The hilarious pattern of people in the forums is not realizing they are in the wrong genre.
There is a scientific discussion and then the churchgoers who know nothing about science pipes in.
Then the churchgoers want to discuss matters of faith, what the passages mean and then there's this thick lump who just can't resist the urge to challenge them with prove it.
I mean obviously faith discussions are about what people believe what they feel in their hearts. And academic discussions are about the information that's out there, the peer-reviewed consensus of factual things. They can't mix, it's just plain unintelligent to not be able to tell when you're not in the proper context.
Stick the genre and the discussion will become more productive.
Meaning if it's evolution by random selection, the argument is intelligent design.
G-d is present in our personal lives, the argument is no G-d doesn't exist because we don't see G-d anywhere.
did we evolve? Yes because G-d doesn't exist.
Is it so hard to see the difference?
One thing you'll notice is that not all here have background in science. It takes education to know how to stand against views in science, ask for reference. I've seen many members here posting against or by manipulating science/scientists views towards their faith/belief without knowing what that concept is to begin with. Person with inclination towards skepticism/science will not go with religious delusion but religious views are forced on him and that tempts him to tear apart all those deluded religious concept which people are trying to mix with science.
Religious people want to mix it with science to get approval for their faith or whatever fantasy they have in their mind. After all more people agreeing with you on pink invisible unicorn's existence will give you satisfaction for pitching that theory.
Without going into the merits of your argument, you make it sound as if science and religion are exclusive to each other. I wonder..........
no, you can scientifically explain your religiously tainted argument or use religious language to prove that religion sucks (i've seen some people cleverly do this...i think the last one was randy)
you can even discuss the merits of religion and the merits of science as a way to get to the truth. but what I am lamenting is the obvious confusion of what a fact is from what a belief is.
Head v Heart
What you cant discuss both?
I mean you dont seriously beleive you know everything,or do you
Sorry but some of the opinions expressed here are downright snooty ~lol,but its a free world
To be honest,its time to do something a lil more productive online-so later all, play nice now
case in point.
what has my knowing everything got to do with stick to the genre.
head versus heart? you don't mix the two in an intellectual discussion. You can. But then you would be off tangent. You can disagree but disagree in factual way. You can even say, there are subjective things that cannot be proven. Fact? Yes? touchy feely no. But it is about feelings. You are defending your faith.
But to say that the bible is true because the people who wrote it got divine inspiration is just asking for trouble. you can't prove divine inspiration.
"I mean obviously faith discussions are about what people believe what they feel in their hearts."
Not exactly. Sometimes they are about that, but just as often they are about existence, nature, objective facts and similar topics.
I agree if the religious would stick to the area where their beliefs are appropriate we wouldn't have a problem. The problem is that religion for most people deals with the very stuff of natural science in addition to more subjective matters.
Religion's original function was to explain the unexplainable, after all--how babies are born, where did we come from, how did the world begin, how does nature work, etc.
For you, perhaps, religion is not about science and vice versa, but for many people (I would even assert most people), they are most certainly not mutually exclusive. In fact, to say that they are is one of the cardinal claims of secular modernism, which of course runs counter to almost every religious tradition.
I know what your saying but arguing evolution with the bible said so when you don't know where the bible comes from is just asking for trouble. Or if you don't believe in G-d, saying prove that there's a god is just equally moronic.
You can have a religiously tainted opinion on science or an atheistic perspective on religion. But battling faith with fact is absurd and is prone to bickering and name-calling. Attacking secularism with biblical quotes is equally hilarious.
That is my point. You just don't put two wavelengths is the same line. If you want to make Mark Knowles suffer for not believing in G-d get a better argument than but the bible says so. And if you want to pull the Christian bible fanatic down from her/his moralistic high horse, talk in Jesus speak. But didn't the bible say to take the log from your eye before you say to the other take the speck your eye. Same genre. you get a point across. progress.
"Or if you don't believe in G-d, saying prove that there's a god is just equally moronic."
Well, I don't know about "G-d" but as far as God is concerned, asking for proof or evidence is legitimate because God is defined as an objective thing, not a subjective thing. A subjective thing, like my opinion on fashion or art, is different from claiming that a particular object exists out there in the universe, as a matter of fact.
That is the basic reality about religion that you are missing here. Religion, as a category, makes claims about the objective world.
Anyway, I have tried to demonstrate the inadequacy of the Bible using "Jesus speak" as you call it, i.e. using the Bible. It just doesn't work because a religious believer will always say "oh, you're interpreting it wrong" or "that story is just a metaphor, but this one is a real fact." The problem of course is that there is no single standard of knowledge in supernatural worldviews--essentially, anything goes epistemically.
So of course that demonstrates why religion is totally inadequate as a system of objective knowledge, but as long as people believe it is, the battle will continue.
G-d is a subjective knowledge because YOU DONT SEE HIM. You sense him, you worship but he is not a being that YOU CAN SEE.
Facts are things that we can all agree on because they are either natural laws or that they have applications that prove that they are actually there. Like the wind. Or a photo of the weather from the satellites.
G-d however is not in the realm of facts. An intelligence that governs the universe is not even fact, its an observation of possibility. But that is infinitely better than saying don't throw your pearls to swines.
A fact is something that we can all see and measure. OR if its not a fact, it could be a well-founded theory.
and there is a standard for supernatural worldviews. it's called psychology and mythology now known as depth psychology. people have already seen the patterns and already formed theories as to why we think G-d is fact even when we can't see G-d.
G-d is real, but G-d is not fact.
No - it is a delusion. As we are splitting hairs and using English properly now.
a delusion is :
Psychiatry: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness
to observe is:
to come to realize or know especially through consideration of noted facts
Cecilia, you don't need to SEE wind to know it is there, you can sense it through your other 4 senses. God cannot be sensed through any of the 5 senses. Just because you don't see something does not mean it is not a fact.
Anyway, your conception of God is different from most people's. God is defined as a fact by most people, like it or not.
"A fact is something that we can all see and measure."
Which is precisely what most people see God as. And you can measure God by reading the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, witnessing miracles, or whatever.
"and there is a standard for supernatural worldviews. it's called psychology and mythology now known as depth psychology."
Mythology is itself a product of a particular supernatural worldview. I don't see what psychology or depth psychology has to do with an objective standard of knowledge for supernaturalism. In fact, to the contrary, by definition psychology is a naturalistic explanatory system, not a supernaturalistic one.
If you are to say that "we all have an experience of God on an unconscious or semiconscious level, therefore this indicates that God probably exists" this is of course flawed because all people share many psychological phenomena in common, including delusions and self-hypnosis. These things can be used to explain away anything someone wants to call "God."
"G-d is real, but G-d is not fact."
By definition, anything that is real is a fact.
So either it is or it isn't.
Any one who thinks they can prove god does or does not exist is nothing more than a moron.
some people think they CAN disprove god.
Really? You sure they don't want to explain is is just a myth that has outgrown its usefulness and should not be considered fact any more. That just tends to cause people to argue with known scientific facts and try to get laws changed to prevent some people from doing certain things that God sez is bad.
You cannot disprove that thess people feel a positive force when they believe in G-d. They feel G-d in their lives. They can't prove that. But you can argue that their belief is subjective and is not factual and if they say, but I feel G-d in my life...you still gonna ask them to prove it, Mark? Can you prove that G-d is NOT in your life? Its a ridiculous exercise.
I believe in G-d. You will see it influences all my arguments but I am clear that in the subject of biblical history my beliefs play no part.
I also do not disparage people who say that the positive effects of G-d in people's lives are widely documented. But I will raise my eyebrow and be snooty with people who say that the bible is unchanged for 2,000 years and say it like its a FACT. People can believe what they believe but please, don't clutter up the forum with off-tagent arguments that only makes the discussion spiral down to a waste of time, generally speaking.
"you sure they don't want to explain it is just a myth"
You just claimed that you can prove it's a myth.
Good job on proving my point. Sorry that the conclusion that I drew earlier leads to an insult.
Odd - I never said I could prove it was a myth. I do think it is a myth, and have a good argument for such - but - I did not say I could prove it as you so aptly demonstrated by pasting what I actually said. I do want to explain to people that I think God is a myth and not real. I cannot prove it.
Good job on being un-necessarily antagonistic. I mean - you are obviously not sorry so why say so other than to antagonize me?
And I am not insulted, because you have not proved your point. Simply twisted a question I asked. If you think I am a moron - come out and say so. I am unlikely to be offended given the source of the remark.
I did not know that that was the same as actually making a claim. I will be careful to avoid the word "explain" in future as it implies proving.
since when did "to explain" mean "to prove"?
this is a case of definition problem.
myth is a story of a certain culture that is rich in symbology, it doesn't mean its a lie, it only means as literature it has the flavor of symbolic language that is presented as fact--a metaphor.
Thank you, you took the words out of my mouth.
It's just not something you prove.
I'd like to think that I'd phrase it differently, but this statement pretty much says it all.
A belief doesn't magically turn into a fact just because it's strongly held and vehemently promoted.
To the OP
Maybe because the separation of religion and science is what has allowed the pseudo-science of creationism to be manufactured. This is religion trying to deny science and most christians in these forums seem to support this last-ditch attempt to give religion some false credibility. I don't see much argument between those religious posters who see their god as a useful metaphor that must be viewed as in some way real for the idea to work - and those who just see god as a metaphor.
Do you ?
There is a language you use in discussions. If it's about FEELINGS and subjective reality, you don't mix that up with things that require proof.
It's not about the motivation, its about using fact as an argument of fact or feelings as a way to discuss feelings. You can defend feelings by a factual definition and so on and so forth. You don't say but you're wrong because there is no god or the bible said this as a response to a post about intelligent design or evolution. You see the difference. I could say to someone who believes in evolution (i say believe assuming his knowledge is inadequate) that evolution is driven by a process that can be construed as a form of intelligence. I'm not going to say but G-d created us in his image and likeness. It's just plain dimwitted.
As for pseudo-science, pseudo-science is another form of mythology using science as reason to believe. Much of religion is ideology that breaks away from ritual, from ignorance of what is being practiced but somehow it always converts back to ritual. The human habit of automating is really the the bane of our intellectual growth So the difference between those who see religion as real in order for it to work and those that knows they are metaphors is this.
One knows what's going on and as a choice and the other doesn't. IN metaphoric terms, one is enlightened and the other remains in darkness.
Those who need to see it as real, don't have the capacity nor the patience to understand why, but they benefit from it anyway in some kind of calming way. Those who see they are metaphors (and not just dismiss them as metaphors without knowing what they mean) intellectually know what they stand for and are able to use them deliberately to better their lives and understanding.
Ironically this thread has just become what it was created to complain about. It seems to be an incorrigible problem.
There are probably as many definitions of intelligence as there are experts who study it. Simply put, however, intelligence is the ability to learn about, learn from, understand, and interact with one’s environment. This general ability consists of a number of specific abilities, which include these specific abilities:
ADAPTABILITY to a new environment or to changes in the current environment
Capacity for KNOWLEDGE and the ABILITY TO ACQUIRE it
Capacity for reason and abstract thought
Ability to comprehend relationships
Ability to evaluate and judge
Capacity for original and productive thought
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
a gene is "a locatable region of genomic sequence, corresponding to a unit of inheritance, which is associated with REGULATORY regions, transcribed regions, and or other functional sequence regions ". Colloquial usage of the term gene (e.g. "good genes, "hair color gene") may actually refer to an allele: a gene is the BASIC INSTRUCTION, a sequence of nucleic acid (DNA or, in the case of certain viruses RNA), while an allele is one variant of that gene.
INTELLIGENCE -ABILITY TO HOLD AND ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE
EVOLUTION - THE PASSING ON OF ACQUIRED INFORMATION THROUGH GENETICS
Genes (actually cells)-the unit that holds information regulates, transcribes and transfer functions, it adapts, has the capacity to store and acquire knowledge, it evaluate response etc.
space evolved in same darwinian style of evolution, big bang. and it repeats this process over and over in ever changing scales.
intelligence in evolution, observation but not fact.
genetics, intelligence and passing on genes through heredity are facts.
I however observe as well as others that they do tend to connect in more ways than one particularly that the emergent result is intelligent us.
Stick to the facts please. And proper English also.
? I did. the fact is intelligent evolution is NOT a fact and is just an observation. that's a fact.
Now you're trying to be witty. sorry about my englosh I don't have time to spell check or check grammer
I was just reading your post on the "facts", you have a very limited definition of evolution.
I would actually like to know if you really understand how mutations work and what 'genes' are being evolved.
Do you believe that environment plays a roll in the process?
Do you you believe that evolution is only the process of passing on genes?
sandra, i know about epigenetics. you probably weren't here during marine's the cell is conscious thread. But i'm already over posting to prove the difference between observation and delusion. so i didn't bother to write about it.
but be assured I know that the environment determines the adaptation of the cell through the membrane. it is a long story. the membrane is key to that study because if you take out the genes, the cell continues to go about its usual business. it just doesn't replicate. so genes are gonads containing data, in the same way that sperm contains genes. genes are more like a language of the cell than anything, atleast it behaves that way
and yes i know about evolution and memetics and dawkins and the altruistic vessel and so on and so forth. so why? you disagree with my observation? that's not a problem. observation is dependent on a person's set of facts and interpretation of those facts. they are however NOT facts.
Who suggested "intelligent evolution" as a fact? You. Evolution is a fact.
Please present your facts.
Huh? read again. I said it's " not a even a fact, it's an observation". mark.
No - it is millions of facts and observable phenomena with a theory to explain those facts.
Where are your facts that you use to make an observation that there is a G-d?
Exactly - you are making an irrational assumption based on mythological belief - not facts.
The "fact," that you reconcile the two by using a strange brand of semantic reasoning has no bearing on the actual facts.
And worry not - if it is validation you are after - keep this up and there will be plenty of believers who stop by and pat you on the back for explaining things so rationally.
As to your original question:
Remember - evolution is just a theory that proves there is not a hand of god involved. This is why religious people feel the need to attack scientific facts with their beliefs. There is a clash of reasoning. Most religious believers (including yourself) have concocted an elaborate chain of reasoning that allows them to group "feelings," in with "facts," as being exactly the same. At least you can admit your belief has no basis in scientific reasoning - but then you try and argue an irrational case for "intelligent evolution," in order to scientifically validate your irrational beliefs.
This has happened with all scientific advancements and will continue to happen, because your god is a "god of the gaps," and science fills in those gaps.
I really am enjoying this thread I wish I had the capacity to precisely word an idea as you do Cecilia, and I whole heartedly agree with your op. Watching others attempt to denigrate the thread as they do is almost funny, almost.
Have you noticed, that you are talking to yourself,Cecilia, most of the time?
Do you wonder why?
by Phocas Vincent 5 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys, thank you.)
by Justin R. Anthony 6 years ago
I normally pay no attention to religious discussions. Partially because people tend to loose their minds when the "R" word is mentioned. However, due to recent attention from the media on religious people who make fools of themselves by way of ridiculously over zealous beliefs that make...
by brittvan22 8 years ago
Can you be religious and not spiritual and vice versa?Can you be a person so dedicated to your religion that you have no real sense of spirituality? Does spirituality led to separation from religious traditions?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 7 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by Kylyssa Shay 5 years ago
Did you know that accepting evolution doesn't make one an atheist?I keep seeing conservative evangelical Christians trying to prove Yahweh is real beyond a shadow of a doubt using the fact that they don't believe evolution occurred or occurs. Why do they bother? Most of the people in the world who...
by olivertwisted 10 years ago
Can anyone back up the THEORY of evolution without junk science?"The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|