veil the sky
Lexicon V
Ok here goes!
Re: The Moths
I understand exactly the point you are making, but you are only making this point because you didn't understand mine. Evolution is not an 'observable thing' per se. You point to observable things such as black moths, but they aren't 'evolution' they are supposed positive instances of 'evolution.' This doesn't establish certainty because it is 'affirming the consequent.' If I formulated a theory that birds only walk, I could point to many instances of birds that walk and without having seen one fly say "My theory that birds only walk is correct." That scientific method is identical to the example of the black moths, the possibility always remains that a falsifying instance will occur. I didn't phrase it very well in my earlier post on reflection, but you don't see evolution, you see moths and reason to evolution.
See Tribal's post on Dr. Harold Urey and 'thousands of missing links.' I couldn't better that.
Actually I'm glad they don't teach such trivial crap in schools as 'what is the smallest writing in the world'. Only conceivably useful for gameshow contestants and people that do crosswords. I don't mean we can't see atoms as in they are invisible, what we can't see is the electrons which form the shell and the positively charged core etc. and all the scientific descriptions which are believed to be true of them. Scientists would have calculated what effect the scientific model of an atom would have upon an electron gun and if they are right then they would say, 'we can see an atom.' What they can see is still only some tiny speck, it's just the speck they expected to see.
Ok, I've got a better word than prejudice. Paranoia. The fear that all religion is simply a political tool to oppress the lower classes by ruling aristocracy belongs to a more bygone era than the middle of the 20th century. Who exactly is supposed to be controlling who? What fears are used by who and against whom, I just don't know who. Religion CAN of course be used in a manipulative way, but the fault lies with humanity, not with the broad notion of what religious belief is. Science CAN be used to controll masses by the threat of nuclear power. Politics CAN be used to rule with fear, but it doesn't mean we should abandon science or politics as human pursuit.
Well I don't know of any organised religion that believes that the universe was created by 'some human-like thing.' Furthermore you are still working on the assumption that the belief that 'there is a creative being' responsible for the universe necessarily entails the belief that 'the creation was note done by means of evolution.'
Well of course I am, that's why I wrote it. Brainwashed ignorance is, specifically, the state of having no belief at all. Religious belief is belief about the fundamental nature of the cosmos and the meaning of humanity. People can be brainwashed into believing principles that are essentially religious, but if they have been brainwashed into doing so, then those belief's aren't actually held 'religiously.' People can also be brainwashed into believing scientific principles such as the belief that leeches will cure medical ailments, but those beliefs, by the same token will not be held 'scientifically.'
Ok then, the scientific model of creation relies on the principle of causality, that each independent event must be caused by an event which directly precedes it. Now nothing can cause itself, since that would require it to pre-exist itself, which is clearly impossible. It is also impossible for that series of efficient causes to infinitely regress, since if there is no single first cause, there could be no intermediate causes until now and the causal universe we perceive would not exist. There is therefore the necessary requirement of some sufficient first cause which would begin the hence infinite chain of causal events until now and beyond. The religious postulation of an ontologically different and infinitely more powerful existing thing, whatever other qualities it may have is both logically necessary and practically useful to account for our own existence.
I wont go on, but that as far as I know is no biblical quote, although it is religiously consistent and you're free to call it stupid if you like.
You see, you deny that 'science' is blind, but I was talking about 'belief' being blind, that's why your criticism is irrelevant.
No, but neither does religion, a theological principle cannot actively mislead someone. Other human beings mislead people, sometimes they use religion, sometimes they use science, sometimes they use politics. It's always wrong, however it's done, and it's responsible for most of the evil in the world and throughout history. But that's because people can be, and often are, evil. Any good religious doctrine would recognise and condemn such things.
You actually just said that 'science... does not expect us to believe their bullshit.' Seriously, you did, read it back.
Just a bit of fun though eh!
Good night! (well, here it is)
Official DesolatioN Dominion
Re: The Moths
I understand exactly the point you are making, but you are only making this point because you didn't understand mine. Evolution is not an 'observable thing' per se. You point to observable things such as black moths, but they aren't 'evolution' they are supposed positive instances of 'evolution.' This doesn't establish certainty because it is 'affirming the consequent.' If I formulated a theory that birds only walk, I could point to many instances of birds that walk and without having seen one fly say "My theory that birds only walk is correct." That scientific method is identical to the example of the black moths, the possibility always remains that a falsifying instance will occur. I didn't phrase it very well in my earlier post on reflection, but you don't see evolution, you see moths and reason to evolution.
See Tribal's post on Dr. Harold Urey and 'thousands of missing links.' I couldn't better that.
Actually I'm glad they don't teach such trivial crap in schools as 'what is the smallest writing in the world'. Only conceivably useful for gameshow contestants and people that do crosswords. I don't mean we can't see atoms as in they are invisible, what we can't see is the electrons which form the shell and the positively charged core etc. and all the scientific descriptions which are believed to be true of them. Scientists would have calculated what effect the scientific model of an atom would have upon an electron gun and if they are right then they would say, 'we can see an atom.' What they can see is still only some tiny speck, it's just the speck they expected to see.
Ok, I've got a better word than prejudice. Paranoia. The fear that all religion is simply a political tool to oppress the lower classes by ruling aristocracy belongs to a more bygone era than the middle of the 20th century. Who exactly is supposed to be controlling who? What fears are used by who and against whom, I just don't know who. Religion CAN of course be used in a manipulative way, but the fault lies with humanity, not with the broad notion of what religious belief is. Science CAN be used to controll masses by the threat of nuclear power. Politics CAN be used to rule with fear, but it doesn't mean we should abandon science or politics as human pursuit.
Well I don't know of any organised religion that believes that the universe was created by 'some human-like thing.' Furthermore you are still working on the assumption that the belief that 'there is a creative being' responsible for the universe necessarily entails the belief that 'the creation was note done by means of evolution.'
Well of course I am, that's why I wrote it. Brainwashed ignorance is, specifically, the state of having no belief at all. Religious belief is belief about the fundamental nature of the cosmos and the meaning of humanity. People can be brainwashed into believing principles that are essentially religious, but if they have been brainwashed into doing so, then those belief's aren't actually held 'religiously.' People can also be brainwashed into believing scientific principles such as the belief that leeches will cure medical ailments, but those beliefs, by the same token will not be held 'scientifically.'
Ok then, the scientific model of creation relies on the principle of causality, that each independent event must be caused by an event which directly precedes it. Now nothing can cause itself, since that would require it to pre-exist itself, which is clearly impossible. It is also impossible for that series of efficient causes to infinitely regress, since if there is no single first cause, there could be no intermediate causes until now and the causal universe we perceive would not exist. There is therefore the necessary requirement of some sufficient first cause which would begin the hence infinite chain of causal events until now and beyond. The religious postulation of an ontologically different and infinitely more powerful existing thing, whatever other qualities it may have is both logically necessary and practically useful to account for our own existence.
I wont go on, but that as far as I know is no biblical quote, although it is religiously consistent and you're free to call it stupid if you like.
You see, you deny that 'science' is blind, but I was talking about 'belief' being blind, that's why your criticism is irrelevant.
No, but neither does religion, a theological principle cannot actively mislead someone. Other human beings mislead people, sometimes they use religion, sometimes they use science, sometimes they use politics. It's always wrong, however it's done, and it's responsible for most of the evil in the world and throughout history. But that's because people can be, and often are, evil. Any good religious doctrine would recognise and condemn such things.
You actually just said that 'science... does not expect us to believe their bullshit.' Seriously, you did, read it back.
Just a bit of fun though eh!
Good night! (well, here it is)
Official DesolatioN Dominion
embarassingly simplistic. nevermind this quest for knowledge, let's all go pick daisies!!!!
<------click it 
haha. im crazy! 
