RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: No reason for a rift between science and religion?, Skeptic's chance to prove his claims.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,20:27   

It's not relevant to this discussion and I'm going to try to stay on topic, if possible.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,20:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 07 2007,20:27)
It's not relevant to this discussion and I'm going to try to stay on topic, if possible.

Then PM me.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,20:52   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 07 2007,20:28)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 07 2007,20:27)
It's not relevant to this discussion and I'm going to try to stay on topic, if possible.

Then PM me.

No, no, no ---- start another thread so EVERYONE can see.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,20:53   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 07 2007,20:27)
It's not relevant to this discussion and I'm going to try to stay on topic, if possible.

Oh, I think it is EXTREMELY relevant.

I've already explained why.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,20:57   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 07 2007,19:36)
Also, if religious people attempt to refute science from a theology perspective then they can easily be disputed from a scientific perspective.  They are in the wrong and can easily be corrected.  

Alas, Skeptic, as you well know, ID and creationism are NOT "scientific" issues, NOR are they "religious" issues --- they are POLITICAL issues.


And THAT is what gets your panties all atwitter.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,02:46   

Quote
k.e., is English your second language?  If so I can find the appropriate translation to get my point across.  If English is indeed your native tongue then I'll try to speak very slowly.  Ready?  Here goes...



Well coming from a frigging Yank that's pretty funny Septic. When I was last in the 'land of the brave' the great majority of your countrymen and women that I met were barely able to speak anything that would pass for English in what once constituted the 'British Empire' where I am happy to inform you they have never named their children as nouns or verbs or have pet cemeteries. I don't hold you personally responsible but on the other your hubris appears to be approaching archetypical proportions.

Quote
It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God.


That's a testable hypothesis, are you sure you want to continue considering your intellectual ability and your grasp of language, oh and your nationality considering your president has 'gods' support for his war on sanity.

If you do want to continue, then first of all define god and just for my amusement where that matches pres. Bushes 'definition' for your god.

Are you sure you’re not a hypocrite rather than a skeptic?

Creation Science 101

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,06:05   

Quote
It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God.


Uh, is it also impossible for God to prove his own existence? Let's face it, God could come down here, right now and introduce himself, and, all knowing as he is, he *must* know what he could do to prove himself to people, even the hardcore Atheists. So, it *is* possible to prove the existence of God, especially if the god in question lifts his ass and manifests himself in a way that would leave no doubt, you know, actually DO something for a change. Such a feat should be easy, for an all-knowing, all-powerful god, no?

But, since God has done such a great job of hiding himself it makes one wonder why some people are so full of sh*t to think they know God, what God does, why God does and who God does (Mary). Since some people also believe they have a special communication system (prayer) could they please request that God comes down here and stick up for himself, because we are tired of all the imaginations and cr*p that people offer up as reasons to even think that a God exists. Since God is not doing his part lots of precious souls are going to fry (and currently is frying) in Hell for being unable to place their faith in something (God) that cannot be differentiated from nothing.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,07:01   

I have no desire to see yet another pointless Holy War.

I simply point out that Skeptic is BS'ing all of us.  I have had knockdown drag-out fights with more than one hyper-atheist on all of this (just ask PZ what he thinks of me) -- but I have never ever seen "Skeptic" question even one fundie or creationist, ever.  His criticisms are entirely one-way, his "wall of separation" is entirely one-way, and his "skepticism" is entirely one-way.

It's just a shield that he hides behind when his side is getting its butt beaten.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,07:18   

Just a quick one here and I'll be back later for some more.  As a clarification, I don't think ID is either science or religion, it is a philosophy.

God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.  Just a quick example, if I could take every single religious text on Earth (every faith) and thoroughly disproves every single line in them it still would mean nothing when the question of God's existence is approached.  I know that's hard to accept but I believe your resistance comes from the fact that you're trying to frame this as a scientific question and it is not one.

Lenny, go back again and read.  You'll see that I've questioned AFDave, FtK, Reddot, to name a few.  I will always question YECers scientifically because I believe they are in the wrong as I will question anyone perverting science to make claims about faith because they are also absolutely wrong.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,08:51   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,07:18)
God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.  Just a quick example, if I could take every single religious text on Earth (every faith) and thoroughly disproves every single line in them it still would mean nothing when the question of God's existence is approached.

But why should we believe in god? If it's not to do with any religion, why does god HAVE to exist?

Sorry if this is off topic.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,09:00   

It's worth remembering that this topic got some thrashing here.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,09:30   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,07:18)
Just a quick one here and I'll be back later for some more.  As a clarification, I don't think ID is either science or religion, it is a philosophy.

God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.  Just a quick example, if I could take every single religious text on Earth (every faith) and thoroughly disproves every single line in them it still would mean nothing when the question of God's existence is approached.  I know that's hard to accept but I believe your resistance comes from the fact that you're trying to frame this as a scientific question and it is not one.

Lenny, go back again and read.  You'll see that I've questioned AFDave, FtK, Reddot, to name a few.  I will always question YECers scientifically because I believe they are in the wrong as I will question anyone perverting science to make claims about faith because they are also absolutely wrong.

Oh yes, you give some half-assed criticisms to some of the craziest, but you still give cover to all the others, including the IDers.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,09:36   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 08 2007,15:01)
I have no desire to see yet another pointless Holy War.

I simply point out that Skeptic is BS'ing all of us.  I have had knockdown drag-out fights with more than one hyper-atheist on all of this (just ask PZ what he thinks of me) -- but I have never ever seen "Skeptic" question even one fundie or creationist, ever.  His criticisms are entirely one-way, his "wall of separation" is entirely one-way, and his "skepticism" is entirely one-way.

It's just a shield that he hides behind when his side is getting its butt beaten.

Thou weasling is duly noted. :>

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,10:47   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 08 2007,02:46)

Quote
... When I was last in the 'land of the brave' the great majority of your countrymen and women that I met were barely able to speak anything that would pass for English in what once constituted the 'British Empire' where I am happy to inform you they have never named their children as nouns or verbs or have pet cemeteries.
...


Sorry, K.E., stick to surrealistic poetry.
The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire.
Roger is a common British name, and was a verb, a rather 'earthy' verb, for no small period of time.
While one may freely consider the language use of "yanks" to be abominable, one cannot truthfully assert that the two language crimes you assert never occurred in the Empire.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:24   

Quote (Shirley Knott @ Aug. 08 2007,18:47)
[quote=k.e,Aug. 08 2007,02:46][/quote]
Quote
... When I was last in the 'land of the brave' the great majority of your countrymen and women that I met were barely able to speak anything that would pass for English in what once constituted the 'British Empire' where I am happy to inform you they have never named their children as nouns or verbs or have pet cemeteries.
...


Sorry, K.E., stick to surrealistic poetry.
The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire.
Roger is a common British name, and was a verb, a rather 'earthy' verb, for no small period of time.
While one may freely consider the language use of "yanks" to be abominable, one cannot truthfully assert that the two language crimes you assert never occurred in the Empire.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

...Ahem...er ...collateral damage (mine)

I knew that a bit of blood might get on some innocent bystanders, but in my defense I would just like to say.... er...yer honor "It was a vicious hairy beast and I forgot my garlic necklace ..."

.....Oh waitaminute...... THAT'S FRIGGEN WALES THEY DON"T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!

You better be right about that Welsh pet cemetery. I've been  blaming them on the rise of American poetry, what with the 'whispering glades' and 'valley of enchanted dreams' not to mention 'I love the smell of formaldehyde in the morning ...it smells of loved ones'  etc.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:25   

skeptic:

"As a clarification, I don't think ID is either science or religion, it is a philosophy."

Whether or not there is a creator may be a philosophical idea, but ID is not.  It's creationism disguised as science.  That's PURELY what it was invented for.


Shirley Knott:

"The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire."

I was just thinking of that one!  I've been there.   :)   Had no idea it was that old, though.  I just assumed it was a modern thing.   :O

Maybe I should've taken a closer look at the dates on those graves.    :p

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:37   

Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 08 2007,19:25)
Shirley Knott:

"The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire."

I was just thinking of that one!  I've been there.   :)   Had no idea it was that old, though.  I just assumed it was a modern thing.   :O

Maybe I should've taken a closer look at the dates on those graves.    :p

OK this is a conspiracy.

Probably by Tiddles that fiendish 12th century Welsh dicator with the Hitler moustache


--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:40   

That would be Tiddles KITLER!

:p

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,12:00   

Sorry again K.e. but this comment you made

Quote
THAT'S FRIGGEN WALES THEY DON"T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!


Is also quite, quite wrong. Most of the Welsh have English as their first (and in many cases only) language. Welsh itself is hardly spoken.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,12:48   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,12:18)
God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.

I know that's hard to accept but I believe your resistance comes from the fact that you're trying to frame this as a scientific question and it is not one.

Since this is turning into a fairly one sided discussion I will jump in and agree with skeptic on this point. That's certainly how the vast majority of religious people I know view it.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,13:07   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Aug. 08 2007,12:48)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,12:18)
God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.

I know that's hard to accept but I believe your resistance comes from the fact that you're trying to frame this as a scientific question and it is not one.

Since this is turning into a fairly one sided discussion I will jump in and agree with skeptic on this point. That's certainly how the vast majority of religious people I know view it.

I don't buy it. It's just like saying, "Yes all psychics are frauds and charlatans. Not a one of them has any actual paranormal abilities... But, I know psychic powers are real."

If nobody, including those who claim to know the most about God, can give a non-self-contradictory account of the attributes of this entity, and, further, if none of these accounts agree with each other, what possible reason can you give me to believe? What does the name "God" even refer to, beyond a concept, in Skeptic's post above? If something exists, but it need have none of the attributes traditionally assigned to gods, what justification do we have for calling it a god?

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,14:19   

I can see where this is heading and I'm not sure if it is productive to go that way.  We could quickly get off into theology and philosophy and lose sight of the question at hand.

The question on the table is not "Should one believe in God" but "Can the concept of God be approached scientifically?"

BTW, just to give credit where credit is due, k.e. your responses to Shirley were hilarious.  I thought for a moment I might have to change pants.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,14:31   

The two questions can't be entirely untangled.

Can the concept of leprechauns be approaced scientifically?

Not really, because (in part) nobody believes in leprechauns.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,14:36   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 08 2007,11:37)
Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 08 2007,19:25)
Shirley Knott:

"The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire."

I was just thinking of that one!  I've been there.   :)   Had no idea it was that old, though.  I just assumed it was a modern thing.   :O

Maybe I should've taken a closer look at the dates on those graves.    :p

OK this is a conspiracy.

Probably by Tiddles that fiendish 12th century Welsh dicator with the Hitler moustache

Kitlers

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,15:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,14:19)

The question on the table is not "Should one believe in God" but "Can the concept of God be approached scientifically?"


This is so obvious, I wonder why you ask it like it is the question of the ages.

Science tests physical phenomena.

If you want to insist that your God leaves no physical phenonena of any kind to be tested, then science has nothing to do.

But plenty of other people claim that God does all kinds of physical things...like flooding the whole planet.

Those claims can be tested, and if people put their god up to tests that he will fail, too bad for them and their god.

But if you are secure in your belief in a God who didn't cause a flood, who hasn't in fact, done anything in the real world, knock yourself out.

Just don't forget the lessons of history.  Humans get things wrong.  A lot.  Big things, small things, all the time.  The only method we have to getting rid of wrong beliefs is testing those beliefs in such a way that we can jettison them if we prove they are wrong.  That's why science has done so much in a few hundred years, compared to other methods of thinking, because it fixes errors.

If you believe in something that you can't test this way, especially if it's something that you wish were true, odds are, you are simply wrong.

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,17:00   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 08 2007,02:46)
Quote
k.e., is English your second language?  If so I can find the appropriate translation to get my point across.  If English is indeed your native tongue then I'll try to speak very slowly.  Ready?  Here goes...

Well coming from a frigging Yank that's pretty funny Septic.

That's gold, k.e., gold!
Quote
When I was last in the 'land of the brave' the great majority of your countrymen and women that I met were barely able to speak anything that would pass for English in what once constituted the 'British Empire' where I am happy to inform you they have never named their children as nouns or verbs or have pet cemeteries.

Not so much in defense of my countrymen - our English is horrible, and the internets ain't H3lP1N6 - but the timing is too good to miss:
RU 4Real
Quote
A New Zealand couple is looking to call their newborn son Superman -- but only because their chosen name of 4Real has been rejected by the government registry.


--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,17:22   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,07:18)
Lenny, go back again and read.  You'll see that I've questioned AFDave, FtK, Reddot, to name a few.  I will always question YECers scientifically because I believe they are in the wrong as I will question anyone perverting science to make claims about faith because they are also absolutely wrong.

Oh, don't bullshit us, Skeptic.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,17:39   

Quote
But plenty of other people claim that God does all kinds of physical things...like flooding the whole planet.

Those claims can be tested, and if people put their god up to tests that he will fail, too bad for them and their god.
The point is that many people don't make claims about their God that can be scientifically tested. You can argue that this makes God meaningless, but that's different argument.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,19:22   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 08 2007,14:31)
The two questions can't be entirely untangled.

Can the concept of leprechauns be approaced scientifically?

Not really, because (in part) nobody believes in leprechauns.

How does one exactly approach scientifically a human construct that has had millennia to evolve to avoid capture.  The people of 5000 years ago were just as smart as we are and were no doubt just as argumentative.  Religion as a meme was too valuable to the perpetrators to permit it to be lost and too important to the peace of mind of its victims.  The two were probably inextricable linked.  Its importance to its victims is what made it valuable to its perpetrators.  I haven't had enough sleep today, so I will stop babbling now.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,23:43   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 08 2007,20:00)
Sorry again K.e. but this comment you made

Quote
THAT'S FRIGGEN WALES THEY DON"T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!


Is also quite, quite wrong. Most of the Welsh have English as their first (and in many cases only) language. Welsh itself is hardly spoken.

To be quite honest young man, how can possibly you say that? Yes I will have to agree the words coming out of their mouths may be English but it could be reasonably argued that they don't actually think in English. I hardly need mention that for instance India speaks English and they are without a doubt completely understandable on a phone line when suggesting delivery of free telephones direct to your front door and to me they sound Welsh.

There has to be some degree of acceptance for this not so radical idea and considering that most true Welshmen don't like Tiger Rogan Josh (with real Tiger) then I think the case has been made.

God some people are sticklers for detail.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
  1091 replies since Aug. 06 2007,07:39 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]