| Forum Index > TL Community |
Religion threads are banned on TL. Further derailment will be met with immediate permanent bans. | ||
|
randplaty
205 Posts
On June 15 2011 04:51 hicks91 wrote: You can't separate science from philosophy but religion? Don't embarrass yourself Do you know what epistemology is? What branch of academia does epistemology belong to? | ||
|
hicks91
United Kingdom50 Posts
On June 15 2011 04:58 randplaty wrote: Do you know what epistemology is? What branch of academia does epistemology belong to? It's the study of the limitation of knowledge, and it's philosophy i fail to see your point The limitations of religion (if you want me to apply it to that) are pretty obvious for all to see, there is absolutely no proof at all | ||
|
randplaty
205 Posts
On June 15 2011 03:55 KwarK wrote: Just because a religious individual can ignore scientific facts and make a leap of faith doesn't mean it is their religious duty to do so at all times. There is no inherent contradiction, you can believe in God and recognise that evolution and the mechanics by which it works can and have been demonstrated. We don't get this bullshit over gravity, also a scientific theory. There's no campaign to have an invisible strong man pushing things down in proportion to their mass taught alongside gravity, why should there be for evolution. Dawkins argues that there is an inherent contradiction. | ||
|
randplaty
205 Posts
On June 15 2011 05:00 hicks91 wrote: It's the study of the limitation of knowledge, and it's philosophy i fail to see your point The limitations of religion (if you want me to apply it to that) are pretty obvious for all to see, there is absolutely no proof at all Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how it's acquired. Science bases itself on epistemology. Therefore if science and religion contradict each other, this contradiction MUST be resolved. You cannot merely say, oh this is science's realm and this is religion's realm. They comment on the same thing. Therefore they cannot be separated. They both comment on epistemology and you cannot say religion concludes that the Bible or Koran or Talmud is the ultimate source of knowledge and science says that the scientific method is the ultimate source of knowledge. Only one can be right. If a kid comes to science class and says "The bible says that evolution isn't true." The teacher either has to say: 1) The bible is wrong and science is right. or 2) The bible and science agree that evolution is true. or 3) Don't worry about the bible, science says evolution is true. If you go with scenario 1), you are teaching him that his religion is wrong. If you go with scenario 2), you are teaching him that his own (or his parent's) interpretation of his religion is wrong. In essence, you are teaching him religion in science class. Both scenario 1 and scenario 2 are unacceptable. Scenario 3 however leaves the kid to choose either scenario 1 or scenario 2 on his own. The teacher is still indirectly teaching religion. There is no scenario where the kid can come to the conclusion that the bible says evolution isn't true and science says evolution is true and both are correct. The kid cannot logically come to that conclusion. | ||
|
Ballack
Norway821 Posts
Gl Anna. If you're just saying stuff that you don't really mean to avoid losing votes then I am very dissappointed in you! | ||
|
Lightningbullet
United States507 Posts
| ||
|
Lightningbullet
United States507 Posts
On June 15 2011 05:26 Ballack wrote: I certainly hope she means what she said. Allthough I disagree completely with her opinion (that ID should be taught in science class), at least she is truthful when saying that. Omfg pageants are so fucked up. If people can't even give their opinion on matters without being out of the race then why do the contendants get asked these questions. Why cant they just take their pictures, no interviews, no talking, and then people can vote for whoever is prettiest in this vain, shallow world. Gl Anna. If you're just saying stuff that you don't really mean to avoid losing votes then I am very dissappointed in you! Wait pageants have interviews and questions? This is really fucked up... its a BEAUTY pageant and its shallow. Therefore these questions are unnecessary. | ||
|
-Switch-
Canada506 Posts
| ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On June 15 2011 05:27 Lightningbullet wrote: Let me ask this: How did the Miss USA pageant vote thread get turned into an argument about science/religion? Thanks to Anna herself, unfortunately. | ||
ChapatiyaqPTSM
France1887 Posts
Good luck! | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
| ||
|
kat0
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On June 15 2011 05:02 randplaty wrote: Dawkins argues that there is an inherent contradiction. Dawkins isn't a philosopher or a theologian. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
"If there's any use to religion, it's not to serve as a science text-book." Conclusion, top 3 things you can do to harm the planet: 3) Genocide an entire race 2) Start a nuclear war 1) Teach creationism in schools Neil Tyson makes it very clear in his speech, that every time in human history that science met religion. Progress stopped. Teaching religion in science class is the worst thing you can do to humanity. Disgusting attitude from anyone defending intelligent design. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm no longer supporting Anna, I hope she loses so her malign ideas don't spread any further. | ||
|
Yngvi
Netherlands70 Posts
 | ||
|
novat
Great Britain33 Posts
On June 15 2011 05:57 koreasilver wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 15 2011 05:02 randplaty wrote: Dawkins argues that there is an inherent contradiction. Dawkins isn't a philosopher or a theologian. Agree, beside that normal people believing in evolution and god don't hurt anyone so there is no reason to confront them. That is the difference between a personal with normal believes and a fundamentalist denying science and promoting the spread of false informations | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote: You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance.BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god. Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist. | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
Also, I feel there can be agnostics without them just being polite atheists, Dawkins is kind of an extremist and while he is correct a ton of the time, I feel he's a little over the top in a lot of places. Bottom line, creationism has no place in schools, the end. | ||
|
Olinim
4044 Posts
On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote: So if the theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, then can there seriously be a problem with teaching it in our schools? BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic. I see :o  Anyways I think that that's more than likely true for a lot of people, but I personally have not been presented with enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. Since we're talking about smart people, if you do some research on Albert Einstein, he is most decidedly a theist (drawn from his own logical conclusions which are quite interesting). Anyways I think (from my own research) all major religions are like ~40-60% good/right and ~40-60% wrong/bad. Each one of them has some very strong moral values. But there's a lot of bullshit on top of that. If there really is a god then I don't really think any religion is actually completely in-tune with him (or even close to it). I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. i.e. just because we haven't found intelligent life on other planets doesn't mean it's not there. We just do not know (...yet?). Pretty much an incomplete statement, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
