<p>
</p>
<p>What is your criteria for accepting something as true?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The teachings of my elders, since comfirmed by observational experience, indicates that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are all actually the parents.</p>
<p>I have yet to observe the forces of evolution at work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I distrust the accuracy of the dating methods used, as I said before.</p>
<p>Idk if you stated explicitly before, but can you explain why you distrust the validity of the dating methods used? Just out of curiosity; I hate bio and all extensions of it, and thus will never interject my opinion in any formal discussion.</p>
<p>[Get</a> Answers - Answers in Genesis](<a href=“Answers | Answers in Genesis”>Answers | Answers in Genesis)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm[/url]”>http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm</a></p>
<p>[Polystrate</a> fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil]Polystrate”>Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>For starters. While not neccesarily conclusive, these things cause me to doubt scientists who claim to have “proven” something to be a particular age.</p>
<p>I saw this and decided I wouldn’t reply to it because I doubt anyone here is qualified to have an intelligent opinion about this issue, but then I saw a gross post and had to respond to it:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Putting aside the fact that you automatically lose any argument for needlessly using the word “diatribe,” let’s dissect this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which religion? Or do you allege that religion by definition is “unquestionable?” Given the numerous examples to the contrary, I can’t possibly see how that statement could be anything close to true. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a great example of what I learned in my 8th grade English class. You just used 24 words to be redundant. If something has yet to be uncovered, people by definition of are ignorant of it. You aren’t actually saying anything here, so let’s move on. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First you assume that humans have an “intrinsic need for intellectual fulfillment” and then you attack religion because it doesn’t intellectually fulfill? Even if we accept your absurd implication that things that aren’t scientific aren’t intellectually fulfilling (the study of philosophy is a clear counterexample here), no one has suggested that something can’t have merit if it doesn’t intellectually fulfill. You attack religion for its failure to satisfy a requirement that you artificially assign to it. Moving on…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting theory. How exactly does religion manage to do this? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Compared to whom? Scientists? Obviously religious bodies aren’t as knowledgeable of science as people whose career is science. But I bet I could find quite a few Catholic theologians who know a heck of a lot more about “scientific endeavors” than you do.</p>
<p>Hats off to mifune. Absolutley brilliant posts.</p>
<p>I agree. If those posts don’t convince nothing will. Extraordinary thought and depth as always.</p>
<p>I thought this thread would be a detriment to my intelligence in that it’d quickly turn to some kind melee of unreasonable logical fallacies (ad hominem, whatever, what have you) and just deteriorate from there. However, there are some legitimate ideas being thrown around. I’d have to say I agree most with DwightEisenhower and I see mifune’s perspective as one that is * too * black and white, ironically.
I also remember reading a post earlier (posted by another Harvard student, strangely enough) that CC offers a shelter from the inanity of the world.
I wish that discussions could be broken down as intellectually and thoughtfully as it has been here.
Where else could I find a discussion of this caliber carried on by 17-24 year olds? Maybe in my school’s quad but…still…unlikely. Interesting. Thanks CC!</p>
<p>^^,^^^Really? I gave up on mifune’s posts after the first long one, but that one seemed full of crap.</p>
<p>^I made myself read through them. After you decipher the big words, it basically boils down to:</p>
<p>-God can’t exist, because that is ridiculous.</p>
<p>-All smart people are atheists.</p>
<p>-Religion turns people into bigoted terrorists.</p>
<p>1st point is way too simplified; 2nd and 3rd are distorted</p>
<p>all the religious brainwashing in this thread surprises me. It’s the 21st century people. It’s now safe to scrap the delusion. The force and accomplishments of science show that God is dead indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, if you are so assured of your position, it is unnecessary to be so pejorative.</p>
<p>The absurd length of this post irritates me. But perhaps I should be grateful - CC could be truly annoying and institute a 5000 character limit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What need is there for an “implicit declaration that one’s religion is correct” for someone not to be an atheist? Belief in God — any God — disqualifies one from being an atheist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is simply a matter of faith. My apologies if I do not properly obfuscate to satisfy your tastes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The concept of God is a tad more complex than that of the Tooth Fairy. Equating the two is a sign of your lack of comprehension of the concept of God within any faith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Egregiously horrifying! :eek: Oh, no!
Their validity is questionable, though it does not merit a scathing post full of invective and ridicule against believers’ intellect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But they could have been manufactured! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so. If you will reread, I said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This does not necessarily indicate a lack of intellect, only that a certain mode of thinking — for instance, empirical and informational absolutism — will hamper one’s ability to believe in whatever deity they ultimately choose. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean besides the fact that religious views are regularly derided amongst the academic elite? Membership in the academic elite does not insulate one from the effects of holding a shared belief; in some sectors of societies, this would be religious ardor, in the scientific, it is equated with a belief in the infallibility of empiricist methods of deduction.</p>
<p>
Glad to reassure you of my ignorance.
I am well aware of that experiment, in fact. Particles-to-people evolution is what I have quarrel with, and the saltation between various life forms and their near-inexplicable nature makes such claims flimsily justified conjecture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not a fan of Harry Potter, I see.</p>
<p>[Evolution</a> II](<a href=“http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookevolii.html#Additional%20Sources%20of%20Variation]Evolution”>http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookevolii.html#Additional%20Sources%20of%20Variation)</p>
<p>To clarify, my view is this: natural selection is perfectly plausible. The fossil record correlates with the order of things espoused in the traditional concept of Creation. I stand by my belief in God’s ultimate orchestration of the creation of the multiplicity of organisms we have today.</p>
<p>With regards to evidence for creation, I feel that science every day proves, with its discoveries, the existence of an intelligent creator. The multiplicity of scientific rules in existence, for instance the fact that a positive charge will attract a negative one, do not come out of nowhere. Even the existence of the atom is, in my opinion, a further sign of the workings of God.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, as I stated, God is not necessary to do “good” as is recognized by our society today. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh? What, for instance, would you find in the book of [url=<a href=“Webpage Not Found”>Douay-Rheims Bible, Deuteronomy Chapter 1]Deuteronomy[/url</a>] that merits cutting out? The provisions that ban those who are Jewish from eating fish? Or, if one wants to attack one of the books that lends itself to a great deal of interpretation, take [url=<a href=“Webpage Not Found”>Douay-Rheims Bible, Apocalypse (Revelation) Chapter 1]Revelations[/url</a>], called by some The Apocalypse of St. John. What is unscientific about metaphor?</p>
<p>At any rate, the pages are double sided, so you would undoubtedly cut out some valid information.</p>
<p>
You seem to be indicating that all who do not ascribe to your views are troglodytes bound up in an endless, drug-of-religion induced dream sequence. And with regards to your claim that you are simply promoting a system of objectivism, I have found this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A good deal of the members of the scientific community already have an atheist bias that impacts their perception and presentation of their work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps it does not “properly” derive knowledge for your tastes, but for me, it works perfectly fine in terms of what lies beyond the material - and indeed, how this knowledge can be applied to my earthly life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so, sir. You stated that s/he would most likely be a Muslim had s/he lived in Saudi Arabia, something I did state would be a likely event. Your essential point, which was that people often adopt the religions of the areas in which they live due to a variety of societal factors, is generally true, but there are always exceptions.</p>
<p>
Your insistence on the hubristic nature of those who defend their views is, in light of your posts here, remarkable. Furthermore, despite your blind insistence that all those who ascribe to some form of religious belief are single-minded monomaniacs, you have also displayed a disappointingly Manichean view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You set yourself up for it. Don’t be so self-assured and earnest on the interwebs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You speak of religious fundamentalists as if they comprise a majority of followers. A good deal of adherents are open to more liberal interpretations of the Word.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How does something dealing mostly with the immaterial world conflict with an empirical reality that, in such a realm, does not exist?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps to you, it is half-baked and unworkable simply because you refuse to see it any other way. Not everyone gets a kick out of doing formulas. And with regards to “conceptually accurate evidence,” of what use are formulae outside the world of the purely physical?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That statement alone proves my point, miffy - you clearly do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t see this anywhere next to the definition of an atheism. Again, perhaps you are a believer in the power of science, but some choose not to ascribe to any religion out of personal aversion to such, not any overabundance of knowledge that facilitates their eschewing of faith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:rolleyes: The length of your post indicates otherwise. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the evidence you provided does nothing to fundamentally undercut the validity of religion; evolution and the religion can peacefully coexist. If you will recall - and I trust you will, given that you have a fetish for quoting and re-reading previously made posts - my initial post on this thread, I indicated that I felt there was no extreme conflict between science and religion, and that those who sought to create one were doing simply that: searching for a bogeyman and shouting wolf where there is no cause for alarm.</p>
<p>
I don’t know what religion you’re talking about. If anything, religion has made me learn to reason more carefully and has forced me to think long and hard about why I ascribe to it. Religion, in my opinion, can greatly enhance one’s intellect, for what greater reasoning difficulty can one encounter than in trying to explain religion to a nonbeliever?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so; the individuals who obstruct science’s progress are those resistant to change in general who use religion as a veil over their ulterior motive.</p>
<p>
Conversely, many atheists are ignorant of some of the basic tenets of the Christian faith beyond what they see in pejorative documentaries on television; does this not also disqualify them from giving their opinions on religious matters? Someone who does not know the various gradations of beliefs in different sects and indiscriminately blankets an entire group as one comprised of fundamentalists has already exhibited error in their judgmental way of thinking, something that further invalidates their opinion on religion, which they would be disinclined to believe in anyway. Within the Christian faith, there are many individuals who simply pay lip service to the religion and are not “true” believers in any sense of the word; there are also those whose devotion blindsides them to error. However, within those two extremes, there is a medium open to new information, so long as it does not viciously attack their beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find predestination to be a false concept.</p>
<p>As a last word here, I feel that some on this thread are swayed by endless obfuscation and circular logic that comes down to a view far more polemic than my own. Simple, clear reasoning need not be burdened with a barrage of useless verbiage that does nothing to illuminate the fundamental point, which is whether or not science or religion is more useful to society (I feel that science provides more physical benefit), nor to address my position: there is no true conflict between science and religion; those that exist are contrived.</p>
<p>And now, I shall stop wasting these valuable, time-consuming posts on HSL and move onto a forum where they will actually be of some use.</p>
<p>To be honest, I don’t see why this has to be so polarized between science and religion. Religion is a belief. Science is knowledge. There can be evil scientists and evil fundamentalists. There are certainly reasonable Christians (to name an example) and irrational atheists. There is no empirical evidence proving or disproving religion yet, and there most likely won’t for a very far time. Because this is so, religion can only be believed in. Either way doesn’t make one a smarter or dumber, better or worse person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You would have to define “arbitrary” more clearly than you have to discount religion. I agree science is not religion, but this definition does not necessarily apply to all spirituality/philosophy/religion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is by definition correct. But there is a fundamental difference between believing in ANY higher power and none at all. Although Dawkins’ statement certainly provides a titillating sound bite, it is worthless as any sort of rhetorical argument because of the nature of religion v. atheism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And one can define religion in comparison to atheism just as viciously. Experience, reason, and observation lead some people to religion. You are in no position to claim that every single religious person is believing something mindlessly unless you can actually prove it. So try.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The academic elite are sheltered, and are therefore irrelevant, despite their mental capabilities. It is also worth noting that religious academics flock to think tanks, seminaries, and even places like the Vatican instead of teaching at universities.</p>
<p>In other words, you would need to establish all academic elite of every university of every discipline as the most reliable sources on the philosophical nature of reality in order to point to them as an argumentum ad numerum against religion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is surprisingly false. Of course, it is obvious that you have not read the Bible, so I am not surprised at your flagrant but amusing display of ignorance. It is furthermore clear that you have not read any published works on interpreting the Bible in a scientific framework (other than those written by fervent atheists, e.g. Hitchens and Dawkins, if anyone).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One should adhere to a system that does properly derive knowledge. For some, that is religion (or at least they believe that it is). By believing in anything, you acknowledge that everything that contradicts your current beliefs is wrong, and I would go further and say that an ontological or religious belief implicitly assumes that the Truth is validly investigated and delineated by that same belief. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do not speak for all atheists. Furthermore, you are limiting evidence to your idea of empirical proof. Some religious epiphany, display of witchcraft, etc. may not be tangible or sensory in the same way that my computer or your post is, but those who believe in it consider it absolutely real for a variety of reasons, depending on the person. In other words, you are shrinking the sphere of empirical data to one that suits you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is such a pathetic characterization that I am unsure of whether to be appalled or simply scoff at you. The idea that anyone who is religious is hidebound (implied by your previous posts) is absurd, I’m sure you agree. Furthermore, that you believe there is little intellectual value to any religious writing of any sort or their authors is similarly ludicrous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. It provides an opportunity for intelligent individuals to search for ontological and metaphysical reality outside of the context of science. Science has not answered all the questions. For some, philosophy and religion fulfill that goal (perhaps science will one day catch up). Science cannot answer, “What constitutes a good life?” “What is “purpose?”” “What are the limits of my ability to think, i.e. consciousness?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, not all religion does this. That is a generalization that is absolutely untenable. Many religions and philosophies are actively against not discovering the physical world, because they believe that science is by definition correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Objectively false.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also objectively false. </p>
<p>Your posts were as orotund as they were vacuous. As much as I’m sure you enjoyed your masturbatory drivel, I would suggest less pontificating and more empirical justification, which should not be difficult for someone as mindlessly scientific as you.</p>
<p>Ah, the brainwashed nature of society! mifune’s circumstances remind me of those of Winston from 1984. One individual immune from blind belief.</p>
<p>Are you all that brainwashed into believing that some know-it-all fairy lives in the sky and knows everthing about billions and billions of things and events at the same time? Thats the biggest pile of bull**** I’ve ever heard.</p>
<p>And dude, ‘masturbatory drivel’ has to be the stupidest thing that Ive ever read on this site.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so; within context, I found it to be chuckle-worthy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now the Lord of Pleonasm is a martyr. Does this happen on every thread he posts on?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If one is trying to have a respectful debate, perhaps one should not use such terminology.</p>
<p>^^ I wish you understood what I really believed.</p>
<p>^If Adenine believes your religious persuasions to be a pile of animal offal, then s/he is already inclined not to approach religion with any interest in learning about them.</p>