- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Doesn't it strike you as awfully coincidental? (Science vs Religious Belief)
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:30 am to AUbused
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:30 am to AUbused
quote:
.......but given the numbers (e.g. 57% of republicans reject evolution)....I believe that to be the exception. I do not believe it to be a coincidence.
This is nothing more than conjecture on my part but I suspect at least some of those included in that percentage just wanted to appear contradictory to the "other side" who they deem less than traditional.
0
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:31 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:In current classrooms, no such distinction is allowed. It is a horrendously counterproductive and scientifically stupid approach.
there's a difference between questioning and denying
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:32 am to BugAC
quote:we can start with Rev.
Who here denies evolution? Why must evolution or "science" and religion exclusive from each other
And if you believe in evolution, you're doing a good job in denying your beliefs. I agree that evolution and the belief in God are not mutually exclusive. So why are you arguing against evolution?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:34 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Difficult to imagine a true agnostic saying these things:
He also said this:
quote:
My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:34 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
No.
What you are saying is jibberish.
e.g., Warmist science. Warmist science has nothing to do with "running contrary to religion".
Ohh Im sorry, please tell me more about the things I've heard directly from the lips of numerous people I work with.
I am in no way saying that warming is irrefutable, or that all "deniers" do so from religious bias..........more likely political.
But you didn't even respond to the contents of my post. Let me put it another way.
57% of Republicans reject evolution. Something like 68% or more of evangelical christians. Do you believe that is a coincidence? That the majority of those people took a long look at the science and said, you know what? Nah! The adams rib thing is much more scientifically plausible!
frick no you dont. As to you blabbering about evolution, it has no bearing on my post.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:36 am to NC_Tigah
quote:denial of science is not allowed. Questioning is. Scientist question every day. That's how discovery is made.
In current classrooms, no such distinction is allowed. It is a horrendously counterproductive and scientifically stupid approach.
You're in medicine. There's a difference in questioning various protocols vs questioning that medicine heals.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:37 am to Vegas Bengal
Yay! More religious threads to let me know who the kooky people are
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:38 am to TK421
quote:
True, his fallacy was more of a reductio ad absurdum
Bet saying that made you feel all smart and warm and fuzzy!
The fact is that this guy denies humans have the ability to warm the environment because its "hubris".....my point is valid. As would it be if I had said something like " burn all forests in the world. The fact is that humans can EASILY cool or warm this planet to the point of being unable to exist on it. I know that fact is inconvenient for a lot of people, but its still a fact.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:39 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
And if you believe in evolution, you're doing a good job in denying your beliefs.
No I am not. I have stated several times, yet you seem to gloss over it, when i say, "I believe that evolution exists up to a point, such as life evolves/adapts to it's environment to increase it's chances of survival/propagation of the species. But there are some things that can not simply be explained by "evolution" alone. One being, the creation of man. There is a huge evolutionary gap to go from (in simplistic example) monkey = human. Also, do not assume because I am Christian I believe one thing over another. I have my own beliefs that are based on the teachings of Jesus. They are mine, and mine alone. You, nor anyone else, can tell me they are wrong, because you do not know my beliefs, nor my faith.
quote:
I agree that evolution and the belief in God are not mutually exclusive. So why are you arguing against evolution?
Again, i am not arguing against. See above.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:40 am to TK421
I imagine the rub between Scientist openly professing a belief in God...would be in the contextual meaning of the word 'god', as such is imagined and promoted by the Religious community. Such being, a 'personal' God that is not passive in human endeavor...but hands on. If He/It "numbers the hairs on your head"...hard to imagine he don't get involved in critical arguments/outcomes like Religion and Politics. Or parting the Red Sea to lend support to his children.
There are philosophical aspects of such an active God, which - IMHO - would limit such OVERT actions. Such action would UNDERMINE Free Will and personal sovereignty, as the existence of God would be perceived as unquestionable by all; removing any doubt...and any (contrary) choice therein. Therein, the very Act of Creation would become necessarily SELF-SERVING; at least in the eye and prosecution of an 'accuser'.
And conversion to belief would become an act of bribery; like Obama buying votes.
Even God has to follow the Principles set out in The Word. "In the beginning..." means just that, ground level.
Fun. But I gotta paint.
There are philosophical aspects of such an active God, which - IMHO - would limit such OVERT actions. Such action would UNDERMINE Free Will and personal sovereignty, as the existence of God would be perceived as unquestionable by all; removing any doubt...and any (contrary) choice therein. Therein, the very Act of Creation would become necessarily SELF-SERVING; at least in the eye and prosecution of an 'accuser'.
And conversion to belief would become an act of bribery; like Obama buying votes.
Even God has to follow the Principles set out in The Word. "In the beginning..." means just that, ground level.
Fun. But I gotta paint.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 11:43 am
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:42 am to AUbused
quote:
The fact is that this guy denies humans have the ability to warm the environment because its "hubris".....my point is valid.
No, you committed a logical fallacy and you are not nearly as intelligent as you think you are. This is a common trend with posters who start threads like these.
What is your profession?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:43 am to BugAC
The fact that you think evolution = monkey to human shows your ignorance of evolution. Read. Learn. Educate yourself.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:45 am to AUbused
quote:As I said, it is a case not of message, but of messenger.
57% of Republicans reject evolution. Something like 68% or more of evangelical christians. Do you believe that is a coincidence? That the majority of those people took a long look at the science and said, you know what? Nah! The adams rib thing is much more scientifically plausible!
The messengers in this case often seem less bright than those they are targeting. Certainly their methodology for conveyance is awful.
Leaves one of two possibilities.
Either teaching methods are deliberately awful, or they're awful d/t stupidity of those developing the teaching method.
You choose.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:45 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
The fact that you think evolution = monkey to human shows your ignorance of evolution.
Again, i even stated this was an overly simplistic example to avoid an asinine comment such as this. Please read before making your snide remarks.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:47 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Vegas Bengal
Now if you would like to come back to the other thread and give me your opinions of the several questions i asked, i'd be willing to listen and debate.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:49 am to TK421
quote:Not to mention he created the strawman argument in the OP...
No, you committed a logical fallacy
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:50 am to AUbused
quote:
these people do not accept the science is not logic or reason, but bias and emotion.
That's true for basically everyone, it isn't just "these" people.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:51 am to foshizzle
How did all the matter exist before nothing to create the big bang?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:51 am to foshizzle
quote:Indeed. For all the back-and-forth on evoltuion vs. religion on this board... I've never seen an original-thought scientific argument presented. Only agument from authority (at best), but mostly its simple bandwagoning.
these people do not accept the science is not logic or reason, but bias and emotion.
===================
That's true for basically everyone, it isn't just "these" people.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:52 am to BugAC
quote:
Your stupid,
Page 5 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News