semaj550
-
Content Count
1,118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by semaj550
-
-
I think you and I are in complete agreement on something.Hey, we need people to do "crap" jobs. Just because something isn't the greatest to do doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be done. I do think, however, that it is irresponsible to choose to procreate without any way of provide your offspring with at least a chance to prosper. That's a big part of our problem - people having kids who shouldnt' be. I suppose that is a right we can't take away from them but at the very least we should expect them to do so in a responsible fashion.It is true that it does take individual determination, but the cycle of poverty is always going to be there. Government can't put that desire in someone. It's up to the person to give a damn. And that makes me unsure if changing government policy is really going to be effective. We all have the goal to reduce/eliminate poverty and we realize that it is an impossible goal... but then we must ask ourselves this question "To what degree do we work towards and what can be done to get to that cutoff line?" Some people think the government helps out too many people and some people think the government doesn't help enough people. I think that it shouldn't be the government that people look towards :-/The one thing I dislike about conservative ideals, though... is that they seem to think the capitalist society boosts people's desire and determination to work. The only thing they forget is that it only boosts people to do what needs to be done to live... and not much more. People put in so much effort on their standard of living alone that barely anything ever gets done to advance our society... especially compared to more socialist societies. I would agree that there might be more "bottom-feeders" as people like to call it in socialist societies, but those people really decide to live that way. There are so many opportunities in a socialist society. If they want to have what we would consider a crap job with little responsibility making not much money... then fine, I say let them
There is nothing wrong with having the desire to deal with little responsibility.In our society, though, many "crap" jobs are ran by people who could (and would) do so much more with their lives if they had half the crap that people in socialist societies had. Universal health care being a huge one. I know many people that run those jobs just so their babies or the people they care about can go to the doctor and make sure they're taken care of. Think of all that wasted effort.... -
Then why would we have the beginning ones?that the building blocks and a highly active naturalistic mechanism were potentially available to make it happen. the pre-life situation was not just inert chemicals lying around as you seem to think.you have to understand evolution (you don't) to understand why if life evolved from a simple self-replicating system making interactive use of complex molecules, we wouldn't expect the intermediate steps to still be around. -
You do if you want to call him a liar. If you want disbelieve him, fine. If you want to make a positive assertion about the falsehood of his statement you need some sort of evidence.You are shifting the burden of proof. I don't think you realize, but you are talking about gospel authors seeing something metaphysical. I don't need to prove the guy who says he met santa claus wrong. It's on you to prove that the guy who met santa claus wasn't lying.
Here is a collection of a few resources: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.htmlLee Strobel also provided some excellent interviews in The Case for Christ.There really is a wealth of research on this topic.Also, if you aren't using faith to justify your beliefs in the gospels... then what in the world are you using? You certainly aren't using proof, evidence, or fact.
That's like saying that you are the same person as your brother because you both belong to the same family. It is entirely possible for one metaphysical event to be true, even if all others are not.And on the last topic, the resurrection is not unique in the category that CrowT created defined as "scientifically unverifiable unrepeatable claim". The resurrection is just that... like other ideals that fit that category -
No argument there. I only take exception to the assertion that science is necessarily benevolent and could never be coloured by selfish, untruthful motives. I hold religion to the same standard, you know. I am constantly testing my beliefs and completely open-minded to the truth. I realize that there are those who refuse to question but I'm not arguing in favour of them.But that's the wonderful thing about it! It's always improving! Always changing... always being criticized... completely open-minded to more and more realizations, discoveries, etc.:)I love it! -
There is a reason I live in Canada. I love that we have universal health care, etc. We also have people who are lazy, on welfare, and perpetuate the cycle of poverty. There is no question that socieital values need to change but a large part of that needs to be the individual's willingness to put in a hard day's work.That does tend to be what this society is all about. Kind of sad, really... all this capitalism that promotes this great work ethic completely kills our country's ability to advance as a society.Ever wonder why socialist societies are so far ahead of the times then we are? I'm not in complete support of socialism, but there is a reason why their systems work so much better then ours. You know.. not worrying about having to make money for things like.. health insurance, a trip to the dentists, etc... and being paid enough money in every job to... you know... live comfortably... leaves these societies free to explore, invent, create, etc.But when it takes a single mother of two running 3 **** jobs just to support her family... god, what a waste of a person :/ so sadPeople seem to be just as free in these countries, too... as in, I can run across the border into Canada and not have to deal with the government seizing my Neteller money. Oh yeah, that's right... they don't have stupid, ignorant, conservative, "values", etc laws that restrict people's freedoms like we have here in America. I forgot about that... oh shoot, I lied... gun control and drugs... ****ing left wingers, too... damn... oh, well, at least I can play poker in peace, right? -
I'm not trying to discredit science at all. I'm merely suggesting that if you want to discuss religion vs. science it is necessary to point out that not ever single pronoucement that comes from the scientific community is beyond question and is necessarily valid.No, I'm not trying to argue that at all. You're putting those words in my mouthYOU are the one who said that SCIENCE is as agenda-laden as any religious group. YOU point out science as a whole has the issues and I'm telling you they do not.People have issues... we realize that. I find it funny that you try and discredit science by saying that people are agenda-driven when we try and get you to realize that the history of Christ you rely on is just as unreliable. Only difference is that the scientists you mention have their work on display for all of the great modern minds to see. Discoveries are checked and biased data is worked out... science that hits the ears of the people of today isn't the "fixed" data that you claim it to be. Now back to the amusing parts.. you claim that the metaphysical events that your "authors" recorded that far back in history are true. You try to deny that anything they might have experienced my be an explainable phenomenon today. You can't trash today's scientist's accuracy and then try and support an even feebler notion that your authors who experienced metaphysical events 2000 years ago are true. -
So something has to be based completely outside of reality to be considered faith?I read a lot about being "motivated" by their faith, but my point still stands unchallenged.The discoveries have no basis in faith... only in reality.Also, being religious is just as much a traditional ideal then an active belief. But again... my point still rings true. -
I'm not shifting the burden of proof at all. You asserted that people lie about metaphyiscal events and I put it to you to prove that the gospel authors did so. If you want to call someone a liar you need some proof, grouping them with some unnamed person(s) who may or may not have lied about metaphyiscal events at some point in history says nothing at all about them specifically.you are shifting burden of proof, and as indicated above an unrepeatable, unverifiable claim of any kind does not constitute evidence in any scientific/logical sense.
I'm not assuming the gospels are true based on faith. In fact that is the exact opposite of what I am doing. If the gospels are false then I have no faith at all. There is more than enough evidence to conclude on a prima facie basis that the gospels are true. If you want to rebut those facts go ahead. Your buddy, Mr. Bidstrup, has already tried and failed.again you are shifting burden of proof. if you want to assume, as you are doing, that the gospels are accurate based on faith and place the burden of disproof on others, good for you. that's completely different than saying faith isn't required to believe in them - supporting that hypothesis requires proving alternate hypothesis aren't viable. if you claim faith isn't required the burden is ON YOU to completely rule out the possibilities that the gospel authers weren't either lying to meet specific agendas, honestly mistaken about events due to simple-minded unscientific preconceptions known to be prevalent in ancient cultures, or not first hand witnesses copying other material or oral tradition. good luck.
Other than it's being an event unique and independant of others?how is the resurrection different than any other scientifically unverifiable unrepeatable claim? -
This says what, exactly, about the origin of species (life)?obviously the big bang didn't just spew out inert chemicals. how we got from a fraction of a second after the big bang to planets with a wide variety of complex molecules on their surfaces is very well understood by science.
Therein lies the problem. We have vast numbers of complex molecules and vast numbers of species but nothing is between.also simple non-living self-replicating systems with the potential to build complexity are not theoretical. they exist in nature today. -
Are you actually arguing that there has never been a scientist who fudged a couple numbers to get a result need to secure grant money? Or that scientists never go into something with a preconceived conclusion and give the data a favourable interpretation in order to support it? Or that no scientist have ever ignored a piece of evidence that didn't fit into their puzzle just the way they wanted it to?I'm only saying that science isn't necessarily benevolent and honest and it shouldn't be assumed to be so. People are no less prone to lying just because they obtained a science degree......Define how science (we're talking as a whole) is agenda-laden as any religious group.That is a VERY large and very incorrect statement to be making... especially without having anything to back it up. -
All we had after the big bang was a collection of inert chemicals. They had to from a self-replicating system somehow and you seem to be asserting that natual selection somehow explains that.of course natural selection isn't going to work on inert chemicals. a self-replicating system of some kind is required - however that system does NOT have to be "living". the principals behind natural selection will work on variations in any self-replicating system living or not. some astrophysicists theorize that the same principals are at work in different aspects of the evolution of the universe itself.bad analogy because natural selection is not "fixing" life. it IS BUILDING it up - from simple to complex in small steps. going from something like a simplistic non-living self-replicating crystaline structure to a proto-bacteria by selectively building complexity in countless small increments over millions of years is in principal NOT a different phenomenon than going from a fish to a human. -
What it needs in an influx of hard work. My favourite story is that of Oprah Winfrey herself. She came from slaves and is the richest woman in the world. It took more than one generation to get there but the hard work of many people is what gave her the opportunity to be what she is.Deja vu ......Anyway, discuss all you want about what you might think is right for this country.I just better not hear any crap that this country needs an influx of "family values". -
Here is a list of theistic scientists: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.htmlNo doubt they are too obscure for you to have heard of though.Here is an essay on specifically Christian scientists and their work: http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htmA truth that you have not pointed out yet, sir, because it doesn't exist. What about theism has science delved into?... and I mean this question in a practical sense. -
1. It is not a proven fact that the people who wrote the gospels lied about metaphysical events. In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite.2. Again, generalizations about a population say nothing about specific individuals within that population. People in modern times are on welfare. Does that mean you are on welfare?3. What modern evidence suggests that the Resurrection, specifically, cannot be accurate? I don't care about any other metaphysical event you care to bring up, we are talking about the Resurrection.evidence indicating the gospels are authentic biographies of an actual person is NOT evidence descriptions of metaphysical events in those biographies are accurate.a scientific/logical (without any faith-based assumptions) perspective would be:1. it is a proven fact that people lie about metaphysical events.2. it is a proven fact that people, particularly in ancient times, misinterpreted physical events as metaphysical due to their simplistic unscientific preconceptions.3. it is NOT a proven fact that accounts of metaphysical events can EVER be accurate. on the contrary, the pattern of modern evidence seems to indicate they never are. it follows that, based on science/logic without introducing faith-based assumptions, whether the gospels describe an actual person or not is irrelevant, because there IS NO precedent relating physical accuracy in ancient texts to accuracy in descriptions of metaphysical events in those texts.to believe in the divinity of jesus based on the gospels requires no less faith than it would require to believe me on my word if i claimed *I* was able to work miracles. -
-
Can we at least remove the assumption that "science" is necessarily benevolent and self-sacrificing? Science is just as agenda-laden as any religious group.
-
Natural selection deals specifically with reproductive life forms. Inert chemicals either neither reproductive or life forms.why not?
I've bolded the word life in your response because it's ability to explain the changes in already living things says nothing of the ability to create life in the first place.That's like me saying that because the maintenance records for my car explain how it got to the condition it is in today the mechanic who worked on it must have also built it.the power of natural selection to explain the pattern of building complexity of life IS hard evidence that is may also explain abiogenesis. again, there is no evidence that abiogenesis and speciation are radically different types of phenomena, and every reason to suspect they are similar - part of the SAME pattern. -
There's simply no value in arguing this point with you anymore. The evidence for accepting the validity of the gospels as authentic biographies of an actual person is there whether you are willing to accept it or not.it requires no less faith to believe in the resurrection than it does to believe in any other anti-scientific claim in the bible. if you think otherwise you are deluding yourself. under no circumstances are claims in 2000-year-old texts scientific/logical evidence for events that otherwise contradict science/logic. -
What empirical evidence is there to suggest that natural selection is resonsible for originating life? Natural selection's ability to account for speciation says nothing of it's ability to account for abiogensis. There is no hard evidence to warrant the assumption of these "eventualities".that's just a creationist lie. there are several rather specific theories that based on current information seem to work in principal. the easter bunny and god don't have the pattern of explanatory power being consistently proven by empirical evidence supporting them that natural selection has. whenever we've found evidence allowing us to explain ANYTHING at all relating to life, the explanation has involved natural selection. since that pattern of explanation has been 100% consistent so far, there is no reason to think we won't eventually prove it extends back to the beginning. -
The time between the earth reaching the proper temperature to allow for the creation of life and the earliest life is only a few hundred million years. Much too short a time to actually believe that elements left to themselves could have resulted in those earliest life forms.The hardest step is the spontaneous creation of self-replicating molecules. That has happened under labratory conditions. Everything after that is just random luck. 4.5 billion years is a long time for trial and error. -
You make it sound like it's a matter as simple as walking to the corner store and picking up the needed ingredients. To go from simple proteins to life would be a step of greater proportion than any product of science to date. It is an absolutely enormous task.I don't know how you can say this. Simple self-replicating molecules have been generated in experiemental conditions similar to primordial earth. They don't qualify as life, of course, but more like the first hints of DNA.Separately, simple shells have been spontaneously generated in other setups, using only conditions thought to exist on primordial earth. These are eerily similar to the cell membranes of simple organisms.There are stll a few steps to go.1) Having them occur simultaneously2) Making the self-replicating molecules complex enough to consider them life-like.But it's not that big of a step, really. -
Actually, that is one part of Christianity which doesn't require a whole lot of faith. The evidence makes it pretty plain to see that Christ was born, was crucified, was buried in a sepulchre and disappeared against impossible odds. Many attempts have been made to explain how Christ could have left the sepulchre on Easter Sunday without actually rising from the dead but none have succeeded.. He then reappeared to hundreds of people, many of whom could have easily said that what early Christians were writing was false.You cannot call the statement "God entered time as Jesus Christ" a fact. It is an assertion you are making based upon your faith. -
Anything beyond a vague idea of what may have contributed to a completely naturalistic abiogeneis has certainly been debunked. You may as well be claiming that the Easter Bunny or *gasp* God did it.you presumably are speaking of some study that made no consideration whatsoever of natural selection. natural selection making use of molecular bonding leading (presumably in millions or billions of incremental steps of slowly building complexity) to abiogenesis has absolutely not been debunked. to do so you would have to rule out all possible paths natural selection could have taken, which is for practical purposes impossible with our current understanding. scientists are just starting to explore the possibilities. we simply don't know for sure what was or wasn't possible at this point. -
I also didn't say "greater than", I said "not equal to".I was pointing out that you are grossly incorrect to say that you can't relate theism and science. That statement is simply ignorant of the truth.I never said that science > theismI was pointing out that they are different... that you can't relate the two. Theism does nothing in the fields of science and science, apparently, has no relativity to theistic beliefs.
Discrimination Against Atheists
in Religion
Posted