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:   Evolution is simply more magnificent than your religion
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 40 of 60 (540315)
12-23-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by RickJB
12-23-2009 5:49 AM


now you see me ......now you don't.....
Hi Rick
If he wants us to believe in his existence now then why does he rely on the disjointed and contradictory writings of Bronze or Iron age people to educate us?
Because the Bronze Age was the last time we could be collectively hoodwinked by Him? Once the Bronze Age passed and science gathered pace, honest scepticism replaced primitive awe on a culture-wide basis, leaving only isolated groups still 'believing the myths'.
And it hasn't taken long for us to outgrow God's own knowledge (read Job 38 for a hilarious insight into God's idea of how the cosmos works....did you know there are storehouses for all the hail he keeps in case of war?).
A way to really awe us is to appear with his 'magic' now - in the 21st century when our science can do more justice than those poor Bronze Age guys. I await with baited breath.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RickJB, posted 12-23-2009 5:49 AM RickJB has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 41 of 60 (540316)
12-23-2009 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Briterican
12-23-2009 2:17 PM


Re: Why doesn't God try harder? The believers have a nonsense answer for this
Hi Brit,
Agreed. The believers would tell you that it is a test of faith. So... somehow... in their twisted logic... the individuals who are not free-thinkers and do not question things or seek evidence, but instead throw rationality aside and embrace unsupported mystical notions - they are the ones that God will favour. If God wanted us to blindly worship him and not ask the deep questions, why the hell did he (purportedly) give us big brains?
Indeed. And to quote Dawkins "Wouldn't God value open and honest scepticism more highly than blind obedience?"
Wouldn't God appreciate his creations valuing science? Because if there is a God who created the entire Universe with its laws etc, He would have to be the mother of all scientists Himself....wouldn't He consider that His creations were the pinnacle of success if they too followed in His footsteps? Is that not the goal of every parent - to create offspring who can follow, emulate and hopefully, surpass even your own talents? Not cower, grovelling at your feet in feeble-minded submission and ignorance. If my children prostrated at my feet worshipping and revelling in ignorance, too frightened to question anything I instructed, I would feel ashamed....ashamed that as a creator I had not designed a more robust thinking being, and ashamed that I had psychologically induced them to fawning status!
There's nothing magnificent in that for me. Science wins hands down. I think one of the most awe-inspiring facts is that our bodies (just stardust from maybe an earlier supernova)can evolve materialistically to the point where it becomes sentient - to then think about its own origins....that is awesome indeed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Briterican, posted 12-23-2009 2:17 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Briterican, posted 12-27-2009 10:06 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 57 of 60 (541025)
12-30-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by iano
12-28-2009 10:20 AM


Re: Imaginary superbeings don't add anything to the wonder of it all
Hi Iano,
There's something iffy about the 'product' pronouncing on the capability of the process which produced it as rendering it (the product) accurately and reliably capable of so pronouncing.
Something decidedly iffy.
...and you think there's nothing "iffy" about entrenched religious beliefs based around a tome written by superstitious bronze-age people, with political agendas relevant to the period? Which have been transcribed through centuries, and different cultures and languages, each rendering their own political, cultural and demographic influences on the result? That you revere and do not question the resulting morass of inconsistencies and logic flaws, but at the same time decry the multi-disciplined process of science that uses only physically verifiable process to build on what has gone before.
The world you live in is the result of the scientific method. From computers to medicine, from tunnels that connect continents to man planting his foot on the moon — it has all been achieved by mere man and his scientific method.
There’s something very iffy about people who internalize their religious beliefs on the work of an old book and then use a proselytising voice on the rest of us.....
Edited by Drosophilla, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by iano, posted 12-28-2009 10:20 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by iano, posted 12-30-2009 7:04 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 59 of 60 (541044)
12-30-2009 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by iano
12-30-2009 7:04 PM


Re: Imaginary superbeings don't add anything to the wonder of it all
Hi Iano
That science has delivered him onto this dilemma horns isn't really the issue - indeed, I'm glad it has; it might cause him to stop and think about it for a while.
But that is the essence of science! To constantly think and update theories based on evidence. Contrast this with religion which is inflexible, dictated to by a millennium-plus old tome without any ability to change or adapt. That has to be the epitome of restricted thought processing...
Not that I was attacking science by the way. I was pointing out the curious circularity of view that science seems to demand you arrive at: stardust concluding it's made of stardust is one thing. Supposing itself able to pronounce that conclusion reliable is quite another
To say that you are an engineer, it's quite eye-raising that you don't appear to understand the scientific method. Science, (unlike your religion) doesn't pretend it has all the answers. The scientific data set is based on a best fit model of the universe we inhabit based on EVIDENCE around us. Sure you can babble on all you like about this might be that, and this might be something else.....but science ONLY uses what can be observed and measured in the reality we see....in the light of anything better that is the only route anyone can logically take....otherwise ANYTHING might be possible and you could be the flying spaghetti monster for all I know.
So, using observational data (the only sort we can meaningfully use), science makes predictions and theories are either rejected, subject to further scrutiny or tentatively accepted. Note the tentatively bit.....nothing is ever totally proven, only a best fit approach - with an acknowledgement that a given postulate is always up for modification or downright rejection if better data comes along....if you are an engineer you must know this!
Contrast that with your 'book'. There is no room for manoeuvre. You blindly follow the book written by those Bronze-Age mystics all those years ago....you proclaim to know 'God's word' - again based on nothing but words written aeons ago. Some of your ilk scorn archaeologists because they 'read' data in skulls and other fossils....yet they stubbornly present their version of the past in those fixed words (fossils of social evolution?!) that aren't up for modifying or reassessment in any way......and you wonder why scientists shake their heads?
For me there really is no contest - science is magnificent because of the long road it has come. People strived often in adversity (and thanks to religion - danger) to make this planet a better place. In ancient Greece and Rome there was science — mathematics, sewerage systems, spas, quality roads, philosophy and astronomy — to name a few pre-Christianity achievements. Fifteen hundred years later in sixteenth century England, people threw faeces out of their windows into open gutters, Black-Death and other diseases were rife, and in Europe people were persecuted in the Inquisitions — including many fledgling scientists. Who knows what great advances were lost during this ignorant time. I have to say Iano — there really is no contest for me!
Edited by Drosophilla, : word deletion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by iano, posted 12-30-2009 7:04 PM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024