quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB]Those are all professions that claimed, and some in fact still claim to have basis in science. Science is not some amazing self governing vehicle that never crashes or even makes a turn without signalling.
Well, yes, it is actually. Those pseudo-sciences you mention were never mainstream science, and when they couldn't prove their points by getting repeatable, measurable results, they were pushed out of even the fringe position that they did occupy and into the realm of charlatanism. Burning heretics at the stake, on the other hand, was never a fringe position; it was the accepted, mainstream form of conduct until quite late in the Enlightenment.
As a side note, I don't think Westphalia is a useful divider here. The treaty established that kings would not go looking outside their own recognised borders for heretics to burn, because the Protestants had shown they could defend themselves and the Catholics had shown they could hang on to what they had. What states did internally to those they considered heretics was quite another matter; witch trials were popular for quite another while, you'll note.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, yes, it is actually. Those pseudo-sciences you mention were never mainstream science, and when they couldn't prove their points by getting repeatable, measurable results, they were pushed out of even the fringe position that they did occupy and into the realm of charlatanism. Burning heretics at the stake, on the other hand, was never a fringe position; it was the accepted, mainstream form of conduct until quite late in the Enlightenment.
If by mainstream you mean the only stream that men were currently allowing to run, then yes it was mainstream.
But you are wrong even by that definition.
Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches did not burn at the stake. Nor did the churches in West China, Ethiopia, and West India, all of which developed independent of the Catholic church.
As for your points about pseudo sciences never being mainstream, I'm sorry but at least Alchemy and for a long time Astrology were both quite accepted right up there with medicine, and husbandry. I will concede that phrenology was probably more of a fad that gained quite a bit of ground and then was summarily dismissed quite quickly.
I hate to channel Crichton, but the science has its own demons, and one of them is not simply considering, "What we can see, hear, observe, create." but whether or not they should at all.
Admittedly that is an extremely tall order for any institution to make. Mistakes are inevitable, but at least acknowledge that they happen.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I think that our ideas of how people work and how God works are sufficiently different that, as long as you make clear that you are viewing history from a specifically LDS point of view, we should let it rest.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The process of science and the application of science are 2 different things. That can start a whole new debate. Who is held accountable for the ultimate uses of a scientific discovery? Science is the pursuit of knowledge for its sake alone. Each answer leads to another question. The scientist doesn't know where it will ultimately lead; he is following the trail of knowledge. I don't think the knowledge itself can be judged good or bad. How we use it as a society can. There is as much potential good out of discoveries as bad. Nanotechnology and genetic manipulation can provide great service as well as great horror. Should they be restricted based on potential? This is a very important question.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for your points about pseudo sciences never being mainstream, I'm sorry but at least Alchemy and for a long time Astrology were both quite accepted right up there with medicine, and husbandry.
They were accepted among scholars, yes. They were never accepted among scientists, because at that time there weren't any scientists to do the accepting. There was no science prior to Galileo or Newton (take your pick), there was only human knowledge, which is not at all the same thing.
quote:Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches did not burn at the stake. Nor did the churches in West China, Ethiopia, and West India, all of which developed independent of the Catholic church.
I will give you burning at the stake in the literal sense of tying somebody to a post and setting it on fire, but they certainly did persecute with lethal force whenever they got the chance. Check out what happened to the iconoclasts and the Old Believers.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: On the topic of evidence vs. faith, I just learned about the AiG Statement of Faith. In includes this gem:
quote:No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
AiG is the organization responsible for the Creationist Museum. All I can say is "wow".
To me, it seems a perfectly reasonable stance to take for people who believe the Bible to be absolutely True and Infallible.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, it seems a perfectly reasonable stance to take for people who believe the Bible to be absolutely True and infallible.
The idea of accepting any one body of evidence of being so perfectly correct that any contradictory evidence that is ever presented is automatically invalid is almost impossible for me to grasp.
Presumably their belief of the correctness of the Bible is based on a number of perceived evidences. I don't see how one can accept those evidences of being more valid than any yet unknown evidences that may be discovered in the future prior to examination of the future evidences.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As a side note, I don't think Westphalia is a useful divider here. The treaty established that kings would not go looking outside their own recognised borders for heretics to burn, because the Protestants had shown they could defend themselves and the Catholics had shown they could hang on to what they had. What states did internally to those they considered heretics was quite another matter; witch trials were popular for quite another while, you'll note.
Indeed. And the Inquisition goes on. But religion was, by definition, domesticated.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, reading that statement of faith, in which they reject any evidence of anything that disagrees with their beliefs, makes it clear that they refuse to live in our world.
Since life itself and their physical bodies are evidence of evolution, shouldn't they, you know, reject their bodies, and life itself? Shouldn't they not consider life, and their bodies, valid, since they themselves are evidence of something besides their faith?
Or are they just hypocrites?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But life isn't the evidence of a divine creator.
So your statement is invalid.
However, life as it is, the genetic code, especially when compared to that of other species, vestigial organs, certain quirks in human physiology, among other things, are evidence of evolution.
Ergo, our bodies ARE evidence of evolution.
There is no physical evidence of divine creator, however.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact. The fact that the urinal passage in males passes through the prostate, an organ which has a tendency to swell, is evidence that the human body was NOT made by a divine being (at least directly, in the sense of Genesis.)
Because, you know, that aspect of our design is utterly stupid.
And God is not stupid enough to make that error.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But they're wrong. So, in the real world, my statement is not invalid.
You know, the one in which we live? Not the fantasies of people with unreasonable foundations of knowledge?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, I already pointed out real world examples of how human existence is evidence for evolution.
What do they have but a book, that was, in fact, made by humans, and possesses no objective evidence whatsoever?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, since life isn't evidence of a divine creator, (since there is no EVIDENCE) but IS in fact evidence of evolution, my point is, in fact ,valid, while your counterpoint is invalid.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, I still s tand by my statement that claiming God made such an imperfect thing as a human body, directly, is an insult to God's intelligence, and in fact blasphemy, as you claim God created something flawed.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter how many times you say you're right and they are wrong. You are judging people who don't believe in evolution as though they did. That makes as much sense as judging your actions as though you believed what they did.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I pointed out examples of evidence, which I can back up.
I am not judging them as if they did believe in evolution. In fact, I'm judging them for the fact that they do NOT believe in it.
For them to say that any evidence for evolution is invalid, when that includes the human body, makes me wonder if they consider the human body and life invalid, as it IS evidence for evolution.
The fact that they don't care to listen is just shows how contemptable they are.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rejecting the idea the the human body is evidence of evolution doesn't require them to reject the human body any more than you rejecting the idea that the human body is evidence of God requires you to reject your own body.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, mr_porteiro. I suppose that rejecting it, even with the evidence, can allow them to hold that inconsistent position without any apparent problems from their own worldview, that is true.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Probably not the best idea to post your "passing thoughts" on a forum of such critical minds.
I just figured since the analogy of the watchmaker was a popular (at least i thought it was) idea behind creationism i just wanted to express thouhgts that could be understood in a simple way.
If the watch stands for nature, the watchmaker stood for god then i didnt see how discoving the inner working of the watch (the laws that govern nature) did any harm to the watchmaker.
I was hoping that the critical minds would realise i was simply drawing a simplistic explination as to why evolution and god dont really cancel each other out. And if you already believe in a god how evolution can be integrated into your faith.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, mr_porteiro. I suppose that rejecting it, even with the evidence, can allow them to hold that inconsistent position without any apparent problems from their own worldview, that is true.
Even if they accept the evidence i would say that isnt unreasonable or illogical for one to hold such a view. Remember, if somone believes in a god the god can technically do anything it wants, and not only can it do that but it can do it (say god holds the sun still) and not have any adverse effects on nature as a whole.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: On the topic of evidence vs. faith, I just learned about the AiG Statement of Faith. In includes this gem:
quote:No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
AiG is the organization responsible for the Creationist Museum. All I can say is "wow".
To me, it seems a perfectly reasonable stance to take for people who believe the Bible to be absolutely True and Infallible.
Indeed. Moreover, I agree with it. (I simply disagree with their definition of "Scripture" and their understanding of what does and does not contradict it.)
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Besides, I still stand by my statement that claiming God made such an imperfect thing as a human body, directly, is an insult to God's intelligence, and in fact blasphemy, as you claim God created something flawed.
What you call blasphemy I call a basic tenet of belief. This world and everything in it is imperfect, and our job is to improve it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was hoping that the critical minds would realise i was simply drawing a simplistic explination as to why evolution and god dont really cancel each other out. And if you already believe in a god how evolution can be integrated into your faith.
I got it. That's why I said I liked where you were going with it. Even IF someone viewed everything as a creation of an Intelligent Designer (TM), one would think said designer would applaud curiosity over ignorance. It's a nice sentiment.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would one think any such thing? Curiosity was discouraged through most of human history. Applauding it is a very recent development, and very much a product of the Enlightenment. And there's a very good reason for religious people to discourage critical thinking: It tends to lead to atheism, or at the very least a lack of donations to church hierarchies. So, projecting that onto their god, naturally their god doesn't like people poking into its creations.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Besides, I still s tand by my statement that claiming God made such an imperfect thing as a human body, directly, is an insult to God's intelligence, and in fact blasphemy, as you claim God created something flawed.
I also believ that people are supposed to humble themselves before god. The only thing perfect is supposed to be god. If god wants people to be humble and realise they are not all powerful why should he create them flawless? Not to mention if you envoke the idea that there is a god you really cant claim to know its purposes behind the way it does things. I do believe there is actually a verse in the bible (At least the english translation commonly used by christians) that adressed this. I would look it up but i dont see that the placing is necissarily relevant. But it basically makes the statement that god is the potter and we (people) are the clay, what is the clay that is can say to the potter "why have you made me this way?".
If you are willing to argue with somone who believes in a god, then there isnt really a way to say that that god is "wrong" or that an idea about that god is "wrong". You may have reason not to believe it, but part of the nature of a deity is that there can only be so much you can know, and there will be infinitely more that you can't know.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no analogy between clay and humans, and making one is frankly rather disgusting. Clay doesn't think. Even if you postulate a god which is much better at thinking than humans are, it is not a qualitative difference as there is between humans and clay, but only a difference of degree.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why would one think any such thing? Curiosity was discouraged through most of human history. Applauding it is a very recent development, and very much a product of the Enlightenment. And there's a very good reason for religious people to discourage critical thinking: It tends to lead to atheism, or at the very least a lack of donations to church hierarchies. So, projecting that onto their god, naturally their god doesn't like people poking into its creations.
Well the reason it was discouraged throughout history is because it was used by powerful people to keep less powerful people less powerful. This is not something religious in nature anyway, plenty of historical governments didnt want their populace educated. Even our own country when founded was to be governed by the small population of intellectual eliete. However, even if somone does believe that their acts of discouragement and oppression are for "godly" reasons, or for the better good of the people it doesnt necissarily mean that the deity behind that persons beliefs would want the same thing. Hitler seemed to believe that his genocide of the jewish people would fit into his claims that he was a christian, i think anyone who is a christian sees the acts f the holocaust as terrible and completely ungodly. Perhaps god is more for knowledge that some people think. Proverbs, for example is a book of wise saying, and several times it makes the statement that a person should seek knowledge and wisdom. When it came to the Roman Catholic church of the dark ages they wanted to keep peasants from doing just that. It wasnt because they believed god wanted people to be stupid. It was because intellegent people have power or at lesat have the ability to gain power. At that point in time the Church was probably the most powerful state in Europe, perhaps the world. Just because religion can be a justification of people who choose not to better themselves and discourage the curiosity of others, doesnt mean that it is the right thing to do.
If people dont want to investigate nature because they believe a certain way, let them stay ignorant. Eventually they will die off and a new generation will take their place. Gravity is accepted now and was heretical when it first surfaced. This is true to other things like round earth, sun centered system and all have become common knowledge. If evolution is as steadily taught and can constantly find supportive evidence (and if scientists are willing to explain their findings to the world, and also make their explinations understandable) it should seem reasonable that it will find its way into common knowledge eventually.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I also believ that people are supposed to humble themselves before god."
How is refusing to belive God made mistakes not humbling myself before Him? It's the highest praise I can give, and the strongest faith, to believe in a perfect God.
" If god wants people to be humble and realise they are not all powerful why should he create them flawless?"
Depends on how you believe He made us. If He made us wholecloth, why did He make us with such clear evidence of evolutionary design? I can agree He did not create us flawless, because it is obvious we are not without flaws. However, He made us through a process. We did not just pop up from the dirt. That is simply the way the world is, and to refuse to accept that is putting human pride in your beliefs above the facts of the world God made for us.
The only ones without humility are those who refuse to see God's signed document because it says something different than what they already believe. Those who idolize the Bible so much that they refuse to see the rest of God's Word.
" you are willing to argue with somone who believes in a god, then there isnt really a way to say that that god is "wrong" or that an idea about that god is "wrong". You may have reason not to believe it, but part of the nature of a deity is that there can only be so much you can know, and there will be infinitely more that you can't know. "
Good advice. I cannot convince them their faith is wrong, and in fact they may see some aspects of God that are hidden from me. In the end, the idea that God created humankind imperfect on purpose is of course possible, but I do not believe that was God's point.
Anyway, as there was no literal Adam and Eve, there was no literal Original Sin (I'm a Catholic, I don't remember right now what others feel about that concept) or any decay from a previous state of perfection, either. Mankind's sin comes from our own actions, inherent in our design, required for existence as limited, phyical lifeforms. They do not come from the sins of some long-dead ancestor, whose sins are not my burden to bear even if they did live.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if you postulate a god which is much better at thinking than humans are, it is not a qualitative difference as there is between humans and clay, but only a difference of degree.
I believe that the difference between our comprehension and God's is qualitatively different, and not just a difference of degree.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But it basically makes the statement that god is the potter and we (people) are the clay, what is the clay that is can say to the potter "why have you made me this way?"."
If the clay could think, if it could feel, it would have the right to ask us that question.
Just like, should we manage to create true artificial intelligence, even if it was in some ways lesser than we, they would have the right to ask us why we made them. They would have the right to question us, just as we have the right to question God.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There is no analogy between clay and humans, and making one is frankly rather disgusting. Clay doesn't think. Even if you postulate a god which is much better at thinking than humans are, it is not a qualitative difference as there is between humans and clay, but only a difference of degree.
Well since you posted that i went to look for it and i found pretty much what i was looking for, but it of course isnt exaclty like i posted it before.
Romans 9:20 (NIV) But who are you, O man, to talk back to god? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the sam lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Im afraid you are arguing semantics here though. If you belive in a god (especially the one of genesis who already made man from earth) then having humans compared to clay shouldnt be anything reviling or shocking. Comparing god to man as a potter to lump of clay is used so that people would have an understanding of what he was talking about. It really doesnt matter how similar clay and humans are in reality, if there is a creator he has his own idea abou how things should be created, how can the created thing comprehend somethign that is beyond that?
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "But it basically makes the statement that god is the potter and we (people) are the clay, what is the clay that is can say to the potter "why have you made me this way?"."
If the clay could think, if it could feel, it would have the right to ask us that question.
Just like, should we manage to create true artificial intelligence, even if it was in some ways lesser than we, they would have the right to ask us why we made them. They would have the right to question us, just as we have the right to question God.
Dont get me wrong i know what you are trying to say, im just saying that you cant say anything when dealing with a deity is a fact or that it has to be one way or another.
Why would god create humans with signs of having evolved? I have no idea... why would god create humans at all? its perfectly possible for him to fellowship with whales i guess, or the cockroach, the question i dont really think has any meaning. Why would a god do anything?
As to creating artificial intellegence and it having the right to ask why. I dont believe you can make such a statement for a fact yet, the idea behind governements (in the capitalist wet anyway) is that we give up natural rights to have civil rights and political rights and legal rights and protections. We are all natural objects, why do we give up such natural rights? Did we ever really have such natural rights? If people can take those rights from us and give us "Newer" rights than what is to stop a god? Its the whole state of nature discussion of Hobbs and Locke that was the basis to all the "enlightened" thought of the western civilizations. Even today, Children legally dont have the right to question their parents or the authorities (this doesnt stop them), even with the ability to do so. We have plenty of things we are capable of doing but dont have the right to do, and we dont have the right because we have consented to be ruled by the govenrment, and if we havent we have brought ourselves to a position of no rights and no protections. If the human governements have the right and the ability to tell you that you have no right to do or not do something then imagine what ability a god theoretically has. As i just got finished posting it was just an anology, even if the clay can understand words, even if it can think would it really understand? woudl the potter tell it somethign or explain somethign that was beneficial to the clay? Would it benefit a vase to know it was a vase? All of these questions really have no answers.
posted
"As to creating artificial intellegence and it having the right to ask why. I dont believe you can make such a statement for a fact yet"
Why not? If they can ask, why should they not be allowed to?
"the idea behind governements (in the capitalist wet anyway) is that we give up natural rights to have cival rights and political rights. Its the whole state of nature discussion of Hobbs and Locke taht was the basis to all the "enlightened" thought of the western civilizations. Children legally dont have the right to question their parents or the authorities (this doesnt stop them), even with the ability to do so. We have plenty of things we are capable of doing but dont have the right to do, and we dont have the right because we have consented to be ruled by the govenrment, and if we havent we have brought ourselves to a position of no rights and no protections. If the human governements have the right and the ability to tell you that you have no right to do or not do something then imagine what ability a god theoretically has."
Interesting analogy. But the power of government in our lives is qualitatively different than any power God has. A government, at least our government in the U.S., is at least supposed to be based on those Enlightenment principles, that is, concent of the governed. And in fact, we have the right to question authority, for human authority in the U.S. ultimately rests with those who are governed. When one does as we feel is unsatisfactorily, he or she is replaced by someone else. When laws are unsatisfactory, we put in place one who will change those rules.
How does that relate to the Children of Humanity, when they exist?
The children of humanity will not be literal children. They will be our creations, but that does not mean they will be like immature human beings. Children require the care of adults because they are still learning. But adult children are no longer under that control. Just because you are your parents' child, does not mean you are under their rule once you are old enough.
And even so, children CAN question parents and authority. Ask "why is this? Why am I?" They have that right, to learn.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Dont get me wrong i know what you are trying to say, im just saying that you cant say anything when dealing with a deity is a fact or that it has to be one way or another."
Yes. Clearly we cannot talk to God directly.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've found that it can be difficult to discuss an atheist view opposing a religious view, because it is easy to be passionate about religion, and kind of silly to be passionate about atheism. You can be passionate about knowledge, and about truth, and about reason, and a whole slew of other things, but who goes to Logic camp and cries when they accept Scientific Method as their personal lord and savior? Emotion is a powerful thing.
You can tell a kid all you want that the boogie man isn't in the closet, you can show him the empty closet, you can shine a light under the bed, but as soon as you're out of the room and the lights are off, he's still scared of the boogie man. He's passionate about his beliefs, and any argument, no matter how reasonable, isn't going to get through.
Some ID supporters believe that the Theory of Evolution is the boogie man. You can show them the facts all you want, but they're still afraid it's going to get them if they don't make an intellectual fort out of the sheets and refuse to come out.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "As to creating artificial intellegence and it having the right to ask why. I dont believe you can make such a statement for a fact yet"
Why not? If they can ask, why should they not be allowed to?
"the idea behind governements (in the capitalist wet anyway) is that we give up natural rights to have cival rights and political rights. Its the whole state of nature discussion of Hobbs and Locke taht was the basis to all the "enlightened" thought of the western civilizations. Children legally dont have the right to question their parents or the authorities (this doesnt stop them), even with the ability to do so. We have plenty of things we are capable of doing but dont have the right to do, and we dont have the right because we have consented to be ruled by the govenrment, and if we havent we have brought ourselves to a position of no rights and no protections. If the human governements have the right and the ability to tell you that you have no right to do or not do something then imagine what ability a god theoretically has."
Interesting analogy. But the power of government in our lives is qualitatively different than any power God has. A government, at least our government in the U.S., is at least supposed to be based on those Enlightenment principles, that is, concent of the governed. And in fact, we have the right to question authority, for human authority in the U.S. ultimately rests with those who are governed. When one does as we feel is unsatisfactorily, he or she is replaced by someone else. When laws are unsatisfactory, we put in place one who will change those rules.
How does that relate to the Children of Humanity, when they exist?
The children of humanity will not be literal children. They will be our creations, but that does not mean they will be like immature human beings. Children require the care of adults because they are still learning. But adult children are no longer under that control. Just because you are your parents' child, does not mean you are under their rule once you are old enough.
And even so, children CAN question parents and authority. Ask "why is this? Why am I?" They have that right, to learn.
OF course children CAN, and as far as i know people CAN ask god things. I thought thats what prayer was about. You seem to be missing the point that if you can be told you have rights/no rights in certain areas by people (government/parents) even if you have the capability to accomplish the things you arnet allowed to do, then a god can hold you to that to an even greater degree. For example murder and rape are both natural rights people have, we lose the right when we enter into society, when we (as a group, not an individual)leave the state of nature. So when dwelling with people we no longer have the rights we had when we dwelt alone in nature. People control your rights, why cant a god? Kids are learning still, so they need to be guided you say. Isnt god supposed to be looking at us as children? I am no theologan (nor do i wish to be) but i know that christians are gods children, i dont know about other religions and their perspectives on this matter but that isnt really relevant. If you claim that people have the right to take away rights, or that rights can be temporarily not recognised due to the immaturity or the inability to understand them then how can a deity not reserve those abilities himself? Wouldnt a god know things, be able to do things, understand things that we wouldnt? would he have to explain himself to us? I think you are confusing it from being the "clay has no right to ask a question" so much as "the clay had no right to demand explinations". This would mean that the potter was to submit to the clay, the government to submit to the people (even some people think this is how it works), the parent to be under the rule of the child and lastly the god to be under the rule or authority of whatever it made. I wasnt talking about civil rights, i was talking about the idea of a superior being. When you asked questions of why a god would do such and such, to a person who believes in the god that is irrelevant. Thats part of the beauty of it, you can always fall back on the idea that a god is above you and therefore not understandable in all areas of its being.
You seemed to be making statements that ruled out ones ability to believe in god, see evidence of evolution and yet believe that god could create that evidence. Or that people who reject the idea that humans "evolved" in spite of the evidence were downright wrong. Which unfortunately it amy seem an unsound premise and definately is somewhat unreasonable it isnt necissarily true that they would be wrong. When you stated that a body is made "flawed" because a devine creator would have created it differently i simply pointed out that you have no way of knowing that(once again under the assumption that god exists). I only pointed out the reference from the bible because it was an attempt to make a parallel to the idea that god is supposed to be above us(as people), that not only are we most likely going to fail in understanding it but we also have no ability to subject it to our authority.
I apologise if i did not make this correlation clear.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Some ID supporters believe that the Theory of Evolution is the boogie man. You can show them the facts all you want, but they're still afraid it's going to get them if they don't make an intellectual fort out of the sheets and refuse to come out.
True dat. I just gave up on one on another forum.
(There are entirely too many "o"s in that last phrase.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good advice. I cannot convince them their faith is wrong
You can, actually. I've seen it happen. It's not very common, admittedly.
quote:I've found that it can be difficult to discuss an atheist view opposing a religious view, because it is easy to be passionate about religion, and kind of silly to be passionate about atheism.
I'm quite passionate about people backing up their beliefs with some kind of evidence. But anyway, passion isn't a necessary ingredient to a reasoned argument. Or even a snarky one.
quote:I believe that the difference between our comprehension and God's is qualitatively different, and not just a difference of degree.
Comprehension was perhaps not the right concept. Let me say 'consciousness', or perhaps 'self-awareness', instead. Humans are conscious, clay isn't.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
God made humans practically perfect in every way (Mary Poppins = Eve). The problems that we have were the result of God's punishment as result of the Fall.
Yep, he totally redid our DNA, Re-routed our Colon, and left us open to the painful plagues that plague us still.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
