Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wade-w · 05-26-2003, 04:31 PM

Keep it civil people!

Radorth · 05-26-2003, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Studying the behavior of non-human social animals gives more incite into "human" nature than the bible ever did. It allows us to strip away culture and analyze the base behavior patterns and tendencies that underly expressed human behavior.

I'm afraid "base behavior" will be the result, and we already see some evidence of that. We also know that the philosophies of Hitler and Stalin, i.e. "the stronger animals survive," were influenced by such late 19th century "enlightened" and "scientific" thinking.

In any case, tell us. Which animals should we imitate? How about the male alligator? Don't agree with eating your young? Will it be the penguin or the male lion then? I dare say atheists get to pick in the end, depending on whether they like their marriage, or feel like they can't make a lifetime commitment to a person.

Criminy. We don't learn a damn thing from those kinds of studies. I read that "scientists" just completed a fifteen year study proving people are no more happy married than single. A pastor of mine told me that 20 years ago, but I guess you never learn anything until we spend 30 million dollars doing a "scientific study."

Not that anybody learns anything from those either.

Rad

"It's your heart stupid."

Starboy · 05-26-2003, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Well I'm sorry you can't detect sin. You might end up living in a bubble of denial for a long time. Personally I think our failure to detect it is the bane of mankind, and the resulting self-righteousness prevents any meaningful change in the behavior of the religious or the irreligious. But then prophets have been saying that for thousands of years, yet we only become more clever at inventing sin and covering it up.

What? Radorth are you okay? Your writing has the aspect of a tortured mind.

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
And of course Starboy is sole arbiter of what "detected" means, and whether he can "detect" God in a physics lab. I'm afraid the Christians who have seen manifestations of God, and realize he feels no particular need to prove anything, find Starboy's approach the irrational one. You can't detect a parallel universe accessed through a wormhole now either, but the evidence should at least make some skeptics skeptical of the blanket assertions we read here.

Radorth, you can define detect any way you like. However if whatever you end up with contains a claim about reality then it is subject to scientific investigation. I am well aware that Christians have experienced god and if Christians were the only ones to claim such supernatural abilities then I might think there was something to it, but all the supernatural nuts in the world experience it so it is more likely explained as a human phenomena. As for parallel universes and wormholes, it is interesting how years of Christian indoctrination have left you powerless to tell the difference between science speculation and science knowledge. Certainly those things could exist but until there is scientific evidence they remain science speculation.

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Not that you need hard evidence for your speculations, suddenly.

Don�t worry so about it. I am the last person on earth you will hear spouting �truth�.

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Heh. Flame deleted, eh?

Yes, it was. It appears that the mod had no problem with me calling Christians in general liars and frauds but objected to me referring to specific Christians as a liar and fraud. Go figure. Do you think the mod would object to me calling you a liar and a fraud?

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
I'd much prefer something that can help us understand human nature, which science has failed miserably to do. Ah yes, we have a perfect understanding of how to prevent smallpox in a dangerously overcrowded world where millions starve. I'm thankful for medical discoveries, yes, but forgive me if I see science chasing it's tail. Some of those who invented the A-bomb hoped it would bring peace, and cheap power but realized "I have become a destroyer of worlds." We can broadcast beautiful hiss-free love songs anywhere, but the people who hear and write them can't stay married for five years, afraid they might "miss something."

Yes Radorth, science is scary stuff. That is because it actually works. Now you point out some very real problems for humanity. Funny thing though is that you fail to recognize that all these problems exist in a world with religion. And religion is powerless to do anything about it. The problems of aggression, divorce, overcrowding, and starvation are social problems and the direct result of the natural behavior of mankind. When we start looking at mankind as a natural phenomenon instead of god spawn I suspect we will make a great deal more progress towards making peoples lives as beautiful as the love songs they listen to. Wouldn�t it be great if there were a test of marriage compatibility that was just 50% effective? Our divorce rate would drop in half. Now we can pray to god for this test, let the fundies pass legislation to abolish it as the work of the devil or let science investigate that aspect of human behavior. What�s it gonna be Radorth?

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
I'm afraid the "science" of evolution has helped us understand our origins less and less, since a couple of Darwin's predictions have been completely debunked by honest scientist, along with the discovery of a pig's tooth claimed to be human, and several other hoaxes invented by those desperate to find evidence there is no God. The latest "proof" is a few fragments of bone Meave Leakey calls "flat-faced man," but one "science" magazine was too desperate to ask for anything more convincing before reporting this "find." Some scientists think biogenesis is, based on the evidence, complete nonsense, but we are assured "they aren't real scientists."

Lets say that Darwin was wrong, would that make the bible right? Of course not. Another theory based on natural explanations would take its place. Get over it Radorth. The days of Christianity as the arbiter of reality are over.

Starboy

blackhawk · 05-26-2003, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
Blackhawk, your philosophical bent is so great that you have missed my point entirely. Please get it through your head philosophy is not science.

Who said it was. Not me. I never even came close to making that claim.

Quote:

[i] Claims about the benefit of an agent can be tested using science. That is my point. [/B]

Huh? Not all claims can be answered using science. Can science tell me about the moral benefit of anything?

Quote:

[i] When Christians make such claims they come under the scrutiny of science. Science is the test not the antidote. It is how we will determine if an ethos has actual value for humanity as opposed to an ethos like Christianity that is no better than placebo. But because Christianity screws with its adherents heads to the point where they cannot think strait, until the day comes when it becomes a minor force in society we will not be able to use science to find a more effective ethos. [/B]

Science cannot test religion. It does not have the tools to do so. It could test a scientic belief inside a religion but that is all.

Quote:

[i] That�s very nice Blackhawk but what does that have to do with how we explore and understand reality today. [/B]

I was amking the point that religious people do not make claims about God without evidence. You had said that they did and I am showing you that they do not.

Quote:

[i] Blackhawk, I don�t want to get into a discussion on the lack of merit of philosophy since it is a topic far from the OP. I have had this discussion before with other supporters of philosophy. You are welcome to find and read those threads. [/B]

Okay but then we kind of have to end our discussion then because it played a major role in it from the start.

Quote:

[i] This is the last time I am going to explain this. Study this carefully because it is indicative of how science goes about its business. And how reality claims made by Christians can be tested and come up short. Also it should make it clear to you how little philosophy has to do with the workings of science.
1) Christian: I claim that a god exists.
2) Scientist: What are the properties of god.
3) Christian: God is all-powerful, loves all those that love it and answers their prayers however you cannot detect god directly.
4) Scientist: The only reality claim that I can test based on your description of god is that it answers prayers. I can construct an experiment to test this reality claim.
5) The scientist constructs the experiment using classic double blind techniques used in medicine, human behavior studies and so forth. After the test is conducted the results show that prayer is no more effective than placebo therefore the purported active ingredient does not appear to work.
6) Conclusion: The agent god may exist but does not operate as hypothesized. The Christian theory of god doesn�t work. [/B]

Science cannot test whether God answers prayers or not so #4 is incorrect. A no answer to a prayer is an answer as much as a yes is. So how would you set up an experiment to test if prayers are answered or not. Your test would only show if one who prays gets a certain answer to their prayers or not. That is all. God could be saying no but science would not know. It would think that a no answer would be a negative for an answered prayer and that would not be accurate possibly.

Quote:

[i] Yes it is and my answer should have made it clear that as far as science is concerned it doesn�t matter. Whatever reality is, if we want to understand it actual explorations of it is how it will be done. The history of philosophy shows that endless mind centric armchair exploration of reality gets you nowhere. Don�t get me wrong from time to time they can be very useful but only when practiced by a person that takes the time to fully acquaint themselves with the current knowledge gained from reality explorations, and even then the exercise is only considered fruitful if the results hold up under direct observation and experimentation on reality. [/B]

So science is fine although we do not know whether or not I am judging anything correctly? That my view of reality is reality? I do not see how this could be true. You make a philosophical statement when you say that science can be a good judge of reality.

Quote:

[i] Yikes more Christian gibberish. I suppose you also think that all of creation was created for a purpose as well? That 14 trillion cubic light years of almost nothing fits us perfectly? [/B]

Sure and why not? Fits us? I do not really understand the question but God could have many reasons for what he did. I do not think that just because ot took much time for humans to evolve into what we are today that that makes it so God did not create us with a purpose. It just does not follow.

Quote:

[i]Blackhawk, people do need a guide to help them live life well. It doesn�t have to be a supernatural religion that makes baseless reality claims. There are other non-supernatural ethoses available. I also see this as an opportunity to create new ones, much more suited to our times and more effective. When Christianity was first created it fit its times well. People were ignorant. They had little control over their environment. We live in very different world. Supernatural religion is just plain wrong for our times and level of understanding of our surroundings. I happen to think that animals are incredible things, that all life is incredible. I do not think this because of some maternal or paternal emotion transferred to me by a religion. I think it because I have gained an understanding of just how incredibly complex, interconnected and amazing life is. To see myself as an animal doesn�t denigrate me in the least bit, it makes me realize that I am indeed part of something huge. There is no way I could ever take a worldview based on the anthropomorphic reality constructs of the first century seriously. But it goes way beyond that. By persisting such inaccurate, outdated and useless constructs we place barriers in our way to gaining a much better understanding of ourselves. If you would just read some of the scientific literature on sexual behavior and response in humans. Work on brain and emotional development, environmental and genetic influences on behavior and so forth. This is the stuff that will help us live life well, because without a good understanding of the basis of our behavior there is no way that we will be able to deliberately construct an ethos that allows us to live lives of peace, love and harmony. I don�t see Christianity as a friend to mankind. I see it as an enemy. Its time is over on this planet along with the rest of the supernatural religions.

Starboy [/B]

But unfortunate for your theory here with all the knowledge that we have gained we have not been able to show that God is not real. This paragraph made little real sense. It is out dated Modern gibberish. We have out grown the idea of God. I think reality has shown that this is not true. That the philosophy of life that you are speaking up for has not worked. It does not help answer the questions that people have about their lives and their purpose in life. It just gives a very bleak view of man and that he is nothing along with all the rest of nature.

Luiseach · 05-26-2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by blackhawk
This paragraph made little real sense. It is out dated Modern gibberish.

Sorry, am I missing something here? How can something be 'outdated' and 'modern' at the same time?

Starboy · 05-26-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by blackhawk
But unfortunate for your theory here with all the knowledge that we have gained we have not been able to show that God is not real. This paragraph made little real sense. It is out dated Modern gibberish. We have out grown the idea of God. I think reality has shown that this is not true. That the philosophy of life that you are speaking up for has not worked. It does not help answer the questions that people have about their lives and their purpose in life. It just gives a very bleak view of man and that he is nothing along with all the rest of nature.

Blackhawk, what this exchange shows is that you and I are of two different times. You live in the first century and I live in the twenty first century. There is no point in continuing this conversation. We might as well be two different species.

Starboy

hezekiah jones · 05-26-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Luiseach
Sorry, am I missing something here? How can something be 'outdated' and 'modern' at the same time?

Christian apologetics move in mysterious ways.

scombrid · 05-26-2003, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
I'm afraid "base behavior" will be the result, and we already see some evidence of that. We also know that the philosophies of Hitler and Stalin, i.e. "the stronger animals survive," were influenced by such late 19th century "enlightened" and "scientific" thinking.

In any case, tell us. Which animals should we imitate? How about the male alligator? Don't agree with eating your young? Will it be the penguin or the male lion then? I dare say atheists get to pick in the end, depending on whether they like their marriage, or feel like they can't make a lifetime commitment to a person.

Criminy. We don't learn a damn thing from those kinds of studies. I read that "scientists" just completed a fifteen year study proving people are no more happy married than single. A pastor of mine told me that 20 years ago, but I guess you never learn anything until we spend 30 million dollars doing a "scientific study."

Not that anybody learns anything from those either.

Rad

"It's your heart stupid."

The point flew miles above you I'm afraid. I don't say that we ought to model our behavior after animals how you get such from my post I have no clue. As for your pastor beating the scientists to the punch on people being happy single (got a reference? the study sounds interesting and I'd like to critique it since you have a habit of trotting out pseudoscience when you want to add some straw to your scientist strawman) your pastor is hardly unique among men with that opinion but he sure does diverge with the Baptists and Catholics with which I grew up.

Nice touch with hitler and stalin and "survival of the strongest". No radorth post is complete without you shoving that bail of hay onto the pile.

BTW: How is religion going about solving the population problem you mentioned earlier?

scombrid · 05-26-2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

But I atheists never could commit one of those. You could tomorrow look off at a road sign for two seconds and destroy somebody's life, so such a statement is absurd, and born of a faith in self which is just as absurd.

This again? Just because you pretend that your transgression against somebody has been absolved doesn't make it so. If you can't make it right, it isn't going to happen magically.

If I hit a pedestrian on the way home I might ruin their lives but if I remain on the scene and help all that I can and pay whatever criminal and civil penalties are levied I see no more responsibility that I can take. No I can't give their life back but pretending that the burden has magically been shifted to Jesus isn't going to do a damn thing either. How is that self-righteous.

Quote:

You've had at least 175 years to prove your theories, and none of them work I'm afraid

Huh? 175years to prove what theories? Is evolution supposed to cure all ills? again Huh?

Radorth · 05-26-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

No radorth post is complete without you shoving that bail of hay onto the pile.

I'm afraid you drifted

Quote:

What? Radorth are you okay? Your writing has the aspect of a tortured mind.

That's one way to respond I suppose- one of your favorites apparently. Nice job of pushing the rules as far as you can though.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-26-2003, 04:31 PM	#111
wade-w Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Silver City, New Mexico Posts: 1,872	Keep it civil people!

05-26-2003, 06:00 PM	#117
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Originally posted by Luiseach Sorry, am I missing something here? How can something be 'outdated' and 'modern' at the same time? Christian apologetics move in mysterious ways.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.