Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 10:31pm PT
|
maybe more honest. why not in human interactions? religion?
still, who wants to be christ, look what he got. beaten in the streets, spiky hat, bung out to dry, etc. some things are immortal?
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/game-theory-evolutionary-stable-strategies-and-the-25953132
for you atheists, what is our belief in money, government, nations, sports teams, ethnicities, culture, i wont mention god
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2018 - 06:38am PT
|
but they live in a world of delusion.
Brainwashed hypocrite idiot antiloon ^^^ lives in delusion just the same ......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2018 - 07:23am PT
|
You are a delusional brainwashed hypocrite no matter what you say and it's got nothing to do with your st00pid ideas about religion either.
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2018 - 08:23am PT
|
christ. maybe dig deeper, climb higher? might be a nice view at least. anyway...
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2018 - 09:33am PT
|
The dragon argument is nigh word for word taken from Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World.”
Scrutiny and skepticism have destroyed religion as an ancient method of social control.
The fact that religion survives in the twenty first century is a testament to the willful ignorance and faulty belief systems of humans.
Have you ever visited a natural history museum? Most are also research collections. The public part, open to display, is a tiny fraction of the secure collections.
I spent nearly two years dating a paleobotany collection. It was one of the largest pollen and spire collections in the world.
The curator was Jewish. My boss was Christian. I was the only atheists in the building.
The only problem arises when people believe that scripture is unerring, rather than allegorical.
Personally, I enjoy many of the moral lessons attributed to Jesus. Modern Christianity, or at least the new Prosperity Religion, is at blatant odds with the teachings of Jesus. People mold religion to their own purpose. We see it today. Would it be impossible in the past?
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2018 - 09:40am PT
|
^good question imho
beware the ivory towers. cathedrals? mountains are relatively eternal.
have a good day.
sorry to bump steve grossman's threads downwards
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2018 - 11:44am PT
|
I was given a location and formation name.
Plants don’t preserve well. They are common in coal beds. Spores and pollen do preserve well, and they provide a good record of plant evolution. Most ancient plant clashes still survive, so a pollen grain can reveal quite a bit if you happen to have a scanning election microscope.
Samples were both surface and subsurface. Land plants arose very recently, in the last 400 million years.
Abrahamic scripture says that the entire universe, including people were created in ten days, roughly 6000 years ago.
This doesn’t square, even remotely with physical evidence from many unrelated lines of evidence. Evolution is a fact. It happened. It is true that there is not an adequate explanation for the origin of the first cell, but natural selection is a powerful force. If you understand it, it is an entirely acceptable explanation of how you, given time, could go from a cell to a blue whale. Natural selection is visible in simple organisms that reproduce many times in a day.
The same force that gave us antibiotic resistant bacteria also gave us the most powerful eyes in the animal kingdom. They belong to a species of shrimp.
This isn’t even an argument within study anymore. Scripture is faulty. I would be lying to say otherwise.
Pollen is just one dating method. There are many. And they agree.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2018 - 10:24pm PT
|
Base, Always love your thoughtful posts!
Time to stir the pot...
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2018 - 10:54pm PT
|
That just cus, like you don't understand man, THAT part of the bible isn't to be taken literally. There is signifficant, deep, allegorical human condition sh#t to contemplate in that whole genesis story... that some desert tribe conjured up 5000+ years ago and is totally applicable to the human condition today. If you think otherwise, you just don't get it... dragons are cool, therefore religion. Braise Jebus.
But the reality is you don't understand. You can't make any real argument so you call folks idiots.
It's like arguing with a middle school kid.
Metaphors communicate truth. Genesis is a remarkably intuitive series of metaphors which on the face of it communicate the real truth of our experience.
When the bible declares "in the beginning God created," or rather from nothing came something, the intuitive claims of desert mad prophets are not much different from those of contemporary astrophysicists: from nothing came something.
But Genesis doesn't need or want to be read as science: it is not a scientific explanation: good grief how hard is that to understand?
There are two creation stories, read Genesis and see if you can see the difference. Learn what a metaphor is, discover that in literature are great truths even though that literature is fiction, allegory and metaphor.
And try real hard to make a decent/reasonable argument.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2018 - 09:54am PT
|
But Genesis doesn't need or want to be read as science: it is not a scientific explanation: good grief how hard is that to understand?
You're arguing with some low hanging fruit here.
Although you may be correct, I don't think the metaphor argument is a particularly strong or effective one considering the thinking of those to whom you've been directing this rationale.
Most individuals who relentlessly criticize religion in our particular era do so for political reasons. Such a stance has become doctrinal. They seek to draft science into the militant cause of diminishing those forces normally on the opposite end of the political spectrum from themselves. That they must resort to science, an apolitical methodology, to bolster and impart fiber and added strength to their essentially non-scientific political arguments, is proof that they are insecure in these strictly secular persuasions, and that they have grown to view organized religion as a weakness in their enemies' armor.
It is one thing to polemecize against emerging theocracies, as Thomas Jefferson once did so eloquently, but quite another to attack the underpinnings of spiritual thought and affections
using science as the primary bludgeon.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2018 - 10:08am PT
|
Ward, that's ridiculous.
Perhaps too much political science for you my friend over the years? and not enough immersion in science? and not enough feeling for what it's all about*** for those who, well, feel it?
*** that being (means to) nature investigation, that being a passion beginning in childhood for how life and the world truly work and understanding thereof.
Perhaps read or reread any of Sagan's books, and really try to put yourself in a child's shoes, or an adolescent's shoes, minus any political bs, and try to feel his or her wonder for the world and how it works - perhaps not a bad idea.
Wonder how that Pt or Au in your wedding band was formed billions of years ago in a next generation star. Wonder how your digestive system day after day digests all the food that's put into it. Wonder how plants and animals have managed to survive for hundreds of millions of years by regeneration gen to gen to gen.
For umpteen millions it is this wonder usu beginning in childhood that leads them to a love of nature and nature investigation and for many into science and a scientific, naturalist worldview that guides their lives and philosophies at base. All this has little to nothing to do with politics or any political science ideology.
But the spectrum of humanity is broad and deep and it's pretty clear the the human primates believe as they see fit. Esp in their later years after decades of day in day out habit-building.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2018 - 10:27am PT
|
Perhaps too much political science for you my friend over the years? and not enough immersion in science? and not enough feeling for what it's all about for those who well, feel it?
Just the opposite.
Before coming to this site this morning the below was an example of my reading.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22719765
I did so because my attention was brought by someone else to Doug Wallace's statement that the heteroplasmy rate in mitochondria of 60% begins to produce disease states.
Model simulations revealed a threshold-like decline of the ATP production rate at about 60% inhibition of KGDHC
for those who well, feel it
Quit feeling and start thinking more. Nobody is impressed with science groupie-ism.
It does drive you to post some good links from time to time though; at least the non-Trekkie, and non-populist ones. I like the clear formatting of your post as well. The use of , re:, and so on.
Enjoy yourself. Leave religious devotees alone. Only oppose that portion seeking to impose their religion upon you.
All this has little to nothing to do with politics or any political science ideology.
Who has chronically posted to a " Religion versus Science" thread? Here is homework for you: go back over the thread and do a ratio of your posts to mine, or your posts to any other poster for that matter.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2018 - 10:59am PT
|
P.S. Malemute, cool video. Like.
...
"All this has little to nothing to do with politics or any political science ideology." -hfcs
Who has chronically posted to a " Religion versus Science" thread? Here is homework for you: go back over the thread and do a ratio of your posts to mine, or your posts to any other poster for that matter. -Ward
Ward, So it seems you're subsuming (or inclined to subsume) the subject matter of science vs religion (this thread) under politics or under political science ideology?
That's pretty weird, strange, out there, imo.
But perhaps my mitochondria aren't metabolizing optimally today? Maybe better tomorrow? :)
Have a good one.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2018 - 11:06am PT
|
Most individuals who relentlessly criticize religion in our particular era do so for political reasons. Such a stance has become doctrinal. They seek to draft science into the militant cause of diminishing those forces normally on the opposite end of the political spectrum from themselves. That they must resort to science, an apolitical methodology, to bolster and impart fiber and added strength to their essentially non-scientific political arguments, is proof that they are insecure in these strictly secular persuasions, and that they have grown to view organized religion as a weakness in their enemies' armor.
It is one thing to polemecize against emerging theocracies, as Thomas Jefferson once did so eloquently, but quite another to attack the underpinnings of spiritual thought and affections
using science as the primary bludgeon.
Ward, this is a well informed, beautifully written five-star response that expands my understanding of the other. Thank you.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2018 - 11:41am PT
|
If someone chooses to not believe in evolution or climate change, I suppose that's their right. At the same time, the public needs to be protected from scams. Before we had the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry was made up of "snake oil salesmen" who made a living off of scamming suffering, sick people. I see religions doing the same thing to people with mental health or emotional problems, perhaps going through a difficult time in their lives, when they are vulnerable.
The emotional support system is no doubt good for them, and there may be some placebo effect in giving people the false hopes that they're immortal and that there's an all powerful being watching over them, giving them all the love they need, etc. But they're still scams.
I wonder if there could even be a survival benefit to having such a positive mental attitude. Circumstances that would crush many people might be survived by having an unshakeable faith in God. They are therefore favored by natural selection, even though they don't themselves believe in the theory of evolution. I just don't see how it can be good, in any sense of the word, to encourage people to believe in things that aren't true.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2018 - 01:04pm PT
|
I just don't see how it can be good, in any sense of the word, to encourage people to believe in things that aren't true.
Because for some people, this is true:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2018 - 01:47pm PT
|
Atheists and modern gross materialists scientists can't even see the TRuth but masquerade themselves as authority on truth.
St00pidest people ever ....
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2018 - 02:15pm PT
|
They are entirely different you numbskull.
Ha. Another brilliant argument from the land of perpetual adolescence. You might try reading Joseph Campbell or Harold Bloom. I read Campbell when I was in the eighth grade so you could probably do the same. Though it's hard to read in the dark warm place where you've currently placed your head but when you pull it out you might give it a try.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!