PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Design Debate In US- Non US Posters, What Do You Think???


tennisbum79
Sep 28th, 2005, 02:47 PM
The theory holds that life and living things show signs of having been designed.
Intelligent Design primary argument is that life is too complex to have simply "happened."

There is currently a big push in the US to teach this in high school as an alternative to Evolution.

Because the visible support behind the movement is primarily from the Christian conservative right, critics charges this is another attempt of re-introducing creationism teaching in high school.


Creationism is the belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.


Is there a similar movement in your country?
What do you or people in your country think of this?

SelesFan70
Sep 28th, 2005, 02:54 PM
Neither theory can be definitively proven. Either way you need faith.

Scotso
Sep 28th, 2005, 02:57 PM
Neither theory can be definitively proven. Either way you need faith.

Just because evolution may not have been "proven" does not mean that it won't be. Evolution can be proven, because it's a scientifically debatable theory.

"Intelligent design," on the other hand, is devoid of any type of science. It has no place in schools.

~ The Leopard ~
Sep 28th, 2005, 03:00 PM
You no more need faith to accept the theory of evolution than you need it for the theory of aerodynamics or any other well-corroborated scientific theory.

Fingon
Sep 28th, 2005, 03:27 PM
that of course goes into the broader discussion of the existence of God, or a superior being.

It's interesting how the religious groups twist things, basically they are walking away from the argument about God's existence, but obviously, if you believe the God exists you also believe he created life, and if you believe that life was "intelligently" designed then you believe in God, although maybe you don't call him God.

It's also interesting how the religious groups always attribute divine origin to anything they don't have an explanation for.

The fact we don't know an answer doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist, we just don't know it, and there always will be answer we don't know.

2000 years ago, they didn't know why lighting happened, it was God's weapon or however they called it, today it would be ridiculous to say that.

God, as defined by religions does not make sense to me, from a logical point of view, and I expect someone to tell me that not everything is logic, and my answer is what the fuck? Everything follows the rules of logic, one way or the other, everything happens for a reason, even if we don't know what that reason is (and it's not necessarily a superior power).

The first question I would ask to those creationist is what they understand as "intelligent", intelligent as in human intelligence? or some other type of intelligence?

If life was intelligently designed, why is it so imperfect? and don't come with the bullshit that God is testing us blah, blah. It does not make any sense, if God is perfect, why would he want to test us? is he playing with us? That's the biggest contradiction in religions, God does everything, knows everything, and yet we (his creation) can commit sin, freewill blah blah, just doesn't make any sense.

Aristotle noted that, there is a contradiction between perfection (of God) and love and freewill. If God is perfect he cannot love us, the same way we don't love ants. If God controls everything they he controls our wills, or does he control everything BUT our wills? then he is not almighty, just near.

Anyway, all that is to say that I think that theory is bullshit, and are the american politicians surprise by the low level of scientific research and development in the US?, here you have a good reason for that. Making people stupid is good to dominate and control them, but not good if you want to get a knowledge based society, they can't have it both ways.

tennisbum79
Sep 28th, 2005, 03:31 PM
The current trial in Pennsylvania, although lower profile, is reminiscent of the Scopes trial also known as The Monkey Trial of the 1925

Although there are similarities between the opposing parties, the context is different. Whereas the first trial sought to ban the teaching of evolution in high school, the current trial seeks to thwart the proposed teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution.



Critics of the Intelligent Design teaching think it is a back door way to teaching creationism, which they charged violate the constitution clause of separation of church and state. They further charged it is favoring one religious belief, the Christian over others

tennisbum79
Sep 28th, 2005, 03:50 PM
Anyway, all that is to say that I think that theory is bullshit, and are the american politicians surprise by the low level of scientific research and development in the US?, here you have a good reason for that..
Also, one of the contributing factors in the low level of scientific research is the stoppage of the brain drain from Europe and Asia.

We recall, during the time totalitarianism times in Eastern, Central Europe, and Russia a number of scientist in Physics, Chemistry and Math were routinely defecting to the US and were quickly granted US citizenship. Those scientists played a prominent part in the domination of scientific research by the US. That will soon change as these professors become professor emeritus and no one to replace them, because foreign graduate students in science who form a big chunk of the US university graduate school population, increasingly are returning to their country of origin. Most American tend to gravitate toward business, law and medicine



Making people stupid is good to dominate and control them, but not good if you want to get a knowledge based society, they can't have it both ways.

I know voters down south who believe Geoge Bush was chosen by God to spread freedom around the world. And that is why they voted for him.
They further argue anything happening in Irak or Israel was intended by God to unfold that way, "it's all in god plan", they say.

"Sluggy"
Sep 28th, 2005, 04:01 PM
France is probably one of the most secular states in europe and/or the world. they have place for religion in school and other institutions. They are very wary of religion. No, there is no plans to teach "Creationism" in France and there never will be.

tennisbum79
Sep 28th, 2005, 04:52 PM
Is the caholic church, the dominant religion of France, as actively involved in politics (i.e. close ties to politcla parties) as chrisitans fundamentalist are in the US.

White conservative protestants fundmentalists, advocates of traditional value and free market back the republicans; supports the war in Irak and believe in Bush and its policy to bring freedom around the world. Geographical localete in the south, mid-west

Black protestants, liberal whites and most catholics support the democrats. Their simpathy goes to poor and advocate social programs to help them.
More skeptic about the war in Irak, and war in general. Geographical located d on both coasts and are largely ethnic.

Besides christian catholics and muslim,s what are the other dominent religious tendacies of significance in France?

"Sluggy"
Sep 28th, 2005, 04:58 PM
Is the caholic church, the dominant religion of France, as actively involved in politics (i.e. close ties to politcla parties) as chrisitans fundamentalist are in the US.

if you mean are most french catholic by descent, Yes. However, Islam is the religion most practiced in France. Schools exclude all mention of religion, and the average frenchman has a negative views about it.

tennisbum79
Sep 28th, 2005, 05:08 PM
if you mean are most french catholic by descent, Yes. However, Islam is the religion most practiced in France. Schools exclude all mention of religion, and the average frenchman has a negative views about it.
Let me see if I understand this.
You mean all catholics by birth but not praticing, right?
And you are further saying within this context, there are more mulslims because more of them practice their religion than les francais de souche, but the catholic by birth are still in majority. Is this correct?

Staticbeef
Sep 28th, 2005, 07:00 PM
Let me see if I understand this.
You mean all catholics by birth but not praticing, right?
And you are further saying within this context, there are more mulslims because more of them practice their religion than les francais de souche, but the catholic by birth are still in majority. Is this correct?

:lol: For a tennis board
I must admit, most of you guys around here have been gifted with more than an average share of testicular fortitude. You guys fear nothing or no subject, I like that. There was a thread earlier titled "Calculus help" that had me pulling out old text and graphs, #2 pencils, reaffirming my resolve to solve any problem inserted in my range of understanding. For the calculus problem the tools and methods are objective, while for the question at hand, we lean toward things that are subjective. When dealing with spirituality and things that fall in the realm of subjectivity, the answers are necessarily infinite and cant be proven beyond a doubt. One can say, "Yes" I believe in "Evolution" especially while examining the bones of long dead Dinosaurs, who by the way are never mentioned in the theory of creation. On the other hand, my heart tells me there must be a God, because I need to assign the things that are beyond my control to someone or thing. So my little grasshoppers, what then is the correct answer? Both are correct, if we apply the known rules of our existence or Ying Yang, we find that balance is the one thing that surrounds us, so much so that it must be THE RULE of Planet Earth..EX: Male-Female, Day-Night, AC-DC, I could go on and on this planet runs on the law of opposites it is only through Ying Yang that we achieve balance and things work, so the Objective and the Subjective both must be necessary in order for us to survive, and that makes your opinion part of the total equation. If I got to deep, just try and maintain a healthy balance between evolution and creation and you will see how much better we all get along

:lol: See, I am just like you guys, I got a lot of balls for even suggesting the above premise :lol:

SelesFan70
Sep 28th, 2005, 07:15 PM
If I got to deep, just try and maintain a healthy balance between evolution and creation and you will see how much better we all get along

Creavolution!

I don't see why, if there is a god, why said god wouldn't allow its creation the ability to morph and evolve to become a better species.

Staticbeef
Sep 28th, 2005, 07:19 PM
Creavolution!

I don't see why, if there is a god, why said god wouldn't allow its creation the ability to morph and evolve to become a better species.

EXACTAMUNDO :worship: :worship: :worship: You guys are alright :worship: :worship:

tennisbum79
Sep 28th, 2005, 07:34 PM
:lol: For a tennis board
I must admit, most of you guys around here have been gifted with more than an average share of testicular fortitude. You guys fear nothing or no subject, I like that.
This non-tennis is very liberating on the type of topic one can post.
But it is even more gratifying that you get real rea argument that stick to the topic, not some off-hand commentsm, unlike the General Message, where the topic always carries the baggage of the poster and the player involved, to such instant the topic never get dissccused.

... Both are correct, if we apply the known rules of our existence or Ying Yang, we find that balance is the one thing that surrounds us, so much so that it must be THE RULE of Planet Earth..EX: Male-Female, Day-Night, AC-DC, I could go on and on this planet runs on the law of opposites it is only through Ying Yang that we achieve balance and things work, so the Objective and the Subjective both must be necessary in order for us to survive, and that makes your opinion part of the total equation. If I got to deep, just try and maintain a healthy balance between evolution and creation and you will see how much better we all get along

Are you suggesting the absence of logical explanation for Yang Ying (and complexilty of living things) could possibility be explained by the existence of higher being? Is we assume that is the case, given the competing religions of the worlds, what religion would take ownership or credit for that higher being

... :lol: See, I am just like you guys, I got a lot of balls for even suggesting the above premise :lol:

Welcome, this is a short exhile location during down time in the WTA season.

alfonsojose
Sep 28th, 2005, 07:35 PM
Intelligent Design is religion . That's it :rolleyes:

Martian Willow
Sep 28th, 2005, 07:43 PM
Neither theory can be definitively proven. Either way you need faith.

Evolution as a process is observable and entirely provable. Evolution as a theory for the origin of life does not require faith, because it's just a theory. Evolution doesn't require faith because nobody should 'believe in' evolution. It just requires an understanding of what science is and why some theories are considered more viable than others. Evolution should not be taught dogmatically, but then dogma should not be presented as science.

Staticbeef
Sep 28th, 2005, 08:38 PM
This non-tennis is very liberating on the type of topic one can post.
But it is even more gratifying that you get real rea argument that stick to the topic, not some off-hand commentsm, unlike the General Message, where the topic always carries the baggage of the poster and the player involved, to such instant the topic never get dissccused.



Are you suggesting the absence of logical explanation for Yang Ying (and complexilty of living things) could possibility be explained by the existence of higher being? Is we assume that is the case, given the competing religions of the worlds, what religion would take ownership or credit for that higher being


Welcome, this is a short exhile location during down time in the WTA season.


If I am interpreting your query correctly, your question is, who will be the webmaster when we log on to Heaven.com. The answer must be the subjective type, since no one has managed to log on successfully and forward any e-mails or PM's describing what goes on at that site. My personal opinion on which religion is ultimately correct would also have to be supported by the principles of balance (Ying Yang). before I answer let me ask a short question.

Two wolves are locked in deadly combat one is called God and the other (For lack of a better term) Satan, they both are near starvation and the outcome could settle the age old battle between good and evil.

Which one is going to win???

answer(Reversed) feeding been have you one The (Reversed)
That one will be stronger, thanks to you.

So my answer would have to be, whatever philosophy you subscribe to, will be the one you encounter, of course I cannot provide any proof of this, but who can?

_LuCaS_
Sep 28th, 2005, 08:43 PM
In Romania they teach you one thing in biology and another in religious class. Yes we have this in schools.


God, as defined by religions does not make sense to me, from a logical point of view, and I expect someone to tell me that not everything is logic, and my answer is what the fuck?
God and logic don't belong in the same sentence. If you believe in God then you admit He's beyond logic. Logic is a word created by man. It's impossible to link them.

Everything follows the rules of logic, one way or the other, everything happens for a reason, even if we don't know what that reason is (and it's not necessarily a superior power).
We don't know everything yet

The first question I would ask to those creationist is what they understand as "intelligent", intelligent as in human intelligence? or some other type of intelligence?
They reffer to intelligent as in a voluntary action rather than a random one.

If life was intelligently designed, why is it so imperfect? and don't come with the bullshit that God is testing us blah, blah. It does not make any sense, if God is perfect, why would he want to test us? is he playing with us? That's the biggest contradiction in religions, God does everything, knows everything, and yet we (his creation) can commit sin, freewill blah blah, just doesn't make any sense.
Nobody can answer this question but I can give you a thought. If you had some powers of some sort and you could create other living creatures, would you enhance them with all your powers, all your knowledge? To be your equal? And eventually to throw you in mediocrity? I don't think so.

If God is perfect he cannot love us, the same way we don't love ants. If God controls everything they he controls our wills, or does he control everything BUT our wills? then he is not almighty, just near.
That's a logical trick. Example: Someone asked a priest once "Does God know everything?" "Yes" he replied. "Can God do anything?" "Yes", was the answer. "Then why can't God create a rock that He can't lift ?" And dozens like this.

tennisbum79
Sep 28th, 2005, 08:56 PM
So my answer would have to be, whatever philosophy you subscribe to, will be the one you encounter, of course I cannot provide any proof of this, but who can?
Assuming I concede you this point for the sake of argument.

When it comes times to develop a viable philosophy around which a school curriculum will be built, how will this work? Given the circumstances, this process is bound to be highly influenced by the religion advocating it. I do not foresee a variety of religions or other spiritual movement, all believing in the same hypothesis of higher being, cooperating on this. Hence the resulting syllabus will not be as uniformed as the current science books.



Projecting this in the future, how do you win a Nobel Prize in discipline that is supposed to be based on logic and critical thinking like this one?

gentenaire
Sep 28th, 2005, 10:00 PM
If they want to teach Intelligent Design in schools, fine, but not in the science class, but religion class. I have no problem with people having crazy ideas, I do have a problem with people calling them science when there's zero science behind it.

And I insist on the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be taught as well. Everyone should be touched by His noodly appendage. http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

Sam L
Sep 28th, 2005, 10:02 PM
Nothing more than religious propoganda. They're really grasping at straws aren't they?

Staticbeef
Sep 28th, 2005, 10:02 PM
Assuming I concede you this point for the sake of arguement.
When it comes times to develop a viable philosophy around which a school curilum will be built, how will this work? Given the circumstances, this process is bound to be highly inlfuenced by the religion advocating it. I do not forsee a variety of religions or other spitritual movement, all believing in the same hipotheis of higher being, cooperating on this. Hence the resulting sylabus will not be as uniformed as the current science books.

Projecting this in the future, how do you win a nobel prize in discipline, that is supposed to be logic and ciritcal thinking like this one?

I see your concern, but dont forget that this country is supposed to be protected by the first amendment. I also realize that in the present political climate, with the upcoming supreme court appointments, that that very fragile BALANCE may be a thing of the past.

The First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
It is frequently said that the clear intent of the First Amendment was to protect a religious people from government, not to protect government from a religious people, OR that the clear intent of the First Amendment was only to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion.

As far as the Nobel prize goes, there are six categories
Lit,Chem, Peace, Economics, Physiology & Medicine.Physics. Four of which are based deeply in Science and thus logic oriented. The other two Peace and Lit, will be as they always have been IMO.

Your concerns are also mine, I was just pointing out that Balance is the engine that up until this point have kept everything working, that may all soon change, I concede.

tennisbum79
Sep 28th, 2005, 10:22 PM
I see your concern, but dont forget that this country is supposed to be protected by the first amendment. I also realize that in the present political climate, with the upcoming supreme court appointments, that that very fragile BALANCE may be a thing of the past.

The First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
It is frequently said that the clear intent of the First Amendment was to protect a religious people from government, not to protect government from a religious people, OR that the clear intent of the First Amendment was only to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion.

As far as the Nobel prize goes, there are six categories
Lit,Chem, Peace, Economics, Physiology & Medicine.Physics. Four of which are based deeply in Science and thus logic oriented. The other two Peace and Lit, will be as they always have been IMO.

Your concerns are also mine, I was just pointing out that Balance is the engine that up until this point have kept everything working, that may all soon change, I concede.

I wished this was a show trial somewhere with big media market, so that is can more exposure in the press.
I will be curious to know how many school districts have voted to teach this as science or rival of science
I am sure some the considerations made here will surface in the arguments.

It looks like it belongs to comparative religion curiculum, but I am not even sure that faculty heads in comprative religion departement will accept this.

Fingon
Sep 29th, 2005, 03:56 AM
In Romania they teach you one thing in biology and another in religious class. Yes we have this in schools.

it's ok as long as it's clearly stated it's religion and it's not in public schools.


God and logic don't belong in the same sentence. If you believe in God then you admit He's beyond logic. Logic is a word created by man. It's impossible to link them.


I disagree, the word logic might have been created by man, but not the concept, the concept exists and everything is logic. For me when someone says something is true and not logic they are entering the ground of fantasy.

We don't know everything yet


we will never know everything that's not possible.


They reffer to intelligent as in a voluntary action rather than a random one.


then they need a dictionnary, that's voluntary or intentional, not intelligent.

Nobody can answer this question but I can give you a thought. If you had some powers of some sort and you could create other living creatures, would you enhance them with all your powers, all your knowledge? To be your equal? And eventually to throw you in mediocrity? I don't think so.

I know you don't do it in purpose but that's the kind of twisted logic that pushed me away from religion.

I don't know what I would do if I had the power to create other creatures, but I am not god. The problem is not in God's will, but their definition of God, they define God as almighty and perfect, then they try to assign him or her human emotions or attributes, that simply doesn't happen, doesn't fit the definition, God cannot love us because that's a human emotion, and if he is almighty he can create creatures the way he wants.

Plus, creating imperfect creatures in purpose (that is being able to do it better) means you want to enslave them, you want to be above them, that doesn't fit with the concept that God loves us and is so good and there is no evil in him at all.


That's a logical trick. Example: Someone asked a priest once "Does God know everything?" "Yes" he replied. "Can God do anything?" "Yes", was the answer. "Then why can't God create a rock that He can't lift ?" And dozens like this.

because it's not a logical trick, it's simply not logical, it's one of the failures of religion and priests often will say we are not ready to understand the misteries of God's will, blah, blah, when you don't know what to say be misterious, it never fails, but it does with me.

The explanation is simple, I am a programmer, if I design and application I have to follow certain rules, if I define a variable as an integer, they I can't storage a double number there. If you tell me you can storage a double in an integer variable you are bullshitting.

Same with religions, they fixed certain rules or dogmas or "trues", and then told stories that don't fit that structure, as simple as that.

for me the big question is, if a man came today and claimed to be the Son of God, and came to Earth to save us all, and pretends to walk on the water, resucitate dead people and when he dies, his follower said he resusitated and raised to heaven, what would everyone think? his followers would probably be sent to a mental hospital and at best they would cause laugher.

Why then the same thing happening two thousand years ago is the base of a religion universally recognized and that tries every minute to control our existence?

When somebody answers that question then I could probably start considering religion seriously. That's why I am not an agnostic but an atheist, I don't doubt what religions said, I am positive they are all lies.

propi
Sep 29th, 2005, 10:08 AM
Cheap excuse to brainwash minds :p

_LuCaS_
Sep 29th, 2005, 10:11 AM
First of all we work in the same field ;)


I disagree, the word logic might have been created by man, but not the concept, the concept exists and everything is logic. For me when someone says something is true and not logic they are entering the ground of fantasy.

Again I must remind you that a statement like "everything is logic" does not stand. You have an unknown variable in it. You don't know everything. Yes here on Earth it is logic for an object to fall. On other planet it's not. It depends. Nothing is absolute. Not even the concept of logic.
And there's nothing wrong with God and logic if you come to think of it. He is different. He has unlimited powers. Therefore He created us the way we are. What's wrong with the logic here? He's not just a man who claims that He can raise the dead, with his mind. That would be impossible.

then they need a dictionnary, that's voluntary or intentional, not intelligent.

LOL, no they don't. If you agree that our world was created voluntarily then you must admit the whoever did this had some sort of intelligence. Our body's structure is extremely complex. Beyond any human's capacity.


I don't know what I would do if I had the power to create other creatures, but I am not god. The problem is not in God's will, but their definition of God, they define God as almighty and perfect, then they try to assign him or her human emotions or attributes, that simply doesn't happen, doesn't fit the definition, God cannot love us because that's a human emotion, and if he is almighty he can create creatures the way he wants.
In the Bibile they say God created us having as a model Himself.

Plus, creating imperfect creatures in purpose (that is being able to do it better) means you want to enslave them, you want to be above them, that doesn't fit with the concept that God loves us and is so good and there is no evil in him at all.

I disagree. It's about control and order. He left us with the free will. We can choose our path. Slaves don't have this chance.

The explanation is simple, I am a programmer, if I design and application I have to follow certain rules, if I define a variable as an integer, they I can't storage a double number there. If you tell me you can storage a double in an integer variable you are bullshitting.
Of course you can. To some extent of course. You can declare a variable as a double and assign to that variable the value of 1. Same with integer. The thing here, is that you know what the limits are because you created them.

Same with religions, they fixed certain rules or dogmas or "trues", and then told stories that don't fit that structure, as simple as that.

I don't exactly get what you're trying to say here

for me the big question is, if a man came today and claimed to be the Son of God, and came to Earth to save us all, and pretends to walk on the water, resucitate dead people and when he dies, his follower said he resusitated and raised to heaven, what would everyone think? his followers would probably be sent to a mental hospital and at best they would cause laugher.

If he pretends he can do all those things and can't, yes. But what if he can prove it?

tfannis
Sep 29th, 2005, 12:35 PM
And I insist on the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be taught as well. Everyone should be touched by His noodly appendage. http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

I'm converted :bowdown:

Fingon
Sep 29th, 2005, 04:49 PM
First of all we work in the same field



good, you can understand my examples then :)



Again I must remind you that a statement like "everything is logic" does not stand. You have an unknown variable in it. You don't know everything. Yes here on Earth it is logic for an object to fall. On other planet it's not. It depends. Nothing is absolute. Not even the concept of logic.



you are confusing our perception of logic (or reality) with what reality is, of course, there are many things we can't explain, and there are many things we will never been able to explain, that doesn't mean they don't happen for a reason.


And there's nothing wrong with God and logic if you come to think of it. He is different. He has unlimited powers. Therefore He created us the way we are. What's wrong with the logic here? He's not just a man who claims that He can raise the dead, with his mind. That would be impossible.


everything is wrong with that logic, again, with one hand they describe a perfect and almighty createre, with the other hand they assign to that creature a human behaviour and human emotions. The concept of an almighty and perfect entity with a will and that has ever existed is too abstract for the human mind to accept it, that's why religions personalize their Gods, that's why they used to represent God as an old man with a white beard, or insisted that Jesus, a man, was in fact God.


LOL, no they don't. If you agree that our world was created voluntarily then you must admit the whoever did this had some sort of intelligence. Our body's structure is extremely complex. Beyond any human's capacity.


first of all, if you say intelligent as capable of making decisions, yes, I agree, if you say intelligent as smart, then they are not the same thing.

Second, creating life is NOT beyond human capacity, not now, they have cloned animals, who knows what they can do in 100 years, or a 1000 years, biotechnology is in fact one of the biggest hurdles for the Church, why do you think they hate it? one of their arguments is that human life is too complex and only a superior being could have created it, not biotechnology is showing that it's possible. Sure, they only can clone or create very simple life forms, but give them time.




In the Bibile they say God created us having as a model Himself.


sorry but that's ridiculous, it's like building a toy building using the Empire State Building as a model and they claim they are modelled after themselves.


I disagree. It's about control and order. He left us with the free will. We can choose our path. Slaves don't have this chance.


that is, ruling our lives. YOu haven't supplied an explanation on how can we have free will and at the same time God controls everything, they just don't fit, either God controls everything or he does not. Our personalities, our thoughts, our brains and souls were created by God, so he is responsible of our decisions.

If I created a robot, with software to manage it, and the software is wrong and the robot kills everyone, you can't blame the robot, but the software's author.

Of course you can. To some extent of course. You can declare a variable as a double and assign to that variable the value of 1. Same with integer. The thing here, is that you know what the limits are because you created them.


that's not what I said :)

absolutey, you can storage an integer to a double variable, you can always cast to the higuer type.

What I said is that you can't storage a double to an integer variable. In fact, you can in certain languages but at the time you assign a double to an integer, it becomes an integer, you can't cast it back to double, you just lose the decimals.


I don't exactly get what you're trying to say here


what I mean is that they set a background, an environment, and then extended their stories without being consistent with it


If he pretends he can do all those things and can't, yes. But what if he can prove it?

you and I know that it's not happening, if someone tried to do that he would not even be given the benefit of doubt, they will think it's a crazy person, or an actor, or an entertainer.

At best, he would be subject to strict tests.

you said it yourself, if he CAN PROVE IT, so we wouldn't accept him as the son of god unless he proves it (I guess subject to today's scientific's standards), so why do we accept the same without proof? all we have is a book that describes it, what if I write a book that describes it happening today? why people that live 2000 years ago (and obviously knew a lot less than we do) is trusted more than someone today?

think about it, I don't know if you have read the Silmarillion by Tolkien (btw, Tolkien was very religious), it's a fantasy, some called it science fiction, but his description of the world and the creation is not different from what the Bible says, if we didn't know about Tolkien and that was written 2000 years ago, it would probably be a religion.

Martian Willow
Sep 29th, 2005, 05:29 PM
blah blah blah

The problem with people like you is because you've already dismissed religion, you never bother to learn even basic theology so your criticisms of religions are based on a complete ignorance of what they actually say, and what they mean by what they say.

:wavey:

Fingon
Sep 29th, 2005, 06:45 PM
The problem with people like you is because you've already dismissed religion, you never bother to learn even basic theology so your criticisms of religions are based on a complete ignorance of what they actually say, and what they mean by what they say.



whatever, that's another technique used by priest, don't say anything until you read the bible, attend meetings, etc.
Because obviously an atheist will not waste time doing that then they can't receive any criticism.
I have a brain, I don't need to study theology (nor I intend to) to understand the contradictions in religion.
If you are going to argue using logical argument, fine, if you are going to come with generalizations bullshit like this, go ahead but I will ignore what you said. The you didn't read it so I am right you are wrong doesn't work and the same way I won't bother studying theology, I won't bother replying to that kind of arguments.

Martian Willow
Sep 29th, 2005, 07:19 PM
whatever, that's another technique used by priest, don't say anything until you read the bible, attend meetings, etc.
Because obviously an atheist will not waste time doing that then they can't receive any criticism.
I have a brain, I don't need to study theology (nor I intend to) to understand the contradictions in religion.
If you are going to argue using logical argument, fine, if you are going to come with generalizations bullshit like this, go ahead but I will ignore what you said. The you didn't read it so I am right you are wrong doesn't work and the same way I won't bother studying theology, I won't bother replying to that kind of arguments.

You really are an ass. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'd tell you why, but you seem too proud of your own ignorance to appreciate it.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Fingon
Sep 29th, 2005, 08:24 PM
You really are an ass. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'd tell you why, but you seem too proud of your own ignorance to appreciate it.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

enough of excuses, if you want to explain it, explain it, stop claiming you are so intelligent, show us how intelligent you are, other than insult and empty claims you haven't said anything, ever Willow.

lakeway11
Sep 29th, 2005, 08:39 PM
Keep in mind that science focuses on how we came to be whereas theology is more concerned with who we are....what is more important???

lakeway11
Sep 29th, 2005, 08:44 PM
The Catechism states, “God created man as a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions” (No. 1730)....sounds like free will to me

Fingon
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:06 PM
The Catechism states, “God created man as a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions” (No. 1730)....sounds like free will to me

it says that, but it contradicts what they say about nothing happens without God's will.

lakeway11
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:07 PM
You no more need faith to accept the theory of evolution than you need it for the theory of aerodynamics or any other well-corroborated scientific theory.

the issue is that Darwinism is not merely a theory of evolution, but also an entire materialist cosmology...and with such comes philosophical and moral issues that are unescapable

Fingon
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:08 PM
Keep in mind that science focuses on how we came to be whereas theology is more concerned with who we are....what is more important???

Thelology might explain who we are from a religious point of view, I am not interested.

It doesn't explain who we are, it just tells us who we are (according to them).

Martian Willow
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:09 PM
it says that, but it contradicts what they say about nothing happens without God's will.

Where do they say that? :)

lakeway11
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:12 PM
it says that, but it contradicts what they say about nothing happens without God's will.


whose "they"? i don't think that is the belief of all religious people

Fingon
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:17 PM
whose "they"? i don't think that is the belief of all religious people

priests, religious teachers, maybe it's not applicable to all religions, but that's what catholic priests say.

Martian Willow
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:21 PM
priests, religious teachers, maybe it's not applicable to all religions, but that's what catholic priests say.

Those people aren't the religion itself, though, are they? :)

Kart
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:21 PM
What do you or people in your country think of this?

Personally I find it all rather tiresome.

lakeway11
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:24 PM
priests, religious teachers, maybe it's not applicable to all religions, but that's what catholic priests say.


well I'll ask the Father tonight if that is true what you say...b/c I remember reading an account on a Catholic website relaying a Bible verse suggesting that Hurricane's and the like are part of nature and God and not necessarily "in them" (which is what i'd believe)

SelesFan70
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:45 PM
I heard about some state senator in Mississippi saying it was god's "punishment" for the Gulf Coast because of all the gamblin. He also said god "has to punish the good with the bad". :retard: Doesn't like a very intelligent god to me if he/she/it can't punish individuals and not entre frickin' states! :smash:

lakeway11
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:52 PM
I heard about some state senator in Mississippi saying it was god's "punishment" for the Gulf Coast because of all the gamblin. He also said god "has to punish the good with the bad". :retard: Doesn't like a very intelligent god to me if he/she/it can't punish individuals and not entre frickin' states! :smash:

that is what I like most about Catholics...they 'like' gambling :D
...and besides there are far, far worse things going on than gambling to be punished for

(the Priest at the Church I go to enjoys the Riverboat casinos ;) )

tennisbum79
Oct 20th, 2005, 01:40 PM
Bump

marmite1
Oct 20th, 2005, 01:47 PM
I heard about some state senator in Mississippi saying it was god's "punishment" for the Gulf Coast because of all the gamblin. He also said god "has to punish the good with the bad". :retard: Doesn't like a very intelligent god to me if he/she/it can't punish individuals and not entre frickin' states! :smash:

Thats what baffled me to. I dont believe in God currently, although I try to keep an open mind; however, it seems that, if there is a God, the christians are really rubbish at defending him/her. Instead of bashing God/chrisitianity as a whole, I think it is better to criticise the individual who talks such krap.

lakeway11
Oct 20th, 2005, 04:10 PM
Thats what baffled me to. I dont believe in God currently, although I try to keep an open mind; however, it seems that, if there is a God, the christians are really rubbish at defending him/her. Instead of bashing God/chrisitianity as a whole, I think it is better to criticise the individual who talks such krap.

maybe you should read some real philosophy--Thomas Aquinas

marmite1
Oct 20th, 2005, 04:11 PM
maybe you should read some real philosophy--Thomas Aquinas

Im studying him in a couple of weeks :yeah:!! What isnt real philosophy then?

lakeway11
Oct 20th, 2005, 04:42 PM
Im studying him in a couple of weeks :yeah:!! What isnt real philosophy then?

well in my younger years it would have been anything Ayn Rand disliked (which was about everything excpet Aristotle/Aqunias) :D

but I still have a strong distaste for those thinkers (ala Hume) who claim our minds really can know nothing...and although I dislike a lot of what the existentialists' claim (desire for logic is futile), the only stuff of that I read much is from novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky--existentialist-- and I have enjoyed reading some of his works (In Notes from the Underground the antihero rages against the optimistic assumptions of rationalist humanism)
and in The Brothers Karamazov the character Alyosha says “We must love life more than the meaning of it.” ...so can one love life more if one grasps the meaning of it?

Aquinas did much to tie together Aristotle with Christiananity that the Church came around to accept...Objectivists such as Rand claim the two are imcompatible (reason & faith) and though I am still much a Randian in many ways I don't share such a view any longer (if I ever did at all) ...as I see it there is Aristotle and then there is everyone else and the best philosophical book I have read or ever well read imo is Nicomachean Ethics in which claimed moral virtues are acquired by practice--and one becomes virtuous by doing virtuous acts and details the very useful doctrine of the means and discusses the ideas of the soul