Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-09-2014, 10:37 AM
RE: Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
(04-09-2014 10:29 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(04-09-2014 10:05 AM)Dom Wrote:  It depends on how you define seeking. That fig is made to stand tall, all it's DNA tells it so. It found a pattern confined to it's own life and altered it's actions accordingly. If it succeeds and survives this way, it's offspring will have some predisposition to act in the same way. There is no evolution without pattern recognition.

Figs are not "made" they evolved, nor do they "seek". Mere organization does not constitute pattern seeking. There is a huge difference between a reactive process based on condition, and some life that does "seek". The difference is the organization of of the atoms COLLECTIVELY.

Wha? Are you assuming I don't know that figs evolved? And, once again, I said pattern recognition. I also said that I don't consider it intelligence. What the heck are you arguing?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
Anyway...to get back on topic, Sam Harris wrote what I thought was a good essay on Francis Collins.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/...is-collins

Here's short excerpt:

Quote:It is widely claimed that there can be no conflict, in principle, between science and religion because many scientists are themselves “religious,” and some even believe in the God of Abraham and in the truth of ancient miracles. Even religious extremists value some of the products of science—antibiotics, computers, bombs, etc.—and these seeds of inquisitiveness, we are told, can be patiently nurtured in a way that offers no insult to religious faith.

This prayer of reconciliation goes by many names and now has many advocates. But it is based on a fallacy. The fact that some scientists do not detect any problem with religious faith merely proves that a juxtaposition of good ideas/methods and bad ones is possible. Is there a conflict between marriage and infidelity? The two regularly coincide. The fact that intellectual honesty can be confined to a ghetto—in a single brain, in an institution, in a culture, etc—does not mean that there isn’t a perfect contradiction between reason and faith, or between the worldview of science taken as a whole and those advanced by the world’s “great,” and greatly discrepant, religions.

What can be shown by example is how poorly religious scientists manage to reconcile reason and faith when they actually attempt to do so. Few such efforts have received more public attention than the work of Francis Collins. At the time of this writing, Collins seems destined to be the next director of the National Institutes of Health. One must admit that his credentials are impeccable: he is a physical chemist, a medical geneticist, and the former head of the Human Genome Project. He is also, by his own account, living proof that there is no conflict between science and religion. In 2006, Collins published a bestselling book, The Language of God, in which he claims to demonstrate “a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony” between 21st-century science and Evangelical Christianity. Let it be known that “consistency” and “harmony” can be in the eye of the beholder.

In fact, to read The Language of God is to witness nothing less than an intellectual suicide. It is, however, a suicide that has gone almost entirely unacknowledged: The body yielded to the rope; the neck snapped; the breath subsided; and the corpse dangles in ghastly discomposure even now—and yet, polite people everywhere continue to celebrate the great man’s health.

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Can_of_Beans's post
04-09-2014, 10:48 AM
RE: Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
(04-09-2014 10:37 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(04-09-2014 10:29 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  Figs are not "made" they evolved, nor do they "seek". Mere organization does not constitute pattern seeking. There is a huge difference between a reactive process based on condition, and some life that does "seek". The difference is the organization of of the atoms COLLECTIVELY.

Wha? Are you assuming I don't know that figs evolved? And, once again, I said pattern recognition. I also said that I don't consider it intelligence. What the heck are you arguing?

And you fail once again to know the difference between reactionary organization, and collective organization. DNA as individual molecules REACT, the evolved organization of a specific species will determine if it "seeks"

I as a collective organism evolved to seek, but the strands of DNA in me are reactionary processes.

Patterns by themselves do not constitute seeking, patterns can and do exist as reactionary processes, like gravity does not "seek".

Otherwise again, since we see patterns in solar systems then by that standard solar systems "seek" as well and you damned sure don't believe that.

Plants do not seek, they react.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
04-09-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
"Life evolved to seek" I am fine with, but it was not the starting point.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
And once again, I said pattern recognition.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 11:26 AM
RE: Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
(04-09-2014 07:19 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Francis Collins - Bachelor's Degree in Chemistry from the University of Virginia / Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Yale / M.D. from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill / one of the leaders of the Human Genome Project / founder of BioLogos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins


Alister McGrath - DPhil in Molecular Biophysics and a Doctorate of Divinity in Theology from Oxford University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath


Robert Bakker - Ph.D. in Paleontology from Harvard University / one of the world's leading paleontologists / is the one of the "go to" guys in regards to dinosaurs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker


I'm asking because these men are obviously not blatant, outright fools like Hamsammich and WLC, but they claim the same religion as the aforementioned fools.

They are well respected in the science world and the topic of their religion rarely comes into play when they discuss science. I understand that this is probably because all three are either ECs or TEs, but the fact remains that they are Christians.

I have tried to model my Christianity after people such as this because they seem to be able to function socially in an amalgamated world (unlike Retard Boy and Super Dunce).

Is it because they don't shove their Christianity down people's throats? Or, because they believe in REAL science?

Just curious. Why is it that these guys (and myself) are respected and accepted in nearly every group of peoples and their Christian beliefs aren't brought up as a detraction from the work that they do (well... except for me... here on TTA... we have KC's Law, but I think people do that for S&Gs... mostly Dodgy mostly...)

I'm not greatly familiar with any of them, but from the wikipedia pages, I would say that you've got it right on both counts. They're not trying to force us to deepthroat their beliefs, and (two of them) are doing real science.

At the root of it, our ability to get along with people who believe weird stuff, comes down to how they act on that belief, not what they believe. If they believe that there's an alien conspiracy to wipe out humanity by instigating war, disease, and famine, and they respond by working tirelessly to reverse war, disease, and famine? Well, they're bonkers, and we might snicker at them some, but more power to them. If instead they try to get this taught into schools and divert billions into space-defense laser cannons that could instead be going to useful projects? THEN we have a problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
04-09-2014, 11:32 AM
RE: Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
(04-09-2014 08:08 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(04-09-2014 07:32 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  What does this have to do with anything I asked?

Edit:

In fact, nothing you've said in this topic has addressed the question. All you've written is angsty rants about religion.

Oh stop, it is called growing up. Do you still believe adult women magically pop out of ribs? Do you really think there is evidence that when you die you'll get 72 virgins? Do you really think the earth is flat?

Strawman much? I would be willing to bet KC believes none of those things. It is possible to be a Christian without being a Biblical literalist, and I would guess that most Christians are not Biblical literalists. I was a Catholic for years, and I never believed that Eve popped out of Adam's rib -- or even that Adam and Eve existed as real people. And the Catholic Church didn't require me to believe those things.

The world is not as black and white as you're painting it. There are intelligent theists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Grasshopper's post
04-09-2014, 11:34 AM
RE: Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
Double post, unable to delete -- never mind!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 12:04 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2014 12:54 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
A talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson about scientists and belief in God and ID.

For all but specifically KC. Since if I make more comments it may just be from a nasty old heathen/sinful athiest, but Dr. Neil states it very well what I, and you, should be concerned about.




“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: Hey heathens... want your sinful opinions these Christian apologists.
(04-09-2014 11:32 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(04-09-2014 08:08 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  Oh stop, it is called growing up. Do you still believe adult women magically pop out of ribs? Do you really think there is evidence that when you die you'll get 72 virgins? Do you really think the earth is flat?

Strawman much? I would be willing to bet KC believes none of those things. It is possible to be a Christian without being a Biblical literalist, and I would guess that most Christians are not Biblical literalists. I was a Catholic for years, and I never believed that Eve popped out of Adam's rib -- or even that Adam and Eve existed as real people. And the Catholic Church didn't require me to believe those things.

The world is not as black and white as you're painting it. There are intelligent theists.

I was a Catholic too, and?

Quote:It is possible to be a Christian without being a Biblical literalist, and I would guess that most Christians are not Biblical literalists.

Thanks for the newsflash, should I call that into CNN, or do you want to?

Slight problem here though. Who gets to decide what is meant to be taken literally and what is meant to be metaphorical? Let me guess, out of the billions of Christians you magically found the right interpretation.

There are also Conservative Catholics who would agree on bans on gay marriage and and women serving in the priesthood and are anti abortion.

Sunnis and Shiites can be liberal and conservative too. Jews can also be liberal and conservative too.

Cherry picking is how you have become civil over time and I am glad you are not a bible literalist. But the part you forget is back when those books were written, the masses took that book word for word way more than they do now. Much like why the theocracies in the Middle East are still stuck in the past.

The reason you are civil is not because of that book, the reason you are civil is because your evolutionary sense of compassion overrides the nasty parts of that book. No different than why far to much of the Middle East is oppressive. Because their compassion is focused on protecting tradition and not outsiders. Your empathy is extended to outsiders.

You cannot take either the Koran or Bible literally otherwise if you followed every command this god says you would have to become the monster he requires you to be.

Our ability to be cruel or compassionate as a species is in us, in our evolution, not in the religions we set up or the books we read.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: