Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
|
I'm not denying that it can be measured; i've never denied that it can be measured. I just want you to explain how it can be measured in a way so as to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you love a specific person. Your inability to understand this might also be considered a stance weakener.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
You can only claim that there is no evidence to support their belief. That they are wrong isn't something you could ever know.
Quote:
|
There is a large difference between guessing and common sense.
|
And? There is a large difference between casually making sweeping statements about the mental facilities of an incredibly diverse group of people and actually having anything relevant to say about the mental facilities of an incredibly diverse group of people.
Quote:
|
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.
|
But we know that the sun isn't sentient. We don't know where the universe came from. Many theists have taken into account how far our understanding of the world has come.
Quote:
|
If by a little fantastic you mean that it lacks any evidence or proof, then you've stumbled upon my point.
|
The bible is a historical document. At least some the things contained within it are considered to accurately reflect history. Some of it seems pretty unlikely. There is certainly as much proof concerning the events of the bible as there is proof of the existence of archimedes.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The bold part is just plain not true. It won't ever be true.
Quote:
|
Again I'll ask: how is the positive existence of god reasonable?
|
I'm not going to use your ultra-specific definition of reason, okay. I will stick with the ones in the dictionary. Do I really have to link dictionary.com? Is this really going to turn into that kind of discussion?
You and dawkins can redefine the terms atheist and agnostic all you want, i don't care about those. Stay away from the rest of the words, please.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I didn't say that science couldn't explain love, i said that you couldn't prove that you love your family, because you can't. You can't prove that they love you either, though i imagine through some sort of faith you've convinced yourself that it's so.
Quote:
|
It would fall out of the sky because reality would have nothing to stand on.
|
I know, but i bet watching them build it would have been pretty amazing(really, this is analogy is getting stretched pretty thin).
Quote:
|
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?
|
You can be a theist and not have your theism contradict reality. They aren't mutually exclusive.
It might be considered reasonable behavior according to the dictionary's definition of reason, though probably not according to your definition. Personally, i would find it rather quirky, but probably harmless.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Yes, i'm talking about people who base their beliefs on a historically informed interpretation of the contents of the bible.
Quote:
|
As Dawkins said, agnostics are straddling the fence, not being devoted to theism or atheism.
|
They aren't agnostics, they're thei- whoa, wait, let me guess, dawkins has redefined "theism" for all of us, too. Man, it's pretty unfortunate that the rest of the english speaking world has been using these words wrong for so long. How lucky we all are that richard dawkins has come along to correct us
.
Yeah
Quote:
|
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.
|
C'mon, if you're going to claim that most church bodies oppose embryonic stem cell research you should at least provide some sort of data to back it up.
Science and religion in america are on the best terms that they have been on in a long time, probably ever. The catholic church is even warming up to evolution. Did you know that february 8th was evolution sunday, where almost six hundred churches in the u.s. emphasized the compatibility of their faith and darwinism? Remember when creationism didn't have to clothe itself in pseudoscience to have long odds to be taught in a public school? Remember when it was illegal to get a blowjob? Man, that sucked. Remember when it was illegal to get a safe abortion? Man, that sucked, though you no doubt disagree since you and the conservative christians agree on the subject of abortion. Remember when praying in school was something the christians did over the loudspeaker?
Your sense of urgency about the conflict between religion and secularism is at least 10 years too late.