If it happened to them... it can happen to anyone.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/06/2012 03:52:11 PM · #526

Originally posted by Cory:

*shrug*

You shrug a lot. Your mother probably told you it's bad for your posture and it makes you look like an ape all hunched like that.

Message edited by author 2012-12-06 15:52:21.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/06/2012 03:52:16 PM · #527

Originally posted by Cory:

Most humans can't even effectively comprehend something as simple as the lottery odds.

Another example ... I just flipped a quarter nine times, and darned if it different come up heads every time. What are the odds that when I flip it one more time it will come up heads yet again?

Venser

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

12/06/2012 03:52:20 PM · #528

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Irreducible complexity as a concept is quite valid. The question is whether it exists or not.

As a concept, anything is valid. As a concept that matters, not so much.
This has been beaten to death. Michael Behe even shot himself on the foot when he testified at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. He had to agree, under oath, that there are gross mistakes in his research and the hypothesis of irreducible complexity is weak for proving the existence of God.

Venser

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

12/06/2012 03:52:59 PM · #529

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
Most humans can't even effectively comprehend something as simple as the lottery odds.

Another example ... I just flipped a quarter nine times, and darned if it different come up heads every time. What are the odds that when I flip it one more time it will come up heads yet again?

1/2
Next question ....

12/06/2012 03:54:17 PM · #530

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Irreducible complexity as a concept is quite valid. The question is whether it exists or not.

As a concept, anything is valid. As a concept that matters, not so much.
This has been beaten to death. Michael Behe even shot himself on the foot when he testified at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. He had to agree, under oath, that there are gross mistakes in his research and the hypothesis of irreducible complexity is weak for proving the existence of God.

Gross mistakes in offering an example or gross mistakes in the concept? Again, as a concept, it would be quite viable as a means of discounting evolutionary process. That's a good thing. Any theory with no means of disproval is not generally considered a scientific theory.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/06/2012 03:55:05 PM · #531

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
Most humans can't even effectively comprehend something as simple as the lottery odds.

Another example ... I just flipped a quarter nine times, and darned if it different come up heads every time. What are the odds that when I flip it one more time it will come up heads yet again?
1/2
Next question ....

Which is half the odds you just lied that you flipped the coin nine times and got heads. ;)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/06/2012 03:56:43 PM · #532

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) What does "dragging down" mean? What standard are we not meeting as a species because we are religious? (eg. we aren't peaceful enough? we don't reproduce enough? we aren't tolerant enough?)

Actually, (organized) religion's emphasis on reproduction exacerbates one of the world's biggest problems, over-population, one which drives almost all of the others (lack of food, water, climate change, etc......).

12/06/2012 03:58:50 PM · #533

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) What does "dragging down" mean? What standard are we not meeting as a species because we are religious? (eg. we aren't peaceful enough? we don't reproduce enough? we aren't tolerant enough?)

Actually, (organized) religion's emphasis on reproduction exacerbates one of the world's biggest problems, over-population, one which drives almost all of the others (lack of food, water, climate change, etc......).

Why is overpopulation a problem? From an evolutionary standpoint it isn't a problem at all.

12/06/2012 03:59:36 PM · #534

Originally posted by Cory:

:)

Honestly, if you see the church that way, then how can you even think of being a part of such an organization? That really does honestly make me scratch my head in bewilderment. You think it has been a "Major benefit to the human race", I think it's the reason why we have 7 billion people and still are fighting diseases that should have been cured ages ago, while still being stuck to the surface of this rock alone.

Umm, if you've studied history then you know that the Scientific Method, which is our best chance to ever get off this rock was created by the Catholic Church. The only reason anyone outside of Asia was literate by the 1600th century was because of the Catholic Church. Many of the diseases we are no longer fighting have been eraticated by the Catholic Church.

The reasons I'm a member of the Church have nothing to do with the good it's done though. It has to do with Truths that you've already said you don't seek. I have my reasons and they are profound (to me).

Originally posted by Cory:

Where would we be today without the handicap of magical thinking, and the anchor of religion dragging us down as a species?

Where would the magical thinking of Science be today without the efforts of the Catholic Church to keep knowledge through the Dark Ages following the fall of Rome? Any (Western) book older than 500 years owes it's continued existance to the Church.

Originally posted by Cory:

I'm still honestly trying to understand the last statement of yours regarding your not being a "you have to believe to know" Christian, but instead a "once you know, you'll believe" one.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seemed very much to me that you were a "have to believe to know" sort of fellow when you were telling me that as a non-Christian that I wouldn't be able to comprehend the correctness of Christianity.

Could you tell me which of my posts you're quoting there? Thank you. I can't find it... I certainly never THOUGHT that and I'm suprised to hear I wrote it. I DID say that if you don't know the teachings of the Catholic Church than you can't explain them. I hope you understand the difference.

Originally posted by Cory:

As far as my knowledge, I don't get it from pundits, commenter, columnists, pastors, preachers, news anchors or other people who are almost certainly biased beyond usefulness. I like to gather primary material and make my own decisions, so I would list my knowledge sources as things such as history, psychology, sales experience, personal observation, direct contact with the religious, attendance at church, friendships with many different people who have widely varied belief systems.

Now, please tell me, what line of logic lead you to conclude that there was indeed a god, and that this god was absolutely exactly as described and prescribed by the Catholic Church.

Sorry, no can do, as I don't believe that. As far as I can tell I never said I did either. It would take months if we were in the same room to tell you the path that led me to the Catholic Church, and I couldn't begin to do that till we had established the existance of God, which you've said you have no interest in.

Originally posted by Cory:

What makes you so certain that the Pastafarian description of God isn't actually more accurate? (astonishing as THAT would be)..

Why is your religion the only correct one? What disproves the different beliefs of the Mormons or the Muslims? The Zoroastrians have been around a while, as have the Druids, yet you dismiss them on what grounds exactly? Buddhists and Hindus both differ from your system pretty radically, but yet you claim to know that they are wrong. How do you know this?

(and if you claim that you don't know they are wrong, then how do you know you are right?)

Just answering that in a well thought out and non-contradictory manner would be pretty impressive to me.

As to other religions, every religion I have been (which includes all the ones you've mentioned and a dozen or so more) have had grains of truth. Several have had bushels... One has the whole Truth... (Unfortuantely they lack the "Nothing but the Truth part")... That's the one I use to give Thanks to a Creator that bothered to create us.

Hope this clears some things up... I'll be silent for most of the rest of today... Gotta get back to work soon.

God bless! and thanks for the fellowship

12/06/2012 04:00:57 PM · #535

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by myqyl:

Ok, I won't bother then. Thank you for letting me know before I wrote it all out.

I have absolutely no interest in proving a hypothsist that isn't mine ;-)

With that being said, these questions still stand.

I would welcome responses from any of the religious who care to answer.

Here, I'll ask you a question based on one of your own...

"Where would we be today without the handicap of magical thinking, and the anchor of religion dragging us down as a species?"

As Robert pointed out, the propensity for religious thought is part and parcel of who we are. In other words, it is in our genes. With that in mind, consider the following questions:

1) What does "dragging down" mean? What standard are we not meeting as a species because we are religious? (eg. we aren't peaceful enough? we don't reproduce enough? we aren't tolerant enough?)
2) What is the foundation for this standard? Why is that standard (eg. peacefulness, fecundity, toleration) authoritative in our lives?
3) If that standard is genetic in origin, why would we consider one genetic impulse (peacefulness, fecundity, toleration) as being more worthy of heeding than another genetic impulse (our propensity for religious thought)?

That counts as an answer?

Hopefully you'll accept my answer: Imagine the world today had Galileo not been subjected to the madness of the Church. How many scientists have feared for their lives, hidden results, not been able to research and share what they know because of the church?

Even today we still have to put up with this sort of shit, with the pope proclaiming that condoms are evil and are ineffective against the AIDS epidemic. WTF.

How much did we lose because of the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades? The list goes on.

I really do think we would be far ahead of the game if only we had not been subject to the long reign of terror of the Church, and of religions in general (we still are in a dark-age IMO, with Muslims vs Christians vs Jews vs.... etc.).

As I see it, your fairy tales of a peaceful heaven and false promises of immortality have very possibly cost me the opportunity to really experience peace and something like immortality.

What a shame.

12/06/2012 04:01:41 PM · #536

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It's my belief that God wants us to overpopulate at this stage of evolution so we are motivated to get real about a space program and take off...

I could be wrong though.

12/06/2012 04:06:58 PM · #537

LOL. Cory, your answers goosestep with Dawkins, Dennett, Harris quite well. Your high priests would be proud. They are rubbish, of course, but they certainly coform to the dogma of your own faith.

The Spanish Inquisition, for example, almost exclusively killed Christians. I'd think you would have heralded the praises of it...

Message edited by author 2012-12-06 16:08:07.

12/06/2012 04:10:24 PM · #538

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

:) I suspect we're all chuckling at each other.

As for the Inquisition killing exclusively Christians, I don't see how killing anyone over silliness like religious beliefs is acceptable, ever, no matter what.

12/06/2012 04:25:44 PM · #539

I just bring it up because people like you just LOVE to mention the Crusades or the Inquisition like they are some pinnacle of human evil (brought to you by religion). They are such small blips on the chart of what humans are capable of doing to each other. If you are being intellectually honest and hold the premise that religion should be eradicated because of such atrocities then you should have many other philosophies or creeds much higher on your list of things to be eradicated.

As soon as I hear "crusades" I know the person speaking has blinders on and has no interest in listening, only talking.

12/06/2012 04:31:45 PM · #540

Originally posted by Cory:

Hopefully you'll accept my answer: Imagine the world today had Galileo not been subjected to the madness of the Church. How many scientists have feared for their lives, hidden results, not been able to research and share what they know because of the church?

You're throwing a lot at the wall hoping something will stick... I'd like to hone in on one piece at a time...

Would you please give us a history lesson and tell us about the "Madness" that Galileo was subjected to? I need to understand what you think happened before I can respond to this.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/06/2012 04:40:13 PM · #541

Originally posted by Cory:

As for the Inquisition killing exclusively Christians, I don't see how killing anyone over silliness like religious beliefs is acceptable, ever, no matter what.

The Inquisition was about religious silliness? I thought it was about a political power struggle in Europe... I suppose the 30 years war was about religion too? And the Civil War was over slavery?

Nothing personal, but I'm beginning to have less and less faith in your claim to have a firm grasp of history.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

12/06/2012 04:47:48 PM · #542

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Um....just for fun, go look at this site.....Christian Atrocities.

I've been in one or two religious discussions with you, and you know perfectly well that the words "Pinnacle of human evil" haven't been used in that context. The Crusades, and the Inquisition are handy, and horrible periods in our history for anyone who wants to point out atrocity in the name of God, and a Christian God at that. From 300A.D. on, up through that example I brought up concerning Roger Haight where he was banned from teaching outside of the parameters of the church's sphere of influence, the church has exercised gross misuse of power.

We're not saying there haven't been other atrocities committed by humans against each other......you're trying to obscure the point.

What we ARE trying to point out is the awful things people do to each other in the name of your christian god.

It's not a comparison, it's that it's unacceptable.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/06/2012 04:50:38 PM · #543

Originally posted by myqyl:

Would you please give us a history lesson and tell us about the "Madness" that Galileo was subjected to? I need to understand what you think happened before I can respond to this.

You're kidding, right?

"Galileo was at the cutting edge of human understanding when he published a work on planetary orbits early in the 17th century, and he must have been aware that his studies were in collision with orthodox Catholic principles. When the Catholic Church discovered his work, they brought their full force down on the apparently heretical Galileo. In 1615 the Church, through the Spanish Inquisition, forced Galileo to denounce his findings and forced him never to teach what he had discovered. But his work went on. Nearly 20 years later in 1633, Galileo again published his findings on the observed orbits of the planets and again the Spanish Inquisition was called into action. But they refused even to look through Galileoâ��s telescope, as they thought the devil could create illusions with such an instrument. To avoid being burnt at the stake Galileo again denounced his own work and he was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Astonishingly, it wasnâ��t until 1992 that the Catholic Church, through Pope John Paul II, made a formal apology to Galileo and withdrew their accusations of heresy, and agreed that yes, the Earth does indeed revolve around the sun."

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/06/2012 04:51:59 PM · #544

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

LOL. Cory, your answers goosestep with Dawkins, Dennett, Harris quite well. Your high priests would be proud. They are rubbish, of course, but they certainly coform to the dogma of your own faith.

This kind of thing makes me uneasy, and is a large part of the reason that I have withdrawn from participating in conversations like this. This is a "word pivot". You've applied a set of criteria that are relevant to your situation to someone with an opposing view to make both arguments look homogeneous. It's a dishonest way of arguing. There are many reasons why Cory may be an atheist, and it may well be that none of them have anything to do with Richard Dawkins, or any of the other anti-luminaries that make you so uncomfortable.

You suggest that atheism is a faith led by pontiffs, and that the faithful simply parrot dogma, and you do so to discredit what he says, unaware of the irony, apparently, that in doing so, you discredit yourself. There is an actual church hierarchy that you yourself follow, and an actual set of dogma that you must adhere to. If one is to be dismissed by showing signs of having faith and following dogma, why does anyone bother listening to you?

Obviously you know the truth that not believing in something is not faith, and reading books is not tantamount to subsuming dogma, but I despair when I see someone take advantage of another because that person can't argue their position efficiently (sorry Cory, but it's true).

12/06/2012 04:55:02 PM · #545

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
LOL. Cory, your answers goosestep with Dawkins, Dennett, Harris quite well. Your high priests would be proud. They are rubbish, of course, but they certainly coform to the dogma of your own faith.

This kind of thing makes me uneasy, and is a large part of the reason that I have withdrawn from participating in conversations like this. This is a "word pivot". You've applied a set of criteria that are relevant to your situation to someone with an opposing view to make both arguments look homogeneous. It's a dishonest way of arguing. There are many reasons why Cory may be an atheist, and it may well be that none of them have anything to do with Richard Dawkins, or any of the other anti-luminaries that make you so uncomfortable.

You suggest that atheism is a faith led by pontiffs, and that the faithful simply parrot dogma, and you do so to discredit what he says, unaware of the irony, apparently, that in doing so, you discredit yourself. There is an actual church hierarchy that you yourself follow, and an actual set of dogma that you must adhere to. If one is to be dismissed by showing signs of having faith and following dogma, why does anyone bother listening to you?

Obviously you know the truth that not believing in something is not faith, and reading books is not tantamount to subsuming dogma, but I despair when I see someone take advantage of another because that person can't argue their position efficiently (sorry Cory, but it's true).

The honest (and perhaps sad?) truth is that the only name I recognized was Dawkins. Dennett and Harris are unknown to me, and I've never really read anything of Dawkins outside of a few blurbs.

12/06/2012 04:56:40 PM · #546

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by Cory:
Hopefully you'll accept my answer: Imagine the world today had Galileo not been subjected to the madness of the Church. How many scientists have feared for their lives, hidden results, not been able to research and share what they know because of the church?

You're throwing a lot at the wall hoping something will stick... I'd like to hone in on one piece at a time...

Would you please give us a history lesson and tell us about the "Madness" that Galileo was subjected to? I need to understand what you think happened before I can respond to this.

I've still got a few minutes before my students finish their lab so I'll give a quick history lesson instead of waiting on yours...

Galileo was accused of teaching facts that he had not proven using the Scientific Method. Moreover he taught them as facts instead of theories... The 4 main points of contention were :

The Sun is the center of the universe (turned out he was a little off on that one)

The planets (and stars) move around the sun in perfectly circular orbits... (Ok, leaving the whole stars thing aside, the planets revole in elliptical orbits... This is what got him in the most trouble since catholic astronomers had determined that the orbits were eliptical a couple of decades before Galileo)

Comets are optical illusions caused by relections of the sun off the upper atmosphere... (all I can say is "hehehe")

The tides are caused by the rotation of the earth, much like you would see water swish in a bucket if you carried it... (again... hehehe)

He was told he had to stop teaching these "facts" although he was invited to propose them as theories and conduct experiments to prove them. His response was that he didn't have to prove anything, cause he was Galileo and if he said it, it was right. So the Pope at the time (a good friend of Galileo's by the way) told him he couldn't teach in the Catholic Schools anymore until he straightened up his act. He was also confined to a Villa with several servents (paid for by the Church).

Such madness! It's the Church's fault that we don't yet know the Sun is the center of the Universe!!! Those BASTARDS!!!

12/06/2012 05:00:02 PM · #547

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by myqyl:
Would you please give us a history lesson and tell us about the "Madness" that Galileo was subjected to? I need to understand what you think happened before I can respond to this.

You're kidding, right?

"Galileo was at the cutting edge of human understanding when he published a work on planetary orbits early in the 17th century, and he must have been aware that his studies were in collision with orthodox Catholic principles. When the Catholic Church discovered his work, they brought their full force down on the apparently heretical Galileo. In 1615 the Church, through the Spanish Inquisition, forced Galileo to denounce his findings and forced him never to teach what he had discovered. But his work went on. Nearly 20 years later in 1633, Galileo again published his findings on the observed orbits of the planets and again the Spanish Inquisition was called into action. But they refused even to look through Galileoâ��s telescope, as they thought the devil could create illusions with such an instrument. To avoid being burnt at the stake Galileo again denounced his own work and he was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Astonishingly, it wasnâ��t until 1992 that the Catholic Church, through Pope John Paul II, made a formal apology to Galileo and withdrew their accusations of heresy, and agreed that yes, the Earth does indeed revolve around the sun."

Source please?

12/06/2012 05:05:45 PM · #548

Originally posted by myqyl:

Source please?

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Might I inquire as to yours?

"In 1623, Pope Gregory XV, died, and was succeeded by Pope Urban VIII, who showed greater favor to Galileo, particularly after Galileo traveled to Rome to congratulate the new Pontiff.[24]

Dava Sobel[25] explains that during this time, Urban had begun to fall more and more under the influence of court intrigue and problems of state. His friendship with Galileo began to take second place to his feelings of persecution and fear for his own life. At this low point in Urban's life, the problem of Galileo was presented to the pope by court insiders and enemies of Galileo. Coming on top of the recent claim by the then Spanish cardinal that Urban was soft on defending the church, he reacted out of anger and fear. This situation did not bode well for Galileo's defense of his book."

.....

"With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world", against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned".[35] A panel of theologians, consisting of Melchior Inchofer, Agostino Oreggi and Zaccaria Pasqualigo, reported on the Dialogue. Their opinions were strongly argued in favour of the view that the Dialogue taught the Copernican theory.[36]

Galileo was found guilty, and the sentence of the Inquisition, issued on 22 June 1633,[37] was in three essential parts:

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.[38]
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[39] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.

His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[40]"

Message edited by author 2012-12-06 17:09:54.

12/06/2012 05:16:36 PM · #549

Originally posted by Louis:

Well thought out Louis, but I DO see it as more and more of a truth that for the vocal, militant atheists among us (sometimes braded "New Atheists") display all the behaviors and have the physical trappings of a religion (used in a sociological context). Heck, about a year ago there was news that someone in France wanted to build a "church" to atheism. So while I often see atheists try to put on their invisibility cloaks during debate ("your argument isn't valid because atheism isn't a creed"), the truth is it is become more and more of a creed. There are even derogatory terms within atheism to keep the anti-faithful in line (see "faitheist"). You got your "Darwin" bumper stickers. You have your popular writers. The difference between you and any other atheist is no further than the difference between me and certain other Christians.

Castigating the Crusades IS almost always "parroting dogma". I have heard them brought up many, many times and very few of those people know anything about what the Crusades were. It's become so cliche it's almost just shorthand for an argument. It's lazy.

Message edited by author 2012-12-06 17:18:05.