Dazey Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: Sins yes, of course. But most (not all) sins could be considered morally wrong even by non-believers, no? Murder, Theft, Rape, Robberies, Cheating on you spouse, Lying, etc etc. Yeah so non believers consider them morally wrong and therefore don’t do them. Where does god have to figure in this? My wife went to an all girls catholic school and was forced to admit she was sinful (at 5 years old so she wasn’t) because of the church. How do we get from math in the universe to Hail Marys for 5 year olds? It’s disingenuous nonsense and is the only reason the “teach the controversy” lobby are pushing this. Edited July 3, 2019 by Dazey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted July 3, 2019 Author Share Posted July 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Dazey said: Yeah so non believers consider them morally wrong and therefore don’t do them. Where does god have to figure in this? My wife went to an all girls catholic school and was forced to admit she was sinful (at 5 years old so she wasn’t) because of the church. How do we get from maths in the universe to Hail Marys for 5 year olds? It’s disingenuous nonsense and the only reason the “teach the controversy” lobby are pushing this. I'm not sure I follow. Why can't science and religion co-exist? One can't understand and believe in science and God both? A religious person can't be a scientist and a non religious person can't at least respect religion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 6 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: I'm not sure I follow. Why can't science and religion co-exist? One can't understand and believe in science and God both? A religious person can't be a scientist and a non religious person can't at least respect religion? I’m not saying science and religion can’t coexist. I’m saying that religion shouldn’t try to legitimise itself as an equally valid alternative to science in a continued effort to justify the bigotry* of the religious right. *not you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted July 3, 2019 Author Share Posted July 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dazey said: I’m not saying science and religion can’t coexist. I’m saying that religion shouldn’t try to legitimise itself as an equally valid alternative to science in a continued effort to justify the bigotry* of the religious right. *not you Ah, I see. Most religious folks I know aren't like that. Most are open to science and the scientific method. Did you know that a Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang Theory? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: Ah, I see. Most religious folks I know aren't like that. Most are open to science and the scientific method. Did you know that a Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang Theory? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître As long as you have a class for theology and another for science and never the twain shall meet then you negate 90% of my opposition to religion. I’m fine with belief in an intelligent designer but let’s be honest, nobody petitioning school boards is doing so with the best interest of the scientific method in mind. It’s a cynical ploy to circumvent the separation of church and state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted July 3, 2019 Author Share Posted July 3, 2019 Why science and religion aren’t as opposed as you might think The debate about science and religion is usually viewed as a competition between worldviews. Differing opinions on whether the two subjects can comfortably co-exist – even among scientists – are pitted against each other in a battle for supremacy. For some, like the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, science and religion represent two separate areas of enquiry, asking and answering different questions without overlap. Others, such as the biologist Richard Dawkins – and perhaps the majority of the public – see the two as fundamentally opposed belief systems. But another way to look at the subject is to consider why people believe what they do. When we do this, we discover that the supposed conflict between science and religion is nowhere near as clear cut as some might assume. Our beliefs are subject to a range of often hidden influences. Take the belief that science and religion have been in fundamental conflict since humans developed the capacity to think scientifically. This position only became well-known in the late 19th century, when science was characterised by amateurism, aristocratic patronage, minuscule government support and limited employment opportunities. The “conflict thesis” arose in part from the desire to create a separate professional sphere of science, independent of the clerical elites who controlled universities and schools. At the same time, factors that we might assume influence our beliefs may not really be as important. For example, there’s a tendency to believe that people’s religious belief decreases as they are exposed to more scientific knowledge. In 1913, the psychologist James Leuba concluded that the relatively low levels of belief among professional scientists was because scientific awareness made religious faith harder to maintain. But the relationship between scientific knowledge and belief is far from clear. A broad range of psychological and social research has shown that students who reject evolution for religious reasons do not necessarily know less about it. And, where conflict does exist today, survey evidence shows that it is highly selective. In the US, for example, opposition to scientific claims usually emerges over issues where religious groups have been active in moral debate, such as stem cell research. It may be that conflict between religion and science has as much to do with culture, family ties, moral positions and political loyalties as it has to do with claims about truth. This even applies to the beliefs of scientists. Studies of scientists’ views of religion have found that, while they are an exceptionally secular group, most don’t perceive an inherent conflict between science and religion. There are a number of possible reasons for this finding, but it is of interest that some social patterns associated with gender, ethnicity and religion that are found in the wider public are not found among scientists. For example, ethnic minorities among the general population in America and Europe are more likely to be religious. But among scientists, having recent immigrant status significantly decreases the likelihood of regular religious attendance. Being institutionalised as a scientist, it seems, makes other facets of personal identity, including religious identity, less significant. Creating creationists? Much of the confusion around what people believe about science and religion relates to evolution and those who deny it. Most of the research into acceptance of evolution has focused on the US, where creationist religious groups are relatively strong and large segments of the public are sceptical of established scientific claims about the subject. But even there, beliefs about evolution don’t fall into simple, coherent categories. It is often claimed, based on a long-running Gallup poll, that four out of ten US citizens “believe in creationism”. The problem with this poll is that it tends to imply all people have clear and internally coherent views on the subject. Recent research found that many Americans do not think it important if they are correct on things such as the date of creation or the means by which God created humans. In fact, only 63% of creationists believe correct belief about human origins to be “very” or “extremely” important. And only a minority from this group agree with all aspects of the position of organised creationist groups, such as belief that the world was literally created in six days or that humans were created within the past 10,000 years. In the UK, the picture is even less clear. One 2006 poll conducted by the BBC, for example, asked respondents to say if they believed in atheistic evolution, creationism or intelligent design theory. No option was offered for those believing in God as well as accepting evolution. In this way, such surveys effectively “create creationists” in the way they frame their questions. Seeking good debate Ultimately, there is no simple way of understanding how people will respond to scientific findings. While some see evolution as explaining away religion, others see the same ideas as confirming religious belief. But improving public understanding of science means engaging with people from all backgrounds – and this will surely be harder if we stereotype them because we don’t fully understand what they believe. If we cannot say anything about the social context of people’s doubts about established science, it will be difficult to address them. For example, psychological research has shown that being exposed to stereotypes about Christians being “bad at science” actually causes academically able religious students to underperform. Such findings give good reason to treat this subject with greater care than we do currently. https://theconversation.com/why-science-and-religion-arent-as-opposed-as-you-might-think-56641 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted July 3, 2019 Author Share Posted July 3, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Dazey said: As long as you have a class for theology and another for science and never the twain shall meet then you negate 90% of my opposition to religion. I’m fine with belief in an intelligent designer but let’s be honest, nobody petitioning school boards is doing so with the best interest of the scientific method in mind. It’s a cynical ploy to circumvent the separation of church and state. I went to Catholic school and we always had separate classes for science and theology. From middle school all the way through high school. We even had sexual education at my high school. They talked about condoms, birth control, etc. (I think they mentioned the Catholic church was technically against them but they still taught us the facts about them, etc) Of course, they also said that abstinence was the safest form of birth control. (Which is also technically true) Edited July 3, 2019 by Kasanova King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 9 hours ago, Kasanova King said: The Standard Model of Particle Physics employs something known as “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking” to explain the strength of the laws of nature. Within the Standard Model the strength of these laws are not predicted. At present our current best theory is that they arose “by chance”. But these strengths have to be exquisitely fine-tuned in order for life to exist. How so? The strength of the gravitational attraction must be tuned to ensure that the expansion of the universe is not too fast and not too slow. It must be strong enough to enable stars and planets to form but not too strong, otherwise stars would burn through their nuclear fuel too quickly. The imbalance between matter and anti-matter in the early Universe must be fine tuned to 12 orders of magnitude to create enough mass to form stars and galaxies. The strength of the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions must be finely-tuned to create stable protons and neutrons. They must also be fine-tuned to enable complex nuclei to be synthesized in supernovae. Finally the mass of the electron and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction must be tuned to provide the chemical reaction rates that enables life to evolve over the timescale of the Universe. The fine tuning of gravitational attraction and electromagnetic interactions which allow the laws of nature to enable life to form are too clever to be simply a coincidence. I don't agree with this kind of reasoning. Without doubt, we wouldn't be here if the laws of nature were very different, the entire Universe would be different. If you change the gravitational constant too much you either get no clustering of mass and hence just a uniform universe with no stars or planets, or the mass cannot escape the singularity and the BB cannot happen. Sure. But who says our Universe is the only universe? What if there are an infinite amount of universes, either coexisting in time or happening sequentially? With an endless amount of universes there would be one where the gravitational constant is exactly right, and that would be our Universe. And where would we be? On which of all these universes would humans arise? On Universe of course. With this scenario there is no coincidence, it is inevitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 9 hours ago, Kasanova King said: Free will We are all the stuff of the universe, absolutely embedded within, and subject to, the rules which govern nature. Because we’re self-aware, one can argue that the universe is self-aware. Without an intelligible design it would be impossible for humans to have free will as all actions would be as a consequence of the will of the director. Free will is a fundamental element of Christian doctrine. I am afraid "free will" is an illusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Kasanova King said: Stephen Hawking not Dawkins. Our solar system was formed about four and a half billion years ago, or about ten billion years after the Big Bang, from gas contaminated with the remains of earlier stars. The Earth was formed largely out of the heavier elements, including carbon and oxygen. Somehow, some of these atoms came to be arranged in the form of molecules of DNA. This has the famous double helix form, discovered by Crick and Watson, in a hut on the New Museum site in Cambridge. Linking the two chains in the helix, are pairs of nucleic acids. There are four types of nucleic acid, adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thiamine. I'm afraid my speech synthesiser is not very good, at pronouncing their names. Obviously, it was not designed for molecular biologists. An adenine on one chain is always matched with a thiamine on the other chain, and a guanine with a cytosine. Thus the sequence of nucleic acids on one chain defines a unique, complementary sequence, on the other chain. The two chains can then separate and each act as templates to build further chains. Thus DNA molecules can reproduce the genetic information, coded in their sequences of nucleic acids. Sections of the sequence can also be used to make proteins and other chemicals, which can carry out the instructions, coded in the sequence, and assemble the raw material for DNA to reproduce itself. We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth. One possibility is that the formation of something like DNA, which could reproduce itself, is extremely unlikely. However, in a universe with a very large, or infinite, number of stars, one would expect it to occur in a few stellar systems, but they would be very widely separated. The fact that life happened to occur on Earth, is not however surprising or unlikely. It is just an application of the Weak Anthropic Principle: if life had appeared instead on another planet, we would be asking why it had occurred there. If the appearance of life on a given planet was very unlikely, one might have expected it to take a long time. More precisely, one might have expected life to appear just in time for the subsequent evolution to intelligent beings, like us, to have occurred before the cut off, provided by the life time of the Sun. This is about ten billion years, after which the Sun will swell up and engulf the Earth. An intelligent form of life, might have mastered space travel, and be able to escape to another star. But otherwise, life on Earth would be doomed. There is fossil evidence, that there was some form of life on Earth, about three and a half billion years ago. This may have been only 500 million years after the Earth became stable and cool enough, for life to develop. But life could have taken 7 billion years to develop, and still have left time to evolve to beings like us, who could ask about the origin of life. If the probability of life developing on a given planet, is very small, why did it happen on Earth, in about one 14th of the time available? http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html He goes on go explain that it basically "could have happened", etc. Sorry, I misread you. Ah, Hawking He is entirely right that "the chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small", but of course, again, as I have said, there is no scientific theory that is based on DNA spontaneously forming. The solution is abiogenesis, and Hawking goes into this in the rest of the article: "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions. Maybe there was some simpler form of organisation, which built up DNA. Once DNA appeared, it would have been so successful, that it might have completely replaced the earlier forms. We don't know what these earlier forms would have been. One possibility is RNA. This is like DNA, but rather simpler, and without the double helix structure. Short lengths of RNA, could reproduce themselves like DNA, and might eventually build up to DNA. One can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, let alone RNA. But given 500 million years, and oceans covering most of the Earth, there might be a reasonable probability of RNA, being made by chance." Edited July 4, 2019 by SoulMonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lame ass security Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: I am afraid "free will" is an illusion. Then we should use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 8 hours ago, Kasanova King said: Why science and religion aren’t as opposed as you might think The idea that there is a god (or gods) has no supporting evidence. Science deals with things that are so it wouldn't be unscientific to believe in god but, with the lack of evidence, it would certainly be irrational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 Quote My wife went to an all girls catholic school and was forced to admit she was sinful (at 5 years old so she wasn’t) because of the church. What did she confess? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 27 minutes ago, Len Cnut said: What did she confess? She probably scribbled with crayons and pens on furniture. Fucking kids. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 26 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: She probably scribbled with crayons and pens on furniture. Fucking kids. I wonder how I would've reacted at that age, being told to confess. 5 is like nursery age right? I nicked one of my Dads razorblades and took it to school and cut my and my mates finger at that age Its not my fault, they told me not to touch the cabinet over the sink with the medicines and shit in it so like, immediately I thought, yeah, lets fuckin' get in there, see what they're hiding, if they woulda never said shit I probably wouldn't've even noticed it. Plus I always wanted to shave cuz Dad shaved...and looked cool doing it. I think its dangerous though, telling a kid that age to confess cuz I woulda been inclined to lie and if I woulda lied and nothing happened (which it wouldn't cuz there ain't a God) that would've set a dangerous prescedent for me cuz it'd mean one of two possible things, 1 - there is no God or 2 - I am cleverer/greater than God That could've set me on a fucked up path Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 Great news everyone! People are getting less religious in Arab countries. From: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48703377 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 3 hours ago, SoulMonster said: Great news everyone! People are getting less religious in Arab countries. From: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48703377 The Yemeni are going in the opposite direction, and the situation has barely changed in four of those countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: The Yemeni are going in the opposite direction, and the situation has barely changed in four of those countries. Yeah, what the fuck is wrong with the Yemenis? Anyway, the overall trend is that Arabs are getting less religious. (Rough calculation, the average is that 6 % more now say they are not religious). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted July 4, 2019 Author Share Posted July 4, 2019 7 hours ago, SoulMonster said: I don't agree with this kind of reasoning. Without doubt, we wouldn't be here if the laws of nature were very different, the entire Universe would be different. If you change the gravitational constant too much you either get no clustering of mass and hence just a uniform universe with no stars or planets, or the mass cannot escape the singularity and the BB cannot happen. Sure. But who says our Universe is the only universe? What if there are an infinite amount of universes, either coexisting in time or happening sequentially? With an endless amount of universes there would be one where the gravitational constant is exactly right, and that would be our Universe. And where would we be? On which of all these universes would humans arise? On Universe of course. With this scenario there is no coincidence, it is inevitable. Unless of course we end up finding thousands and thousands of other planets with life on them, etc. At what point is it no longer just “inevitable”? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted July 4, 2019 Author Share Posted July 4, 2019 6 hours ago, SoulMonster said: The idea that there is a god (or gods) has no supporting evidence. Science deals with things that are so it wouldn't be unscientific to believe in god but, with the lack of evidence, it would certainly be irrational. So all the greatest minds and scientists that believe in God and believed in God throughout history are/were irrational. I’ll pass them the memo for you, Soulie. “Soul Monster from a Guns N’ Roses forum thinks you are all irrational” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 Just now, Kasanova King said: So all the greatest minds and scientists that believe in God and believed in God throughout history are/were irrational. No. Although believing in gods is an irrational belief, that alone doesn't make you an irrational person. It takes a little bit more than one delusion, in my opinion. I mean, we all suffer from the occasional thinking errors, he occasional mental fuck ups, the occasional brain farts. Doesn't mean we are all crazy. Just that we are human. And religion and belief in god is such a virulent idea and when infesting the brains of children one cannot really blame them for never getting rid of it, no matter how irrational it is. But we have had this discussion before, haven't we? I have had to explain this at least once before here to you. Why are these things so hard to understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted July 4, 2019 Author Share Posted July 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: No. Although believing in gods is an irrational belief, that alone doesn't make you an irrational person. It takes a little bit more than one delusion, in my opinion. I mean, we all suffer from the occasional thinking errors, he occasional mental fuck ups, the occasional brain farts. Doesn't mean we are all crazy. Just that we are human. And religion and belief in god is such a virulent idea and when infesting the brains of children one cannot really blame them for never getting rid of it, no matter how irrational it is. But we have had this discussion before, haven't we? I have had to explain this at least once before here to you. Why are these things so hard to understand? I don’t think it was me. But anyway, I’m not sure you can categorize a lifetime’s faith in God as an occasional ‘brain fart’. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Yeah, what the fuck is wrong with the Yemenis? Anyway, the overall trend is that Arabs are getting less religious. (Rough calculation, the average is that 6 % more now say they are not religious). The results are skewered by the westernized Arab countries, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt etc - the places you can buy a drink basically. For the staunch sharia countries it is basically business as usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: I don’t think it was me. But anyway, I’m not sure you can categorize a lifetime’s faith in God as an occasional ‘brain fart’. You have a point. If they again and again question the basis of their own faith, and again and again conclude wrongly, then it isn't an occasional thing but more a state of perpetual irrationality. 1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said: The results are skewered by the westernized Arab countries, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt etc - the places you can buy a drink basically. For the staunch sharia countries it is basically business as usual. Absolutely. But that is like you would expect it to happen, it starts at the fringes and slowly creeps towards the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted July 4, 2019 Author Share Posted July 4, 2019 5 hours ago, Len Cnut said: What did she confess? That doesn’t sound right. Catholics confess so that they can receive communion. First Holy Communion usually isn’t until age 6 or 7. And you only go to reconciliation once before your first Holy Communion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.