View Poll Results: Who do you "pray" to?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Flying Spaghetti Monster

    14 13.21%
  • Invisable Pink Unicorn

    10 9.43%
  • God

    62 58.49%
  • Allah

    6 5.66%
  • Myself

    17 16.04%
  • Earth Spirits

    9 8.49%
  • Indigenous Deities

    8 7.55%
  • "The Old Ones"

    9 8.49%
  • Some one living in the 9 planes of hell

    4 3.77%
  • Other

    17 16.04%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 190
  1. #141
    Super Shaver xman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Lotus Land, eh
    Posts
    8,194
    Thanked: 622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    ... I do not believe science requires as much faith as religion,as stated in the clip. However, atheism may more aptly fall into that category.
    Absolutely not. Science requires no faith(unsubstantiated belief), indeed demands it. Atheism is simply the state of mind of the scientifically motivated. You must be equivocating upon the word 'faith' to be either substantiated(definition 1 below) or unsubstantiated(definition 2) belief.

    from my Dictionary:
    aith |feɪθ|
    noun
    1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
    2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
    • a system of religious belief : the Christian faith.
    • a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.

  2. #142
    < Banned User >
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,763
    Thanked: 735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
    Absolutely not. Science requires no faith(unsubstantiated belief), indeed demands it. Atheism is simply the state of mind of the scientifically motivated. You must be equivocating upon the word 'faith' to be either substantiated(definition 1 below) or unsubstantiated(definition 2) belief.

    from my Dictionary:
    aith |feɪθ|
    noun
    1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
    2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
    • a system of religious belief : the Christian faith.
    • a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.

    Ahh.

    Well, I must say that I disagree with your position stated above.

    Science, I agree, has nothing to do with faith, as both that clip, and you say.

    However, atheism is a whole 'nother ball of wax:

    atheism27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 http: fpdownload.macromedia.com pub shockwave cabs flash swflash.cab#version='6,0,0,0"'>
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
    &ampampampampampampnbsp
     // Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

    Use atheism in a Sentence

    –noun
    1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.



    "Atheism is simply the state of mind of the scientifically motivated. "

    That statement is untrue, yet quite telling of where many working in the field of science are coming from. Which is why the opening (01:05) of the following clip falls under the category of "methinks he doth protest too much"

    YouTube - Craig Venter - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews - Richard Dawkins


    Especially when you take into account the very biased viewpoint of the man making that statement:
    http://richarddawkins.net/article,31...ichard-Dawkins

    The fact is, that many in the scientific field are indeed approaching their research trying to disprove God, and not simply let the evidence and facts guide them.

    Many atheists do use science to support their viewpoint, and (un)belief. But that doesn't mean science belongs only to the atheists. Nor does it necessarily support their claims.

    Science itself has no belief, and is not interested in the proof, or disproof of God, is it? It can only be used as a tool for investigation of the physical world.

    I myself work in the scientific field. I build picosecond lasers (A picosecond is one trillionth, or one millionth of one millionth of a second, or 0.000 000 000 001 seconds just as an aside) for a living. I'm very scientifically motivated.

    In my opinion science excels in the "how" of things, but it has very little to do with the "why" of things.

    Experiments also depend greatly upon how they are designed. Many times measurement error appears as data, unless the cause is considered. If I am doing an investigation and say to myself before I begin "It's not the oscillator overthruster, I'm sure of it, it must be the twangle dangle, or the flagellator accelerator..."

    Well, you know what, It may well have been an issue with the oscillator overthruster after all.... but I, as the engineer injected myself, and my viewpoint into the design of the experiment, and thus may have missed the mark completely.

    Science, in the fact that it has human scientists, is not perfect.
    Last edited by Seraphim; 08-06-2009 at 07:34 PM.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to Seraphim For This Useful Post:

    smokelaw1 (08-06-2009)

  • #143
    Super Shaver xman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Lotus Land, eh
    Posts
    8,194
    Thanked: 622

    Default

    Well, you catch me out on my quote because, certainly some, such as yourself, would claim to be scientifically motivated and theistic at the same time. But do not mistake the Professor Dawkins' outspoken Atheism as a motivation for his pursuit of science. You seek to imply that he engages in biology in order to confront and oppose religion. I think we both know that his attacks on religion are born out of its own corruption of science. He is defending science. You misrepresent that fact.

  • #144
    < Banned User >
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,763
    Thanked: 735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
    Well, you catch me out on my quote because, certainly some, such as yourself, would claim to be scientifically motivated and theistic at the same time. But do not mistake the Professor Dawkins' outspoken Atheism as a motivation for his pursuit of science. You seek to imply that he engages in biology in order to confront and oppose religion. I think we both know that his attacks on religion are born out of its own corruption of science. He is defending science. You misrepresent that fact.

    I will not make any claims as to know why Mr Dawkins attacks religion, but he most certainly cannot claim calm objectiveity in the matter. I do not think I am misrepresenting anything.

    The OUT Campaign - OutCampaign.org

    All I was saying is that science is science. And both religion and atheism are seperate from it. But if one has a certain strong axe to grind, it is likely that will influence their approach to something.

    That is true for both religious people who make erroneous "scientific" claims, as well as atheists who do likewise. We all should be aware of that fact.

    EDIT:
    Scientists are no more infallible than the Pope.
    Last edited by Seraphim; 08-06-2009 at 09:03 PM.

  • #145
    Senior Member ENUF2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Knoxville TN
    Posts
    946
    Thanked: 133

    Default

    Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
    The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.


    This was found at the website all about philosophy .org. There is a couple of Interesting sights here

    Creation Vs. Evolution

    Evolution Vs Creation

    Creation Evidence

    The problem with it all is unless all evidence points one direction or the other there will always be questions. I follow Christ but I would be a fool if I didn't believe that there is people on both sides of this argument doing all they can to insure their evidence fits their belief. I would also be a fool if I thought evidence could not point both directions. Believe as you will that's what free choice is about isn't it?
    I will say though in this day of relative truth it does make it extremely difficult to see anything as absolute. This isn't the first time we've faced relativism it was around in the time of Socrates and at one time I believe it was called pragmatism.

  • #146
    I Dull Sheffields
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    S. New Jersey
    Posts
    1,235
    Thanked: 293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ENUF2 View Post
    [SIZE=2][COLOR=#222222]Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
    The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith.
    Couldn't disagree more (sorry, I'm back). If you watched the video that X posted, this is explained in detail. We subscribe to the theory of evolution based upon the scientific method, even more precisely, that the theory has not been disproved by fact stating otherwise. Faith has nothing to do with it. We subscribe to the theory because there is no other better theory.

    Of course, one can make the same case for religions. In fact, all religion is just a theory for all the same reasons, but most specifically, that a theory is proposed and not proven false. Science would tell you, however, that the theory of religion has been disproved countless times and not proven a single time (by scientific standard -- controlled environment, etc). By scientific standards, religion, therefore is a falsehood (EDIT: based on jcd's post below, falsehood = no longer a theory, but a debunked hypothesis) as it stands for all things outside of that which I explained in an earlier post (the time before big bang and the off chance that divine intervention had something to do with the first life).

    But finally, and most importantly, in an attempt to arrive at a conclusion (which will never happen in this forum, I realize) which system is more reliable: That which has been used to arrive at the level of intelligence we exhibit today (scientific method) or that which has no real ties or influence that can be recognized by any faculties that we as humans have the capacity for (religion)?

    It is by asking this question that, for me, the only room for religion, unless proven otherwise via realistic (EDIT: read: "controlled") situations with actual results, is in the following (and I think even most of the "agnostics" would agree with me):

    1. Explaining how the universe began.
    2. Explaining how life began.
    3. Explaining why the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are the way they are and not some other way.

    Thanks guys for keeping this thread civil and a lot of fun to read each day. I don't know if your work days suck as much as mine, but going back and forth with you all makes it go quicker!

    Cheers,

    Ogie
    Last edited by Oglethorpe; 08-06-2009 at 09:17 PM.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to Oglethorpe For This Useful Post:

    xman (08-06-2009)

  • #147
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    844
    Thanked: 155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    That's why that was in philosophy class, and not logic. How does that IF/Then statement come to be?

    Why IF there is a g(G)od and he is powerful enough to make the earth, THEN he must have been created or come from somewhere.

    There is no connection, is is just a postulation to start a discussion. If there is is God, powerful enough to create the earth, perhaps he is eternal and infinite?

    It's a circular argument because the underlying foundation is setup to be that way.
    While I agree that the if/then argument used here is an example of a logical fallacy (false dilemma) you should be aware that logic is a branch of philosophy.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to fccexpert For This Useful Post:

    xman (08-06-2009)

  • #148
    jcd
    jcd is offline
    Senior Member jcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    140
    Thanked: 35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ENUF2 View Post
    The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution).
    This is an equivocation on the word "theory", born out of scientific illiteracy. Coincidentally, this is seen as a valid argument by creationists.

    A microsite for a very quick explanation:

    Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jcd For This Useful Post:

    Oglethorpe (08-06-2009), xman (08-06-2009)

  • #149
    < Banned User >
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,763
    Thanked: 735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcd View Post
    This is an equivocation on the word "theory", born out of scientific illiteracy. Coincidentally, this is seen as a valid argument by creationists.

    A microsite for a very quick explanation:

    Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home


    Okay, heres some raw data they have found in regards to evolution:




    The scientists involved are overjoyed! Look! It's as clear as day what the evidence is saying! We draw a line through these datapoints, and viola!


    Easy as pie! There's you indisputible proof of our claims! A clear progression from one form to another.












    However, the original graph that I took those datapoints from was a polynomial:


    Wait just a moment! We had assumed linear, when it actualy was polynomial! So long, grant money!




    Just an overly simplistic example of what can happen, even to scientists, when assumptions are made first.

  • #150
    Little Bear richmondesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanked: 760

    Default

    Seraphim, you may be my favorite person on all of the internet

  • Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •