The New "Religion Vs Science" Thread

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 10561 - 10580 of total 10585 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
May 26, 2019 - 08:28am PT
"Rabbits donít believe in the mythological fantasies and ideological absurdities that have mesmerized countless humans for thousands of years. No rabbit would have been willing to crash an airplane into the World Trade Center in the hope of being rewarded with 72 virgin rabbits in the afterlife." -Harari

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/opinion/why-fiction-trumps-truth.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
formerclimber

Boulder climber
CA
May 26, 2019 - 08:30am PT
Right. And no rabbit would bother with wasting time on flying to the Moon. I always maintained that any average animal is much more rational than most of the humans.
WBraun

climber
May 26, 2019 - 08:31am PT
Rabbits donít believe in the mythological fantasies and ideological absurdities but HFCS does believe in those, which are masqueraded as his so-called brainwashed modern science ......

HFCS = the Roger Dangerfield of Science
Flip Flop

climber
Earth Planet, Universe
May 26, 2019 - 08:50am PT
Poor sad Werner,
Why shout nonsense so vehemently?
God is your own neurosis.
Religion never turned on a light bulb.

Sweet intelligence can predict the future,
Make radios and helicopters,
Make ropes and carabiners,
Power your screen.

God is merely the fancy imaginings of ignorant people
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
May 26, 2019 - 09:02am PT
Flip Flop,

You might be a bit too wedded to a material and instrumental world. There might be more to the capabilities and expressiveness of men and women than tools.
sempervirens

climber
May 26, 2019 - 12:04pm PT
In a country where we value freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, religion still has a major impact on our elections.


Reagan was pro-choice, publicly changed his mind, then got elected in 1980.

GHW Bush claimed to be pro-choice then changed his mind before 1992 and was elected.

Trump also changed from pro-choice to pro-life before 2016. And chose Pence to get the pro-life votes.

What if a candidate really didn't care about pro-life vs. pro-choice but wanted to dupe the electorate to get elected and then promote any other policy that their financial supporters desired? Religion is the perfect tool for a lying, cheating tyrant. So the US cannot make improvements because the tyrant has all the support they need as long as they control the religious vote.

That doesn't seem like a problem to you?
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
May 27, 2019 - 07:04am PT
sempervirens: That doesn't seem like a problem to you?

Perhaps, if your characterization were complete, accurate, and final.

I don't see that people should be criticized for changing their minds. You can't know their reasons. You appear to have a reasonable interpretation, but those are a dime-a-dozen in any situation.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying you don't really know, and what you think you know seems to be a very partial abstraction.

Reality doesn't seem to be anything that one can fully articulate.
Mark Force

Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
May 27, 2019 - 07:27am PT
Maya - illusion.

WBraun

climber
May 27, 2019 - 08:25am PT
Reality doesn't seem to be anything that one can fully articulate.

Again and again and more again .... completely False!

Reality itself ultimately is a personality (person) and can articulate his entire limited and unlimited spectrum infinitely at all times.

The gross materialists are always in extremely very poor fund of knowledge ......

sempervirens

climber
May 27, 2019 - 10:46am PT
Perhaps, if your characterization were complete, accurate, and final.

I don't see that people should be criticized for changing their minds. You can't know their reasons. You appear to have a reasonable interpretation, but those are a dime-a-dozen in any situation.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying you don't really know, and what you think you know seems to be a very partial abstraction.

Reality doesn't seem to be anything that one can fully articulate.

A politician changing their mind is not the problem. Manipulating people with religion is the problem. See the Family Research Council's reaction when trump changed his mind. Take religion out of the equation and what would you expect to be the result? I'd expect more rational discussion and decisions. If my interpretation is reasonable then there is good reason to stop defending religion.

I don't claim absolute truth or complete and final analysis. I show strong evidence that, as usual, you cannot refute. Yet you dance around it to say I can't know. Would you say religion is not a tool for those who wish to use it for manipulation? (oh, heck, now Paul and Werner gonna start in with the same arguments I've debunked five times). If reality cannot be fully articulated, fine, but then how we gonna make any decisions? I propose we look at evidence and use rational interpretation. Since you can't choose not to decide there comes a time to use the reasonable interpretation. Religion is not rational. Do I gotta explain that to you again?

You've come up with a lot of statements that you chose not to defend. See my response about personal experiences a few pages back. Your reasoning has been weak and often has no logic.

MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
May 28, 2019 - 07:40am PT
sempervirens: Religion is not rational. Do I gotta explain that to you again?

There are more things that do not measure up to a standard of "rationality" than there are stars in the sky, most all of which are typical everyday situations and activities that you no doubt experience personally. You're either not being very observant or honest.

Any interpretation is a construction and perspectively biased. You have your ideas and observations, and others have theirs. There's no real way to "prove" anyone's interpretation. Science, for example, simply argues from a falsificationist point of view, which says that one theory (interpretation) is less fitting to data than others.

Pointing any of this out merely is meant to encourage people not to be so damned sure of themselves. A little more doubt and playfulness would be suitable.

I appreciate that if one doesn't take anything too seriously or concretely, then the question naturally arises: "what then should they be doing?" I think you'd find that when one isn't completely embroiled in the passion of "being right," one begins to see far more detail, inter-connections, and possibility. For some of us in the business of observation and discovery, those attributes take us to new realms and understanding.
sempervirens

climber
May 28, 2019 - 07:42pm PT
There are more things that do not measure up to a standard of "rationality" than there are stars in the sky, most all of which are typical everyday situations and activities that you no doubt experience personally. You're either not being very observant or honest.

Any interpretation is a construction and perspectively biased. You have your ideas and observations, and others have theirs. There's no real way to "prove" anyone's interpretation. Science, for example, simply argues from a falsificationist point of view, which says that one theory (interpretation) is less fitting to data than others.

Pointing any of this out merely is meant to encourage people not to be so damned sure of themselves. A little more doubt and playfulness would be suitable.

I appreciate that if one doesn't take anything too seriously or concretely, then the question naturally arises: "what then should they be doing?" I think you'd find that when one isn't completely embroiled in the passion of "being right," one begins to see far more detail, inter-connections, and possibility. For some of us in the business of observation and discovery, those attributes take us to new realms and understanding.

MikeL, that is ridiculous nonsense. It seems you are saying I'm dishonest or I'm not observant because there are many things that are irrational. That would make no sense. Or are you saying nothing can be proven, therefore sempervirens is not observant and dishonest. That also makes no sense. Or is that you think I'm wrong because you find I'm not playful enough? Or I'm too embroiled in the passion of being right?

I've described my observations and provided the reasonable interpretation. And this somehow leads you to conclude that I'm either dishonest or not observant. Yet you still find no fault in anything I have said. Instead... more cheap ad hominems. Some implied assumptions about me. What baloney.
Lynne Leichtfuss

Sport climber
moving thru
May 28, 2019 - 07:47pm PT
Did I say this 10,000 posts ago? It does not need to be versus.
sempervirens

climber
May 28, 2019 - 08:11pm PT
Did I say this 10,000 posts ago? It does not need to be versus.

Agreed.
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
May 29, 2019 - 07:03am PT
simpervirens: I've described my observations and provided the reasonable interpretation.


It's the "the" in your sentence that I've contested.
sempervirens

climber
May 29, 2019 - 07:19am PT
It's the "the" in your sentence that I've contested.

Understood that. Yet you suggest no other reasonable interpretation. And instead use the ad hominem attacks. You seem to be saying my argument is too convincing therefore.... here's some things about sempervirens.

I'm gonna miss the supertaco. Wide fetish is damned hilarious, and I appreciate Locker over there, but it's just not the same. It's too much Locker-ism.
donald perry

Trad climber
kearny, NJ
May 29, 2019 - 07:37am PT
She is a liar. Jesus knew God. And at one time we all knew there was a God. You are a fool if you think God will not judge the world in righteousness after He sent His Son to die for your sin and you rejected Him holding fast to lame excuses. The excuses for evolution have now been demonstrated to be silly, we are running out of stupid options here. What's next?, saying we came from UFOs is sidestepping the issue. Blaming your teacher (so called modern science) for your sin might help a little but it would be better to come up with your own excuses.
donald perry

Trad climber
kearny, NJ
May 29, 2019 - 08:09am PT
https://www.amazon.com/Human-Devolution-Alternative-Darwins-Theory/dp/0892133341/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Michael+A+Cremo&qid=1559142280&s=gateway&sr=8-3
WBraun

climber
May 29, 2019 - 08:17am PT
sempervirens

You are like a whinny little girl always crying foul to make your delusional material consciousness only arguments seem valid.

LOL ... your "I debunked this and that" arguments are another delusional experience manufactured in your defective material consciousness.

You are a mess as this stuff doesn't depend on you or your delusional academic only knowledge ......
donald perry

Trad climber
kearny, NJ
May 29, 2019 - 09:20am PT
btw My point in posting that was having to do with what hard data MC has come up with, not his conclusions about said data.
Messages 10561 - 10580 of total 10585 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta