cannot logically support something then safe and logical position is to not believe in it.  This makes faith patently a fallacy.

Whoah, whoah, whoah... hold on a minute.

I hope you realise the full consequences of what you're saying here. You do realise that, if you hold this to be true, then you cannot ever state that anything is 'true', or 'real', or anything like that at all - EVER. Because, you know, there is no support, logical or otherwise, for the idea that this world is real, or even if there is anything *to* be real in the first place. At all. You cannot believe you exist, or I exist, or anything like that - anything. Name it, you can't prove it exists.

Just checking you know what you're saying here.

[Goober5000]

Wow, aldo, you should be an apologist.  I'm impressed.

Kazan, you are coming across as incredibly closed-minded.  Why not at least respect the faith of others, even if you don't share it?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Wow, aldo, you should be an apologist.  I'm impressed.

Apologist?  Not sure I get your meaning there....

I'm just trying to be fair to people - even if you disagree fundamentally with someones views, you're never going resolve anything without  at least trying to understand them (or at least the motivations).

[Goober5000]

*smacks self* Yes, a definition would be helpful.

apologist - one who practices apologetics

apologetics
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

[aldo_14]

Think I'll take no 2/

[Kazan]

Blaise: in correct

Aldo: i didn't realize you were arguing that they should have the _RIGHT_ to hold that view, they do have the right.  However that right doesn't mean that opinion has to be respected if it's reprehensible such as the mass of illogic that is religion

as for the definition read closely

and you may accuse me of not understanding them - but you'd be suprised exactly how well i DO understand them and understand their drives and that is why i find them reprehensible

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan

Aldo: i didn't realize you were arguing that they should have the _RIGHT_ to hold that view, they do have the right.  However that right doesn't mean that opinion has to be respected if it's reprehensible such as the mass of illogic that is religion

as for the definition read closely

and you may accuse me of not understanding them - but you'd be suprised exactly how well i DO understand them and understand their drives and that is why i find them reprehensible

Then i'm worried for you.  

I would have thought understanding would have helped you in this.

[Kazan]

aldo understanding exactly how weak of mind and character someone is doesn't generally foster love for them

althought I cannot wholly lay the blame on the individual - it is largely the society that they are brought up in that values thousands of pleasant lies over the truth that is really to blame so perhaps i should cut the individual a wee bit more slack

then there is the whole neurotheosis thing

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo understanding exactly how weak of mind and character someone is doesn't generally foster love for them

althought I cannot wholly lay the blame on the individual - it is largely the society that they are brought up in that values thousands of pleasant lies over the truth that is really to blame so perhaps i should cut the individual a wee bit more slack

then there is the whole neurotheosis thing

I would say that it takes a hell of a lot of mental strength to believe devoutly in something, regardless of other peoples bigoted or sectarian attitudes towards them.

Certainly never hurt Albert Einstein (for example), depite being a German Jew in the 1930s.

[Kazan]

actually it doesn't take a lot of mental strength to defend that aldo - because of neurotheosis - religion is neurochemically addictive

[it gives you pleasant feelings, which are releases of positive neurotransmitters - we are by the workings of our addicted to said neurotransmitters]


before you try and judge my considering their opinion reprehensible and trying to call me a bigot and a sectarian you should perhaps find out if there is a scientific basis behind my opinion..

you should ASSUME that there is a scientific basis behind my opinion - because otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion!

Originally posted by aldo_14
Certainly never hurt Albert Einstein (for example),

just so you know this is a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
actually it doesn't take a lot of mental strength to defend that aldo - because of neurotheosis - religion is neurochemically addictive

[it gives you pleasant feelings, which are releases of positive neurotransmitters - we are by the workings of our addicted to said neurotransmitters]


before you try and judge my considering their opinion reprehensible and trying to call me a bigot and a sectarian you should perhaps find out if there is a scientific basis behind my opinion..

you should ASSUME that there is a scientific basis behind my opinion - because otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion!

just so you know this is a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam

i'll have to take your word on neurotheosis , because I haven;t been able to find a link on it.

As for you being bigoted.....

Code: [Select]


big·ot    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (bgt)
n.

    One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


I would say the description suits you to a t

[Kazan]

there is a difference between finding someone's opinions reprehensible and being intolerant of them - i do not try and prevent them from going to church, i do not try and prevent them from practicing their religion in their home.  I do not try and prevent them from corrupting their children with their religion.


I however do find them reprehensible.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
there is a difference between finding someone's opinions reprehensible and being intolerant of them - i do not try and prevent them from going to church, i do not try and prevent them from practicing their religion in their home.  I do not try and prevent them from corrupting their children with their religion.

I however do find them reprehensible.

I think you just reinfoced my point.  You can't tolerate anyone having a different view from you.  yopu tried to make sort of balanced reply and still accused anyone with religious beliefs of 'corrupting' their children.

You do believe in some form of higher, infallible and all ruling power, I think.  Yourself.

[Kazan]

aldo: you are completely and totally off base and now you are just down to argumentum ad hominem

i tolerate different opinions constantly - WHEN THEY MAKE SENSE, when they are logical, plausable, etc

tolerating ignorance, irrationalism, illogical, etc is something nobody should have to do - but i tolerate it in that they can go ahead and do anything in their personal life that they want, be it being completely convinced that science if complete and utter bull**** and that "God is going to save" them.

However - i draw the line at RESPECTING unreasonable beliefs, expecting me to respect religious beliefs is like asking me to respect the Nazis -- they're both equally irrational illogical hate mongering groups

[icespeed]

no flaming, guys. that doesn't get anywhere.

evolution seems a bit dodgy to me, actually; go ahead, call me narrowminded and all that, but apparently that process you were talking about, Kazan, where lightning sparks off the creation of the replicator molecule? the experiment that repeated that was biased in that the gases used for ''atmosphere" were not what would have appeared at the estimated time the molecule appeared, and the molecules created in the lab were not stable. I heard that somewhere and i can't be bothered to look for the references, sorry.

[Kazan]

icespeed: can you back up your assertion that the gases wouldn't have been present at the estimated time that they appeared

also i wasn't talking about evolution - i was talking about Abiogenesis, please get the terms straight - they're MASSIVELY different


[edit]
(just noticed the end of your post)

If you cannot look up references then don't try to make an assertion please


[micro]Evolution = process through which changes are promoted, or not, in a species one the mutation occurs

Abiogenesis = explaining how the first organic compounds were generated


I severely doubt the validity of your source - because what changed the atmosphere from what it origionally made it up was mostly single celled organisms

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: you are completely and totally off base and now you are just down to argumentum ad hominem

i tolerate different opinions constantly - WHEN THEY MAKE SENSE, when they are logical, plausable, etc

tolerating ignorance, irrationalism, illogical, etc is something nobody should have to do - but i tolerate it in that they can go ahead and do anything in their personal life that they want, be it being completely convinced that science if complete and utter bull**** and that "God is going to save" them.

However - i draw the line at RESPECTING unreasonable beliefs, expecting me to respect religious beliefs is like asking me to respect the Nazis -- they're both equally irrational illogical hate mongering groups

 On you go there son - you show em!

Originally posted by icespeed
no flaming, guys. that doesn't get anywhere.

evolution seems a bit dodgy to me, actually; go ahead, call me narrowminded and all that, but apparently that process you were talking about, Kazan, where lightning sparks off the creation of the replicator molecule? the experiment that repeated that was biased in that the gases used for ''atmosphere" were not what would have appeared at the estimated time the molecule appeared, and the molecules created in the lab were not stable. I heard that somewhere and i can't be bothered to look for the references, sorry.

NB:  IIRC, I did read a query on the (name escapes me) experiment, where the reaction was achieved without oxygen (oxygen apparently destroys amino acid reactions or something, and would have screwed the experiment).  

However, oxidation in rocks from the time of the birth of life apparently indicates the prescence of oxygen... I think it's alluded to in that link i posted earlier, although there are other options open for the creation of life.  Of course - there's the obvious possibility that, whatever happened, we just got lucky.  Something sparked at a good time, and it clicked and we had life.