|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2011 : 20:32:24 [Permalink]
|
justintime:| How do you then use anthropology to dispute theistic evolution. |
I did no such thing. I used facts (that I mentioned I learned mostly in anthropology classes) to dispute your claim that belief in God is universal.
| I do sympathize with your repulsion for religion and god. |
I am not repulsed by either religion in general, or god.
| Women were raped indiscriminately and the few that were spared were made as sacrificial offerings to ward off pestilences, droughts, natural calamities. |
What women? By who?
| One of the most advanced of ancient civilizations the Mayans exclusive used spared virgins as sacrificial offerings. |
That is false.
| This does project the notion that god was a male which again is a notion prevalent in most religions. |
Since it is false, no, it doesn't. Although even if it were true, which it is not, it still wouldn't project that notion.
| Why virginity is still demanded in many cultures as a sign of purity and fidelity is no mystery. |
Yeah: while women can be sure which offspring are theirs, men can't.
| The hormonal changes that follow women after sexual intercourse is often unpredictable. They either turn sluttish or repulsed by the initial experience remain uncooperative. |
That's also false.
| In more modern cultures an analogy with cheese is used to describe virginity. When cheese has been sitting on the shelf for too long, it starts to smell bad. |
Your point?
| I am amazed women will take a man on intellectually. |
Why?
| They might succeed in arm wrestling, nut cracking given men expand better than contract, budgeting and multitasking, the economy of reusable parts. |
I have no idea what this sentence means. None.
| After a man has spent his stuff he needs to recover whereas to a women that is both a deposit and a down payment. |
I have no idea what this means either.
| But for a woman to challenge a man intellectually. That is indisputable violation of a misplaced rib. |
Meaning what?
| Men have created women in their image as to what is beautiful, feminist and desirable. |
I assume you meant "feminine", not "feminist". Although even with that change I don't catch your meaning. In what sense did men create women?
| Take that illusion away and all you have left is a pin cushion. A collection of many pricks. |
Don't get the metaphor. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
 Posted - 10/06/2011 : 06:19:59 [Permalink]
|
They don't believe we are monkeys either. Children have to develop cognitive skills before they can make sense of the world around them. With that comes curiosity about the hows and whys.
I don't know if skeptics are like referees. They can only impassionately call the rules but never in the game.
There are no absolutes. We take what works for us.
An atheist has no more right because he does not believe in a god or find meaning in religion to take away from people who find meaning and strengthened by their beliefs.
Nor does monkey believers have the right to reduce all of mans aspirations and goodness to an existential deterministic view of him as a structure of cells slightly more complex than an amoeba or a few mutations away from a chimpanzee.
That humans seek meaning is an abstraction a deviation from the random chaos that created our universe. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2011 : 07:15:56 [Permalink]
|
justintime: | They don't believe we are monkeys either. Children have to develop cognitive skills before they can make sense of the world around them. With that comes curiosity about the hows and whys. |
The difference is that the same scientific discoveries can and have happened over and over again since, as is the point of this thread, science is universal. Darwin wasn't the only one to come up with evolution, he was just the first to back it up with sufficient evidence that it was taken seriously. Also, what perpetuates the acceptance of scientific ideas is mounting evidence. Conversely, what kills a scientific idea is evidence to the contrary. Religions don't work that way.
| I don't know if skeptics are like referees. They can only impassionately call the rules but never in the game. |
I see plenty of passion on this forum. Passion for reason, science, knowledge, and critical inquiry.
| There are no absolutes. We take what works for us. |
To be fair, I'm going to assume that what you mean is that there are no absolutes that we can know for sure. (Since, as Dave pointed out, to claim there are no absolutes is to claim an absolute.) On a fundamental level I agree with you that we can know nothing with absolute certainty. However, that doesn't mean that all claims are equal. There are some things we can know with great certainty, and other things we know with only some or very little certainty. So it is rather empty to just shoo ideas away by saying "There are no absolutes." Also, not everything you want to "work for you" will work. For instance, you can believe that crystals or positive thinking or eating raw food will cure cancer, and still die of cancer believing it.
| An atheist has no more right because he does not believe in a god or find meaning in religion to take away from people who find meaning and strengthened by their beliefs. |
An atheist can't take anyone's beliefs away from them. An atheist can only voice criticisms of those beliefs. Just like a religious person can advocate for their worldview to the atheist. Are you suggesting that nobody ever criticize anybody else's worldview, or are you just saying atheists alone should keep our mouths shut?
| Nor does monkey believers have the right to reduce all of mans aspirations and goodness to an existential deterministic view of him as a structure of cells slightly more complex than an amoeba or a few mutations away from a chimpanzee. |
First of all, accepting the scientific theory of evolution does not result in a particular worldview. There are Christians who accept evolution. There are nihilists, and Objectivists, and Humanists who all accept evolution, and they all offer very different philosophical points of view regarding ethics and humanity's place in the world. Since nobody here has advocated such a depressing philosophy, I'm calling strawman argument.
| That humans seek meaning is an abstraction a deviation from the random chaos that created our universe. |
More platitudes. Yawn. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2011 : 11:20:51 [Permalink]
|
Dang Martha, you're reaching Dave W. levels of OWNAGE...
Justin, you are pitching softballs here, we've been through this several hundred times and you seem to think that this is our first ballgame. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 10/06/2011 11:21:19 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2011 : 11:31:40 [Permalink]
|
BigPapaSmurf wrote: | Dang Martha, you're reaching Dave W. levels of OWNAGE... |
You flatter me too much. Thanks. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 10:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Most Ancient literature and mythology offer totally different explanations than Darwin's evolution. To say the science of evolution is universal is to show one has very little exposure to other cultures and beliefs.
Religion and belief in a god was prevalent in even the oldest of civilizations and preceded science and Darwins evolution.
The advent of science is quite recent in human history. Ignorance, myths , religion, superstitions etc etc explained much of what was ancient knowledge.
To say science was universal and to deny god is innate to man is the worldview one develops looking out from ones backyard.
|
| Edited by - justintime on 10/07/2011 11:33:44 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 12:13:46 [Permalink]
|
justintime: | Most Ancient literature and mythology offer totally different explanations than Darwin's evolution. To say the science of evolution is universal is to show one has very little exposure to other cultures and beliefs. |
Go back and read this thread until you understand what "science is universal" means. Because it doesn't mean what you think it means, and I'm tired of correcting you.
Religion and belief in a god was prevalent in even the oldest of civilizations and preceded science and Darwins evolution.
The advent of science is quite recent in human history. Ignorance, myths , religion, superstitions etc etc explained much of what was ancient knowledge. |
Already responded to this, too. Have fun being a broken record.
| To say science was universal and to deny god is innate to man is the worldview one develops looking out from ones backyard. |
No, it's not. And I've already backed up my disagreement plenty. You either can't read, or can't understand the counter-arguments to your wrong claims. And I'm not going to keep rephrasing the same arguments over and over again in the hopes that at some point you'll comprehend. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2011 : 13:13:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Most Ancient literature and mythology offer totally different explanations than Darwin's evolution. |
Oh, what a surprise!
"Making shit up or pulling it out of your ass" is a completely different paradigm from the philosophy of science. Totally different explanations? No shit Sherlock!
Science is the systematic explorations of the natural world using tools to measure it. The Theory of Evolution is a part of that systematic explorations.
To say the science of evolution is universal is to show one has very little exposure to other cultures and beliefs. |
But the question wasn't about "evolution being universal". It was about science being universal. The theory of evolution is just the natural conclusion of using science to study living organisms.
| Religion and belief in a god was prevalent in even the oldest of civilisations |
Since civilisations existed before written records, that's a pretty bold statement. Care to provide some evidence for it?
| and preceded science and Darwins evolution. |
Which is easiest? Making some shit up on the spot, or work to find out how stuff really works (especially when you don't have any tools for it, like a microscope, or even a logical math system)?
The advent of science is quite recent in human history. Ignorance, myths , religion, superstitions etc etc explained much of what was ancient knowledge. |
Which also explains why much of that ancient knowledge is crap.
To say science was universal and to deny god is innate to man is the worldview one develops looking out from ones backyard.
|
Science does not deny God. It just says that most ideas of what the Gods are, that man has come up with, is nonsensical and irrelevant to how reality works.
There may still be a God out there somewhere, but its (or their) attributes are not what you or anyone else has proposed thus far. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 06:43:10 [Permalink]
|
I was surprised to find a Christopher Hitchens an athiest admit. Before all science and knowledge about our universe there was religion. Religion was mans first attempt to explain the world we lived in. To develop social order, to teach personal hygiene, to explain natural causes, diseases, pestilence etc. etc.
Just 400 years ago Galileo almost lost his life for holding the view the earth is not the center of the universe.
Science is acquired knowledge....religion, god are innate to man and universal. |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 07:16:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
I was surprised to find a Christopher Hitchens an athiest admit. Before all science and knowledge about our universe there was religion. Religion was mans first attempt to explain the world we lived in. To develop social order, to teach personal hygiene, to explain natural causes, diseases, pestilence etc. etc.
Just 400 years ago Galileo almost lost his life for holding the view the earth is not the center of the universe.
Science is acquired knowledge....religion, god are innate to man and universal.
|
Oh, fer cryin' out loud. What's "innate" in people is the fact that we attempt to understand the world based on principles we can readily observe. This is not science vs. religion, just elementary cognition. We don't live in a universe where we expect things to happen with no cause, so when we see something we can't explain, we make more-or-less informed assumptions. The sun didn't just appear in the sky all by itself, so it must have ben put there. Since no one saw it being put there, and it would seem to be a job beyond the abilities of anyone I know, it must have got there by the hand of something with powers far beyond those of man.
You're trivially correct that science (n) consists of acquired knowledge, and even science (v) incorporates learned skills and techniques, but at the end of the day, what's "innate" in the priest and the scientist is simply the expectation that Things Happen For a Reason.
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 09:01:08 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: | Religion was mans first attempt to explain the world we lived in. To develop social order, to teach personal hygiene, to explain natural causes, diseases, pestilence etc. etc. |
Religion was not the first attempt to develop social order or teach personal hygiene - that has been pretty well established by living hunter-gatherer societies that don't apply their religion to social order or hygiene.
There are two problems with the claim that it was the first attempt to explain natural causes, diseases, pestilence, etc. The first is that such a claim is at best a guess since modern humans were around a long time before written language and civilization, so how the hell would we know what early humans thought about those things?
The second problem is that it is ridiculous to group all "religious" ideas together as if there is some fundamental similarity between, say, ancient Greek mythology and the Australian Aboriginal concept of Dreamtime. They are both attempts to explain why the natural world is the way it is, and neither is scientific. However, beyond that they really don't have much in common. So to suggest that they are both evidence of some "innate" ancient wisdom is silly.
Human's big brains are what have allowed us to pass on sophisticated knowledge and develop useful technology, and THAT has helped us survive. A side effect is that we are curious and want answers to phenomena. And different cultures all around the world have come up with literally thousands of different, equally false explanations.
Once again, two entirely separate cultures never came up with the same myths, while completely separate cultures have independently discovered the exact same facts about the natural world using scientific method. Which is why science is universal.
Of course I and others already brought up these problems. Justintime continues to pretend we never did and repeat his arguments as if they are correct and profound, when they are neither.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/08/2011 09:02:43 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 10:16:56 [Permalink]
|
| The Bible is one of the earliest books written in recorded history teaches all kinds of social, moral, dietary and what is clean and unclean etc. etc. Read The Book of Leviticus in the Bible. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 10:30:58 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
Just 400 years ago Galileo almost lost his life for holding the view the earth is not the center of the universe. |
No. He didn't. If you aren't willing to do even the most basic fact checking, how can we take anything you say seriously?
Edited to add: Well.. I thought justintime said Galileo lost his life. "Almost" is correct.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2011 : 13:53:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
justintime:
Just 400 years ago Galileo almost lost his life for holding the view the earth is not the center of the universe. |
No. He didn't. If you aren't willing to do even the most basic fact checking, how can we take anything you say seriously?
Edited to add: Well.. I thought justintime said Galileo lost his life. "Almost" is correct.
|
Thank you. Kil. You can start taking me seriously now.  |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Science is Universal
