And if you've got an anti-religion agenda, THAT will make perfect sense. Which all goes to show how unhelpful your comment or the fine article is in that context.
Unless we keep ourselves up to date on anthropoligical and sociological findings and implications of archeology and anthropology this find does not help us draw ANY conclusions on the soundness of ANY pro-religion or anti-religion standpoints. It is merely "interesting".
It would embarrassing to suggest that most readers know enough on the subject to avoid getting blown out of the water by an "expert" from either camp, most conclusion drawn in this forum will be obviously ignorant to such experts even if they agree with us, and there are enough experts in both camps who manage to avoid flaming eachother every time they meet. I guess they have all had to eat their words a couple of terms/
The trouble comes for the moguls when they think the "customers" are all one big composite customer behaving the same way and start screwing the customers who WEREN'T screwing them.
I respect you because of this explanation, although I think it falls short of the detail.
Superficially it shows why the interested parties might have perpetrated a fraud (or whatever they would call it) but it does not show that this was indeed the case beyond my understanding of the detail. We will no doubt disagree on this and perhaps some people who have studied it more will say we have both missed out some essential consideration; but you answered my point in an understandable way.
To your final point; some people do hold to things blindly because they are comforting, but this observation provides no information on the truth of the comforting doctrine. A question that remains is: if there was a god, how would we know given that we don't yet know. (I ask these type of questions in general fashion, not just directed to you)
anyway.... how do such conversations end, while still polite?
Aye, this is interesting, and an interesting tradition, but to me not certain.
For me it's hard to tell if the current form of that tradition is because the sojurn in the garden was very brief or because in the retelling of the tradition, the fact that the time in the garden is unknown was forgotten and an erroneous equivalence was made..
Some make a case that the timekeeping of earth changed as part of the fall; and to say that the tradition is "correct" implies at least one of a) avery breif sojurn in the garden or b) a cross-timescale year count
Flyinwhitey, you were complaining because I dismissed the FSM argument without refuting it.
In my post you first responded to, I was actually dismissing FSM as a means of ridiculing ID.
I know you weren't talking about ID which is why I think you missed the point.
FSM is only irrelevant as a way to dismiss ID because it is not relevant to ID and that is why I dismissed it.
You see I was talking about ID, I was talking about the use of FSM to ridicule ID which it can't do which is why I dismissed it.
(Get it now? Nope? I'll try again).
And so you wanted me to properly refute FSM without referring to ID, yet I was only refuting FSM as a means to ridicule ID, so you want me to refute FSM in a general sense without referring to the subject or context in which I refuted it.
Now: can you explain why you think I should be refuting FSM in any other sense than the sense in which I dismissed it?
Can you understand that acting like a puzzled school teacher saying "err.... go and do it again" just makes you look daft?
I'll say it again. *I* was talking about ID, and it was the use of FSM to ridicule ID that I was dismisssing, and the demonstration of FSM irrelevance to the ID argument is the refutation that you asked for. I can only refute it in the context I was dismissing it in, which is in relation to it's use to ridicule ID.
Do you understand now why it did not make sense for you to ask me to refute it without referring to ID "on the grounds" that _you_ weren't talking about ID when you were asking me to clarify a claim I made on the use of FSM in relation to ID?
I'd say the fact that throughout its history it has always been used as a scam, It's the word "always" that troubles me here. I'm here to conradict you.
strong indicators that it's a scam I thought we were talking about multiple occasions, I'm suggesting not all are scams.
Add in the fact that none of this would have been possible had god chosen not to speak in contradictory riddles Now you are suggesting the riddles are a result of gods malice and not of the scam-mongers of the corrupt church. Is there a need to make this shift?
But yes, knowing what horrors in life free-choice would lead to he went ahead with it. On what terms are you willing to maintain your own freedom? Read from genesis where the earth groans under the sin of mankind and asks God how long it will have to suffer. What is the reason horrors are permitted to be comitted and sufferred by mankind? A brief answer would suggest that for 100 years out of eternity the benefits outweight the pains; but in case you think God is callous in this realise that his son, by whom he created the earth also lived on it, and before his death on calvary suffered all the pains and ills and sins of mankind, "so that he might know how to succor his people" and in order to bring the "rights of mercy" so that ignorant mankind that wreaks the horrors may receive a change of heart, be forgiven and be new people, not condemned to live under their mistakes.
And the thing is, there is proof of god, and this is testified strongly by people who have received the change of heart.
Wwhy do you think you know what would prove god to you? You would one day say "this will prove it" and then later say "ah, no, I see now how that could be faked, I need something else". If proof were so "readily" availble to would be confused with natural every day occurances so that it would not be easily noticed "it's always been like that" or, on the otherhand if "unusual" proofs were common it would be difficult to learn anything "scientific" in such an unpredicatable world "weird magic stuff is always happening, don't try to understand it."
But there is a proof that will be to your satisfaction, and god will give it to you when you want to know. How badly do you want to know? How much are you willing to change if you find out? Or should god condemn you now with truth that you are not willing to follow. He has said "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little", we learn as fast as we are willing to obedient to what we know.
As the purpose of this life is for us to be able to change our hearts and willing choose good over evil it would defeat the purpose to force it on you and lay the evidence too plain.
But the evidence is available, and very satisfactory, when you want it; and there are plenty who have it which is why they are unswayed by your convincing arguments - they and I know something that you do not know. We *would* say what you say, if we didn't know what we did.
I testify strongly that god will reveal himself to you if you want to know. Why "testify"? Because until you receive the evidence and try the experiment, the testimony of those who have tried it is the best evidence you have that it isn't all fakery. You can imagine that in some way I am deceived, and I know what you are talking about, but I can say of myself that its not that because I tried it and it is good.
I'm not sure who fumbled, the poster (me) or the reader (you), so lets give it another go.
Religion, like science is subject to interpretation. The is no scientific concensus on the interpretation of facts, why should we expect a religious concensus (except for certain constrained definitions of religion)?
"don't you think a perfect being could have come up with a way to explain it to everybody that wouldn't constantly degenerate into holy wars?" I think he "could" have but that contradicts the purpose of this brief life, this brief spot in eternity.
I do think it futile to say "I don't believe in a god, but if I did he would be like THIS and as he obviously isn't, then there can't be one"; or as you said "If there was a god he would explain things such that there would not be any 'holy wars' and there are holy wars" - now the failure is to say "so there obviously isn't a god" when it should be said "so he obviously isn't like THAT" or "so I misunderstood his reason here, if there is a god"
I agree that not many religions live up to various definitions of peacable, but that is a reflection on the people on those religions who often fail to understand their own published doctrine. It's a reflection on people, not doctrine; just as communist purges are no reflection on "not religion". True/good religion is subject to the scientific method just as much as good science is.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen which does lead to the seeing of that evidence, scientists excercise faith in their pursuit of knowledge, and faith in religion can be fulfilled in this life; it certainly is not a "guess and wait till you are dead to see if you are right" game.
The reason we don't have one religion and God doesn't force us to realise one truth is because this life is the opportunity for us to choose and learn by our own experience so that we can receive according to the desires of our heart. There is "eternity" and this brief life isn't it.
I understand that by "religion" you mean "a composite religion of a certain subset of religions that contain certain unpleasent characteristics"
However my point on what non-religionists accept as faith is this:
"Scientists" "hope" to colonize planets but on some grounds insist that this planet is not colonized and refuse to look for evidence as ID may show; for fear that some will say it is evidence of "god" and not extra terrestrial ancestor scientists.
Gah! Never mistake preview for submit; a worthy answer long gone! And even in work-offline mode mozilla can't recall the preview text. Bah!
I mostly agree with you for your definitions of "science" and "religion"; however you might then classify my religion as science. You seem to recognize the way in which I classify science as religion and understandably you can't apply your label "religion" to it although I think my label religion fits because you described it quite well.
What you call religion I call "priestcraft" and it's abuses are barely religious, just attempts of power mongers to weild power as much as they can, which the communists managed to do just as well without the aid of religion; so if we can agree to refer to what you call religion as "blind unthinkingness" or something worse we are in agreement.
I'm not inclined to repeat all my answer here as it's well past bed time, but to answer the missing point you questioned at the end:
I was suggesting that if we ever are going to succeed in populating the universe there is going to be a lot of planets out there with people on arguing about intelligent design and evolution. I was suggesting that if the idea is real enough for people to hope for, and given the universe is big enough, why suppose on no-evidence that we are going to be first out there? Why not (SETI-style, ID-style) look for evidence that it has happened? Certainly lets not refuse to consider such interpretation of evidence.
My religion is verifiable, science style, and it invokes a loving all powerful God, who doesn't require people to believe blindly till death and hope they get lucky, but still requires and rewards the development of faith, among other traits.
Its interesting how much misunderstanding there can be with common language and common terms but uncommon experiences.
But are these copycats based on gods plan or eachothers scams?
99/100 offers being a scam is no consolation if the other 1 was real and you could've known if you didn't keep your eyes closed. Broad generalizations are fine for 99/100 universes but if you're in the universe that God made it's no consolation is it?
Sure, recognize the scams if thats what they are, but don't close your eyes. What makes you think you are so wise now, to know what to close your eyes to and not miss anything important?
If you don't know, say you don't know, don't pretend you do. If you know it's a scam, tell us how you know! Saying "I heard a liar say the same thing" is hardly evidence to the contrary. But keep your eyes open for classes of truths you didn't know existed.
I know of the existance of God, by the power of God and the Holy Ghost, and their interaction in my life. And that doesn't mean everyone who agrees with me is honest or genuine either. But there is God, and he does exist. And you don't believe me. And you think I'm nuts. But others haven't have the experiences I have (naturally, they are not me) and people are just guessing when they try to dismiss them which, is sooo obvious.
I've yet to see a supposition into the mind of God take into account the reason he did it all for. (Never mind "why do we think omnipotent beings will be easy to understand)
If blind-spots, appendixes, male nippes and menstrual cycles promote critical thinking in mankind and give natural unbelievers a real fair chance to believe or not (instead of it being obvious) then its all been well worthwhile.
Nothing like a small perturbation in a perfect system to make things happen, eh?
The FSM is a jackass method because the identify of the designer is actually irrelevant to ID theory.
The fact that some propents secretly label their variously imagined designer with the same label "god" is as irrelevant as the FSM is to the debate.
For all we know the FSM was one of the stages of evolution but hey, there's no evidence for it either!
FSM is a bad device to try and scare aware the less eloquent IDers and to fear into obedience the evolutionists who might be tempted tp lend unauthorized support to the IDers for any reasons.
Perhaps he did it to give the stubborn a safe reason to not-believe and avoid getting dammed to the helliest hell for groundless rejection of his word. Do you think?
alternative answer:
Perhaps he just didn't feel the need to explain all of his all-wise decision to finitely minded people even though they imagine they woulkd be able to understand and stop saying "but why" and get on with improving personal behaviour.
As a point of principle, if God is all powerfull and all knowing, and can inspire prophets to... you know "prophesy", I don't think he would have much trouble with some of this stuff.
You points are still interesting, but I just thought to add something to the interpretive context.
Its sad how many people say "The Bible isn't X like I thought it was supposed to be which confirms that its all rubbish as I thought all along"
Or even, "The Bible isn't X like I think YOU thought it was which confirms that everythine non-scientific that you have been thinking is rubbish all along"
Detecting God is not as hard as detecting the ever present ether, which, I note, scientists are still trying to do.
OK, I'm going slowly so lets see who can follow the main idea of a post.
You claim I dismissed the point as "very weak" without refuting it. What point could this be that you were referring to? It must be something I dismiss in my post using the words "very weak", lets see what it was:
So I'm dismissing as "very weak" the use of the FSM theory to ridicule ID away-from-discussion. (Oops there we go, I mentioned ID and you specifically asked me not to - BUT thats the USE of the FSM argument I was dismissing as very weak)..so you want me to actually refute the use of the FSM argument in ridiculing ID away from discussion without mentioning ID !!! It's gonna be hard!
Your post was clear and to the point; but the question you asked:
Tell me what is the difference between the argument "The flying spaghetti monster created life" and "God created life".
misses the point because it fails to recognize that the answer is irrelevant and that is the irrelevance that refutes its use to discredit ID.
The question you ask is the point of the FSM argument, I grant you, but the argument only has power if it is considered relevant to the argument.
Why/how is the answer irrelevant?
The FSM argument is designed (!! ooh ID, again!!) to use strawman, shame/fear of mockey and the ID proponents supposed motives to discredit ID by making an equivalence between FSM and god.
My point is that the NATURE of the intelligent agent is not proposed by ID and so whether various kinds of gods/spacement/monsters are anticipated by various supporters is irrelevant to the validity theory.
Therefore any attempt to discredit the theory on those grounds is spurious at best and dishonest at worst.
If you really think I have missed the point, then: "Yes, in your framework some people attribute the FSM to the role others attribute to god and the ID theory really doesn't care" which is why it's irrelevant (again).
I'm not missing the point, FSM are calling it out and therefore feigning the point.
The ID-ers may think it was "God" who did it, but they say that as if the IDers can agree on who God is or what his attributes are. Let them each think it is their own idea of God, and folk thinking it is an FSM makes no difference.
To shout it down because of the REASON some of the proponents like it is hardly scientific, which is _my_ point.
"Science" is a word that has many connotations and conveys many ideas. What it "is" depends on the context. You are not wrong when you say "Science is not a belief system" and I am not wrong when didn't say that. I am also not wrong when I say that "Scientific frameworks are a belief system." You may argue over whether the use of "scentific" or "scentific framework" are ideal and co-incide fully with your use of the terms but you understand me well enough to discuss the subject. Do you understand what ideas I may have that I try to convey with the phrase "Scientific frameworks are a belief system"? (read on)
You may be correct when you say "science does not claim to know the truth, or even to be capable of knowing the truth" and I am inclined to agree with you, however many scientists and popular scientists present themselves as arbiters of truth as do many religionists and that is what this debate is about. Many use science to "find the truth" whatever you or others may say that science is capable of. Many religionists do the same with religion. Some in both groups are dishonest for both good and bad motives. Some are in both groups but some in some groups would dispute that.
Now when I said "now the ivory towers think themselves the purveyors and verifiers of truth" I didn't say that they actually were purveyors of truth, my point (as you agree) is that they are not, but many that inhabit those positions are making the same famed age-of-Galileo style Vatican pronouncements that they (thats the vague they, meaning science-anti-religion-fans) often condemn of the Vatican.
You say "The universe itself is the only purveyor and verifier of truth."; quite so; but we each see this only through our own senses.
"If a theory can't be decided on by examining the physical universe, then we don't even consider it." Indeed; but I think you will find that that statement contains some gross presumptions if you examine it carefully. It presumes that the "physical unverse" is already well defined so that it becomes a simple task to know whether or not an item is part of the physical universe. In fact your statement probably could be better rendered as: "If a theory can't be decided on by examining the input of [agreed] select sensory input interpreted in an [agreed] manner, then we don't even consider it."; (The set of sensory inputs is augmented by physical devices but we either consider those as an appendage to our senses or as part of the system being examined.) And how is are the permitted sensory inputs and interpretations to be agreed upon? [Yes, the interpreations are based on a somewhat agreed previous interpretation] Are they even universally agreed? Are dissenters merely classes as heretics? When the full statement is considered it is little more than very good intentions. Of course science can do no more, but its only claiom to legitimacy is that it's champions have an agreed set of sensory inputs and interpetations and that the dissenters disagree with.
ID says "Lets consider it and see how well we can find X". There was an Agatha Christie story where a haemophilliac was murdered. The culprit was identified by the detective early on through having an unusually strong alibi but not at the "time of death" (which was wrong because the certifying doctor did not know the victim was a haemophilliac). This was no proof of guilt, but as an evidential construct it is interesting.
ID claim another interpretation on the same evidence that evolutionists want for their own.
I realise that it [FSM] helps them laugh, and helps them pursuade themselves that they personally have a sound basis for their own beliefs even though they have taken as little effort to validate them as they think the "religious fundamentalists" have for theirs.
Wrong. FSM is satire, and has nothing to do with validating anyone's beliefs. In fact, the point is the exact opposite -- it's to discredit the beliefs of ID proponents
You miss the point for ID which is NOT that: "It was god that created it and he is not a spaghetti monster"
AFAIK ID doesn't try and infer an awful lot about the intelligent agent behind the intelligent design which is why the FSM although good mockery is a total red herring.
FSM mocks some of the personal beliefs behind some of the adherants of ID but it has nothing to do with ID per se. This I can explain the "difference" but it is totally irrelevant to ID unless some branch of ID tries to infer something about the agens from the designs.
In that respect I have to say that Flying and Spaghetti are specific and I have seen nothing to indicate spagehtti in the designer; if you HAVE seen any spaghetti-ness please tell us.
There is no reason to conclude that "if religion had any basis in fact we would only have one religion"; mainly because religion, like science, is subject to acceptance of multiple distinct individual humans. All you show by that statement is a very constricted understanding of religion such that your statement must be true.
"All we have is religions trying to kill other religions off" - WAR ALL? ALL? Thats all the religions we have? No peacable religins then? No war mongering science either?
Man, you are so far out that you haven't realized that scientific frameworks are a religion and that you seem to be involving yourself in the beginnings of some kind of WAR.
You don't even "validate" your own science (At a guess here, it's not a personal attack, I'm using you as a proto-typical anti-ID person), you just "believe" what your friends "believe" anxious that nothing else should be considered lest it shake your "faith" that there is no eternal God you might be accountable to; and yet science even tries to make man into the eternal universe ruling god! Or do you not hope that one day immortality and space flight will be acheivable?
By which anthropic principle do you claim that we will be the first to achieve this?
If "science" has it's way we will have offspring all over the universe on terraformed planets who claim that "it happened like that, and our space-ancestors are a myth." Deny it if you can, but a rabidly "pro-science" world will lead to the very scenario that you claim you are not part of.
Science is no more fact than religion on an individual level because we don't have the time to verify it all personally, and you can't deny that. There have been and are as many scientific frauds freaks and pitfalls as religious, and you can't deny that.
And you can't deny that the case of ID is what human science is attempting to make true by inter-galactic colonisation. You just insist on no evidence that these humans on this planet are the first, which is a fantastic claim, and you won't consider evidence to the contrary on grounds of faith.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you've got an anti-religion agenda, THAT will make perfect sense.
Which all goes to show how unhelpful your comment or the fine article is in that context.
Unless we keep ourselves up to date on anthropoligical and sociological findings and implications of archeology and anthropology this find does not help us draw ANY conclusions on the soundness of ANY pro-religion or anti-religion standpoints. It is merely "interesting".
It would embarrassing to suggest that most readers know enough on the subject to avoid getting blown out of the water by an "expert" from either camp, most conclusion drawn in this forum will be obviously ignorant to such experts even if they agree with us, and there are enough experts in both camps who manage to avoid flaming eachother every time they meet. I guess they have all had to eat their words a couple of terms/
Sam
Very good points.
The trouble comes for the moguls when they think the "customers" are all one big composite customer behaving the same way and start screwing the customers who WEREN'T screwing them.
Sam
I respect you because of this explanation, although I think it falls short of the detail.
Superficially it shows why the interested parties might have perpetrated a fraud (or whatever they would call it) but it does not show that this was indeed the case beyond my understanding of the detail. We will no doubt disagree on this and perhaps some people who have studied it more will say we have both missed out some essential consideration; but you answered my point in an understandable way.
To your final point; some people do hold to things blindly because they are comforting, but this observation provides no information on the truth of the comforting doctrine. A question that remains is: if there was a god, how would we know given that we don't yet know. (I ask these type of questions in general fashion, not just directed to you)
anyway.... how do such conversations end, while still polite?
cheers
Sam
Aye, this is interesting, and an interesting tradition, but to me not certain.
For me it's hard to tell if the current form of that tradition is because the sojurn in the garden was very brief or because in the retelling of the tradition, the fact that the time in the garden is unknown was forgotten and an erroneous equivalence was made..
Some make a case that the timekeeping of earth changed as part of the fall; and to say that the tradition is "correct" implies at least one of
a) avery breif sojurn in the garden or
b) a cross-timescale year count
Sam
Flyinwhitey, you were complaining because I dismissed the FSM argument without refuting it.
In my post you first responded to, I was actually dismissing FSM as a means of ridiculing ID.
I know you weren't talking about ID which is why I think you missed the point.
FSM is only irrelevant as a way to dismiss ID because it is not relevant to ID and that is why I dismissed it.
You see I was talking about ID, I was talking about the use of FSM to ridicule ID which it can't do which is why I dismissed it.
(Get it now? Nope? I'll try again).
And so you wanted me to properly refute FSM without referring to ID, yet I was only refuting FSM as a means to ridicule ID, so you want me to refute FSM in a general sense without referring to the subject or context in which I refuted it.
Now: can you explain why you think I should be refuting FSM in any other sense than the sense in which I dismissed it?
Can you understand that acting like a puzzled school teacher saying "err.... go and do it again" just makes you look daft?
I'll say it again. *I* was talking about ID, and it was the use of FSM to ridicule ID that I was dismisssing, and the demonstration of FSM irrelevance to the ID argument is the refutation that you asked for. I can only refute it in the context I was dismissing it in, which is in relation to it's use to ridicule ID.
Do you understand now why it did not make sense for you to ask me to refute it without referring to ID "on the grounds" that _you_ weren't talking about ID when you were asking me to clarify a claim I made on the use of FSM in relation to ID?
Sam
I'd say the fact that throughout its history it has always been used as a scam,
It's the word "always" that troubles me here. I'm here to conradict you.
strong indicators that it's a scam
I thought we were talking about multiple occasions, I'm suggesting not all are scams.
Add in the fact that none of this would have been possible had god chosen not to speak in contradictory riddles
Now you are suggesting the riddles are a result of gods malice and not of the scam-mongers of the corrupt church. Is there a need to make this shift?
But yes, knowing what horrors in life free-choice would lead to he went ahead with it. On what terms are you willing to maintain your own freedom?
Read from genesis where the earth groans under the sin of mankind and asks God how long it will have to suffer. What is the reason horrors are permitted to be comitted and sufferred by mankind? A brief answer would suggest that for 100 years out of eternity the benefits outweight the pains; but in case you think God is callous in this realise that his son, by whom he created the earth also lived on it, and before his death on calvary suffered all the pains and ills and sins of mankind, "so that he might know how to succor his people" and in order to bring the "rights of mercy" so that ignorant mankind that wreaks the horrors may receive a change of heart, be forgiven and be new people, not condemned to live under their mistakes.
And the thing is, there is proof of god, and this is testified strongly by people who have received the change of heart.
Wwhy do you think you know what would prove god to you? You would one day say "this will prove it" and then later say "ah, no, I see now how that could be faked, I need something else". If proof were so "readily" availble to would be confused with natural every day occurances so that it would not be easily noticed "it's always been like that" or, on the otherhand if "unusual" proofs were common it would be difficult to learn anything "scientific" in such an unpredicatable world "weird magic stuff is always happening, don't try to understand it."
But there is a proof that will be to your satisfaction, and god will give it to you when you want to know. How badly do you want to know? How much are you willing to change if you find out? Or should god condemn you now with truth that you are not willing to follow. He has said "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little", we learn as fast as we are willing to obedient to what we know.
As the purpose of this life is for us to be able to change our hearts and willing choose good over evil it would defeat the purpose to force it on you and lay the evidence too plain.
But the evidence is available, and very satisfactory, when you want it; and there are plenty who have it which is why they are unswayed by your convincing arguments - they and I know something that you do not know. We *would* say what you say, if we didn't know what we did.
I testify strongly that god will reveal himself to you if you want to know.
Why "testify"? Because until you receive the evidence and try the experiment, the testimony of those who have tried it is the best evidence you have that it isn't all fakery. You can imagine that in some way I am deceived, and I know what you are talking about, but I can say of myself that its not that because I tried it and it is good.
Sam
I'm not sure who fumbled, the poster (me) or the reader (you), so lets give it another go.
Religion, like science is subject to interpretation. The is no scientific concensus on the interpretation of facts, why should we expect a religious concensus (except for certain constrained definitions of religion)?
"don't you think a perfect being could have come up with a way to explain it to everybody that wouldn't constantly degenerate into holy wars?"
I think he "could" have but that contradicts the purpose of this brief life, this brief spot in eternity.
I do think it futile to say "I don't believe in a god, but if I did he would be like THIS and as he obviously isn't, then there can't be one"; or as you said "If there was a god he would explain things such that there would not be any 'holy wars' and there are holy wars" - now the failure is to say "so there obviously isn't a god" when it should be said "so he obviously isn't like THAT" or "so I misunderstood his reason here, if there is a god"
I agree that not many religions live up to various definitions of peacable, but that is a reflection on the people on those religions who often fail to understand their own published doctrine. It's a reflection on people, not doctrine; just as communist purges are no reflection on "not religion". True/good religion is subject to the scientific method just as much as good science is.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen which does lead to the seeing of that evidence, scientists excercise faith in their pursuit of knowledge, and faith in religion can be fulfilled in this life; it certainly is not a "guess and wait till you are dead to see if you are right" game.
The reason we don't have one religion and God doesn't force us to realise one truth is because this life is the opportunity for us to choose and learn by our own experience so that we can receive according to the desires of our heart. There is "eternity" and this brief life isn't it.
I understand that by "religion" you mean "a composite religion of a certain subset of religions that contain certain unpleasent characteristics"
However my point on what non-religionists accept as faith is this:
"Scientists" "hope" to colonize planets but on some grounds insist that this planet is not colonized and refuse to look for evidence as ID may show; for fear that some will say it is evidence of "god" and not extra terrestrial ancestor scientists.
Sam
It did occur to me!
Sam
Gah! Never mistake preview for submit; a worthy answer long gone! And even in work-offline mode mozilla can't recall the preview text. Bah!
I mostly agree with you for your definitions of "science" and "religion"; however you might then classify my religion as science. You seem to recognize the way in which I classify science as religion and understandably you can't apply your label "religion" to it although I think my label religion fits because you described it quite well.
What you call religion I call "priestcraft" and it's abuses are barely religious, just attempts of power mongers to weild power as much as they can, which the communists managed to do just as well without the aid of religion; so if we can agree to refer to what you call religion as "blind unthinkingness" or something worse we are in agreement.
I'm not inclined to repeat all my answer here as it's well past bed time, but to answer the missing point you questioned at the end:
I was suggesting that if we ever are going to succeed in populating the universe there is going to be a lot of planets out there with people on arguing about intelligent design and evolution. I was suggesting that if the idea is real enough for people to hope for, and given the universe is big enough, why suppose on no-evidence that we are going to be first out there? Why not (SETI-style, ID-style) look for evidence that it has happened? Certainly lets not refuse to consider such interpretation of evidence.
My religion is verifiable, science style, and it invokes a loving all powerful God, who doesn't require people to believe blindly till death and hope they get lucky, but still requires and rewards the development of faith, among other traits.
Its interesting how much misunderstanding there can be with common language and common terms but uncommon experiences.
Sam
Yep much more likely and happens much more often.
But are these copycats based on gods plan or eachothers scams?
99/100 offers being a scam is no consolation if the other 1 was real and you could've known if you didn't keep your eyes closed.
Broad generalizations are fine for 99/100 universes but if you're in the universe that God made it's no consolation is it?
Sure, recognize the scams if thats what they are, but don't close your eyes. What makes you think you are so wise now, to know what to close your eyes to and not miss anything important?
If you don't know, say you don't know, don't pretend you do. If you know it's a scam, tell us how you know! Saying "I heard a liar say the same thing" is hardly evidence to the contrary. But keep your eyes open for classes of truths you didn't know existed.
I know of the existance of God, by the power of God and the Holy Ghost, and their interaction in my life. And that doesn't mean everyone who agrees with me is honest or genuine either. But there is God, and he does exist. And you don't believe me. And you think I'm nuts. But others haven't have the experiences I have (naturally, they are not me) and people are just guessing when they try to dismiss them which, is sooo obvious.
and there we have it...
Sam
I've yet to see a supposition into the mind of God take into account the reason he did it all for. (Never mind "why do we think omnipotent beings will be easy to understand)
If blind-spots, appendixes, male nippes and menstrual cycles promote critical thinking in mankind and give natural unbelievers a real fair chance to believe or not (instead of it being obvious) then its all been well worthwhile.
Nothing like a small perturbation in a perfect system to make things happen, eh?
Sam
The FSM is a jackass method because the identify of the designer is actually irrelevant to ID theory.
The fact that some propents secretly label their variously imagined designer with the same label "god" is as irrelevant as the FSM is to the debate.
For all we know the FSM was one of the stages of evolution but hey, there's no evidence for it either!
FSM is a bad device to try and scare aware the less eloquent IDers and to fear into obedience the evolutionists who might be tempted tp lend unauthorized support to the IDers for any reasons.
FSM is not relevant to the actual debate.
Sam
Bah! Nasty NAND technology, I prefer the NOR-latch, the basis for my Quasar and IR remote control jammers, as well as running embedded linux.
Of course NAND would do at a pinch - if it weren't so nasty, and involve manually reversing the bits.
Bah!
Sam
Perhaps he did it to give the stubborn a safe reason to not-believe and avoid getting dammed to the helliest hell for groundless rejection of his word. Do you think?
alternative answer:
Perhaps he just didn't feel the need to explain all of his all-wise decision to finitely minded people even though they imagine they woulkd be able to understand and stop saying "but why" and get on with improving personal behaviour.
Sam
As a point of principle, if God is all powerfull and all knowing, and can inspire prophets to... you know "prophesy", I don't think he would have much trouble with some of this stuff.
You points are still interesting, but I just thought to add something to the interpretive context.
Sam
Yes.
Its sad how many people say "The Bible isn't X like I thought it was supposed to be which confirms that its all rubbish as I thought all along"
Or even, "The Bible isn't X like I think YOU thought it was which confirms that everythine non-scientific that you have been thinking is rubbish all along"
Detecting God is not as hard as detecting the ever present ether, which, I note, scientists are still trying to do.
Sam
Or would that be from the fall of Adam, rather than the creation?
Who knows how long he hung around the garden before then, or what was going on outside the garden while he was in it?
Sam
It's a good job you noticed I'm a kook or you might have to think about what I said.
You're a smart guy, nothing will mislead you I see. Keep on marching, well done!
Sam
You claim I dismissed the point as "very weak" without refuting it.
What point could this be that you were referring to? It must be something I dismiss in my post using the words "very weak", lets see what it was:
I'm not missing the point, FSM are calling it out and therefore feigning the point.
The ID-ers may think it was "God" who did it, but they say that as if the IDers can agree on who God is or what his attributes are.
Let them each think it is their own idea of God, and folk thinking it is an FSM makes no difference.
To shout it down because of the REASON some of the proponents like it is hardly scientific, which is _my_ point.
Sam
You are not wrong when you say "Science is not a belief system" and I am not wrong when didn't say that. I am also not wrong when I say that "Scientific frameworks are a belief system." You may argue over whether the use of "scentific" or "scentific framework" are ideal and co-incide fully with your use of the terms but you understand me well enough to discuss the subject. Do you understand what ideas I may have that I try to convey with the phrase "Scientific frameworks are a belief system"? (read on)
You may be correct when you say "science does not claim to know the truth, or even to be capable of knowing the truth" and I am inclined to agree with you, however many scientists and popular scientists present themselves as arbiters of truth as do many religionists and that is what this debate is about. Many use science to "find the truth" whatever you or others may say that science is capable of. Many religionists do the same with religion. Some in both groups are dishonest for both good and bad motives. Some are in both groups but some in some groups would dispute that.
Now when I said "now the ivory towers think themselves the purveyors and verifiers of truth" I didn't say that they actually were purveyors of truth, my point (as you agree) is that they are not, but many that inhabit those positions are making the same famed age-of-Galileo style Vatican pronouncements that they (thats the vague they, meaning science-anti-religion-fans) often condemn of the Vatican.
You say "The universe itself is the only purveyor and verifier of truth."; quite so; but we each see this only through our own senses.
"If a theory can't be decided on by examining the physical universe, then we don't even consider it." Indeed; but I think you will find that that statement contains some gross presumptions if you examine it carefully. It presumes that the "physical unverse" is already well defined so that it becomes a simple task to know whether or not an item is part of the physical universe. In fact your statement probably could be better rendered as: "If a theory can't be decided on by examining the input of [agreed] select sensory input interpreted in an [agreed] manner, then we don't even consider it."; (The set of sensory inputs is augmented by physical devices but we either consider those as an appendage to our senses or as part of the system being examined.) And how is are the permitted sensory inputs and interpretations to be agreed upon? [Yes, the interpreations are based on a somewhat agreed previous interpretation] Are they even universally agreed? Are dissenters merely classes as heretics? When the full statement is considered it is little more than very good intentions. Of course science can do no more, but its only claiom to legitimacy is that it's champions have an agreed set of sensory inputs and interpetations and that the dissenters disagree with.
ID says "Lets consider it and see how well we can find X".
There was an Agatha Christie story where a haemophilliac was murdered. The culprit was identified by the detective early on through having an unusually strong alibi but not at the "time of death" (which was wrong because the certifying doctor did not know the victim was a haemophilliac). This was no proof of guilt, but as an evidential construct it is interesting.
ID claim another interpretation on the same evidence that evolutionists want for their own.
Wrong. FSM is satire, and has nothing to do with validating anyone's beliefs. In fact, the point is the exact opposite -- it's to discredit the beliefs of ID proponents
Indeed and I deny that "supernatureal causes" can exist because I think God is natural.
Sam
Indeed, but just because proponents of ID have a belief in God doesn't mean that ID infers the existance of God or of tartan elephants.
ID infers little about the nature of the intelligent agent behind the design.
Sam
You miss the point for ID which is NOT that: "It was god that created it and he is not a spaghetti monster"
AFAIK ID doesn't try and infer an awful lot about the intelligent agent behind the intelligent design which is why the FSM although good mockery is a total red herring.
FSM mocks some of the personal beliefs behind some of the adherants of ID but it has nothing to do with ID per se. This I can explain the "difference" but it is totally irrelevant to ID unless some branch of ID tries to infer something about the agens from the designs.
In that respect I have to say that Flying and Spaghetti are specific and I have seen nothing to indicate spagehtti in the designer; if you HAVE seen any spaghetti-ness please tell us.
Sam
There is no reason to conclude that "if religion had any basis in fact we would only have one religion"; mainly because religion, like science, is subject to acceptance of multiple distinct individual humans. All you show by that statement is a very constricted understanding of religion such that your statement must be true.
"All we have is religions trying to kill other religions off" - WAR
ALL? ALL? Thats all the religions we have? No peacable religins then? No war mongering science either?
Man, you are so far out that you haven't realized that scientific frameworks are a religion and that you seem to be involving yourself in the beginnings of some kind of WAR.
You don't even "validate" your own science (At a guess here, it's not a personal attack, I'm using you as a proto-typical anti-ID person), you just "believe" what your friends "believe" anxious that nothing else should be considered lest it shake your "faith" that there is no eternal God you might be accountable to; and yet science even tries to make man into the eternal universe ruling god! Or do you not hope that one day immortality and space flight will be acheivable?
By which anthropic principle do you claim that we will be the first to achieve this?
If "science" has it's way we will have offspring all over the universe on terraformed planets who claim that "it happened like that, and our space-ancestors are a myth." Deny it if you can, but a rabidly "pro-science" world will lead to the very scenario that you claim you are not part of.
Science is no more fact than religion on an individual level because we don't have the time to verify it all personally, and you can't deny that. There have been and are as many scientific frauds freaks and pitfalls as religious, and you can't deny that.
And you can't deny that the case of ID is what human science is attempting to make true by inter-galactic colonisation. You just insist on no evidence that these humans on this planet are the first, which is a fantastic claim, and you won't consider evidence to the contrary on grounds of faith.
Which is fine, if that is your religion; enjoy!
Sam