Beware apologists and their debating tactics meant to fool you into thinking the two are not logically contradictory views of reality.
Notification Details
Michael Steudten and Bugs Mitchell
Mentioned you, Commented on: I believe
that once one really understands what this meme is saying, it should
lead to an easing up on the rigid adherence to secular dogma
and anti-woo crusading. How many times must it be pointed
Bugs Mitchell
Shared publicly - Sep
25, 2015
I believe that once one really
understands what this meme is saying, it should lead to an
easing up on the rigid adherence to secular dogma and anti-woo
crusading. How many times must it be pointed out that understanding
our reality is not a choice between science and religion? Both are
valuable and necessary tools.
Hide comments
Science has no explanation for the
origin of life and has no explanation for individual personhood.
Would you agree with that?
+Bugs
Mitchell It's 2 Questions,
#1 Origin of life needs a deeper look into the fields of biology than theologists might be aware of. In biology we don't have a digital world. There are things to observe where it is difficult to define it as life, not yet life or whatever. Is a virus a lifeform? That question may put light on the difficulties we are facing.
Or to give another difficulty: there are humans with male genitals who feel to be female. The sex is not digital either. Especially when you observe primitive "life-forms" you can get into trouble how to define it.
The further you go back in time the less information you have. It`s just as if the FBI had to solve a crime from the 15. century. But science does better than the FBI. We do know a lot about the early beginnings of life in biology and palaeontology but the final question is not answered yet, but by no-one. Especially not by religions. Nothing points towards a creation-myth.
#2 The existence of "individual personhood" is trivial under the light of genetics. Do the personal fingerprints constitute the need to submit to a creator or a psychotic god who needs his son sacrificed under torture to calm down? Certainly not!
#1 Origin of life needs a deeper look into the fields of biology than theologists might be aware of. In biology we don't have a digital world. There are things to observe where it is difficult to define it as life, not yet life or whatever. Is a virus a lifeform? That question may put light on the difficulties we are facing.
Or to give another difficulty: there are humans with male genitals who feel to be female. The sex is not digital either. Especially when you observe primitive "life-forms" you can get into trouble how to define it.
The further you go back in time the less information you have. It`s just as if the FBI had to solve a crime from the 15. century. But science does better than the FBI. We do know a lot about the early beginnings of life in biology and palaeontology but the final question is not answered yet, but by no-one. Especially not by religions. Nothing points towards a creation-myth.
#2 The existence of "individual personhood" is trivial under the light of genetics. Do the personal fingerprints constitute the need to submit to a creator or a psychotic god who needs his son sacrificed under torture to calm down? Certainly not!
The fact that science doesn't have all
the answers is one of the absurd criticisms of science one can make.
There would be no meaningful answers at all if it weren't for
science. And it does so often in the face of religious
opposition.
+David
Strumfels Did you see anything on this post and/or
comments that is critical of science? Are facts criticism? Do you
have a problem with discussing facts? Is not what I said above about
us having zero scientific explanation for the origin of life 100%
factual?
I don't expect +Michael Steudten to grasp the other point about personhood since he obviously missed it and he and I have been hashing this out for a couple years now. I don't know you well enough yet to know where you stand on these questions so I won't assume or try to put words in your mouth.
I don't expect +Michael Steudten to grasp the other point about personhood since he obviously missed it and he and I have been hashing this out for a couple years now. I don't know you well enough yet to know where you stand on these questions so I won't assume or try to put words in your mouth.
+Bugs
Mitchell Coming back to facts. The size of our universe is an
interesting fact to present here. To assume this huge universe
was made just to create humans in not only anthropocentric but also
utmost stupid. I`d call it megalomania.
https://youtu.be/17jymDn0W6U
https://youtu.be/17jymDn0W6U
+Michael
Steudten What's of more value, a rock, a tree, a dolphin or a
human child? Why?
+Bugs
Mitchell You religiots are specialised on creating the most
stupid questions!
There is no absolute ranking!
For me as a humanist this is of course not a new question.
Evolution comes into play!
Due to evolution we humans have the highest empathy for childs, but
not only human childs!
Does it surprise you?
By evolution we are close to dolphins--->empathy.
The evolutionary distance to trees is greater--->less empathy.
But what is behind this? What do dolphins share with humans that trees don`t? Religion? Science? Certainly neither.
Do trees have the ability for empathy, or rocks? Do they share religions?
How does your pillow feel when you masturbate on it?
This should be enough for your naive question...
There is no absolute ranking!
For me as a humanist this is of course not a new question.
Evolution comes into play!
Due to evolution we humans have the highest empathy for childs, but
not only human childs!
Does it surprise you?
By evolution we are close to dolphins--->empathy.
The evolutionary distance to trees is greater--->less empathy.
But what is behind this? What do dolphins share with humans that trees don`t? Religion? Science? Certainly neither.
Do trees have the ability for empathy, or rocks? Do they share religions?
How does your pillow feel when you masturbate on it?
This should be enough for your naive question...
+Bugs
Mitchell
Funny. "Is not what I said above about us having zero scientific explanation for the origin of life 100% factual? " No, it is not factual, not at all, not in the slightest. Over the decades, scientists have made enormous strides on the origin of life, even into a significant number of details; ironically, one of the problems they've run into is there seems to be too many reasonable theories that narrowing the search is difficult.
Just because you have no clues about something, doesn't mean others don't either, a simple reality that you ought to give thought to. "I don't know" does not equal "nobody knows," and it certainly doesn't justify any religious beliefs or leaving things as mysteries. Frankly, all this is a form of pseudoscientic apologetics, and I am neither fooled nor amused.
You, and the post in general, think that emotional states like curiosity and fascination, and other mental functions like "personhood", can't have scientific explanations. This is silly. Our emotional and mental states are obviously generated from our brains, which have undergone as much evolution as the rest of our bodies have. We might not know (yet) what all the specific details are, but that is certainly the basic truth, the path to follow, the one that will lead to meaningful explanations. Instead of this rubbish.
Funny. "Is not what I said above about us having zero scientific explanation for the origin of life 100% factual? " No, it is not factual, not at all, not in the slightest. Over the decades, scientists have made enormous strides on the origin of life, even into a significant number of details; ironically, one of the problems they've run into is there seems to be too many reasonable theories that narrowing the search is difficult.
Just because you have no clues about something, doesn't mean others don't either, a simple reality that you ought to give thought to. "I don't know" does not equal "nobody knows," and it certainly doesn't justify any religious beliefs or leaving things as mysteries. Frankly, all this is a form of pseudoscientic apologetics, and I am neither fooled nor amused.
You, and the post in general, think that emotional states like curiosity and fascination, and other mental functions like "personhood", can't have scientific explanations. This is silly. Our emotional and mental states are obviously generated from our brains, which have undergone as much evolution as the rest of our bodies have. We might not know (yet) what all the specific details are, but that is certainly the basic truth, the path to follow, the one that will lead to meaningful explanations. Instead of this rubbish.
+David
Strumfels I'm sorry perhaps you forgot to mention it. What
was the explanation for the origin of life on this planet? When
Richard Dawkins was asked this question he had no problem admitting
we don't have one. Why do you? Actually when pressed on it he said it
might have been aliens. Great strides indeed.
You calling my faith rubbish is a lovely opinion, but that is all it is and you have every right to it, but please tell me you're not going to get preachy like +Michael Steudten.
You calling my faith rubbish is a lovely opinion, but that is all it is and you have every right to it, but please tell me you're not going to get preachy like +Michael Steudten.
+Bugs
Mitchell You are even cynical in your performance of
permanent ignorance. Why do you insinuate +David had explained the
origin of life? You love strawmen! The fact scientists haven`t
yet a full answer (explanation) for the origin of life, and +David
Strumfels didn`t say otherwise, does not mean your crap can
fill this little gap. Scientists are getting close to the answers.
Christians don`t even try! They think they have one! book for all
this. Megalomaniac dumbheads!
Why do Christians lie to save/rescue their endangered worldview?
That should be our next debate!
Why do Christians lie to save/rescue their endangered worldview?
That should be our next debate!
+Michael
Steudten What exactly did I lie about?
I stated a fact that there is currently no scientific explanation for the origin of life. +David Strumfels denied that fact, and presented nothing to refute it. I simply pointed out that if there was one Richard Dawkins ought to be aware of it. Where is the lie?
Why the emotional attachment to science? Why the emotional objections to facts? Probably because science is more than what it actually is to those who cling to it for meaning and comfort...kind of like those crazy theists. A truly objective approach would look very different than either of your responses thus far in this thread.
I stated a fact that there is currently no scientific explanation for the origin of life. +David Strumfels denied that fact, and presented nothing to refute it. I simply pointed out that if there was one Richard Dawkins ought to be aware of it. Where is the lie?
Why the emotional attachment to science? Why the emotional objections to facts? Probably because science is more than what it actually is to those who cling to it for meaning and comfort...kind of like those crazy theists. A truly objective approach would look very different than either of your responses thus far in this thread.
+Bugs
Mitchell
You're good at evading arguments with words, and by selecively quoting people. What Dawkins meant is that we don't have a final, all the parts fit together, solution yet (I've read and heard much of what Dawkins has communicated over the years. so I know what I'm talking about). He knows very much how much progress has been made, and how much we have learned over the decades, that we're clearly getting close. A statement like "it's a 100% fact that we don't understand life's origins", can only translate to "we don't know anything about how it started," which is an outright falsehood. Either that, or it's the kind of meaningless statement religious apologists use to confuse people.
Which is exactly what makes my blood boil about people "of faith." Sorry, but rhetorical and linguistic chicanery will never find truth, not for you, and not for anybody. Science, and only science, has any realistic hope of doing that.
If you need to believe things on faith, that's your problem. Stop trying to infest it on thinking people.
You're good at evading arguments with words, and by selecively quoting people. What Dawkins meant is that we don't have a final, all the parts fit together, solution yet (I've read and heard much of what Dawkins has communicated over the years. so I know what I'm talking about). He knows very much how much progress has been made, and how much we have learned over the decades, that we're clearly getting close. A statement like "it's a 100% fact that we don't understand life's origins", can only translate to "we don't know anything about how it started," which is an outright falsehood. Either that, or it's the kind of meaningless statement religious apologists use to confuse people.
Which is exactly what makes my blood boil about people "of faith." Sorry, but rhetorical and linguistic chicanery will never find truth, not for you, and not for anybody. Science, and only science, has any realistic hope of doing that.
If you need to believe things on faith, that's your problem. Stop trying to infest it on thinking people.
+David
Strumfels The point I make is to simply show that your belief
that science is the only method to finding truth is woefully
inadequate.
I object to your attempts to silence anyone on the subject. I have no problem discussing these topics open and freely, but I have a real problem with anyone from any point of view trying to shut anyone up.
Look, I am a Christian and I also accept science completely. There is no conflict with my faith and science. There are plenty of perfectly intelligent theists and atheists who understand that. I am one of those. I advocate what I believe is the right way forward and do my best to hear out all sides.
I think that we will continue to learn many things about life, its origin, and perhaps even how to create it but there will always remain the question of what it all means and is there a mind behind it all. How can mere science ever answer "why" any of this matters? Surely that comes from a different source of knowing. To think otherwise in my opinion is incredibly narrow-minded and is doomed to ignorance and for what? Why is that better? These are the things +Michael Steudten And I have been arguing about for years now.
I object to your attempts to silence anyone on the subject. I have no problem discussing these topics open and freely, but I have a real problem with anyone from any point of view trying to shut anyone up.
Look, I am a Christian and I also accept science completely. There is no conflict with my faith and science. There are plenty of perfectly intelligent theists and atheists who understand that. I am one of those. I advocate what I believe is the right way forward and do my best to hear out all sides.
I think that we will continue to learn many things about life, its origin, and perhaps even how to create it but there will always remain the question of what it all means and is there a mind behind it all. How can mere science ever answer "why" any of this matters? Surely that comes from a different source of knowing. To think otherwise in my opinion is incredibly narrow-minded and is doomed to ignorance and for what? Why is that better? These are the things +Michael Steudten And I have been arguing about for years now.
+Bugs
Mitchell
"The point I make is to simply show that your belief that science is the only method to finding truth is woefully inadequate." No, it is a 100% certain fact, not a belief -- those I leave to you. Now it's my turn for a question: 500 years of science has solved innumerable mysteries, discovered an uncountable number of truths about the universe, cured and fed billions of people who would have died otherwise, and provided us with all the conveniences of modern life -- indeed, my, yours, and billions of others have had their lives so improved by science that we simply couldn't get through our lives without it anymore. Meanwhile, thousands of years of religion and supernatural beliefs have accomplished -- what? The answer is completely obvious to every rational, honest human being on this planet.
Why is this so, you should ask yourself? It is so because the scientific method has tossed away faith and beliefs, all of them, and worked to understand reality by being curious, explorative, logical, by making observations and devising experiments to prove or disprove all ideas on the nature of things. Sorry, but the moment you accept anything on faith -- anything at all, God, Zuess, Thor, Brahma, an afterlife and heaven, or Superman for that matter -- you are stopping at that point and saying "I will go no further; any curiosity for actual knowledge comes to an end here."
Nor does it matter how much science you do know at that point, or what more you may learn. Your faith logically makes you anti-science (the phrase "having your cake and eating too" springs to mind here), because they are two diametrically different ideas about what is true and how to discover and understand it.
As Daniel Dennet said, "There is no polite way of telling a person that they have devoted their life to a folly." Well Mr. Mitchell, I am sorry to have to tell you that that is precisely what you have done. And you are being oppressed by that folly, not by any rational people who are trying to help you break from it.
"The point I make is to simply show that your belief that science is the only method to finding truth is woefully inadequate." No, it is a 100% certain fact, not a belief -- those I leave to you. Now it's my turn for a question: 500 years of science has solved innumerable mysteries, discovered an uncountable number of truths about the universe, cured and fed billions of people who would have died otherwise, and provided us with all the conveniences of modern life -- indeed, my, yours, and billions of others have had their lives so improved by science that we simply couldn't get through our lives without it anymore. Meanwhile, thousands of years of religion and supernatural beliefs have accomplished -- what? The answer is completely obvious to every rational, honest human being on this planet.
Why is this so, you should ask yourself? It is so because the scientific method has tossed away faith and beliefs, all of them, and worked to understand reality by being curious, explorative, logical, by making observations and devising experiments to prove or disprove all ideas on the nature of things. Sorry, but the moment you accept anything on faith -- anything at all, God, Zuess, Thor, Brahma, an afterlife and heaven, or Superman for that matter -- you are stopping at that point and saying "I will go no further; any curiosity for actual knowledge comes to an end here."
Nor does it matter how much science you do know at that point, or what more you may learn. Your faith logically makes you anti-science (the phrase "having your cake and eating too" springs to mind here), because they are two diametrically different ideas about what is true and how to discover and understand it.
As Daniel Dennet said, "There is no polite way of telling a person that they have devoted their life to a folly." Well Mr. Mitchell, I am sorry to have to tell you that that is precisely what you have done. And you are being oppressed by that folly, not by any rational people who are trying to help you break from it.
+David
Strumfels Same bullshit as ever...Bugs isn`t able to
learn. He is in his religious bubble and dosn`t want to leave it.
It is amazing how religion can blind people and make them believe at the same time to see better than others.
Bugs also reminds me of that black knight in Monty Pythons Holy-Grail-movie. No arms, no legs left but...
It is amazing how religion can blind people and make them believe at the same time to see better than others.
Bugs also reminds me of that black knight in Monty Pythons Holy-Grail-movie. No arms, no legs left but...
+David
Strumfels To answer your question, I have absolutely no
problem with science. My faith in the Creator does nothing to hinder
my love of science. There are plenty of excellent scientists who
prove that point conclusively. Religious faith has fed the hungry,
clothes the naked, opposed tyrants, comforted and healed the sick,
rescued orphans and widows, and brought enlightenment and meaning to
am otherwise dark and depressing existence. This is just a few of the
ruining it is good for. Love, forgiveness, gentleness, self-control,
charity, etc are all products of faith in God.
Faith and science need not conflict. My life is proof of that. Many other people have found this to be absolutely true as well. It is my hope that you would be able to see this someday too.
Faith and science need not conflict. My life is proof of that. Many other people have found this to be absolutely true as well. It is my hope that you would be able to see this someday too.
1:37 PM
+Bugs
Mitchell Damn, how ignorant you are!
Human history gives us quite a different view on the "benefits by religions"...
Inquisition,
Burnings on stakes,
torture,
wars,
child abuse,
mental child abuse,
inequality of men&women,
disrespect for animals,
....just to mention a few benefits.
We can move on and investigate in questions how religion has hindered sciences to progress and stolen all the money from their believers......
And this must be comedy:
Love, forgiveness, gentleness, self-control, charity, etc are all products of faith in God.
No, not products of faith but of humanity as a result from evolution.
In former threads I had presented you evidence that all this faith-stuff is wrong! And what are you doing here? Presenting the same stupid bullshit as ever...Is it this what you call a "debate"? Pick what you like, repeat what you like even if it had been refuted or debunked before....
Remember? Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland...all countries with the most atheists in their populations.
Posts like your last one make it difficult to not insult you! This post itself was an insult for every critical thinking person.
Human history gives us quite a different view on the "benefits by religions"...
Inquisition,
Burnings on stakes,
torture,
wars,
child abuse,
mental child abuse,
inequality of men&women,
disrespect for animals,
....just to mention a few benefits.
We can move on and investigate in questions how religion has hindered sciences to progress and stolen all the money from their believers......
And this must be comedy:
Love, forgiveness, gentleness, self-control, charity, etc are all products of faith in God.
No, not products of faith but of humanity as a result from evolution.
In former threads I had presented you evidence that all this faith-stuff is wrong! And what are you doing here? Presenting the same stupid bullshit as ever...Is it this what you call a "debate"? Pick what you like, repeat what you like even if it had been refuted or debunked before....
Remember? Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland...all countries with the most atheists in their populations.
Posts like your last one make it difficult to not insult you! This post itself was an insult for every critical thinking person.
Understand: I am not sinking your
ship. It already had too many holes to float. But
watching you at the bottom still paddling furiously is pretty hard to
stomach, especially when it's so dark down there.
Perhaps you should study more science, and less fallacies and debating "tactics", and see if that helps. But stop deluding yourself that I don't know exactly what you're up to, even if you don't. Now go away, I actually some meaningful discussions with people I have to attend to.+Bugs Mitchell
Perhaps you should study more science, and less fallacies and debating "tactics", and see if that helps. But stop deluding yourself that I don't know exactly what you're up to, even if you don't. Now go away, I actually some meaningful discussions with people I have to attend to.+Bugs Mitchell
