Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the principles of world view
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 16 of 86 (495785)
01-24-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Larni
01-23-2009 1:30 PM


all hail
Thank you for the time ...
Leave it to the good natured non religious to govern themselves
Let the rest be told what to do by Sky Dad.
Good and bad natured religious and non-religious zealots do not govern themselves; they are governed by the leaders of nations and ideologies.
Named deity or otherwise, “religion” is nothing more than a "way of life" or a life stance. Shared perceptions and behaviors of atheism or materialism appear simply religious dogma derived and propagated from religious people who call god nothing and ignorance. The term refers to both the personal practices related to communal beliefs, as well as group behaviors and communication stemming from shared convictions.
They are often found focused on specific natural or metaphysical properties, as well as various claims attempting to describe reality (i.e. morality, the cosmos, human nature, etc.). Such focus typically yields a set of laws and ethics, which, in turn, promote a particular “lifestyle”. That “religion” may encompass experiences with collective theories (and faith) and personal faith (and theories), ancestral and cultural history (or mythology), traditions, and writings, etc. is a given as well.
“Religious” moral codes, practices, values, institutions (i.e. universities, churches, etc.), and traditions are often closely associated with their respective core beliefs and fundamental principles (dogma). “Religion” can be described as little more than a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought considered to be outside of unobservable natural environments and phenomena; the pursuit of “knowledge & wisdom” and ascension towards the highest truths of the “universe”, etc..
Most “religion” considers psychological and social roots, along with origins and historical development, and often entails fairly specific, highly predictable behaviors, likely evidenced by an observance of the practitioner's. The development of “religion” has taken many forms in various cultures; Greco-Roman heterodox Christianity and Darwin’s ToE are only two common practiced religions in modern times.
So, within “religion”, one can find a set of symbols (i.e. numbers, letters, etc.), theories, and practices that give meaning to a practitioner's experiences in and of life through reference to perceptual reality. Among other things, it is often expressed through music, literature, and art, as well as, culturally and habitually shared practices and forms of knowledge.
It is synonymous with "faith" and "belief system”, and usually defines collective social convictions more specifically than it can be said to define individual personal convictions.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Larni, posted 01-23-2009 1:30 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Larni, posted 01-24-2009 12:56 PM Bailey has not replied
 Message 18 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 2:12 PM Bailey has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 17 of 86 (495826)
01-24-2009 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Bailey
01-24-2009 9:13 AM


Re: all hail
Thanks for telling me the meaning you attach to the word 'religion' but I don't get the point your are making.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Bailey, posted 01-24-2009 9:13 AM Bailey has not replied

  
homunculus
Member (Idle past 5435 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 18 of 86 (496144)
01-26-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Bailey
01-24-2009 9:13 AM


Re: all hail
I agree, well said, I would like also to reiterate that according to the very protocol of religious application, Not speaking strictly of denominational interpretations and even divisions in the same religion, which most religions focus around a central theistic deity or central operations of spirits, It is not the leaders/deacons/pastors/etc. that (should) interpret and adjudicate doctrine as lecture.
Rather, it is left up to the individual to interpret arbitration from the principle or doctrine. In the realm of such religious arbitration, as in every subject, morality and spirituality has conventions of agreements and compromise to suggest the disputable yields of human nature and behaviorism, like denominations. While, of course, the obvious contentions go to employ universal encompassing ideologies of right and wrong in accordance with, not only, universal agreement in arbitration but universal and doctrinal application.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Bailey, posted 01-24-2009 9:13 AM Bailey has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 19 of 86 (496201)
01-26-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by homunculus
01-22-2009 2:18 AM


homunculus writes:
In the realm of evolution, everything is prostrated to, nothing! Nothing created everything (big bang). Nothing created life (abiogenesis). Nothing designates purpose, reason, design and meaning. and human beings have absolutely no value at all.
From the perspective of the universe as a whole (or our particular galaxy, our solar system, or just the planet we are on), the assertion that human beings have absolutely no value is actually true. From such a larger external perspective, whether we flourish or perish is a matter of no particular importance -- the rest of existence goes on, and if/when we perish, perhaps some other sentient species somewhere will succeed in ways that we did not. I see nothing wrong with this perspective. It entails that we view our own existence with a healthy degree of humility and a respectful sense of tenuousness.
From our own perspective as human beings, however, it is utterly wrong, false, misguided and frankly stupid to conclude that, because we arose "accidentally" and "from nothing", we have no value. Life in general, and the human species in particular, is a powerful force capable of inducing/creating order from chaos.
The massive amounts of energy being thrown from the sun to the earth, and being generated and circulated by the earth itself in its geological, electromagnetic and chemical processes, is being absorbed, channeled, and redirected by life into structures and populations of ever-increasing complexity. The proliferation of life coincides with a growing ability, dramatically accelerated by the emergence of homo sapiens, to influence and even control some of the processes and energy sources in this environment.
Altogether, it's an awesome development, despite its ultimately humble scale and tenuous grip in the larger (universal) scheme of things. Sure, a collision with an asteroid of moderate size would obliterate us in an instant, but the more time that passes before that sort of thing happens, the better our chances become that we might be able to take action that would foresee and prepare for such an event -- possibly being able to survive or even prevent the impact.
The universe does not embody a value system. Humans do, and that is what counts. We don't need a God of our own invention to project our values to a universal scale. We need to understand our true status in the universe, as well as our true nature and true history; most of all, we need to understand the value(s) we are able to create, and we need to choose our behaviors accordingly.
Perhaps the most intriguing/perplexing/awesome factor in our development is the fact that evolution is still working on us (though we are getting rather close to exerting deliberate and significant influence on that process as well -- indeed, we've been exerting influence on it for millennia, though focusing almost entirely on other species). And so far, we still can't quite see or imagine what lies ahead for us.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by homunculus, posted 01-22-2009 2:18 AM homunculus has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 20 of 86 (496483)
01-28-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
01-23-2009 7:21 AM


In reality evolution is a scientific conclusion which is massivlet supported by the evidence. Creation is a religious dogma.
If God exists, and has been active in the history of life then the evidence we find should reflect His activity - since it incldues the results of that activity. And that evidence points to evolution, not creation. Creation, then, is a human-created doctrine which seeks to dictate to God what he did do.
In reality evolution is a scientific theory which is supported by multiple connecting theories of how life in the universe may go from nothing to something. It is in no way, shape or form considered "factual evidence", as is the case for most other scientific phenomena, where scientific principles can be proven to be true to a high degree of accuracy in a laboratory or by experiment.
Creation and the creation story of the Bible is how the God of the Bible has revealed and minifested Himself to man. Only unbelievers would turn this around and say we are dictating to God what he did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2009 7:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 01-28-2009 1:15 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2009 7:28 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 21 of 86 (496496)
01-28-2009 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by John 10:10
01-28-2009 12:40 PM


John, you've been here quite some time now, in any case long enough to know that this:
John 10:10 writes:
In reality evolution is a scientific theory which is supported by multiple connecting theories of how life in the universe may go from nothing to something. It is in no way, shape or form considered "factual evidence", as is the case for most other scientific phenomena, where scientific principles can be proven to be true to a high degree of accuracy in a laboratory or by experiment.
Is not true. Evolution has NOTHING to do with how life began, it IS observed, both in the lab and in the wild, and IS therefore supported by "factual evidence".
Creation and the creation story of the Bible is how the God of the Bible has revealed and minifested Himself to man. Only unbelievers would turn this around and say we are dictating to God what he did.
Tell that to Ken Miller. Oh, and if you don't know who that is: here you go

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John 10:10, posted 01-28-2009 12:40 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John 10:10, posted 01-28-2009 6:32 PM Huntard has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 22 of 86 (496526)
01-28-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Huntard
01-28-2009 1:15 PM


Is not true. Evolution has NOTHING to do with how life began, it IS observed, both in the lab and in the wild, and IS therefore supported by "factual evidence".
I stand corrected. Evolution is a belief system that doesn't know how matter came into existance, nor how life sprang from inanimate matter, but has faith that it somehow did, then somehow began the natural evolutionary process of evolving over millions/billions of years into all types of living plants and animals, from which man somehow evolved.
Putting aside how matter came into existance, this overall evolutionary process has never been observed or proven to be true to any high degree of accuracy in any lab or in the wild, as are most other scientific principles.
Have certain plants and animals adapted themselves to certain climate changes and natural selection techniques, and had minor changes in their anatomy? Yes, but not to the point where the genetic structure of their genes are entirely affected, thus creating and evolving into entirely new species of plants and animals. When you can prove that in a lab or show that it happens naturally in the wild, then you will have some "factual evidence" that you can call science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 01-28-2009 1:15 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Huntard, posted 01-29-2009 1:47 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 26 by Dr Jack, posted 01-29-2009 8:36 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 23 of 86 (496555)
01-29-2009 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by John 10:10
01-28-2009 6:32 PM


{ABE} I realized this is not on topic here, this is the last I'll say on this, find another post if you want to criticize evolution. this one is about the (supposed) effect evolution has on one's world view.
John 10:10 writes:
I stand corrected. Evolution is a belief system that doesn't know how matter came into existance, nor how life sprang from inanimate matter, but has faith that it somehow did,
Wrong. Life could've been started by god, evolution doesn't care.
then somehow began the natural evolutionary process of evolving over millions/billions of years into all types of living plants and animals, from which man somehow evolved.
The somehow is known. It's called mutation, natural selection and genetic drift.
Putting aside how matter came into existance,
Which has nothing to do with evolution.
this overall evolutionary process has never been observed or proven to be true to any high degree of accuracy in any lab or in the wild, as are most other scientific principles.
Wrong. Evolution HAS been observed in the lab and in the wild, as has speciation.
Have certain plants and animals adapted themselves to certain climate changes and natural selection techniques, and had minor changes in their anatomy? Yes, but not to the point where the genetic structure of their genes are entirely affected, thus creating and evolving into entirely new species of plants and animals.
ou don;t need "entirely new genetics" to be considered a new species. Chimpanzees and humans are a different species, and their DNA only differs 5% or so.
When you can prove that in a lab or show that it happens naturally in the wild, then you will have some "factual evidence" that you can call science.
Since Evolution is the change in genetic make up in a population over time, and this has been observed, I wonder why you keep repeating this lie.
Edited by Huntard, : added {ABE} bit, + spellings

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John 10:10, posted 01-28-2009 6:32 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Annafan, posted 01-29-2009 6:13 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 24 of 86 (496568)
01-29-2009 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Huntard
01-29-2009 1:47 AM


Hey Huntard, I sent you a mail on hotmail. Can you check?
(sorry for the off-topic post; please continue )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Huntard, posted 01-29-2009 1:47 AM Huntard has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 86 (496589)
01-29-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by John 10:10
01-28-2009 12:40 PM


quote:
In reality evolution is a scientific theory which is supported by multiple connecting theories of how life in the universe may go from nothing to something. It is in no way, shape or form considered "factual evidence", as is the case for most other scientific phenomena, where scientific principles can be proven to be true to a high degree of accuracy in a laboratory or by experiment.
THis is a fine example of what I mean. As further indiecated by your Message 23 you don't even know what the theory of evolution is. Nor do you know that science has always included observations of nature outside the laboratory or that laboratory experiments in evolution do exist.
In fact your argument amounts to declaring that the fields of taxonomy, biogeography, palaeontology and genetics do not exist.
If you had any real humility you might concede that the experts who have actually studied a field in depth would know rather more than someone who has yet to grasp the basics.
quote:
Creation and the creation story of the Bible is how the God of the Bible has revealed and minifested Himself to man. Only unbelievers would turn this around and say we are dictating to God what he did.
By which you mean that you do dictate to God, what God did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John 10:10, posted 01-28-2009 12:40 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 26 of 86 (496601)
01-29-2009 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by John 10:10
01-28-2009 6:32 PM


I stand corrected. Evolution is a belief system that doesn't know how matter came into existance, nor how life sprang from inanimate matter, but has faith that it somehow did, then somehow began the natural evolutionary process of evolving over millions/billions of years into all types of living plants and animals, from which man somehow evolved.
Evolution is not a "belief system", it's an explanatory framework for the variation we see in extant, and extinct, lifeforms. I don't know why Creationists have such difficulty with the simple point that Evolution cannot explain the existence of life.
As for having faith that life somehow sprung from non-living matter, this isn't faith. It's an inescapable conclusion. We know, for a fact, there is life on Earth now and we know, for a fact, there wasn't life on Earth 4.7 billion years ago. Something happened in the meantime; that we don't know what that is does not make it faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John 10:10, posted 01-28-2009 6:32 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by John 10:10, posted 01-29-2009 10:58 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 27 of 86 (496678)
01-29-2009 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Jack
01-29-2009 8:36 AM


Evolution is not a "belief system", it's an explanatory framework for the variation we see in extant, and extinct, lifeforms. I don't know why Creationists have such difficulty with the simple point that Evolution cannot explain the existence of life.
As for having faith that life somehow sprung from non-living matter, this isn't faith. It's an inescapable conclusion. We know, for a fact, there is life on Earth now and we know, for a fact, there wasn't life on Earth 4.7 billion years ago. Something happened in the meantime; that we don't know what that is does not make it faith.
The problem that we Creationists will always have with the "belief system of evolution" is that you believe life evolved without a Creator, and we do not. You say it's proven science, and we most emphatically say it's not! I believe in the science that studies the disease of polio, and then develops a cure, saving countless millions from this dredful disease. I believe in the science that studies why certain atoms fission, and then learns how to harness this energy for the good or detrement of mankind. I believe in the science of learning how to overcome gravity, and then developing airplanes and spacecrafts to take us places where gravity held us down. But I do not believe in the "so-called science of evolution" that has never been proven with a high degree of accuracy from start to finish in a single experiment where life forms evolve from single cells to fully grown creatures able to reproduce.
As a Creationist, I believe God created everything after their own kind, from the simplest life form to the most complex, able to live and reproduce new life forms after their own kind. As many life forms became extinct during the 5 major extinction periods, God created new life forms, rather than postulating that some life forms survived the major extinction periods, and continued the evolutionary process after each major extinction.
To also believe that life somehow sprang from non-living matter requires much faith, much much more faith than simply recognizing that this could only happen by our Creator's mind and hand. Yes, it's an inescapable conclusion that life exists, and has existed in the past, but it takes great faith or just plain ignorance to exclude God from the cause of why you are human, and not an animal.
Edited by John 10:10, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Jack, posted 01-29-2009 8:36 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 01-29-2009 11:35 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 29 by onifre, posted 01-30-2009 1:10 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2009 1:22 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 31 by Dr Jack, posted 01-30-2009 3:35 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 41 by kuresu, posted 01-31-2009 11:32 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 67 by bluegenes, posted 02-01-2009 9:46 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 28 of 86 (496686)
01-29-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by John 10:10
01-29-2009 10:58 PM


Explaining evolution, likely in vain
The problem that we Creationists will always have with the "belief system of evolution" is that you believe life evolved without a Creator, and we do not.
False. Science does not work on "belief." Science relies on evidence.
Secondly, the theory of evolution does not depend on the method for the origin of life. The theory of evolution works equally well if 1) life arose naturally, 2) life was created by some deity, 3) life was seeded here by aliens, 4) life was transmitted back from the distant future, or 5) other. Makes no difference, because the theory of evolution deals with changes in the genome after life began.
You say it's proven science, and we most emphatically say it's not!
No science is "proven." All science is tentative. Within that caution, some theories have more supporting evidence than others. The theory of evolution is among the best-supported theories in science.
I believe in the science that studies the disease of polio, and then develops a cure, saving countless millions from this dredful disease. I believe in the science that studies why certain atoms fission, and then learns how to harness this energy for the good or detrement of mankind. I believe in the science of learning how to overcome gravity, and then developing airplanes and spacecrafts to take us places where gravity held us down.
Your "belief" is immaterial. Belief has no role in science. Rather, it is what the evidence shows.
But I do not believe in the "so-called science of evolution" that has never been proven with a high degree of accuracy from start to finish in a single experiment where life forms evolve from single cells to fully grown creatures able to reproduce.
You are battling a strawman because what you don't believe in has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Again, the theory of evolution does not cover, nor does it depend upon, origins.
And from your scare quotes surrounding "so-called science of evolution" you are implying that the theory of evolution is not science. That is the latest creation "science" talking point, and it is false. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory because it follows the scientific method. Whether creationists like it or not, that's the way it is.
And again, you are looking for "proof." Name one scientific theory that has been proved. You have set up a strawman definition and no doubt consider your argument superior. Perhaps you should study the scientific method before you make such statements.
Finally, you say you want to see life develop from nothing to creatures able to reproduce. Again, that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. You need to seek out the folks studying abiogenesis or origins and harass them.
I know creationists are reluctant to study science. Just last night I was told on another forum "...evolution is not science and is of Satan."
But if you are going to make claims about science it would be much more effective if you had some basic education in those fields on which you are commenting, lest you appear as much a zealot as the poster I just cited.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John 10:10, posted 01-29-2009 10:58 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John 10:10, posted 01-30-2009 5:59 PM Coyote has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 29 of 86 (496693)
01-30-2009 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by John 10:10
01-29-2009 10:58 PM


The problem that we Creationists will always have with the "belief system of evolution" is that you believe life evolved without a Creator, and we do not.
So wait, does this mean you believe life evolved but with a creator?
IOW, evolution happens but God makes it happen...?
But I do not believe in the "so-called science of evolution" that has never been proven with a high degree of accuracy from start to finish in a single experiment where life forms evolve from single cells to fully grown creatures able to reproduce.
You want a single experiment that shows a single cell to a fully grown creature...? Are you for real?
To also believe that life somehow sprang from non-living matter requires much faith, much much more faith than simply recognizing that this could only happen by our Creator's mind and hand.
The problem is not with 'believing a creator did it', obviously when people are not educated this is the easiest thing to believe. The problem is that the evidence does not point to this when studied properly. Another problem is that first you must provide evidence that the creator exists BEFORE you can invoke it as the cause. You don't just get a free pass on that. If you can't provide evidence for the existance of God then you can't just throw him in as the solution.
Yes, it's an inescapable conclusion that life exists, and has existed in the past, but it takes great faith or just plain ignorance to exclude God from the cause of why you are human, and not an animal.
What evidence could you point to that we'd be ignorant of? - please no Bible quotes.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John 10:10, posted 01-29-2009 10:58 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 30 of 86 (496697)
01-30-2009 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by John 10:10
01-29-2009 10:58 PM


Thank you for proving my point yet again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John 10:10, posted 01-29-2009 10:58 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024