Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

[Lejina Bloodbath]

Originally Posted by Kuriin

But, how do you know there was a religion in 250,000 BCE? There were shrines later on around 30-25,000 BCE, but how do you know it was Christianity?

It wasn't.
Christianity in a literal sense started shortly after the death of the Christ.
Its roots come from Abraham roughly 2k years before.

I used Mose's laws as an exemple of code of laws used as guidances for primitive men, not as the one and only code, c'mon, geez. There is, and was, much more than Christianity as religion on Earth and nearly all of them, as primitive some were/are have some sort of divine rules the followers have to abide to. They encompass behavioral details making sure the community works smoothly (don't kill, be a good guy to your neighbour, fight for the tribe) and more religion based ones, to make an appeal to the divine autority, thus making sure those rules have longevity (they are less likely to be put down than the laws made by whatever warchief of the day when that one is replaced) and are followed (or else you will suffer the divine smackdown).

The Muslims wash their feet, hands and face pretty much every time they go to pray and the followers of Thor were promised Valallah only if they died in battle, why ya think?

[Millie]

Originally Posted by UnchainedAcolyte

Because you claim to be more knowledgeable and by implication, more enlightened. Hence your ethics should either be improved or have a stronger basis, neither of which is true.

You show the same raw bigotry religious "fundamentalists" do.



I openly admitted that God cannot be empirically proven to exist.

Secondly, I was not the one who made an accusation that a particular mental condition is likely what afflicts most individuals who express religious belief. I was not the one trying to prove anything in that case. The burden of proof was on chaos, since schizophrenia can be diagnosed using corrolational/empirical evidence.

I made no assertion of empirical proof. He did. However, if it denies other empirical "proof", then what?




Simply because science cannot sufficiently prove the existence of God does not mean he doesn't exist.

The principles of quantum physics were not discovered for centuries. Did they not exist?

Perhaps I should have phrased this differently:

What scientific reasons do we have for individuals from various backgrounds expressing religious behavior/convictions?

How are some similar and others different?

What are the explanations for individuals stepping outside the "typical" religious conventions for their culture or society?


You can give me several answers, many of which are correlational and correspond to general patterns, but there will be exceptions to those rules What then?

Now at this point we can argue a transition to the soft sciences, which is a different can of worms. However, what people refuse to acknowledge is that human knowledge regarding the universe and existence is incomplete.

By the way, you have shown me using one logical fallacy, which was a misstatement on my part. The rest you have loosely inferred, which I already admitted cannot be proven.

Can you admit that there is the possibility that such things exist outside the current knowledge/discoveries of science?

Once again, I'm going to make an important distinction for you between the scientific method and religion:

- Religion looks at the unknown and essentially gives up. "This will never be explained, because it is the act of God, and God's will is beyond our complete understanding."

- Science looks at the unknown and says "I may not understand this right now, but I intend to find out."

Your whole "X scientific discovery wasn't made until suchandsuch time; does that mean X didn't exist until then?" line is a load of crap. I'm sorry, but you're a smart guy, and you're better than that. Science doesn't "invent" things like gravity or evolution. Science finds ways to explain things that already exist. Science has never willed anything into existence, but rather, demystifies what's been unexplainable in the past. What science doesn't understand today will be understood in the future. What wasn't understood by science in the past is now understood by science. And so forth. Religion is about making peace with the unknown through faith in the unseen; science is about making peace with the unknown through learning about it and understanding it -- causing it to no longer be unknown.

What scientific reasons do we have for individuals from various backgrounds expressing religious behavior/convictions?

It's human nature to look at the unknown and be frightened or awed by it. It is also human nature to seek solace from fright, or justification for awe, but putting a supernatural spin on it. "I fear the unknown, therefore I must take comfort in the fact that there is a purpose behind the unknown. I'll call this purpose God."

This is a psychological, sociological, and even genetic imperative. It can't be helped. But we mustn't confuse our need for comfort in the face of the unknown with the unknown itself. Our instinctive rationale is usually incorrect.

How are some similar and others different?

All religions, at their core, are about one principle: putting a "face" or an explanation on that which one can't comprehend or control. All religious, superstitious, and supernatural belief systems revolve around controlling -- through imaginary forces -- that which we cannot control through understanding or physical manipulation.

...

Look, I've admitted several times that I don't think you're a dummy. But for whatever reason, your logic needs a lot of work. You have yet to state one position on this thread that isn't dependent upon one famous logical fallacy or a combination of several.

I would urge you to read further on the subject of logical fallacies. Once again: not that I think you are dumb or anything, because you're clearly not. But I think you will find that, by increasing your familiarity with argumentative progression and logical deduction, you'll encounter quite a few ways to debunk your positions on this thread. If anything, boning up on this stuff will make you a stronger debater and will either lead you toward a better appreciation of science or a firmer conviction in your faith. Either way, you'll be a better and more well-rounded person for it.

I have said this before, but now I really am going to mean it: I don't have time or will to argue on this thread any longer. We're going in circles, and I don't believe either of us is ever going to convince the other of our positions. So if you really want to keep discussing this with me, let's do it over PMs. I have little desire to keep going back and forth on this thread.

[Lyenae]

What science doesn't understand today will be understood in the future. What wasn't understood by science in the past is now understood by science. And so forth

begging the question

I would urge you to read further on the subject of logical fallacies.

pot kettle

[Burf]

Originally Posted by EmiliaEQ

Because we live in the "western world". Go in Africa, or Asia, no one gives a shit about Jesus.
Well unless, the bible was forced down their throats (quite common).

The reason christianity is so "powerfull" it developped fast in the "strongest" countries of the "modern world".
What the fuck can a zulu tribesman and his weather god do when you have guns ?

Might makes right.. Its a simple as that.
If the Vikings had guns, we'd all be worshipping Odin & Thor.


As for the Creationism vs Darwinism its quite simple.
When you can say "Because of God" for every single questions, you are sheep.
And sheep are very easy to control.

Uh....huh?

PS - Jesus is in the Koran.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Lejina Bloodbath

It wasn't.
Christianity in a literal sense started shortly after the death of the Christ.
Its roots come from Abraham roughly 2k years before.

I used Mose's laws as an exemple of code of laws used as guidances for primitive men, not as the one and only code, c'mon, geez. There is, and was, much more than Christianity as religion on Earth and nearly all of them, as primitive some were/are have some sort of divine rules the followers have to abide to. They encompass behavioral details making sure the community works smoothly (don't kill, be a good guy to your neighbour, fight for the tribe) and more religion based ones, to make an appeal to the divine autority, thus making sure those rules have longevity (they are less likely to be put down than the laws made by whatever warchief of the day when that one is replaced) and are followed (or else you will suffer the divine smackdown).

The Muslims wash their feet, hands and face pretty much every time they go to pray and the followers of Thor were promised Valallah only if they died in battle, why ya think?

American experience with prohibition(s) shows just how useless laws people have no interest in are; a top down understanding of biblical law seems nonsensical. It wouldn't have survived if people didn't believe in it first and foremost. Putting it into stone is just the articulation of it; the social behavior would have had to predate it and already be ingrained. Social sanction matters far, FAR more to people than divine sanction ever has, or ever will.

[Lejina Bloodbath]

Originally Posted by Burf

Uh....huh?

PS - Jesus is in the Koran.

I think he was referring to non abrahamic religions.

Of course different sects of a same religion are going to share the same prophets.

Originally Posted by Jedah

American experience with prohibition(s) shows just how useless laws people have no interest in are; a top down understanding of biblical law seems nonsensical. It wouldn't have survived if people didn't believe in it first and foremost. Putting it into stone is just the articulation of it; the social behavior would have had to predate it and already be ingrained. Social sanction matters far, FAR more to people than divine sanction ever has, or ever will.

Obviously.

To put add a religious background to them just add some extra "strenght" and longevity. Given the indoctrinal nature of religions, one is less likely to question the word of god than one of a mere mortal.

[PerritoBites]

Originally Posted by Jedah

American experience with prohibition(s) shows just how useless laws people have no interest in are; a top down understanding of biblical law seems nonsensical. It wouldn't have survived if people didn't believe in it first and foremost. Putting it into stone is just the articulation of it; the social behavior would have had to predate it and already be ingrained. Social sanction matters far, FAR more to people than divine sanction ever has, or ever will.

Problem comes when you use God to force stupid laws. Stupid laws like "don't use condoms", "don't masturbate", "gay people should not be socially accepted", "there should be no abortions", "creationism should be taught in schools" (even though there is no logic to back this hypothesis up), "never question the will of god or say his name in vain" (even if your priests are sexually harassing your kids), "Spanish inquisition" (threw it there because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition). And then you try to make these things into government laws, or you incorporate them into education, or you kill anyone that doesn't follow them (extremes).

I just had to post these :P

[Dabamf]

Originally Posted by Lyenae

begging the question

That wasn't begging the question.

making...

Originally Posted by Lyenae

pot kettle

a dumb comment

This thread needs to be rickshawed, and then immediately moved to a new subforum for threads not even worthy of the rickshaw.

P.S. Whoever supplied that list of fallacies, did you write it yourself? Many of the definitions are a bit off.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Lejina Bloodbath

To put add a religious background to them just add some extra "strenght" and longevity. Given the indoctrinal nature of religions, one is less likely to question the word of god than one of a mere mortal.

Religion would have no indoctrinal power if God didn't mean something to people on an important emotional level, and you can't manufacture that overnight unless you're Hasbro, and even then it has to be representative of some value that stretches beyond itself.

A better way of putting it is, I guess: why should any idea of the "divine" exist in the first place?

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by PerritoBites

Problem comes when you use God to force stupid laws. Stupid laws like "don't use condoms", "don't masturbate", "gay people should not be socially accepted", "there should be no abortions", "creationism should be taught in schools" (even though there is no logic to back this hypothesis up), "never question the will of god or say his name in vain" (even if your priests are sexually harassing your kids), "Spanish inquisition" (threw it there because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition). And then you try to make these things into government laws, or you incorporate them into education, or you kill anyone that doesn't follow them (extremes).

-Self-denial of pleasure is pretty much a part of any religion, and most philosophical schools of thought. I don't personally agree, but it's not unheard of or that foreign a concept.
-People don't need religion to dislike gay people, it's an issue of conflicting gender norms and ideas regarding social deviance (not a value judgment!, its just not the norm). People don't need religion to be racist, why would they need it to dislike something that strikes much closer to home.
-Abortion is, well, a sticky subject; it is possible to have qualms or reservations about abortion and be also not religious.
-Creationism is a part of their culture, and their meaning in life; it has much more effect on them than the origin of the species does. It may not be right, but it is important to them, as much as scientific truth is to you.
-The Book of Job is a complete and total questioning of God's justice.
-As for violence in the name of religion, 40 years ago the world was one thumbs up away from a ball of fiery death and radiation over a question regarding efficiency in 2 competing economic models. Secular ideologies currently have the 20th century under their belt, and the hits they cranked out took the cake.

[Lyenae]

Originally Posted by Dabamf

That wasn't begging the question.

Yes it is.

She's saying that science will explain things in the future because it has always explained things in the past. What science has done in the past cannot serve as proof that it will do so in the future unless one assumes the very idea here in question... that science will always explain things.

It may so, but she can't assume that it will for the sake of proving that it will.

[PerritoBites]

Just in case someone is interested in expanding this discussion are listen to people to dedicate their life to these kind of discussions... check this website out: Welcome to the Rational Response Squad! | Rational Responders

(Note: I am in no way affiliated with this website so I am not trying to advertise the page... I found the site through stickam a month ago or so)

PS: Right now they are discussing evolution on the chat and playing an evolution video through stickam. Sapient Profile - Stickam

[Dabamf]

Originally Posted by Lyenae

Yes it is.

She's saying that science will explain things in the future because it has always explained things in the past. What science has done in the past cannot serve as proof that it will do so in the future unless one assumes the very idea here in question... that science will always explain things.

It may so, but she can't assume that it will for the sake of proving that it will.

This is what happens when one tries to use knowledge that one learned not more than hours ago via a quoted message board post. Whoever posted that quote of fallacies, the one about begging the question was wrong.

Begging the question is arguing a point with a premise that is equally as questionable. Example: Abortion is wrong because a fetus is a person and its wrong to kill people. It begs the question because the fetus being a person is also a claim in dispute.

What you suggested was that she used circular reasoning, which is essentially using a statement to support itself. However, she didn't. She used inductive reasoning. She said that science has figured out all these in the past, so it will likely in the future. It isn't a great argument, though decent, but usually best to compliment another one. It is acceptable to use, however.

You are going no where. You start with a "no one can know anything" position, then go on to question science, now you're arguing logic when you obviously have never heard of a fallacy before hours ago.

[Lejina Bloodbath]

Originally Posted by Jedah

Religion would have no indoctrinal power if God didn't mean something to people on an important emotional level, and you can't manufacture that overnight unless you're Hasbro, and even then it has to be representative of some value that stretches beyond itself.

A better way of putting it is, I guess: why should any idea of the "divine" exist in the first place?

Millie already gave a pretty good explanation of this (post # 152), so you may be best to just go there. She's better a writer than I am and I would pretty much just rehash the same ideas anyway. But shortly put, humans fear the unknown (is there a stronger, more visceral and universal emotion than fear?) and to create explanations for the unknown, even if they are complete fairy tales, is comforting and makes us feel better.

[Lyenae]

Originally Posted by Dabamf

This is what happens when one tries to use knowledge that one learned not more than hours ago via a quoted message board post. Whoever posted that quote of fallacies, the one about begging the question was wrong.

Begging the question is arguing a point with a premise that is equally as questionable. Example: Abortion is wrong because a fetus is a person and its wrong to kill people. It begs the question because the fetus being a person is also a claim in dispute.

What you suggested was that she used circular reasoning, which is essentially using a statement to support itself. However, she didn't. She used inductive reasoning. She said that science has figured out all these in the past, so it will likely in the future. It isn't a great argument, though decent, but usually best to compliment another one. It is acceptable to use, however.

You are going no where. You start with a "no one can know anything" position, then go on to question science, now you're arguing logic when you obviously have never heard of a fallacy before hours ago.

Begging the question is to assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it. That's a definition straight from a Copi & Cohen Logic book.

Her argument is worthless.

Keep pretending you got a handle on logic.