Sip Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Ok let me ellaborate ... many many years ago, human knowledge was quite limited. You had these amazing intellectuals that were mathematicians, chemists, astrologists, physicists, philosophers, writers, thinkers, musicans, etc etc ALL at the same time. But now, our time is such that for example a dumb ass like me has spent the better part of his youth studying a very very specific subfield of a very very very new field (i.e. "embedded systems" in "computer science") and I still feel NO where nearly qualified enough to be able to judge theories in this field without spending quite a bit of time digging into the details and familiarizing myself with all aspects of the assumptions, methodology, and theoretical foundations of the result. Now this is in a field that I am supposedly quite familiar with and have some credentials to back it up! The times where a thinker could sit and remotely ponder a subject and make a decision as to the validity of the subject are LONG gone. Now we have people that spend their entire lifetimes pondering a very specific knowledge domain and still not have any clue about it simply due to the VASTness of what we know as humans. So I'd say damn straight you better have some sort of credentials (or at least credibility) before rejecting or proposing anything!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 I find this reasoning faulty. Discussing a certain topic, and agreeing/disagreeing with, is not bound by credentials. As long as one presents a logical argument backs up his/her assertions, and carries the discussion in a like manner, all is well. What one persons professional/academic works entail, is a totally different matter. By your logic, we shouldn't even talk about evolution or science since we have no credentials in it, nor should you or anyone else attempt to talk about any other field for which you have no credentials in. In fact, I shouldn't even have made a thread about evolution, nor should people engage in talks relating to economics if they have no credentials in economics, or political science. I have to respectufully disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 My point is you shouldn't bash evolutionists just as much as evolutionists shouldn't bash the other side... unless, the basher has earned bashing rights by demonstrating indepth knowledge of a subject. As an example, I would put up Domino against ANY dumb ass turk denialist claiming the Armenian genocide is a fabrication by the jews. I mean this kid knows things about the genocide that probably God even doesn't know yet. In other words, Domino has some serious credentials in my eyes when that topic is concerned. On a side note, by "credentials" I didn't mean to imply a piece of paper stating such. God knows (yes I use God in my sentences ) I have seen "Ph.D."s that would have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time, let alone form a coherent thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 If you truly know the scientific method, then you would hav read Karl Popper, who stated all theories are falsifiable. What you and the brigade of evolutionists are suggesting is that evolution is somehow above science. Am I missing something? No evolution is science - and it is good scisnce...that is the point... And I've read Popper (Open Society and Its enemies - etc) probably before you were even born...! Face it mouse - there is probably little that you have read in your life that I have not read already...not to discourage such - as I would never presume to discourage reading...just I continue to be surprsed how little you truly seem to understand - having read so much of value... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 My point is you shouldn't bash evolutionists just as much as evolutionists shouldn't bash the other side... unless, the basher has earned bashing rights by demonstrating indepth knowledge of a subject. As an example, I would put up Domino against ANY dumb ass turk denialist claiming the Armenian genocide is a fabrication by the jews. I mean this kid knows things about the genocide that probably God even doesn't know yet. In other words, Domino has some serious credentials in my eyes when that topic is concerned. On a side note, by "credentials" I didn't mean to imply a piece of paper stating such. God knows (yes I use God in my sentences ) I have seen "Ph.D."s that would have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time, let alone form a coherent thought. Okay, point taken. All bashing should be set aside. I have no qualms there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 but I have been stating, much to the dismay of you and Domino and Co. that evolution is grounded in belief; a religion of its own class. Evolution is grounded in observation, mousey, and whatever Popper did or did not say about deductivism, i'd be surprised if he said that the starting point had to be anything other than good observational procedures. So evolution is not a belief like religion, since most beliefs are not grounded in any form of observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Anonymouse, You are quite bold to dare confront your pale elucubrations with the science of HyeForum's greatest minds (including knowledge-empowered Stormig). Who do you think you are? Do you actually watch the weakest link? Would you have guessed 'origano'? I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 since most beliefs are not grounded in any form of observation. This is a gratuitous statement. Religious sentiment may correspond to some kind of non-material yet graspable ("observable") reality. The fact that you may not personaly be able to grasp this reality doesn't imply its non-existence. Would blind people be justified in asserting light does not exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 I give Anon credit for provoking such heated debate.I disagree with you but it is fun disagreeing with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 This is a gratuitous statement. Religious sentiment may correspond to some kind of non-material yet graspable ("observable") reality. The fact that you may not personaly be able to grasp this reality doesn't imply its non-existence. Would blind people be justified in asserting light does not exist? Religious sentiment makes for an observable fantasy, not an observable reality. True, most religion has at its core a desire to explain the unexplained. But that very rarely make for an explanation grounded in observation and almost never makes for one grounded in reality. When I said "observation" I mean scientific observation, looking at something without preconceptions. For example, I doubt that a soft-brained individual who believes in Noah and the Flood would ever consider properly looking at the distribution of dinosaur bones in layers of strata since he would assume they all came about as a result of deaths due to the Flood. That sort of religious outlook is about as valid as an "observation" as the ancient greeks believing that mushrooms were the seed of the Gods because they observed that they seemed to appear from nowhere. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 When I said "observation" I mean scientific observation, looking at something without preconceptions. This is not i accurate. In science the large majority of times you find an evidences because you search something... that is procenception... you have a hypotheses first(preconception) and this will influence the outcome of the experiment. There is many things that science and religion have in common and this is one of those many things. I want to discuss about that, but it is a good suny day today and I want to go out... maybe when I come home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Evolution is grounded in observation, mousey, and whatever Popper did or did not say about deductivism, i'd be surprised if he said that the starting point had to be anything other than good observational procedures. So evolution is not a belief like religion, since most beliefs are not grounded in any form of observation. Mister Cat, I respectfully disagree, even though I understand what you're saying. There are things we observe in nature, regarding "evolution", such as adaptation, or within species variation. Such things are plentiful. I have no disputed this. The confusion comes in when evolutionary theory attempts to cloak the whole thing with one vague term "evolution", so anything is really evolution. When I disagree with evolution, it might appear I dismiss such things as within species variation. That is not what I have maintained. Within species variation is in fact observable. The assertion that this in itself leads to more complex changes on a macro level, that is unsubstantiated, and entirely based on belief. So evolution, is observable and is not, depending on how you define it. If you define it as within species variations, then it sure is observable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Anonymouse, You are quite bold to dare confront your pale elucubrations with the science of HyeForum's greatest minds (including knowledge-empowered Stormig). Who do you think you are? Do you actually watch the weakest link? Would you have guessed 'origano'? I think not. I apologize if I tainted the intellectual decorum created by the greatest minds. I am Anonymouse, a skeptical inquirer who has taken it upon himself to question the said truths many of you abide by. I don't consider your childishness very fruitful, given that I disagree with evolution with this paucity of evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Slight cleanup ... Angel/Anoushik if you have a problem with each other please use PMs. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 wow! you still don't get it! instead of criticizing other people's objectivity look at your own! are you like 16?? ahh bruin jan-- let it go-- shes caling the kettle black here--ahh the utter chaos that some people choose to create- when theyre not even being "targeted" by anyone -- anywhoo i still cant stop laughing at some people and how they think that they are soo up there and mature- but their actions prove the total opposite... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 The idea just strike me after reading this thread in entirely that God much like great music is appreciated and reflected by the observer if he or she is open to it. We can neither proof nor disprove therefore one act through intuition. I believe people are on different planes lower, middle, higher in their spiritual development and talking about higher consciousness to lower spiritual person will never make sense. It is much like math before the basics you would not be able to make someone understand calculus therefore I bring no doctrines nor discredit any and also I am aware I said nothing either. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Armat, the main difference between music and god is that we hear music and then decide whether it is good or not. With God, we are supposed to "sense" something, whatever that may be, and if it is good we are supposed to attribute it to God and if it is bad we are supposed to attribute it to "not God" (a much more arbitrary categorization). In other words, "Godness" is somehow predetermined as being all that is good and holy while music must be good in order to be good music! Did I make any sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Armat, the main difference between music and god is that we hear music and then decide whether it is good or not. With God, we are supposed to "sense" something, whatever that may be, and if it is good we are supposed to attribute it to God and if it is bad we are supposed to attribute it to "not God" (a much more arbitrary categorization). In other words, "Godness" is somehow predetermined as being all that is good and holy while music must be good in order to be good music! Did I make any sense? Yes true but also you cannot remove God from Bach's music. I mean by his own admition he was inspired by it hence his music is a testament for God's existence. This is very abstract but is it not what we are discussing an abstraction? The clues are in every great literature, painting, music that is perhaps what we think God is precisely the element beyond everything that even proceeded logic but reveals itself through other means. We know about electrons, atoms, quarts but we also know in physics that matter can not be created nor destroyed so there is this paradox how can the universe exist without a creator. Big bang? But what formed the mass before the explosion. Scientists say clouds of dust but where did the dust come from. Do you follow me? What I think God is that which created everything literally including itself. This very discussion is a testament to its existence otherwise we would not even talk about or his existence would not even be an issue. It is the life force, which propels us forward even in denial of it since without it life is totally meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyebruin Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 ahh bruin jan-- let it go-- shes caling the kettle black here--ahh the utter chaos that some people choose to create- when theyre not even being "targeted" by anyone -- anywhoo i still cant stop laughing at some people and how they think that they are soo up there and mature- but their actions prove the total opposite... no worries angel...maybe i misunderstood her...but i wouldn't be so rash about analyzing other people's posts unless it's something stated very clearly...it reminded me of high school american lit where we used to analyze poems and be all subjective. and have "no wrong answers" (god! i HATE that!!! it's the same way the current u.s. society operates...a bunch of "free thinkers" who don't see good and bad just "different lifestyles"--they buy into that whole politcal correctness crap and actually think they can think for themselves and are enlightened!! yet whatever comes out of their mouths is in accord with the masses). ..well what i said is not "open" to interpretation...i had something in mind and it was stated....hate it when people try to put their elaborations on my thoughts....well just call them YOUR thoughts..cuz they sure as heck are not mine! don't tie 'em into what I was sayin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted April 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Hyebruin, I really don't get you. You state your opinion about atheists and I, being an atheist, cannot make a comment or ask you why you think that way? Then why do you post in the first place? If you choose to post then you have to be able to accept the fact that your writings will be interpreted differently by diffenent members. If you want to make a clear statement so that all members understand exactly what you want us to understand, then please, write clearer posts! Otherwise, why do you get offended when I make a comment regarding you post? PS. I planned to PM you but since you choose to post it here I'll just do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted April 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Yes true but also you cannot remove God from Bach's music. I mean by his own admition he was inspired by it hence his music is a testament for God's existence. This is very abstract but is it not what we are discussing an abstraction? The clues are in every great literature, painting, music that is perhaps what we think God is precisely the element beyond everything that even proceeded logic but reveals itself through other means. We know about electrons, atoms, quarts but we also know in physics that matter can not be created nor destroyed so there is this paradox how can the universe exist without a creator. Big bang? But what formed the mass before the explosion. Scientists say clouds of dust but where did the dust come from. Do you follow me? What I think God is that which created everything literally including itself. This very discussion is a testament to its existence otherwise we would not even talk about or his existence would not even be an issue. It is the life force, which propels us forward even in denial of it since without it life is totally meaningless. That's pretty interesting Armat. But your definition of God is so general that, like you said, it applies to everything. Thinking from this point of view I think that it could also apply to the human soul. So in other words, I think one could say that God is in every one of us. (Actually Sasun says this, if I'm not mistaken.) I cannot deny this existence of a higher being, but why do you call it God? Why does it deserve to be called God? I think the only time a being deserves to be called God is when that being is all-good and all-powerful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Steve, Getting back to my analogy. The blind doesn't see the light. Can he infer from that that his brother cannot see? He may choose to deny the reality of light and declare it a fantasy. It may be that most people are blind and only a few can see (and of course, you may have some charlatans who pretend to see yet don't) I have no time to elaborate (and my english is not good enough) but think about it carefully. Also leave alone your own preconceptions about religious people. True, there are some soft-brained individuals which cannot see the spirit past the letter. These are as blind as the atheists. True religious sentiment is not belief in the letter. Anon, Well I guess you too belong with the "greatest minds" of the forum. I apologize for erroneously putting you aside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 I believe those who declare themselves as atheists do it mostly out of (misplaced) pride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 "Ph.D."s that would have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time, let alone form a coherent thought. I thought it was not Ph.D.'s but Americans, or so the story goes where I come from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Anonymouse, You are quite bold to dare confront your pale elucubrations with the science of HyeForum's greatest minds (including knowledge-empowered Stormig). Who do you think you are? Do you actually watch the weakest link? Would you have guessed 'origano'? I think not. Remember, Mousey, Axel doesn't take a liking to people that watch Weakest Link. 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.