Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 61 of 186 (788545)
08-02-2016 12:45 AM


Faith as bias
Faith often takes the form of a strong bias or prejudice. OK you are free to have biases and prejudices but it is foolish to be blind to them, as the faithful often are.
For instance a believer might take an unlikely or strained reading of a Biblical prophecy, so that he might interpret it as fulfilled. I'd disagree with that but won't say that nobody can believe it. The problem comes when the believer tries to use the assumed success of the prophecy as evidence for their faith. Since the "success" is largely assumed on the basis of faith the argument contains a vicious circularity - and is obviously going to fail to convince anyone who is even moderately sceptical.
And it can get worse than that. Some believers have a rule that Biblical prophecies MUST be interpreted as succeeding - and that that factor overrules all other considerations. Even worse some actually expect unbelievers to conform to this rule and reject perfectly sensible readings unless they can show that the prophecy succeeded !
Faith is sometimes blind - and even worse, it can be a blinder. And that really isn't good if you want to make a rational case for your belief.

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 62 of 186 (788548)
08-02-2016 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
08-01-2016 7:42 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Cat Sci writes:
Pork is an unclean meat and you shouldn't eat that?
That made me laugh. You missed this lot tho'
quote:
Unclean Land Animals
Armadillo - Ass - Badger - Bear - Beaver - Boar - Camel - Cat - Cheetah - Coyote - Dog - Donkey - Elephant - Fox - Gorilla - Groundhog - Hare - Hippopotamus - Horse - Hyena - Jackal - Kangaroo - Leopard - Lion - Llama (alpaca, vicua) - Mole - Monkey - Mouse - Mule - Muskrat - Onager - Opossum - Panther - Peccary - Pig (hog, bacon, ham, lard, pork) - Porcupine - Rabbit - Raccoon - Rat - Rhinoceros - Skunk - Slug - Snail (escargot) - Squirrel - Tiger - Wallaby - Weasel - Wolf - Wolverine - Worm - Zebra
Unclean Birds
Albatross - Bat - Bittern - Buzzard - Condor - Coot - Cormorant - Crane - Crow - Cuckoo - Eagle - Flamingo - Grebe - Grosbeak - Gull - Hawk - Heron - Kite - Lapwing - Loon - Magpie - Osprey - Ostrich - Owl - Parrot - Pelican - Penguin - Plover - Rail - Raven - Roadrunner- Sandpiper - Seagull - Stork - Swallow - Swift - Vulture - Water Hen - Woodpecker
Insects
All insects except some in the locust family should not be consumed.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Alligator - Blindworm - Caiman - Crocodile - Frogs - Lizard - Newts - Salamanders - Snakes - Toads - Turtles
Unclean Fish and Marine Animals
Abalone - Bullhead - Catfish - Clam - Crab - Crayfish - Cuttlefish - Dolphin - Eel - European Turbot - Jellyfish - Limpet - Lobsters - Marlin - Mussels - Octopus - Otter - Oysters - Paddlefish - Porpoise - Prawn - Scallop - Seal - Shark - Shrimp - Squid (calamari) - Stickleback - Sturgeon - Swordfish - Walrus - Whale

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2016 7:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 11:08 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 63 of 186 (788549)
08-02-2016 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by GDR
08-01-2016 7:38 PM


Re: Topic Remix
GDR writes:
I am saying that we look at the same evidence and form our own different conclusions.
Here's a bit of science
quote:
Provided that the temperature remains constant, the ratio of potential difference (p.d.) across the ends of a conductor (R) to the current (I) flowing in that conductor will also be constant.
Do I need to have faith that that is true?
Of course I don't and neither do you. But just suppose I did, I could do some simple tests of my own to prove it. I don't know about you, but I actually did that at school.
Here's another one I did in school - making Carbon Dioxide
quote:
When hydrochloric acid reacts with any carbonates/hydrogen carbonates the products formed are metal chloride , water and carbon dioxide.
So the equation of the reaction between calcium carbonate and HCl is:
CaCO3+2HCl =CaCl2+2H2O+CO2
I did that acid/carbonate reaction at home too - many times with vinegar and baking soda.
At school I understood the chemical compositions of things enough to know without doing the actual experiments what the reactions would be. But if I doubted it, I could do the tests and prove it. Is that faith or knowledge?
There are literally millions of example of this and they extend from scientific theory into its practical outcomes - technology. Do we have faith in cars and TVs, antibiotics and iPhones?
It's rediculous for Phat and yourself to draw an equivalence between your faith in an interventionist Christian God that cares for us and my 'faith' in science and evidence. One is independently testable and evidenced, the other is a pure belief with not a shred of supporting evidence.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by GDR, posted 08-01-2016 7:38 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 08-02-2016 10:45 AM Tangle has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 64 of 186 (788567)
08-02-2016 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
08-01-2016 4:29 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Phat writes:
What constitutes valid evidence? (In regards to both Faith & Belief and Science Forums) Is valid evidence the same for both science and faith?
"Valid evidence" is the same for both Faith & Belief and Science Forums.
Valid evidence is stuff that is repeatable.
You can do it, I can do it, anyone can do it, and it always results in the same thing, pointing towards the same conclusion.
It DOES NOT imply that the conclusion IS DEFINITELY correct. Just that it's LIKELY that the conclusion is correct... that we can be confident that the conclusion is correct.
The amount of confidence in the conclusion depends on the situation and the evidence. More information, more tests, more repeatability = higher confidence. Less information, less tests, less repeatability = lower confidence.
There is never an amount of evidence that gives 100% absolute proof that the conclusion is correct.
Must Faith have evidence?
No.
We know that science requires evidence.
Yes.
Faith is often personal. Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged?
Yes. Not just people of faith, and not just when beliefs are challenged.
Anyone is perfectly allowed to get angry over anything that happens to them. That's part of being human.
What you're not allowed to do is use that anger as an excuse to hurt another person.
You are also not allowed to consider your anger as a reason to imply that what you're doing is more important than someone who is not angry.
You are, however, allowed to get angry about anything.
That includes getting angry if your beliefs are challenged.
And, of course, anyone witnessing your anger is allowed to think how silly you look and how useless it is for you to get angry because your beliefs were challenged. Poor you. Perhaps you should save your anger for when something bad actually happens to you.
Getting angry over having your beliefs challenged is like bragging about finding a nickel on the ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 4:29 AM Phat has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 65 of 186 (788568)
08-02-2016 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Tangle
08-02-2016 3:13 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Tangle writes:
It's rediculous for Phat and yourself to draw an equivalence between your faith in an interventionist Christian God that cares for us and my 'faith' in science and evidence. One is independently testable and evidenced, the other is a pure belief with not a shred of supporting evidence.
You continuously misrepresent what I am saying. I am not comparing your faith in science and evidence to Christianity. I am comparing your faith in atheism to my theism.
Antony Flew became a theist, (not a Christian although he didn't dismiss Christianity either), came to this conclusion.
quote:
I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.
I am simply looking at the world as we know it, including science, and come to a theistic conclusion. You have come to an atheistic conclusion. Those are our beliefs. My Christian faith is another discussion completely.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 3:13 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 11:13 AM GDR has replied
 Message 70 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 11:36 AM GDR has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 66 of 186 (788572)
08-02-2016 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
08-01-2016 4:29 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Phat writes:
How should creationists defend their faith and still represent science?
If they want to be able to represent science, they need to learn about evidence.
Learn about confidence levels and how evidence helps with such things.
Learn about human bias, mistakes and memory issues and how evidence helps clear up such things.
Learn about following the evidence... being wrong, dealing with the embarrassment and/or anger that may grow from such things and how to deal with it.
Once they understand evidence, then can see how to defend their faith while representing science.
They can see if some of their faith was based on erroneous data from poor sources that was not compatible with the science.
They can see that faith and science and humans are all things that grow and change and shift as new information comes along.
They can see the limits of faith on reality. No amount of faith can spin straw into gold or turn water into wine.
They can see the power of faith on reality. Faith can be an unstoppable motivational factor. It is best to ensure such motivation is directed in a beneficial manner.
Without learning about evidence or seeing how faith fits into reality... they will be doomed to constant frustration and depression as their faith continues to motivate them directly into the limits of faith where they will constantly be let down and discouraged again and again and again.
Faith is not omnipowerful. If it was, those with faith wouldn't be so angry as they attempt to deny the limits of faith as they crash into them over and over and over.
It's like watching a fly bang against a window.
It just doesn't understand why it can't get to where it sees no barrier.
But no matter how angry it gets. No matter how many times it tries. No matter how unstoppable it's motivation.
It's lack of understanding simply has no bearing on the glass.
Living with faith means learning about faith's limitations and trying other things as the situation requires. Or else you'll forever be a fly banging against a window instead of learning how to open it.
Edited by Stile, : Grammars

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 4:29 AM Phat has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 67 of 186 (788574)
08-02-2016 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Tangle
08-02-2016 2:42 AM


Food and meat issues.
Notice that the Hindu bans are for spiritual and soul issues.
Putting thinking creatures in pain and taking life.
How do Christianity, Islam & Hinduism justify killing of animals for meat? How are they different from each other? - Quora
Food taboos: their origins and purposes - PMC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 2:42 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 68 of 186 (788575)
08-02-2016 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by GDR
08-02-2016 10:45 AM


Re: Topic Remix
GDR writes:
I am comparing your faith in atheism to my (faith in) theism.
...
I am simply looking at the world as we know it, including science, and come to a theistic conclusion. You have come to an atheistic conclusion. Those are our beliefs.
You seem to be missing a point, though.
Yes, it's possible for an atheistic conclusion to be based on beliefs just as a theistic conclusion is.
However, it's also possible to look at the world as we know it, and come to an atheistic conclusion based on the evidence without requiring the sort of belief that is used while making a theistic conclusion.
There is lots and lots and lots of evidence showing us that God does not exist.
Most of it involves looking for God wherever someone says He is, and then seeing that He does not exist there, but there's much more.
Yes.. perhaps the evidence that God does not exist is wrong and God does exist.
This doesn't make the evidence that God does not exist go away. It would simply make the conclusion incorrect.
However, currently, without any evidence that God does exist, and much evidence that God does not exist... it does not take belief to come to an atheistic conclusion about the world as we know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 08-02-2016 10:45 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 08-02-2016 11:17 AM Stile has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 69 of 186 (788576)
08-02-2016 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Stile
08-02-2016 11:13 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Stile writes:
However, currently, without any evidence that God does exist, and much evidence that God does not exist... it does not take belief to come to an atheistic conclusion about the world as we know it.
What is the evidence that shows that there is not an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for the fact that we exist?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 11:13 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 1:14 PM GDR has replied
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 2:08 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 70 of 186 (788581)
08-02-2016 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by GDR
08-02-2016 10:45 AM


Re: Topic Remix
GDR writes:
I am not comparing your faith in science and evidence to Christianity. I am comparing your faith in atheism to my theism.
This is not under discussion.
The discussion is about science vs religious faith.
I say that you must not equate faith in religion - eg your belief in a Christian God - with 'faith' in science - eg my 'belief' that adding vinegar to sodium bicarbonate will always produce carbon dioxide.
One is irrational and concerns untestable claims, the other is rational knowledge confirmed by evidence.
They are poles apart.
Btw, I'm no more interested in a random scientist converting to theism than a priest becoming an atheist. It's utterly irrelevant what individuals decide on the basis of ignorance or untestable beliefs.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 08-02-2016 10:45 AM GDR has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 71 of 186 (788586)
08-02-2016 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
08-01-2016 7:42 PM


Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
quote:
Pork is an unclean meat and you shouldn't eat that?
Well Paul talked about "conscience" in Romans 14.
But here are some texts that seem to know that there is no scientific difference between a human and an animal and its ability to "feel" stuff. The Politically Incorrect star was on CNN's Larry King show back in 2008, and he talked about how Christians feel they have dominion over animals and can treat them however they want because they supposedly don't have "a soul" - "whatever that means". The guest made it clear that there was no scientific basis to defend the abuse.
Well I am please to tell Cat Sci and the 2008 Larry King guest that there is scripture that aligns with science in that it considers animals brains to be the same type of thing as humans.
Quotes taken from this source.
How do Christianity, Islam & Hinduism justify killing of animals for meat? How are they different from each other? - Quora
quote:
"Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun the use of meat. Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh."
(Manu-samhita 5.48-49)
....
"Men gifted with intelligence and purified souls should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated. It is seen that even those men who are endued with learning and who seek to acquire the greatest good in the shape of liberation, are not free of the fear of death. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.20)
....
"He who purchases flesh, kills living creatures through his money. He who eats flesh, kills living beings through his eating. He who binds or seizes and actually kills living creatures is the slaughterer. These are the three sorts of slaughter through each of these acts. He who does not himself eat flesh but approves of an act of slaughter, becomes stained with the sin of slaughter. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.38-39)
....
"Abstention from cruelty is the highest Religion. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest self-restraint. Abstention from cruelty is the highest gift. Abstention from cruelty is the highest penance. Abstention from cruelty is the highest sacrifice. Abstention from cruelty is the highest power. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest friend. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest happiness. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.38-39)
....
"Gifts made in all sacrifices [rituals], ablutions performed in all sacred water, and the merit which one acquires from making all kinds of gifts mentioned in the scriptures, all these do not equal in merit abstention from cruelty." (Mahabharata, Anu.116.40)
"unclean" is one thing.
Ritual "purity" is one thing.
quote:
"Hence a person of purified soul should be merciful to all living creatures. That man, O king, who abstains from every kind of meat from his birth forsooth, acquires a large space in the celestial region. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.32-35)
The Hindu religion and its closely-related offshoots are over 20% of the world's population.
The Buddhism offshoot has forbidden meats, but allows pig consumption. But the concept of Karma makes many vegetarians automatically.
"Christianity" has been twisted, for sure, but if you consider Paul's words in Romans 14, then that is another large faith (the religion of the founders has been lost admittedly) that seems to consider conscience as opposed to ritual impurities and legal technicalities (see Romans 14:14ff).
Don't trash all religions for the absurd directions they went in. They all have bans on food (unless severely twisted) and clearly there was an origin of concern for life (free of unscientific absurdities like saying "dogs/pigs don't have a soul like us humans").
I think so anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2016 7:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 2:04 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 72 of 186 (788599)
08-02-2016 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by GDR
08-02-2016 11:17 AM


Re: Topic Remix
GDR writes:
What is the evidence that shows that there is not an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for the fact that we exist
The fact that every time we look for evidence of an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for our existence we do not find any.
Being unable to find evidence of an-intelligence-that-is-ultimately-responsible-for-the-fact-that-we-exist is itself evidence that an intelligence is not ultimately responsible for the fact that we exist.
Find some evidence leading to your belief, and it would then, necessarily, take a belief to lead to an atheistic conclusion.
Without that evidence, it is not a necessity for one to have faith to reach an atheistic conclusion. One can follow the evidence.
Have you ever heard of the analogy between atheism and baldness?
If atheism is a religion (ie - belief)... than being bald is a hair colour?
If you have no evidence that someone has a hair colour... than this is evidence that they are bald.
On further information, we may find some evidence of their hair and update the conclusion.
On further information, we may find some evidence of an-intelligence-responsible-for-existence and update the conclusion.
But until then, it does follow the evidence to say that they are bald.
But until then, it does follow the evidence to reach an atheistic conclusion.
It is possible to believe they are bald, but not necessary.
It is possible to believe an atheistic conclusion, but not necessary.
Of course... bald/hair is in a much better position since we at least know people who do have hair and different colours. It's at least rational to refrain from making any conclusion because having hair of some colour is so likely in our lives.
But... we don't even have such basic possible-existence knowledge of an-intelligence-responsible-for-existence, though. So there is an even higher confidence level in an-intelligence not existing than there is for someone being bald when no evidence exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 08-02-2016 11:17 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 08-02-2016 3:56 PM Stile has replied
 Message 95 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 10:11 AM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 186 (788605)
08-02-2016 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by LamarkNewAge
08-02-2016 11:54 AM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
Well Paul talked about "conscience" in Romans 14.
Which verse? I didn't find the word "conscience" in Romans 14.
I did see this though:
quote:
One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
.
But here are some texts that seem to know that there is no scientific difference between a human and an animal and its ability to "feel" stuff.
Well, a human is an animal. Where we begin to differ is in our level of sentience. But that's more hierarchical than categorical.
Regarding the ability to "feel" stuff, the category of animals contains a spectrum of feel-ability that is too broad to speak of as one thing. I mean, a planarian isn't in the same ballpark as a dolphin even though they are both animals.
Well I am please to tell Cat Sci and the 2008 Larry King guest that there is scripture that aligns with science in that it considers animals brains to be the same type of thing as humans.
No, a planarian "brain", if you can even call it that, is not in the same type of thing as my brain.
and he talked about how Christians feel they have dominion over animals and can treat them however they want because they supposedly don't have "a soul" - "whatever that means".
Animals can't sin. Jesus died for humans, not the other animals.
Quotes taken from this source.
How do Christianity, Islam & Hinduism justify killing of animals for meat? How are they different from each other? - Quora
quote:
"Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun the use of meat. Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh."
(Manu-samhita 5.48-49)
....
"Men gifted with intelligence and purified souls should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated. It is seen that even those men who are endued with learning and who seek to acquire the greatest good in the shape of liberation, are not free of the fear of death. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.20)
....
"He who purchases flesh, kills living creatures through his money. He who eats flesh, kills living beings through his eating. He who binds or seizes and actually kills living creatures is the slaughterer. These are the three sorts of slaughter through each of these acts. He who does not himself eat flesh but approves of an act of slaughter, becomes stained with the sin of slaughter. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.38-39)
....
"Abstention from cruelty is the highest Religion. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest self-restraint. Abstention from cruelty is the highest gift. Abstention from cruelty is the highest penance. Abstention from cruelty is the highest sacrifice. Abstention from cruelty is the highest power. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest friend. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest happiness. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.38-39)
....
"Gifts made in all sacrifices [rituals], ablutions performed in all sacred water, and the merit which one acquires from making all kinds of gifts mentioned in the scriptures, all these do not equal in merit abstention from cruelty." (Mahabharata, Anu.116.40)
"unclean" is one thing.
Ritual "purity" is one thing.
Let me get this straight: Humans are no different from animals. Animals eat each other, including humans, but humans are not supposed to eat animals?
It sounds to me like you are saying we are the same but at the same time saying that we must be different.
quote:
"Hence a person of purified soul should be merciful to all living creatures. That man, O king, who abstains from every kind of meat from his birth forsooth, acquires a large space in the celestial region. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.32-35)
So if animals do have a soul, should we then hold the lion accountable when it murders and eats a gazelle?
The Hindu religion and its closely-related offshoots are over 20% of the world's population.
The Buddhism offshoot has forbidden meats, but allows pig consumption. But the concept of Karma makes many vegetarians automatically.
Yeah I don't get it. We are animals, and we have K9's designed for tearing flesh. We've evolved eating meat.
So what now? Now that's bad thing?
Don't trash all religions for the absurd directions they went in. They all have bans on food (unless severely twisted) and clearly there was an origin of concern for life (free of unscientific absurdities like saying "dogs/pigs don't have a soul like us humans").
My sarcastic remark was that there are some behaviors that stem from religion that do have a scientific standing.
Back in the day, eating pork could make you sick. It makes sense that there was a religious belief against it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 11:54 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 186 (788607)
08-02-2016 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by GDR
08-02-2016 11:17 AM


Re: Topic Remix
What is the evidence that shows that there is not an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for the fact that we exist?
Every instance of intelligence that we are aware of stems from a brain. As far as we know, there were no brains before they evolved on Earth. Ergo, an intelligence cannot be responsible for the fact that we exist.
If God is responsible, then what we refer to as "intelligence" can't be what he's got.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 08-02-2016 11:17 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 10:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 75 of 186 (788611)
08-02-2016 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2016 2:04 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
I was quoted as saying "Well Paul talked about "conscience" in Romans 14"
CatSci said
quote:
Which verse? I didn't find the word "conscience" in Romans 14.
I did see this though:
quote:
"One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables."
I mentioned the issue of Romans 14:14 because I thought you were making fun of the clean/unclean concept. It turns out that you actually have your own theories about the concept, and you accept it based on your theories (of sickness issues and safety of meat). Historians say there is no evidence that food safety was the concern of ancient peoples especially the Hebrews with regard to pork and its parasites. It is often repeated by many that the concern is parasites and such. Again, the historians say there is no evidence that this was the concern.
You responded to my post (which I wouldn't have made had I known you were sorta making a point of the text NOT being scientifically absurd in this area) about Romans, and quoted 14:2.
quote:
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Yes, vegetarians were simply described as "weak" in Romans. The consceince part was in 1 Corinthians 8:12
quote:
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Romans 15:1 concludes the part started in 14:1-2
quote:
We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Remember that I thought you were making fun of the "clean" issue. The better word is "pure" anyway.
I posted Romans 14:14 just to clarify that the issue isn't even part of (the original and modern so-called)Christianity anyway.
quote:
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
quote:
[CatSci]
Animals can't sin. Jesus died for humans, not the other animals.
The early Jewish Christians tied his death (c. 30 A.D.)to the end of eating animals, and the Temple destruction (70 A.D.) to the end of animal sacrifice.
quote:
[CatSci]
Let me get this straight: Humans are no different from animals. Animals eat each other, including humans, but humans are not supposed to eat animals?
It sounds to me like you are saying we are the same but at the same time saying that we must be different.
I was quoting what religions and their sacred texts say. I don't think they feel that a trained dog should eat the same food that a wild dog does. It's all about enlightenment I suppose.
quote:
So if animals do have a soul, should we then hold the lion accountable when it murders and eats a gazelle?
Lions can actually be quite nice. Tigers too. They actually can form friendships with animals they normally eat, and this happens in the wild. A wild Tiger formed a friendship with a young ram, but the friendship ended when it got tired of the ram playfully butting him endlessly. He threw the ram away (with his mouth), and human observers later decided to separate the 2. Wild lions can be friendly with humans too, even though they are hungry meat-eaters. But they can't digest carbohydrates (most can't anyway), so they seem to need to eat meat. About 14/17 house cats (85%) can digest carbohydrates, and can survive on a plant-based diet. But not all of them can.
quote:
Yeah I don't get it. We are animals, and we have K9's designed for tearing flesh. We've evolved eating meat.
So what now? Now that's bad thing?
Even the right-wing anti-vegetarian Dr. Michael Savage recently had to admit that vegetarians had more bioavailability of L-CARNITINE than meat-eaters. I remember when he claimed that vegetarians couldn't get enough.
Meat eating was a latecomer and it isn't necessary (it is a more efficient way to get protein, but nothing more)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 2:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 3:36 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024