310 réponses à ce sujet

[Gotholhorakh]

DuckSoup wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

DuckSoup wrote...
 Because Darwin's theory of evolution has shown that we evolved. But you see, although his theory may be pretty solid, I could still say "Well, we still had to get here somehow you know! God must have created us in the beginning" and I could just choose not to believe what has been put in front of me. I could just completely have no faith in the Science. But I don't. I believe that what he found to have happen probably happened. I didn't see it for myself, I wasn't there, but I believe in it as much as I can.

Out of interest (and I make this point not to persuade anyone but because it's a legitimate point) there is absolutely nothing to preclude someone being a Christian and believing in Darwinian evolution, that's including the story of creation.

Some hicks somewhere set up this literalist doctrine where they want to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la" and pretend most human discoveries never happened if they contradict their weird interpretation of Christianity.

Personally, I think it's pretty much moronic. I think if you asked most Christians (certainly in the UK) they would say the same, tbh.

Some people don't have much faith in science and some just hold their religious faith so dear to them that they can't see beyond that. It's their choice. As long as they aren't telling someone they are stupid for believing in the science, I don't see the problem.

Indeed, as long as they don't go to other people and confront them with YOUR BELIEFS ARE WRONG!

I think that's the only thing I really find offensive, whether it's religious people or atheists. I worry about coming across like that myself tbh, I guess that's why religion is one of the proverbial topics off the menu for "dinnertime conversation"

[billy the squid]

DuckSoup wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

DuckSoup wrote...
 Because Darwin's theory of evolution has shown that we evolved. But you see, although his theory may be pretty solid, I could still say "Well, we still had to get here somehow you know! God must have created us in the beginning" and I could just choose not to believe what has been put in front of me. I could just completely have no faith in the Science. But I don't. I believe that what he found to have happen probably happened. I didn't see it for myself, I wasn't there, but I believe in it as much as I can.

Out of interest (and I make this point not to persuade anyone but because it's a legitimate point) there is absolutely nothing to preclude someone being a Christian and believing in Darwinian evolution, that's including the story of creation.

Some hicks somewhere set up this literalist doctrine where they want to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la" and pretend most human discoveries never happened if they contradict their weird interpretation of Christianity.

Personally, I think it's pretty much moronic. I think if you asked most Christians (certainly in the UK) they would say the same, tbh.

Some people don't have much faith in science and some just hold their religious faith so dear to them that they can't see beyond that. It's their choice. As long as they aren't telling someone they are stupid for believing in the science, I don't see the problem.

Unfortunately the seperation of Church, or at least religion and state is never a truly clear thing. It's human nature to be tribal. One would have thought that several thousand years on we would have worked out to leave eachother alone.

[Volus Warlord]

Siansonea II wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...
Doesn't everything boil down to fear or greed?

This is at least somewhat accurate.

Which is one of my hopes in evolution, tbh. If the cerebral cortex develops further it will bring us closer to becoming beings of reason and logic and further away from ones emotion and impulse.

This is already happening. 10,000 years ago we were clubbing each other over the head for morsels of food.

Are we confusing people and technology again?

Techonology advances.

Society goes in circles. We still do "club each other over the head" to bolster our own livelihoods. Just with fancier stuff.

Technology is a byproduct of reason and logic. The proliferation of technology in some ways indicates a greater trend toward reason and logic in humans. But it's not just technology I'm referring to, I'm talking about social dynamics in the modern world. True, they are still quite barbaric and social injustice is still pervasive. But there's a glimmer of hope that humanity will rise above its own base nature. Just a glimmer, mind you, it doesn't even qualify as a spark. 

Technology is a byproduct of self-interest. Technologies core purpose is to make life easier, and make work less necessary and more effective.  The creation of and advancement of technology opened time for us to invent things like reason and logic. As well as to further advance technology. The nature of man will never change, but more and more we are finding ways to mitigate its harmful effects.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I believe in the Second Coming of Dr Funkenstein - Preoccupied and dedicated to the preservation of the motion of the hips.

[termokanden]

Oh I'm so lucky to live in a country where nobody cares about the separation of church and state. No, they'd rather bicker and argue about how the church should be ordered to behave by the government. So if you're not religious, religion is your business anyway. If you are religious, your belief is subject to change by the government.

[eroeru]

Siansonea II wrote...

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

Pure Agnostic BTW, Nobody knows... Only the dead.

You can't exist in a pure state of belief/nonbelief. Either you believe or you don't. It sounds like you don't. In which case you're an agnostic atheist. It sounds like you're skirting the edges of Pascal's Wager, and Pascal's Wager is "facile", as Gregory House would say. After all, "maybe" implies that you ought to worship/support gods "just in case". Well, "maybe" witches and wizards and unicorns are real too, and one ought to do what one can to ensure ones protection from them. After all, there's just as much "evidence" to support those supernatural entities as there is to support the existence of gods. That is to say, none.

To me, if something cannot be proven to exist by direct or indirect observation, then my default position on that matter is "it doesn't exist".

You say this based on what? I think it's pretty self-evident that people can ignore a question. And a sceptic can shun all knowledge, leaving only the word "belief" to account for the thing that others aspiringly call "knowledge". Also, "belief", as is defined in western tradition can very well need basis - and having "knowledge" as as this basis seems to me as accurate as having "proof".

By the way, I've never been a fan of Knowledge = Justified True Belief myself. The definition just doesn't hold anything meaningful I think.

[Siansonea]

eroeru wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

Pure Agnostic BTW, Nobody knows... Only the dead.

You can't exist in a pure state of belief/nonbelief. Either you believe or you don't. It sounds like you don't. In which case you're an agnostic atheist. It sounds like you're skirting the edges of Pascal's Wager, and Pascal's Wager is "facile", as Gregory House would say. After all, "maybe" implies that you ought to worship/support gods "just in case". Well, "maybe" witches and wizards and unicorns are real too, and one ought to do what one can to ensure ones protection from them. After all, there's just as much "evidence" to support those supernatural entities as there is to support the existence of gods. That is to say, none.

To me, if something cannot be proven to exist by direct or indirect observation, then my default position on that matter is "it doesn't exist".

You say this based on what? I think it's pretty self-evident that people can ignore a question. And a sceptic can shun all knowledge, leaving only the word "belief" to account for the thing that others aspiringly call "knowledge". Also, "belief", as is defined in western tradition can very well need basis - and having "knowledge" as as this basis seems to me as accurate as having "proof".

By the way, I've never been a fan of Knowledge = Justified True Belief myself. The definition just doesn't hold anything meaningful I think.

I can't make heads or tails of this. What is your question?

[Blacklash93]

Volus Warlord wrote...
The nature of man will never change, but more and more we are finding ways to mitigate its harmful effects.

The nature of humans can change. Life changes and has for countless years. It's just up to biology, is all.

Reason and logic are also not invented; they have only emerged and evolved. You can make percieved conceptions of them and structualize them, but they have grown, rooted from our biological capacity for them. We would not have technology without them. Logical thinking is required to invent better tech.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 07 juin 2012 - 10:11 .

[termokanden]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...
The nature of man will never change, but more and more we are finding ways to mitigate its harmful effects.

The nature of humans can change. Life changes and has for countless years. It's just up to biology, is all.

But is there evidence to suggest that we are becoming more altruistic? I don't think so.

[Siansonea]

greengoron89 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

eroeru wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

Pure Agnostic BTW, Nobody knows... Only the dead.

You can't exist in a pure state of belief/nonbelief. Either you believe or you don't. It sounds like you don't. In which case you're an agnostic atheist. It sounds like you're skirting the edges of Pascal's Wager, and Pascal's Wager is "facile", as Gregory House would say. After all, "maybe" implies that you ought to worship/support gods "just in case". Well, "maybe" witches and wizards and unicorns are real too, and one ought to do what one can to ensure ones protection from them. After all, there's just as much "evidence" to support those supernatural entities as there is to support the existence of gods. That is to say, none.

To me, if something cannot be proven to exist by direct or indirect observation, then my default position on that matter is "it doesn't exist".

You say this based on what? I think it's pretty self-evident that people can ignore a question. And a sceptic can shun all knowledge, leaving only the word "belief" to account for the thing that others aspiringly call "knowledge". Also, "belief", as is defined in western tradition can very well need basis - and having "knowledge" as as this basis seems to me as accurate as having "proof".

By the way, I've never been a fan of Knowledge = Justified True Belief myself. The definition just doesn't hold anything meaningful I think.

I can't make heads or tails of this. What is your question?

He's calling you out on your stubborn black and white thinking - I do believe he made his point quite well, too.

Care to translate?

[eroeru]

Siansonea II wrote...

eroeru wrote...


You say this based on what? I think it's pretty self-evident that people can ignore a question. And a sceptic can shun all knowledge, leaving only the word "belief" to account for the thing that others aspiringly call "knowledge". Also, "belief", as is defined in western tradition can very well need basis - and having "knowledge" as as this basis seems to me as accurate as having "proof".

By the way, I've never been a fan of Knowledge = Justified True Belief myself. The definition just doesn't hold anything meaningful I think.

I can't make heads or tails of this. What is your question?

I was referring to this mostly: "
You can't exist in a pure state of belief/nonbelief.  "

[cJohnOne]

I want an afterlife. Therefore I need someone to order the afterlife. After that I'm open to suggestions.

[DiebytheSword]

I believe, and I'm a baptist by witness. I have what works for me, a reason to believe, but I also recognize that this will not work to convince anyone else.

I'm not sold on anything until the difinitive proof is in, so belief is quite a stretch for me, but it is one of the few beliefs I allow myself.

That said, I don't begrudge others what works for them, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it in reverse, and that is one of the core tennants of my belief. I'm open to the possibility that Evolution is right, and I think Evolution versus Religion is a false dichotomy, your belief in one does not preclude belief in the other.

I'm also open to the idea that Evolution is wrong, (Natural Selection on the other hand is pretty much in the bag for me, its observable), and keep my ear to the ground on anything new that defys convention.

Open mindedness, on both religion and science, is nothing but a good thing.

[eroeru]

And the part about knowledge is to show that as you can probably think people can be without knowledge, I similarly think people can be without belief. Not much difference between these two statements.

[termokanden]

AwesomeName wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

To me, if something cannot be proven to exist by direct or indirect observation, then my default position on that matter is "it doesn't exist".

Fair enough.  Personally I cannot think that way.  Otherwise I'd be saying there definitely isn't a sticker stuck underneath this bed I'm on, even if there was one, because I haven't checked yet.

Whether there's a sticker stuck under your bed can be checked by observation.

[Siansonea]

eroeru wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

eroeru wrote...


You say this based on what? I think it's pretty self-evident that people can ignore a question. And a sceptic can shun all knowledge, leaving only the word "belief" to account for the thing that others aspiringly call "knowledge". Also, "belief", as is defined in western tradition can very well need basis - and having "knowledge" as as this basis seems to me as accurate as having "proof".

By the way, I've never been a fan of Knowledge = Justified True Belief myself. The definition just doesn't hold anything meaningful I think.

I can't make heads or tails of this. What is your question?

I was referring to this mostly: "
You can't exist in a pure state of belief/nonbelief.  "

Well, how can you? Belief is a pretty straightforward thing. You either believe something, or you don't. We don't even have a word for the quantum state between belief or disbelief. See, people think that belief is a conscious, informed choice, but it's really not, it's merely a state of being. You either believe something is true in the absence of observation, or you don't believe it. It's a pretty simple on/off switch. Belief is either present, or it is absent. And as soon as you start to doubt your beliefs, well, you've pretty much already crossed over into disbelief, whether you know it or not. You may SAY you still believe something, but if you've got doubts, you don't have belief. You're simply trying to save face. Honestly, it's not that complicated, but because this is such a hot-button issue, people try to bolster their decaying position with this idea that there is this Switzerland of noncommittal quasi-belief that lets them off the hook for their disbelief. But it's just a way to make oneself feel better, or avoid the connotations of a label they find disagreeable. ::shrug::

[Blacklash93]

termokanden wrote...
But is there evidence to suggest that we are becoming more altruistic? I don't think so.

When did I ever say it was happening now or even in a certain way?

Look at life millions of years ago and look at it now. I'd say the nature of many things have changed.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Look at it is this way: If you believe you can live in heaven infinitely and if you don't then hell is your reward. Forever is a very long time, so no matter how small the chance is such a religion exists, a pragmatic would opt to believe. Just to be sure, I have decided to believe all such religions.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 07 juin 2012 - 10:17 .