Printable View
Hail the Pope and his universal knowledge of Creation. I am glad that our generation and generations to come have a public figure such as Benedict to act as proponents on the side of truth and all that is good and should be.
Amen and Hallelujah! :afrog:
That is possibly the most expensive chair in the universe.
I'm glad the Pope settled this for the world!
Consider yourselves lucky, you could be talking about Peter The Roman instead of Benedict.
I hate to burst your collective ignorant bubbles here . . .
(i) The Catholic Churches stance on evolution, after John Paul II, accepts that some form of natural (ie non-deity based) evolution should be considered a doctrinal truth.
(ii) The only bodies in the world to actually have a theory on the creation of life are faith bodies. Science does not purport nor can never purport to ever have an idea on the origin of life since there can be no empirical, nor induction proof.
As for my opinion? Should directed evolution be taught? Perhaps: it is after all an unproven and unvalidated theory rather like autocatalysm and panspermia, of which I was taught at school . . .
Or maybe we should should just hold our hands up to the kids and say "We don't know"
I've taught my kids that a giant rabbit gave birth to us all.
:afrog:
Clearly wrong: it's turtles All the way down . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by crptcblade
Some civilizations once thought that the universe, earth and us humans were created by gods who vomited out the universe and the planets and the animals and humans.
and balanced such vomit on an infinite series of turtles; going all the way down
Well, to be serious I think it's plain stupid to be teaching kids all the theories of how humans originated. It's best to stick with evolution as the basis and let them grow up and then learn the other theories, which can be taught in colleges.
It comes down to something as simple as this: When you learn the numbers, there's no point starting an argument over why One is called "One" and not "Obya"? In the ensuing confusion the only certain thing is you wouldn't learn your numbers.
.
Why not teach religion in a Religious Studies class? (mostly just the basic beliefs of each religion) and teach Creationism in Science (Biology?). Then let the kids decide which they believe in, they are intelligent enough to decide on their beliefs
Well, who says kids are intelligent enough to decide on their beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster did everything:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
I don't have kids so that's a problem solved :afrog:
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by dsheller
That is absolutely fantastic! I'm a believer!
So I'm now a pastafarian? Sweet! :D
I have four of the little terrors. I say improve the schedule on TV . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Science says evolution is free of direction and order (from a divine force) because no one has proven such a claim.
For example:
At this moment, you can't prove that I don't have an elephant in my trunk, so I must be right.
Same as saying:
You can't prove there is no divine force behind evolution, so I must be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Science doesn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
Science says that there is an unproven hypothesis that evolution may have been directed by a supernatural force.
There are many scientifically unproven hypothesis; such as string theory and GUT. The vast majority of them do not include God.
From my understanding the theory of evolution is the theory of a species adapting to a new environment. Hence the phrase "the species most likely to survive are those most adaptable to change" after all the only constant is change.
Here's a challenge for you then capsule, follow the above link to the description of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and prove why he is not the one true god
Um... Like I said, it is not science's job to prove that a claim is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
So it's not my job to prove your claims.
1) Its hard to prove a negative
2) It is the burden of the person making a claim to prove it.
Speaking of which, that claim of yours in your sig has been demolished many times, by myself and others, over in the Maths forum. Feel free to do something about it.
;)
I still believe 0.999... <> 1, there is a mathematician that proves it using a wierd numbering system.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
Though I concede my proof is flawed, I'm keeping it in my signature to annoy you guys :-p
It s science's job to find evidence, regardless of if it proves the claim is false or true.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
"It is the burden of the person making a claim to prove it." - Okay then hotshot. Instead of trying to avoid the problem at hand why don't you prove it? Prove to all of us here why God is the one true god.
And the rest of society thanks you... :bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
I agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Kids can be more intelligent than adults will give them credit for.... although, these days, unless it's a PS2 or XBox game, they probably wouldn't give it a second thought (or even a first.)Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
Long before I entered High School, I had reconciled my scientific views on evolution with my religious beliefs of creationism - it borders on the "intelligent design" theory - to my satisfaction.
-tg
And I suppose you would choose their beliefs for them? I for one say kids are intelligent enough to decide their belief...it's known as free will. Something religion doesn't really encourage.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
I agree with techgnome that kids are much more intelligent than they are given credit for.
I don't believe in God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I think you are always confused on what my position is.
My post was saying its not my job to prove your Spaghetti monster is real. In response to another post you made, that is also confused on what my position is.
You keep trying to avoid the questions capsule. Perhaps you do not know the answers and will not admit it? For example you say that is not what your position is, yet you do not elaborate on what your position is to clarify the situation :rolleyes:
Perhaps you need stop assuming and actually read my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
You for some wierd reason think I'm religious, when I'm secularlist.
You keep asking me to prove the existence of God, when I said I don't believe in God.
Anyway.
The burden of proof on God's existence lies on the people who claim God exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
You can't prove that there is a divine force behind evolution, so you must be wrong.
What now?
That was satire, read the first part.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
My point is, you can't prove either side correct. So, why teach one and not the other? Why teach either of them? If neither can be proven, what's the use?
Hmmm. Well evolution has a decent amount of scientific proof behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
I'm not so sure about divine intervention affecting the course of evolution. That's harder to prove, and really I can't imagine how anyone would even begin to give proof.
Solution is simple. "Class, consider this: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? You are dismissed."
Where? Can you point me to a link?Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
Deja vu all over again. I think we've had this discussion before.
The theory of evolution is a theory which can be disproved if contradictory evidence is discovered.
The belief in a creator is not a theory and cannot be disproved and therefore belong in a religion class and not a science class alongside evolution.
If we decide to treat creationism as a science then we might as well include astrology, homoeopathy, and channeling,
The answer is: The egg.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Next question: Why was the first question asked?
What's channeling?Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Its like talking on the speaker phone with someone, except without the phone, with a ghost, and you replace the speaker.
hmmm,
Actually, its more like a friendly temporary possession.
After you've booked an appearance in vegas, and managed to get a sold out audience.
:wave:
BTW, Shirley Macleane {sp} invented it on her 60th birthday.
Rightyo then . . moving on . . .
Actually channeling has been around a bit longer than that. At the risk of dating myself, my friends and I who were already falling for the tripe in Carlos Castaneda's books, found a book called "Seth Speaks". In this book a woman claimed to go into a trance and speak the words of a wise spirit to her husband who wrote them down so they could sell books. I believe that this was the period of the beginning of the channeling fad.Quote:
BTW, Shirley Macleane {sp} invented it on her 60th birthday.
Sound like channeling is just another way to channel money out of the pockets of the gullible.
For those who want to see (a mediocre) example of the simplest of genetic algorithms look here: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...87#post2276887
...and the burden of proof on God's non-existence lies on the people who claim God doesn't exist. The only people who don't have a burden of proof are those who say: "Maybe". Everyone else, on both sides of the debate, has closed their mind before they've started.Quote:
The burden of proof on God's existence lies on the people who claim God exists.
So perhaps the agnostics amongst us are those most open-mided?
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
The word agnostic comes from the greek a without gnostic knowledge
It's an admittance of lacking the required knowledge to make a decision. When Huxley coined the term it was a personal reflection of his inability to agree with anything without conclusive proof.
Where one cannot have an opinion or voice (which is true of agnosticism as it relates to religion) then as Wittgenstein said:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
Everyone is without knowledge when it comes to the existence of a deity as there is no hard evidence for or against such a being. So why should someone who understands this and refuses to make a choice based on faith alone be ridiculed? Especially when they are being very wise in admitting they do not know everything.
It is my personal opinion and understanding that a human being will make many 'leaps of faith' throughout his lifetime; generally without knowing that their beliefs, and their actions are a direct result of (non-religious) faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Sure, those who follow religious teachings profess that they have a faith. I understand this as an admittance that they can't prove the existence of their God(s) but they believe it anyway for some metaphysical explanation. In fact most of those who I know who say they are religious would also accept they can't prove to another individual the existence of God.
Are they agnostic? I don't think so. Do they lack any more understanding of the world than a classical agnostic? Certainly not.
Of course they are not agnostic as they still believe in a deity! An agnostic believes there is neither evidence for or against such a being.
You still however have not answered the question of why an agnostic should be ridiculed for requiring evidence
The people I am talking about accept there is no evidence either way, and agree that it's a question of faith. Perhaps you'd like to reread my last post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Regardless of whether you read my last post or otherwise; agnosticism is an easy way out requiring no logic, no empricism. It's a cheat and nothing more. If you are prepared to label yourself as such I strongly suggest you make an effort to read a little of Bertrand Russel's work who supports your sort of reasoning.
If you want to go down this argument I hope you've read a little of Kant, and Popper, or you, yourself, have strong enough reasoning to argue with either of the above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Have you asked for evidence proving the Earth circles the sun? Or do you accept it on trust? Have you asked for evidence that the earth is an ellipsoid? Or do you accept it on trust?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I'm sure you see my point . . .
Saying that evidence cannot be forthcoming is simply, in my opinion, a cop-out. There are many things in your life (like the love of a partner) that require faith and trust. I do not see you purporting to throw these things out of your life.
I think there's some confusion thrown up by the use of the term agnostic. As Yrwyddfa pointed out, it literally translates to 'without knowledge' but when we use it in the religious sense we generally mean 'haven't decided'.
So when you ask 'Are they agnostic?' it depends what you mean by agnostic. If you're using the literal meaning then we're all agnostic, whether we're religious or not, because none of actually KNOW whether God/Allah/The flying spaghetti monster exists. If you're using the religious meaning then, no, of course 'those who follow religious teachings ' aren't agnostic, because they clearly have decided. As have those who profess 'There is no God'
I see no problem with the position that 'I don't KNOW this to be true but believe it to be so'. And if that's the case I don't see why, while acknowledging that 'I don't know', I should be denied the opportunity to argue for the beliefs I hold.
I myself don't KNOW if there are deities and as such will not make a decision based entirely on faith as that decision could be wrong. Once again yrywddfa you are ridiculing the agnostics for their choice by calling it a "cop-out". Why can you not accept that a person can objectively look at both sides of the story and decide there is no evidence for or against such a being?
Simple really; there is no objective evidence for or against. You cannot look objectively at this issue - it's impossible. Yet, you - the agnostic forum - still want to have a say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
In my, humble, opinion: don't.
We know: (i) You don't know, (ii) You don't care (iii) You have no opinion that counts.
Especially (iii) btw: You cannot have an opinion, if you call yourself agnostic, if there is no objectivity. It's part of the tribe you call agnosticism.
If this upsets you then look somewhere else because you're not an agnostic. If you're happy to subscribe to this then shut up.
All in a modicum of jest you understand - after all it is Christmas (but then you don't celebrate that either, do you?)
;)
not conclusive evidence, certainly. But there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suuport either side if the debate. And I still don't think that acknowledging the possibility you may be wrong in your opinion negates your ability to have one.Quote:
there is no objective evidence for or against.
For example, surely it's a fundamental of science that there is always room for the currently held knowledge to be innaccurate and to strive to improve the model. An agnostic stance, in other words. Does that mean science can have no valid opinion?
No. I meant objective and still do. There is nothing that can be observed about whether there is a creator (or otherwise) that is objective. If there were then we might be able to hypothesize and draw conclusionsQuote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I've never seen any. It could be just me I guess. Can you post some links to verify this?Quote:
But there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suuport either side if the debate.
'Agnostic' was first coined by Huxley who (in a more defnied manner) believed nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses. So, by definition, metaphysical beings do not exist in a physical state and thus cannot be demonstrated by the senses. (Of course some will argue that a creator has intervened in human history, so such a being would be capable of physical sense) The opinion that agnostics hold are that they cannot have an opinion, nor belief in anything that cannot be felt, seen, heard or touched. I haven't accused anyone of agnosticism, here. I haven't defined what is that people think they believe - I have simply pointed out the meaning of a word and how that must apply to this argument. Most people who call themselves agnostics are really atheists, anyway.Quote:
And I still don't think that acknowledging the possibility you may be wrong in your opinion negates your ability to have one.
Science is based on the mathematical deductions from (mostly) physical observation. This is called reasoning And it's been very successfulQuote:
For example, surely it's a fundamental of science that there is always room for the currently held knowledge to be innaccurate and to strive to improve the model. An agnostic stance, in other words.
Yes it means that science can hold nor offer an opinion. If there is room for an opinion it's belief and not science. You can't say "I scientifically believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe" and then expect people to accept that "Hey, it's just his opinion"Quote:
Does that mean science can have no valid opinion?
Yep, that's why I was uncomfortable with the use of the word agnostic, it has ramifications, particularly in the context of religion. But I'd suggest there is a world of difference between stating "I have no opinion" and "I have an opinion but am willing to acknowledge I could be wrong". The first is (usually) a cop out, the second is a maintaining mind which is open to change in light of future observations and discoveries.Quote:
The opinion that agnostics hold are that they cannot have an opinion
I could see where you're coming from that the former have nothing valid to say (though I'd stop short of actually agreeing) but I'd definitely disagree if you're saying tha latter have nothing valid to say. Everyone has arrived at a position (even if it's 'don't know') in any debate and knowing how they got to arrived at that position can inform and change the position of others... so to me everyone's voice is valuable. I do agree though that stating 'I have no opinion' and failing to offer anything further in the way of justification of that position isn't particularly useful - but then again neither are 'there is a god' or 'there is no god' unless they're backed up by argument as to how that position has been reached.
I must admit, I wonder about religious agnostics myself. I don't think many deities are going reward bet hedgeing come judgement day/gehenna/the final pasta.
As for circumstantial evidence of a deity or not, I'd argue that the very existence of life, the very existence of a universe, the very existence of anything, in fact, can be held as circumstantial evidence of a deity if you're of that persuasion. The fact that nobodies heard from them for over 2000 years (or whatever time period a given religion espouses - probably less in the case of the FSM :) ) is pretty good circumstantial evidence that there isn't one. The fact that this evidence is circumstantial is important though as it means any debate cannot result in a absolute truth, one way or the other, but that doesn't mean the debate isn't worth having.
All I'm saying is that if someone calls themself an 'agnostic' then they must accept that can never have an opinion about anything which cannot be sensed by the physical senses.
I am fully aware that those who call themselves agnostic rarely rarely have any idea of what it actually means.
Which gets us back to a previous argument: How does one go about proving something isn't there? Absense of proof is not proof of absense and vice versa.
Basically you can come up with any number of theories ranging from the big fungus in the sky to spaghetti universes and back, claim it's the truth and those who don't believe it should submit proof as to why it's not true.
This is the whole premise turned around, isn't it? The onus is -in my opinion- always on the one claiming that something does exist. All the rest have indeed the luxury of denying and/or claiming having no adequate knowledge. Why should the latter group be the ones to refute the 'truth'? They're after all not the ones that stated it in the first place.
Science works as thus: you start with a theory, you try to test it out (falsify it) and if all methods of testing are exhausted you either conclude the theory correct (or not falsifiable) or that you can't further test-proof it thus saying its correctness hangs in the balance until someone devises a better method.
You never walk up to someone else saying 'here it is, now you prove it's not true'. At least in theory...
If we're talking about the divine and the creator of things, the best I can come up with is that there's no sufficient proof to either falsify it or prove it. So I tend to err on the side of caution and maintain a position where I don't have to prove the non-existence.
Why? Because you simply can't prove non-existence.
It is entirely possible that tricorns exist. It is also entirely possible that they don't.
Proof of the former is simple: you produce one. Proof of the latter is impossible as it is not sufficient to point to an empty space and say "see that? There's verifiable proof of the non-being of tricorns."
I think to put a burden of proof on one side or another is a hiding to nowhere. Far better to get all sides to put up whatever proof/evidence/opinions/arguments they can to support their view and then everyone can make up their own mind based on the body of information available. The problem with trying to place a burden of proof is that it tends to lead to 'This is what I believe, prove me wrong!' While that can be an interesting challenge it isn't very enlightening and is unlikely to affect my (or anyone else's) opinion.
IMO the point of any debate isn't to 'prove' one premise over another, it's to sway your audience's opinion in your favour and thus have them accept your premise as the more likely one. Proving you premise beyond doubt is simply a powerful mechanism to achieving that, though a surprisingly difficult one to achieve.
Yrfwadadadadadadada - If we're using Huxleys definition of agnostic (I admit I've never read it outside your posts though :blush: ) I'm with you 100%. :thumb: To refuse to entertain the very possibilty of a concept because it cannot be objectively proved is just another form of closed mindedness. Always entertain the possibility... that's my motto :)
But there are an infinite number of possibilities... are you entertaining them all?Quote:
Always entertain the possibility... that's my motto