Try this from Berkeley for a start ....
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
more specifically ...
[broken link removed]
Creationism
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
Try this from Berkeley for a start ....
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
more specifically ...
[broken link removed]
Indeed, it should always raise a red flag when somebody announces they have the answer but refuse to debate the subject any further. Followers of Al Gore (as distinct from many climatologists even those who believe in the theory anthropogenic global warming) are particularly guilty of this trait.
Good point, induction - the practice of deducing general principles from specific instances, is often used in science despite its logical flaws. However, the results are always open to question, unlike religious belief.
S
stir crazy
Guest
I dont care what anyone says . The onus of proof for a claim of some sort is upon the person who claims it to be true. This law applies to everyone with no exceptions.
If I am a scientist and I claim to have found a cure for cancer , I will be required to stand behind my claim. Otherwise the scientific community will reject me. Science is by definition an empirical rational thing.
If I am religious then I am a law unto myself, have given up my capacity for independent thought and am a slave to whatever dogma or interpretation my hierarchy dictates (which is subject to change). I have decided that someone whether a mullah or a bishop is more intelligent than I am and I have allowed the dictates of this person to hijack my brain. Religions make claims and cannot stand by them rationally. Religion has relied upon violence, fear and not logic to impose its belief system for hundreds of years. It is a practice still rampant on the middle east and was the norm here in Europe a few hundred years ago. Where physical violence is not an option (e.g in the west), passive bullying and exclusion is still often used through the social judging and discrimination of those who dont share the same belief.
Pointing to a book aka the bible, koran etc does not equal proof of anything other than the proof that someone published the book you observe. Anyone who claims it proves any more is a liar.
The Lord of the Rings is a much better read in my opinion and also much more inspired, complicated and consistent in its' story.
If I am a scientist and I claim to have found a cure for cancer , I will be required to stand behind my claim. Otherwise the scientific community will reject me. Science is by definition an empirical rational thing.
If I am religious then I am a law unto myself, have given up my capacity for independent thought and am a slave to whatever dogma or interpretation my hierarchy dictates (which is subject to change). I have decided that someone whether a mullah or a bishop is more intelligent than I am and I have allowed the dictates of this person to hijack my brain. Religions make claims and cannot stand by them rationally. Religion has relied upon violence, fear and not logic to impose its belief system for hundreds of years. It is a practice still rampant on the middle east and was the norm here in Europe a few hundred years ago. Where physical violence is not an option (e.g in the west), passive bullying and exclusion is still often used through the social judging and discrimination of those who dont share the same belief.
Pointing to a book aka the bible, koran etc does not equal proof of anything other than the proof that someone published the book you observe. Anyone who claims it proves any more is a liar.
The Lord of the Rings is a much better read in my opinion and also much more inspired, complicated and consistent in its' story.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
This sort of sweeping generalisation is laughable. If I believe in a God, or Gods, this does not make me incapable of independent thought. Have you never heard of a la carte Catholicism, for example?
This can equally be said of other belief systems and organisations outside the various religions, communism for example.
S
stir crazy
Guest
Glad you dont disagree with this
I put it to you tht it does. Does anyone remember Virgin Megastore in Dublin being prosecuted for selling condoms in 1993/94 ? I read separately that Tampons were banned at one point in the 1960s. On a scale of stupidity I would put that on a par with stoning.
I will agree with you about one thing. The comparison you made between religious belief and communism is valid. Religion is like communism.
However Please directly address the issue of religion. Communism is a political philosophy. To discuss its merits or demerits would require another thread. Communism does not claim to be a religion. Whichever of the political philosophys is superior has absolutely no effect or bearing on this dicussion.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
So you are saying that all Irish Catholics supported this prosecution at the time, and that their religious beliefs prevented them from making up their own minds on the issue?
S
stir crazy
Guest
You would love me to say something stupid. Wouldnt you ? People are free to believe what they want. However religion acts to remove and restrict freedom, whether it be the freedom to buy condoms in Ireland in the 1990's or to listen to western music in Iran in the present day. Thanks for the communism reference. You were really on the ball there.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Again you have not justified the sweeping generalisations you made here:
btw, if you read my previous posts properly, you will see that I did not compare religion to communism. And if I did, so what? The people who believed in communism eventually got tired of it and changed their minds. How did they do this if they were incapable of independent thought?
btw, if you read my previous posts properly, you will see that I did not compare religion to communism. And if I did, so what? The people who believed in communism eventually got tired of it and changed their minds. How did they do this if they were incapable of independent thought?
S
stir crazy
Guest
I am not one to rush to judgement however It appears from your selective quotation that you are the one who has not read my post properly. I dont mind as you are easily refuted but I can see you have taken one line of it out of context to analyse to death.
Yes I have. If you put money onto the church collection plate your money is going to support many issues which so called 'ala carte catholics' might disagree with, not least of which was the prosecution of virgin megastore and if you want a current example of where your money is going look no further than the denial of condoms in the areas hit most by aids .
If you have any point at all, its that ala carte religionists are too lazy to think in comparison to their more committed and obedient colleagues who are told what to think. The effect is the same. Its' backward superstitious hypocrisy.
Yes I have. If you put money onto the church collection plate your money is going to support many issues which so called 'ala carte catholics' might disagree with, not least of which was the prosecution of virgin megastore and if you want a current example of where your money is going look no further than the denial of condoms in the areas hit most by aids .
If you have any point at all, its that ala carte religionists are too lazy to think in comparison to their more committed and obedient colleagues who are told what to think. The effect is the same. Its' backward superstitious hypocrisy.
If you were really interested in being enlightened, you would have been already. You are living in a first world country with accesses to libraries, universities and a mountain of information on the internet. The only people holding out against evolution at this stage are the ignorant or the religious fundamentals. (even the Catholic Church has almost given in at this stage)
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
I haven't attempted to analyse anything. I've simply asked you to justify a very sweeping statement. You have failed to do so.
Where did I say, or imply, that?
S
stir crazy
Guest
It took you long enough to post a counter response. Considering how long I waited I'm quite disappointed
I totally disagree with you. You are wrong. A careful reading of my posts will answer your question. If I take you at your word which is as you said that you have not analysed anything then I suggest you start analysing before contributing.
If you have a problem with a statement then I would take liberty to assume you disagree with that statement otherwise you are trolling. You need to be careful what you say if you do not wish to be misinterpreted
A bit cynical and slick of you to ignore the important link I gave showing the catholic Church and other religions seek to deny condoms to people in aids ravaged regions.
Yes. But I'll leave the namecalling to Dawkins. I doubt if many believe in a religion due to their own independent efforts. It is 99% based upon religious brainwashing experiences during childhood from parents and teachers. I would definitely have less respect for your decisions. And I would fear your decisions more as the agenda of your belief system would seek to influence society in ways I may not agree with . I've said it before but just look at the track record of religion.
I totally disagree with you. You are wrong. A careful reading of my posts will answer your question. If I take you at your word which is as you said that you have not analysed anything then I suggest you start analysing before contributing.
If you have a problem with a statement then I would take liberty to assume you disagree with that statement otherwise you are trolling. You need to be careful what you say if you do not wish to be misinterpreted
A bit cynical and slick of you to ignore the important link I gave showing the catholic Church and other religions seek to deny condoms to people in aids ravaged regions.
Yes. But I'll leave the namecalling to Dawkins. I doubt if many believe in a religion due to their own independent efforts. It is 99% based upon religious brainwashing experiences during childhood from parents and teachers. I would definitely have less respect for your decisions. And I would fear your decisions more as the agenda of your belief system would seek to influence society in ways I may not agree with . I've said it before but just look at the track record of religion.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Sorry, I have to confess I have no idea what you are talking about. I think we will agree to differ.
ps
Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion.
S
stir crazy
Guest
What are we supposed to be differing about exactly ? Besides the taking of one line of my prose and using it as a proxy argument to justify religion or at least negate my other valid points, what have I written about which you disagree with ?
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
I asked you to justify the following statement.
We shall agree to differ as to whether you have done so.
Fyi, I did not seek to justify religion, by proxy argument or otherwise.
S
stir crazy
Guest
I completely stand by my statement. If you are religious, in my book there is a huge stye in your eye and flaw in your thinking.
You may realise that for a true follower of a religion the law of the land is secondary to the law of the religion . For a true Catholic and especially for the priesthood, papal law is superior to the states law. For a Muslim the same applies. At least in a democratic society we can change our laws. However the church is not a democracy. This is evident in the child sex abuse scandals where for all the claimed wisdom and infallibility in matters of morals, the perpetrators were not turned over to the police. It is also fundamentally sexist and discriminatory towards the genders. If you think that sort of behaviour cannot be described by my so called sweeping statement then good luck to you.
I'm neither ignorant nor a religious fundamentalist. I have studied evolution at degree level. I hold that it is merely a theory, one with lots of questions to answer still. It is by no stretch of the imagination the final dogma. It may turn out to be the correct theory, I don't know. It may be that it is flawed and will need to be revised. But to hold a theory up as irrefutable scientific fact is misleading. It is a theory, and a dynamic one at that, and, dare I say, evolving.
What degree and what college?