Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Well, i'm pretty sure you can't prove that you love anyone, so you're wrong there. I'll refrain from calling you names, though.
|
You can go on ignoring the
fact that the biochemical state of love can be measured, but it weakens your stance considerably. I'd not call anyone names, but I can feel comfortable saying that in my opinion people are wrong or are behaving in a way that's harmful to others.
[QUOTE=filtherton]You seem to think that they're strict interpreters too?
The Bible, for example, is very clear on many points. One of them is that god exists. I think that we've already agreed that all theists have one trait in common by the word's very meaning: they all believe in a god or gods. On that stance alone I can claim that they are wholly wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
The oily rag came up as an example of what happens when people use common sense instead of the scientific method. It was an example of how your assertion that common sense is good science is incorrect.
|
There is a large difference between guessing and common sense.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
So theism isn't an honest effort at explaining how things got to be the way that they are?
|
It is no more honest than saying the sun rises because it's sentient. When someone obeys a belief system that is thousands of years old and has not taken into consideration of how far our understanding of our world has expanded in that time, they aren't being honest with themselves or anyone who cares to expand their understanding of our reality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
There is evidence, it just happens to be a couple thousand years old and a little too fantastic.
|
If by a little fantastic you mean that it lacks any evidence or proof, then you've stumbled upon my point. Religion is a way for humans to explain things to themselves reality in ultra simple terms in a vacuum of evidence. It's understandable for a roving band with no access to advances science to believe that the sun rises because they pray or the food they eat gives them strength of spirit. I would let them explore their world and discover all that there is to know as they evolve. We should know better. We have access to facts on natural and social science. All of the information to explain the questions that god once answered is right at our fingertips. There has been evidence and proof gathered and it's alright to allow ourselves to move from the necessity of theism into a more mature understanding of the universe. I'm not saying you're immature, but that the concept of god facilitates understanding at a level below us where we are now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Look it up. It fits the dictionary's definition. Perhaps popular culture has bastardized the definition of reason too?
|
Again I'll ask: how is the positive existence of god reasonable?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Maybe you should post the link again, or maybe you should just post a the text in question in a quote box. I guess i missed the part of the article where it was mentioned that you could send in a blood sample and they could tell you who you are in love with. I was too busy taking the matchmaking quiz. Really, how does it work(not the biochemical processes, but the actual test)? How could they be so certain that you aren't thinking about someone else when they take the sample?
|
It's not specific yet, of course, but the fact of the matter is that you suggested that science cannot explain love. Quite the opposite is true. Not only can psychology and anthropology explain it, but now even biology can show you what biochemically love looks like. Combining biochemistry with psychology, and there you have it: proof of love from a scientific standpoint.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I know, seems like it has the potential to be the best of both worlds.
|
It would fall out of the sky because reality would have nothing to stand on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
It seems to me that any exclusive commitment to reason is necessarily based on faith because it cannot be proven that an exclusive commitment to reason will make you better off in the long run than a commitment to faith and reason.
|
It's not about being better off, it's about moving away from mythos and fantasy towards reality. It's about not allowing superstition to override our reason. Maybe I should postulate a scenario: say you're eating breakfast out with someone. You put your car keys on the table and they quickly ask you not to because it's "really bad luck". After that, this person throws salt over his shoulder. Would you see this as reasonable behavior? Why or why not?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
You know that there are churches who actually favor things like gay marriage, religious tolerance and inclusiveness and even evolution. You cannot just throw these examples out. You and dawkins have really missed the boat on this; the relationship between religion and science has been getting less and less adversarial for a long time.
|
You're talking about the churches that don't just change the interpretation, but actually pick and choose what from the bible they believe and what they don't believe? I guess they missed Revelation 22:19 when god himself warns that anyone who takes words away from the bible will not enter heaven. So those that snip out things like homosexuality being a sin are in specific and direct violation of the word of god. As Dawkins said, agnostics are straddling the fence, not being devoted to theism or atheism.
If science and religion are on such good terms, why do most church bodies fight against embryonic stem cell research? Bush originally fought against stem cell research because of moral reasons (coming from his religion), and only caved after California signed bill SB 253, the first US law permitting stem cell research, and the Reagans mounted a massive campaign after Ronald Reagan's deterioration and death from Alzheimer's.