View Poll Results: Who do you "pray" to?
- Voters
- 106. You may not vote on this poll
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 141 to 150 of 190
Thread: Who do you "pray" to?
-
08-06-2009, 05:58 PM #141
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.
-
08-06-2009, 07:22 PM #142
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 3,763
Thanked: 735
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:
atheism 27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 http: fpdownload.macromedia.com pub shockwave cabs flash swflash.cab#version='6,0,0,0"'>
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
&ampampampampampnbsp
//Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uh
m]
Show IPA
Use atheism in a Sentence
–noun1. 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)
08-06-2009, 07:53 PM
#143
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.
08-06-2009, 08:14 PM
#144
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4f116/4f1164ab03fd00b73878c04cdedc92a78480a0c5" alt="Seraphim is offline"
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 3,763
Thanked: 735
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.
08-06-2009, 08:27 PM
#145
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.
08-06-2009, 08:43 PM
#146
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4f116/4f1164ab03fd00b73878c04cdedc92a78480a0c5" alt="Oglethorpe is offline"
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- S. New Jersey
- Posts
- 1,235
Thanked: 293
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)
08-06-2009, 08:58 PM
#147
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4f116/4f1164ab03fd00b73878c04cdedc92a78480a0c5" alt="fccexpert is offline"
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Chicagoland
- Posts
- 844
Thanked: 155
The Following User Says Thank You to fccexpert For This Useful Post:
xman (08-06-2009)
08-06-2009, 09:08 PM
#148
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)
08-06-2009, 09:49 PM
#149
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4f116/4f1164ab03fd00b73878c04cdedc92a78480a0c5" alt="Seraphim is offline"
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 3,763
Thanked: 735
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.
08-06-2009, 09:59 PM
#150
Seraphim, you may be my favorite person on all of the internet![]()