So my name on these blazer forums was toshi, then thylo, then something else, then Nate McVillain, then GOD standing for Greg On Defense. Should I stick with GOD cause its fun, or should I move on now that its more like Greg On Dialysis
Nah nah -- I appreciated the shoutouts. It's just that it makes it so difficult for me to stay off the merry-go-round... [video=youtube;UPw-3e_pzqU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU[/video]
i think there is reasonable evidence to expect that every single thing you can say that would accurately describe a homo sapien is the result of evolved physical/biological processes. how is that effectively any different than what you are doing when you expect the sky to be blue tomorrow? throwing the hypothesis of a fundamentally undetectable soul into the equation is no different than throwing in the hypothesis of undetectable flying gremlins altering how electromagnetic waves are filtered through the atmosphere who might change the sky to purple tomorrow. i don't think it's inaccurate to say that it is because of science that we reasonably expect that there are no undetectable gremlins messing with electromagnetic waves. science provides an evidence-backed gremlin-free explanation of why the sky is blue, just as science has provided an evidence-backed soul-free explanation for everything that constitutes a homo sapien. it's not hard to leave the definition of god so vague as to not be accessible to science. it would not be so easy for Catholicism to hide the mythological origins of Yahweh. NDE's are trivial. even more neuroscience has tied most aspects of human cognizance to different parts of the brain, altering or turning them on and off. as above, the introduction of undetectable components to human cognizance that continue after death is no different than introducing undetectable sky color gremlins. there is no reason science should have any more respect for the former. maybe in the same way voices from god while on drugs or throwing darts at a chart with possible answers does. my main point here is that unanswerable questions about objective reality are just that - unanswerable. why suggest that anything at all speaks to them? what does that accomplish other than to enable people to feel good about irrational beliefs?
That's ridiculous to me. Obviously you want evolution to be accepted by everyone, but I don't see why that means we shouldn't want people to stop believing in things like angels. Our educational system would be even better if both were accomplished. Saying it's fine and acting like it's not a preposterous belief is exactly what crowTrobot said, pandering.
Perhaps you and crow have a point here. It would be best if they didn't believe in angles and devils. I mainly meant that its the big time lesser of two evils. I'm going to take the conversation away for a moment. I would love for there to be zero guns in the public of the US. However, I know that with 300,000,000 guns out there, there is no chance that will ever happen. However, we could see reform regarding the magazines or closing the gun show loopholes. So, lets focus on what can be done. We can convert many religious people to understanding and accepting much of what science can demonstrate. But if we insist they also give up their mythical fanciful creatures then we won't get anything accomplished. So I guess it's a priority issue.
didn't say that. there is effectively no difference between measuring light waves and neuroscience measuring the reaction of cognizance to changes in the brain (assuming your definition of a soul includes cognizance transcending the brain). in my view that is what you end up implying when you selectively apply different standards to what you think science can and can't test. In the post that sparked this exchange you said you had 'no problem' with the views of catholicism as long as they did not run contrary to testable science, but a 'big problem' if they did. if testable and untestable beliefs are equally silly what's the effective difference? why is one ok and the other is not? i'm not suggesting we should contest every single silly thing people believe. again, i'm simply advocating language that doesn't encourage irrational belief.
I can dig it. I guess I just don't agree that trying to get them not to believe in mythical creatures would make it so nothing is accomplished. But I can see how your way might be more efficient.
I wish I knew more about manipulating time, I want to go back and just post clips of dancing cats. Honestly crow, we are close in our beliefs. I just give religious people more room for their wacky ideas then you and I think I view what is scientifically relevant a little different. I'm going to take a small break from this thread, if its still going in a couple days I may jump back in. Peace, and may Jesus be with you.
