Perceptions based soley on religion

[Rhabbi]

I don't think Rhabbi was denying evolution, (I mean, who would except a couple of crazed loons in turbans in the desert biting the Koran).

Tom

Hate to disagree with you, but evolution as proposed by Darwin is bunk. I will even say that if Darwin were alive today he would agree with me that his theories should be rejected. People cling to them, not because they are true, but because the alternative is less acceptable to them. If they have to admit the flaws in evolution they might have to admit that the theologians are right.

Darwin believed in a God that guided evolution, yey those who calaim to believe wht he wrote deny even this, ask yourself why.

Let me be clear about one thing, I totally support the concept of adaptation to environment, but I reject speciation in any form that does not involve a supernatural event. In spite of numerous scientific experiments to try to prove speciation involving fruit flies there is no evidence of a new species developing. There has been no scientific proof that has withstood the scrutiny of peer review that in any way supports speciation.


Yet, in spite of this total lack of evidence, people still prefer to accept evolution as scientific fact. If any other supposed theory had so little evidence supporting it, iot would be rejected out of hand. Evolution is not because the phiosophy behind it is preferrred to the phiosophy behind the belief in Intelligent Design.

Specious philosophical nonsense is an apt description of evolution.

[Rhabbi]

The size of the Ark is a well documented item in the bible. If you work out how big the Ark was, it turns out to be roughly the size of 2 - 3 foot ball fields. 16 million beetles would take a pretty good percentage of that space I think. Would become very crowded very quickly, and holy crap don't squash one on accident, you would have just caused that species to become extinct, thus failing in the purpose of the Ark to start with.

Why would I use the beetle as an example... Because thats how many species of beetle there are on the planet right now.

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


I believe that there is a yen yang to it all. Such as there is to everything else in the universe. Evolution coupled with creationism. Not only one or the other, but both. If you were to say only one or the other, then you leave yourself with questions that will not pass logic tests on either side.

ID,

I personally do not claim to have all the answers. I will tell you that the Bible makes no mention of beetles on the Ark, but that does not mean that they were not there. Nor will I claim that everything that was not on the Ark died, after all, there were fish in the oceans and lakes. How great was the flood? I personally do not know, but if it was limited in scope, to say the Middle East, it might still have been extensive enough to wipe out all human life that was not on the Ark.

As for a combination of evolution guided by a creator, I have no problem with that. There is ample scientific evidence that the earth is older than the 6000 years that some fundamentalists claim. There is recorded history that goes back almost that far.

What I am saying is that I believe in the Bible, but it was written in a language that was intended for a different understanding of the world. Although I believe the Bible to be accurate, I do not believe that every word needs to be taken litterally. A day could be a period of time that covers thousands, or even millions of years.

So, I reject the theory of evolution as taught by most schools because it does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. I also reject so called creation science for the same reason.

[Mishka]

What beliefs do we have that are a direct result of our particular choice of faith?

Do we make judgments about people based on our faith? I think everyone does. What I think is important is that we overcome those stumbling blocks. If you don't I think you are perpetuating an attitude that has for a long time caused hurt and sorrow for people.

In a nutshell...yes.

It's like food. What you put into your mouth effects your whole body, your whole health, even years down the line, how you take care of yourself today will show signs of it when you're older.

So it is with religion and philosphy. If you feed yourself a steady diet of a certain teaching your whole world view will be what you see looking through those lenses. Your whole perspective on life.

Each person has their own reality as they make them.

I agree. We are making our own reality through the faiths we have chosen to follow. We are going to make judgements based on that. We all judge. We all make ethical decisions and we teach them to our children. Right or wrong, it's subjective and personal.

What you are hoping ID, is that people could set aside the antiquated predjudice of centuries old philosophies and look with a clear mind and eye and see things for as they are now, a fresh view. You would like all to be open-minded and reasonable. Such wishes as yours is why I left fundamentalism.

[TomOfSweden]

Tom

Hate to disagree with you, but evolution as proposed by Darwin is bunk. I will even say that if Darwin were alive today he would agree with me that his theories should be rejected. People cling to them, not because they are true, but because the alternative is less acceptable to them. If they have to admit the flaws in evolution they might have to admit that the theologians are right.

Darwin believed in a God that guided evolution, yey those who calaim to believe wht he wrote deny even this, ask yourself why.

Let me be clear about one thing, I totally support the concept of adaptation to environment, but I reject speciation in any form that does not involve a supernatural event. In spite of numerous scientific experiments to try to prove speciation involving fruit flies there is no evidence of a new species developing. There has been no scientific proof that has withstood the scrutiny of peer review that in any way supports speciation.


Yet, in spite of this total lack of evidence, people still prefer to accept evolution as scientific fact. If any other supposed theory had so little evidence supporting it, iot would be rejected out of hand. Evolution is not because the phiosophy behind it is preferrred to the phiosophy behind the belief in Intelligent Design.

Specious philosophical nonsense is an apt description of evolution.

This whole post misses the target by a mile.

Now you're comparing christianity to science as if they are two different faiths. The scientific method is just a method to find the truth. The method in itself doesn't have any answers. It's the the reports that get produced using it that may have. They are many and often conflicting. Chrstianity is only one of many possible scientific models to explain the world. One that desperatly needs evidence to back it up.

Darwin didn't have the complete picture and he wasn't the first person to come up with evolution. He took the untested theories proposed by his biology teacher and tested it scientifically and drew as good conclusions from it as he could. That was the reason why he's famous even though he's somewhere in the middle of the chain. Scientists after him corrected his misstakes. Darwin was not a prophet, only a scientist. His word is not law.

You're own little private theory fails in that god isn't needed for speciasation. The modern model of evolution gives room for it all on it's own. But I guess it would be refreshing if it was true. This idea that god is a being with a very cruel sense of humour is new to me.

At least it's nice to hear that you're not on the Intelligent design team. Those guys scare me.

edit: Regarding your theory about god guiding the creation of species. What's the point? Why would god do it? It makes no sense. If you believe in evolution, we'll get specisation with or without devine intervention. If you want to abondon the very logical theory of evolution and replace it with another one, it should at least hold together logically, right? Why force god into a theory that works fine without it?

The theory of evolution isn't waterproof. There's still plenty of holes in it, but we have lots of evidence and we've got a model and the evidence we do have fit into the model snuggly.

Your theory is as much unsubstantiated guesswork as a theory. The theory of evolution as we have today is pretty fucking far from pure speculation. What do you have to back your theory it up?

Even though we haven't been able to recreate specisation in a laboratory, (which I doubt is even true, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) we have as far as I know not been able to recreate devine intervention in a laboratory either so that's 0-0. Not much of an argument for your case is it?

[Rhabbi]

Tom,

If you want to have a debate about this, I will be glad to do so on another thread. the fact is though that you are blind and deaf to what I amn saying, evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophy. Scientific theories are emperical, that is they can be tested. To simply chalk something up to random chance, and ignore the statistical odds against it does not constitute science, it constitutes philosophy.

Here is an article written by a scientist, a molecular biologist, that address some of the weaknesses of Darwin's theory. If you want to read something by someone who knows what he is talking about instead of reprters who do not even read the work they are trying to defend, that is.
http://arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

[TomOfSweden]

Tom,

If you want to have a debate about this, I will be glad to do so on another thread. the fact is though that you are blind and deaf to what I amn saying, evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophy. Scientific theories are emperical, that is they can be tested. To simply chalk something up to random chance, and ignore the statistical odds against it does not constitute science, it constitutes philosophy.

Here is an article written by a scientist, a molecular biologist, that address some of the weaknesses of Darwin's theory. If you want to read something by someone who knows what he is talking about instead of reprters who do not even read the work they are trying to defend, that is.
http://arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

That whole article is based on accepting his examples, ie "An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum."

Since Darwins theory takes account of this I don't really see how he manages to draw the conclusions he does. Here's a simple example. A -> B -> C. B dies out, and leaves no trace. We have now no way of knowing how C could evolve the way it did. See, no god needed.

The division of the RNA looks to me and all molecular biologists I've talked to like magic, (and that's been quite a few). It's staggeringly complex. But from there draw the conclusion that it cannot have evolved by itself is just dumb. All we can do is put it on the list of things we hope to figure out in the future. Us not understanding something cannot be used as evidence for anything.

And even if I and Darwin are wrong, that's still no case for christianity. All that would mean is that we still don't know. Intelligent design would still be in the pile of maybes.

I'm only atheist because I think the evidence we have seems to point to it. You are christian because you think most evidence point to it. That's great. I've got no quarel about that. Good luck to you. But having faith in that you are going to heaven is drawing a much too strong conclusion. You don't know. Nobody does. At best you can hope you are right. And if you are I hope god will be lenient with me or I'm fucked

There's much smarter "proof" than that for gods existance. Banach-Tarskis proposition has yet to be disproven. They proved that if the scientific models of the universe we have today would be correct it would by necesity mean that there is an external force.

From this we can draw two possible conclusions:
1) There is a god but we cannot say anything about it at all or it's power. It could have limited power, be omnipotent, be several gods in conflict, lying gods, gods who don't give a rats ass about us, gods that are dumb or no god at all, just a force we don't understand yet.
2) Our contemporary equations are wrong, which may very well be the case.

This is the strongest "proof" any religion has today. But it still doesn't suport any particular religion. It just says something external is needed for the universe to be stable and the laws not break down. That's as good as it gets.

If ICDawg wants me to stop, I'll shut up. This is his thread. I'll respect that.

[Guest 91108]

I suspect if you respected it you wouldn't have posted it .. ie. post #28

[TomOfSweden]

I very much appreciate where the thread has gone. But it did go askew of my original question.

So there

edit: I think we interpret what IDC was saying differently.

[Rhabbi]

Nevertheless, I would be more comfortable if we took this somewhre else, like here:http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9141

[Shaded]

I must say.. that's probably the most flamed argument I've ever had the pleasure (Or displeasure) of reading about evolution. Which had wholly little enough to do with the beginning topic. That said, and my own views upon it muted for the sake of peace...

Yes, I do believe we make perceptions based entirely upon our chosen religion. However, I would ask what you would particularly define as a religion, because based upon my education via a higher faculty (i.e. Collegiate level) it has been described to me as your beliefs in general. That is, our beliefs define our moral code, which thereupon has a direct impact upon our perceptions.

That said, reality has no morals or ethics, with religion aside. Reality simply is as it is, to be interpretted differently by the different denizens of the world. Where respective religions come into play is by offering a prefabricated (for the most part) guideline from which our moral and ethical codes of conduct have been drawn. To say that our upbringing and inherent beliefs (Communal Knowledge if you believe Plato, Observant if you prefer Aristotle) don't influence our perceptions would be entirely dangerous. While I respect Rabbi's faith, I would be hard pressed to say that my upbringing held the same 'truths' that his did.

By saying truth, I'd like to denote that my perception upon reality, is that there are no absolutes. Truths among them, simply because everything is a matter of circumstance, to me. Such a perception, of course, is based upon my belief system that I have built over the course of a relatively short lifetime. So.

The short and the skinny. Do perceptions base themselves soley upon religion? Yes, but the definition of religion would be expanded to include the entire code of beliefs, morals, ethics and other codes of conduct that influence our behavior. Whereupon ultimately, our behavior denotes the perceptions we interpret.

[Rhabbi]

By saying truth, I'd like to denote that my perception upon reality, is that there are no absolutes. Truths among them, simply because everything is a matter of circumstance, to me. Such a perception, of course, is based upon my belief system that I have built over the course of a relatively short lifetime. So.

The short and the skinny. Do perceptions base themselves soley upon religion? Yes, but the definition of religion would be expanded to include the entire code of beliefs, morals, ethics and other codes of conduct that influence our behavior. Whereupon ultimately, our behavior denotes the perceptions we interpret.

Sorry, it is impossible for me to let a staement like that go by unchallenged. If there are no absolutes, then scientific laws, which are defined as absolutes, do not exist. If you truly believe there are no absolutes, then demonstrate that belief by walking of the roof of any mulitstory buiding and drefusing to fall.

(Yes, I know this a simplification of your philosophical position, but your position ignores reality.)

[nk_lion]

Wow, my computer is acting odd, good thing I just typed one line before the entire thing vanished.

Anyway, back to the original question about religion and philosophy or sexual orientation. I know for a fact that when it comes to homosexuals, I used to view them negatively (Attitude I'm ashamed to say I picked up from school). Now its a live and let live attitude, I have worked and studied with gays and all have them were like every other person I know. I don't have anything against gay marraiges, and if there was a referendum to abolish it (in Canada), I'd vote to keep it. I'm straight, therefore have no conflicting problems with my beliefs.
But years from now, if I have a son or daughter who is homosexual, I think maybe my religous side is going to kick in. So yes, in the end, personally religion does affect my perceptions on certain things such as sexual preference.

[Shaded]

First off Rhabbi, You're absolutely right. But I wasn't refering to scientific absolutes, which are still being challenged to this day. And also, the fact that if one were to absolutely be reversed to the gravitational pull of the earth, i.e. Magnetics or the like, the fall would not happen, perhaps a suspension at that, depending on the breed of physics to which you prefer to prescribe. HOWEVER!


While I'd love to debate scientific fact and absolutes, in the early twentieth century, they also had absolutes that couldn't be broken. Such as the sound barrier, laser technology, and a few others that have since been.. to put it into a pun, absolutely broken. However, while I'd love to quote Fredriech Nietzsche, who spoke of a lack of absolutes, I'd do the man poor justice, and I know it. Speaking of the lack of absolutes is a reference to the metaphysical, rather than the physical itself. Truths are not gravity, unfortunately.

[OttifantSir]

An incredibly interesting thread that, as many such discussions I have witnessed and participated in, started to concentrate solely on the difference between religion and science. I am a strong believer in my religion called Night Magick (There is a website about it too) and science. We need science to educate us about the physical world, or we would most likely never grow up. We would, quite possibly, be extinct by now. Science is to me the accumulated wisdom of the physical world. To use a really crude example: A caveman/neanderthal/early human had a bad experience going across a river. He tells this to his son and asks him to be careful. The son isn't very adventurous but remembers what his father told him. He tells his son that his father warned him about that river. That son isn't very adventurous either, but remembers what his father told him and tells his son. So on for a few generations and that cautionary tale of the river is a "truth" or an "absolute" in the mind of the descendants of that original man with the ill fortune. At one time this is both science and religion. Someone did once have a bad experience with it. Later generations may have embellished the original tale to include monsters/devils/angry gods to explain why they shall be cautious when crossing that river.

We have empirical proof that that river is hard to cross, and we have a "truth"/"absolute" of an evil deity.

We must be adventurous and challenge the "truths" and "absolutes" of the old to find the absolute truth behind it all. Whether it be religion or science we may at one point in time find "The Absolute Truth" but that will most likely only happen when Religion and Science joins hands and work together to achieve that goal.

That is my point of view, and this is my "Absolute Truth" of the world. On to the subject that originally started this thread: Do I base people solely on religious convictions?

I believe myself to have gained such self-insight to know what is religious judgement (upbringing/teaching) of a person and what is personal judgement (experience/observation) of a person.

My family it seems, are all die-hard racists one way or another. I dislike that strongly. Off course, even in their ill-mannered judgement of other people, I see proof of their stance in my own convictions too, but where I seem to differ from them, is that they don't see the persons. They see skin-colour, religion, etc. They judge based on a large (or small) group of individuals that get a lot of attention, and that attention is usually bad, because that's what ultimately makes the head-lines.

What I am saying is my point of view is better explained through an example: I see someone of clearly Arabic origin. My first thought is almost always that of the society-imposed image of this group of people. Then I recognise it in myself and give the person the benefit of the doubt. I ask myself why I thought that based on what others have told me. This person could possibly become my best friend in the whole world, so why should I let others decide what I shall think?

On to another subject lightly discussed here: Transsexuality/gender confusion or what you'd like to call it.
I don't think I would feel uncomfortable being friendly with someone displaying themself as male while having female sexual instruments, and vice versa. I have met a few (not many) such and I find I don't find it uncomfortable being with them. I find it uncomfortable to think about how to ask them about how it is to be like this. What they experience as a result of their fate/conviction/choice. I know they probably have gotten the question many times before so I keep wondering whether it's appropriate for me to ask them too, or if it's as boring to them to tell it to yet another person as it is for me to explain my epilepsy to yet another person. I would rather not talk about it, but since it might be life-threatening for myself not to warn my friends and acquaintances of my illness, I find I have to give them a short version no matter what if I meet them more than three times. So, for me, the world is a world full of possibilities and hurdles to overcome my ingrained beliefs.

I am judgemental, I don't believe any person on this planet can say they don't without lying, but I try not to be too judgemental, thereby limiting myself and my experience of the world.

I believe that once in the future I will have kids. I have my religion and off course I will educate my children about it, but I hope to be able to learn more about other religions as well, as I intend to educate my children about them. I will not willingly let my children be baptised or otherwise "bound" to a religion before they themselves are old enough to make the choice. I hope to give them a firm moral ground, free will and enough protection to make them secure and self-confident but not limited in any way.

This is probably the most complete insight into my mind anyone can get in one short post. To know me deeper than this, you will probably have to spend time with me.

[Rhabbi]

I am judgemental, I don't believe any person on this planet can say they don't without lying, but I try not to be too judgemental, thereby limiting myself and my experience of the world.

Excellent insight in this post, especially this sentence. We all judge people based on religious beliefs, scitfic beliefs, and cultural beliefs. We can even throw in personal experience to that. What a reasoning man does is learn to recognize these things in himself, and deal with them in a manner that takes him/her past that.

[Rhabbi]

First off Rhabbi, You're absolutely right. But I wasn't refering to scientific absolutes, which are still being challenged to this day. And also, the fact that if one were to absolutely be reversed to the gravitational pull of the earth, i.e. Magnetics or the like, the fall would not happen, perhaps a suspension at that, depending on the breed of physics to which you prefer to prescribe. HOWEVER!


While I'd love to debate scientific fact and absolutes, in the early twentieth century, they also had absolutes that couldn't be broken. Such as the sound barrier, laser technology, and a few others that have since been.. to put it into a pun, absolutely broken. However, while I'd love to quote Fredriech Nietzsche, who spoke of a lack of absolutes, I'd do the man poor justice, and I know it. Speaking of the lack of absolutes is a reference to the metaphysical, rather than the physical itself. Truths are not gravity, unfortunately.

there are scientific and enginnering absolutes that exist in our universe, the speed of light is one of these. Does this mean that we will never surpass the speed of light? Probaly not, unless we learn to access another universe. The simple counter intuitiveness of the light speed limit, and the fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated and confirmed, leaves this conclusion all but inescapable.

That said, you must remeber that waht some peolpe percieve as scintific limits are not actually that, they are engineering limts. The biggest problem in crossing the sound barrier was in adapting the structure of the vehicle used to the stresses involved.

[Shaded]

That said, you must remeber that waht some peolpe percieve as scintific limits are not actually that, they are engineering limts. The biggest problem in crossing the sound barrier was in adapting the structure of the vehicle used to the stresses involved.

This.. as a former engineering student, I just can't let die. There were more than just engineering barriers to cross here. There were some theories, quite well spread and believed, that breaking the sound barrier held a lot of stigmas, and after that fashion, that's nothing more than a perception of a fear of the unknown. But I'd rather ask what you'd think of my last statement. "Truths are not Gravity" More out of morbid curiousity than anything else, Rhabbi.

Note, disclaimer. It has been my belief since I can recall that religion and science are seperate schools of thought. One can seperate and pursue one without pursuing the other.

[Rhabbi]

This.. as a former engineering student, I just can't let die. There were more than just engineering barriers to cross here. There were some theories, quite well spread and believed, that breaking the sound barrier held a lot of stigmas, and after that fashion, that's nothing more than a perception of a fear of the unknown. But I'd rather ask what you'd think of my last statement. "Truths are not Gravity" More out of morbid curiousity than anything else, Rhabbi.

Note, disclaimer. It has been my belief since I can recall that religion and science are seperate schools of thought. One can seperate and pursue one without pursuing the other.

First, to answer your question about your assertion that truths are not gravity, I would guess that would depend on how you define truth. Gravity is truth, as I am sure you will agree. We can use other truths to modify the results of gravity's effect on us, but it is still there, we can never escape it.

In the same way we can sometimes modify the effect that truth has on us by using other truths to compensate. Truth though, is universal despite what the relativist have been arguing for centuries. We have been listening to these arguments since our earliest history, yet the world still continues to operate on the principles that exist outside of their reality. Why is that? because Truth is Gravity," that is, it is universal. We can choose to ignore it but we still suffer the consequences of it.

Relativism will never be anything more than a school of though among ivory tower intellectuals because it does not work in the real world. As an engineering student you must realize this, unless you are rejecting the empirical evidence around you.

As for breaking the sound barrier being a scientific advance as much as an engineering one, this comes from a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. At the time of Galileo science had already demonstrated not only that the Earth was round, but had measured the diameter of it. This had been done centuries earlier by the Greeks. Yet scientific belief ran counter to this because of the teachings of the schools that taught that the theory that the Earth was flat.

Scientific beleif at the time said that we could not pass the sound barrier, yet engineers went ahead and did it because they were the true scientists and were willing to challenge unfounded guesses.

Aerodyanmics told us that the bumble bee could not fly because the weight to lift ratio of their wings was to small. Did this mean that the bee ignored truth? No, it meant that the theory was wrong, and we now understand that lift can be increased by changing the aspect of the wing and the speed at which it moves through air.

There are no contradictions. If you think you have a contradiction, check your premises, one of them is wrong.

As for your beleif that we can study science and religion seperately, I woulod agree. But does that mean we cannot study them together? That is the question that truly needs an answer.