Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, none will suffice." 

I've heard that before, can you tell me who said it? It's true regardless of which side of discussion you're on.

I apologize if I'm being wayyy too nit-picky here...

But I'm not convinced of the general truth of the claim, "for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice."  (And hopefully this is something I can state without appearing to have been trapped by irony. )

But anyway, here are two examples of ways I think the claim that "no explanation will suffice", fails for rationilists.

1. We've already seen historical examples of 'belief' which have only survived until the necessary explanation was achieved.  For example, Ptolemy and Newton believing a divine agency must be constantly regulating the motion of the planets.  But Laplace finally achieved an explanation which sufficed!  And so that particular species of belief vanishes as the explanation is understood.  Thus I think we must be clear and specific about which species of belief it is being claimed "no explanation will suffice".

2. Even if we're narrowing the claim to focus solely on the specific question of the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscent god, I still think the claim "no explanation will suffice" should fail to be strictly true for rationalists.  Such a god, on a whim, could obviously provide endless and overwhelming evidence for its existence.  For instance, it could trivially announce itself to all mankind oneday, saying, "Hi, this is God speaking. I've decided that henceforth there will be no more disease. Additionally, from now on, natural cataclysms such as hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados, and earthquakes will no longer occur in populated areas." And 'make it so'.  Rationalists would then be obliged to observe, wow, apparently there is some sort of supernatural god. I wonder how its supernatural physics work... (etc.)

So it doesn't seem that saying, although pithy, really works very well as phrased.  I think it would more truthfully be amended to:

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, sufficient evidence will suffice."  

No?


Regards,

[DaHanG]

I was watching Fox 4 news this morning and they had a small story on the Texas School Board looking to vote on a tough (and in my opinian very stupid) issue.
Talk about someone trying to shove something down someone's throat.
Here's a Blog that i'm quoting here on it from a this news guy.

Life Lesson: Evolution or Else?
Nov 19, 2008 | 8:55 AM PST
Category: News
Featured On: MyFoxDFW

The Texas Board of Education takes on a touchy topic today.  And, ultimately, it will determine: *How to teach children about how life started on this planet.*

Hundreds of science professors say: if we keep doing what we've been doing, then we're hurting our children's chances at succeeding in college and later in life.

Right now-- public schools teach the theory of evolution.  Teachers and students consider the strengths AND weaknesses of the idea (including alternative concepts).  It's been that way for years.  Most board members believe this is the way to go.  New science standards will likely be set for next year.

But-- 95 percent of university level science professors say schools should ONLY teach evolution... forget the alternatives... forget strengths and weaknesses.  A group called the Texas Freedom Network put the study together.

More than 400 (public and private university) professors took the survey.  They say: they believe teaching kids concepts-- other than evolution-- "harms" their college readiness and makes them less able to compete for jobs in the future.

And the study makes sure to mention-- these professors help determine who gets into their schools.

So what should the board of education do? Make sure science teachers stick to the current lesson plan? Or "evolve" science lesson plans into "Evolution Only"? Would that change what you teach your kids at home? Look forward to hearing from you.

And if I understand this corectly

Teaching people anything other than Evolution or teaching it as anything other than pure fact makes them to stupid to get a good job or to go to school ???

In a science class, the only things being discussed should be under the realm of evidence and observation. If you know of a theory other than evolution that meets such criteria to explain life, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, you're talking about something other than science, and is therefore not of use to a science class.

[metaL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=200qAsgpfwU

"If athiesm is a religion, do you see theism as a religion? No. Theism is a category, and the subdivisions under theism you divide down to the point where they become religions"

These guys are right about most of the stuff they say, mostly because they avoid specifics (which is fine, atheism is NOT a religion).  The quote above was taken from this video.  We can all see what point was meant to be conveyed by this quote; however, theism is not necessarily broken down into religions.  This, to me, was (on at least one level) just as ignorant as some of the comments made by the stuttering dumbass they had on the phone.  How are they going to argue that atheism is not a religion (which should be easy), and say that theism IS a religion?  Theism, to me, is just the belief that God exists, or the belief that God's existence is probable.  You do not have to be religious to believe in God.  Just as they say, my set of beliefs is personal and not tied to (a)theism.  I don't like to cherry pick quotes but I couldn't help but notice the irony there.


EDIT: quadz, I hate the use of the terms omnipotent and omniscient God.  To me, omnipotence is an oxymoron in (more than just) the physical realm, and omniscience is impossible given free will.  I'm not starting a debate, just commenting here and there.

[deft]

He said theism wasn't a religion.. 

[metaL]

He said theism wasn't a religion.. 

correct, just before that statement. and i wasn't disagreeing with you deft, i was merely pointing out that when he actually tried to end his argument on a convincing note, he failed (well probably not considering the caller's mental capacity).

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Science classes are a "required" class.
So therefore teachers would be required to teach ALL kids that Evolution is indeed FACT and no other theory of lifes origin is valid.
Because notice that they do not want the pros and cons of Evolution taught. This can only mean that they want it taught as for sure fact.

[metaL]

Science classes are a "required" class.
So therefore teachers would be required to teach ALL kids that Evolution is indeed FACT and no other theory of lifes origin is valid.
Because notice that they do not want the pros and cons of Evolution taught. This can only mean that they want it taught as for sure fact.

no, it is fact. some people just flat out don't like the fact that its going to be taught without an alternative.

[deft]

What are the other scientific theories that should be taught alongside/instead of evolution?

What is inaccurate about the theory of evolution?

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

In a science class, the only things being discussed should be under the realm of evidence and observation. If you know of a theory other than evolution that meets such criteria to explain life, I'd like to here it. Otherwise, you're talking about something other than science, and is therefore not of use to a science class.

Well there is is evidence of micro-evolution, but absolutely NO macro evolutionary evidence exists.
And i'm pretty sure no one actually observed any either. So therefor Evolution should go aswell based on that.
In actuallity the theory of Evolution is so full of holes, you trully have to have faith to honestly believe it.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Science classes are a "required" class.
So therefore teachers would be required to teach ALL kids that Evolution is indeed FACT and no other theory of lifes origin is valid.
Because notice that they do not want the pros and cons of Evolution taught. This can only mean that they want it taught as for sure fact.

no, it is fact. some people just flat out don't like the fact that its going to be taught without an alternative.

It is???
So who actually observed us turning from monkeys to upright humans, what "evedence" actually confirms this?
Last i read it was still just a "theory".

[quadz]

EDIT: quadz, I hate the use of the terms omnipotent and omniscient God.  To me, omnipotence is an oxymoron in (more than just) the physical realm, and omniscience is impossible given free will.  I'm not starting a debate, just commenting here and there.

Yeah, I was actually recalling our prior discussion on that subject when I used those terms.  But I think many theists do believe on an omni-* god, which comes in handy when one wants to point out the innumerable things such a god could trivially make happen.  

[metaL]

EDIT: quadz, I hate the use of the terms omnipotent and omniscient God.  To me, omnipotence is an oxymoron in (more than just) the physical realm, and omniscience is impossible given free will.  I'm not starting a debate, just commenting here and there.

Yeah, I was actually recalling our prior discussion on that subject when I used those terms.  But I think many theists do believe on an omni-* god, which comes in handy when one wants to point out the innumerable things such a god could trivially make happen.  

touche`

[quadz]

absolutely NO macro evolutionary evidence exists.

Apart from the mountains and mountains of such evidence?

And i'm pretty sure no one actually observed any either. So therefor Evolution should go aswell based on that.

Um, no.  There is as much archaeological evidence that evolution happened, as there is that ancient Greece existed.^[1]  Does the theory of ancient Greece's existence have to "go aswell" ?


Regards,

[metaL]

absolutely NO macro evolutionary evidence exists.

Apart from the mountains and mountains of such evidence?

And i'm pretty sure no one actually observed any either. So therefor Evolution should go aswell based on that.

Um, no.  There is as much archaeological evidence that evolution happened, as there is that ancient Greece existed.^[1]  Does the theory of ancient Greece's existence have to "go aswell" ?


Regards,

for real, i'm no quadz ass kisser. this was straight ownage 

[deft]

- absolutely NO macro evolutionary evidence exists.
- In actuallity the theory of Evolution is so full of holes, you trully have to have faith to honestly believe it.
- Last i read it was still just a "theory".

Seeing posts like this make me cringe..its 2008.  Read a book, do research on the internet..something.