Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,551-7,600 of 12,463

[Hazel]

amazingly enough, there is science about why we love icecream

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "….of course the question is more rhetorical since it was asked so that it would spark a debate rather than an answer. The writer may have asked it as a genuine question, but since it is not possi..."


What does the missing link have to do with the big bang?

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: What does the missing link have to do with the big bang?"
Big Bang....evolution ....??....man.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: What does the missing link have to do with the big bang?"
Big Bang....evolution ....??....man."

Science has largely discarded the missing link idea, as there's evidence of a common ancestor, so you are right in that there is no missing link, but are still presenting faulty logic concerning evolution, as well as that odd jumble argument that no missing link means no evolution, which means no big bang, which means science will never know and so belief is just fine and the two are on some kind of equal footing...?

And that's presented as your 'bare bones' argument.
What was your really complicated one like?

And since you were wrong about ice cream, I'm not sure I'd be trusting your reasoning on the meaning of life.

[Zanderick]

All I say is two things:

1)You dont need religion to do the right thing.

2)Just look @ our politicians to see this (with their "religious selves).

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I'm not sure I'd be trusting your reasoning on the meaning of life. "

It's good to see you back, Travis. I hope you've been well.

Regardless of the argument between science and religion, I'm so grateful that I don't have to trust anyone's reasoning. Yes, I take the words of others and the thoughts of others into account. But, I'm truly thankful that I live in a time and place that allows me to find my own meaning.

Your statement struck me; I think it goes beyond you, cHriS and ice cream. I sometimes think many people want answers. Want answers to be given to them, easily. I've battled with that very thing myself, in certain areas. Ultimately, while I'd like easy answers to some questions, danger resides there, the danger of not thinking for oneself or trusting oneself.

Knowing this thread as I do, I can see someone writing that ... religion expects that very thing. Some do. Of course, a lot of people and organizations expect that. Some politicians. Some educators. Some doctors. Some parents. Some lovers. It's a fairly long list.

The challenge, in my opinion, is not to fall into this way of being, whether encouraged by others or by oneself. It would likely be wise for none of us to trust the reasoning regarding the meaning of life or other deep questions voiced by anyone else ... whether it be cHriS or Gary ... me or Hazel ... our neighbors or the newest superstar ... the Pope or world leaders ... etc....

I think, if everyone lived this challenge and respected the right of all others to freely choose their own paths, the question posted in this thread wouldn't matter very much.

(If we were to do this, extremists wouldn't do horrid things, as they'd need to live lives that respected the freedom of others to choose for themselves. School bullies would cease to exist; it wouldn't just involve religion.)

An idealistic thought, I know.

There was a program on our TV a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember which channel or which college or whatnot conducted the study. The upshot, scientists studied babies at the age of 6 months and 8 months. It's a long story, but .... They proved that humans, even that young, prefer "people" who are like them. I used quotes because dolls/stuffed animals were used. One of my co-workers and I talked about it the next day and shared it with our students. It was relevant as we were dealing with racism and sexism in the work we were reading. We found the study chilling.

However, .... We have a choice. Idealistic or not. Even if we're hardwired to like and accept those who are like us, as we grow and mature, I think we can choose, choose to be open and accepting of people who walk different paths. (Murders, sex offenders, and abusers excluded.)

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm not sure I'd be trusting your reasoning on the meaning of life. "

It's good to see you back, Travis. I hope you've been well.

Regardless of the argument between science and re..."

Thanks for the welcome, things have been the usual getting ready for the holidays craziness.

sorry to say my first new chat with you is going to be me being contrary.

You make a nice thought, but respect, acceptance and open mindedness are used as interchangeable terms and that's not going to work.

I have to accept another person's beliefs, but too often people think that also automatically should get them respect and then they use that respect as some kind of magic shield to avoid getting challenged on their beliefs.

and open mindedness is such a vague term, that people then use it as the same magic shield as the word respect.

Both terms get so over used as to be pretty much meaningless.

I try to be nice to other people, until they give me cause not to be, but you guys are catching me after giving religion decades worth of open minded respect and second chances.

So, acceptance, I can do, but anyone that wants to equate magic with science is not going to get respect.
I will be open minded in willing to listen to another persons beliefs, but again, that is no promise that you automatically gain respect.

and with the TV thing, we may have something that makes us prefer people that look like us, but that doesn't equal sexism/racism.

Those are things that you have to be taught ( as they say in South Pacific). No one is born hating black, white, gay, etc.

So, I still have some hope/idealism about the human race.

Except when I drive. All the people in the other cars around me are jerks.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "but since it is not possible to have a world without either"

Proof? Before humans we can safely surmise that their was no science, and no religion.

cHriS wrote: "It would not be possible to have a world without science or religion, unless it was a world without humans. In which case there would be no one to ask the question."

But there would still be a world, and as far as we know there was a world with hominids before one started to use rudimentary science by trying to abstract reasons for phenomena, and a world before they started believing in the wrong explanations and passing it on as truth to their young who then believed it.

cHriS wrote: "Religion is mandatory regarding morals, that is where our morals come from. It is not possible to have one without the other."

There is no proof to this claim and in fact evidence to the opposite.

Obviously you like to repeat this claim every time you think people have forgot the refutation of it.

cHriS wrote: "A world built on worship, religion and /or spirituality is where our morals originate."

Completely refuted with tests on our nearest relatives, apes show morality, altruism and a sense of justice. Nowhere do they show any sign of passing down abstracted beliefs in supernatural entities to each other.

cHriS wrote: "Each generation has interpreted them and refined them until we arrive at what we have today, and that is what we / society are all influenced by, regardless of whether you have a religion or not."

Fortunately as we get more and more civilised (crime on a steady decline in the west) we get less and less religious.

Unfortunately we still have enough to support the bigotry and hatred of others that religion encourages, however more and more people are willing to reject the immorality of many religions even if they are not ready to reject religion as a whole.
cHriS wrote: "And yes ‘bad things’ or at least things we now think of as bad did happen and yes religion was to blame and yes things are not perfect now, but that is where we are, and we will never have the ideal world…..because we are only human."

So you admit religion is flawed despite being mostly based on a flawless being? You also give up on humans because you think they are fundamentally flawed.

Once again, respect for god goes hand in hand with disrespect for people.

I prefer to hope that humans can be better. It has happened with almost every generation.

cHriS wrote: "For example, we still can’t agree if capital punishment is right or wrong, or if war can be justified, or if killing unborn babies is anything to do with morals. And while we have the ability to think, we have the ability to disagree with each other, and we will."

Where the difference between science and religion is. With science a disagreement can be resolved amicably by independent adjudication and evidence. With religion, belief requires no compromise and certainly no evidence.

Where religious divides remain, otherwise identical populations war and fight for generations. Look at the wars going on around the world for examples. From the troubles of Ireland to Israel and the Gaza strip. Sure there are cultural and political divides too, but in the end it is the religious divide that becomes non-negotiable.

cHriS wrote: "or are we all here because of a happy accident resulting from the big bang even though there is no missing link."

"Accident" implies purpose, so you cannot even comprehend the possibility that non-monotheists are talking about.

cHriS wrote: "OK, there is no missing link as such, but the evidence for human evolution is at best weak."

Unless you actually know something about it, then it is incredibly strong. From DNA, to physiological to fossil evidence. What is your alternate hypothesis to evolution that you put forward that also explains the evidence we have for evolution?

Is your hypothesis that god has deliberately made it very convincing we have evolved in order to deceive us? Then where is your religious morality now?

cHriS wrote: "Belief is not proof either, but for most of us it will do until science can show us otherwise."

Or you will continue to play "God of the Gaps" were you rejoice in every "missing link" found because for you it has not filled a hole but instead created two smaller holes.

cHriS wrote: "An atheist will deny the existence of a deity or of divine beings"

No. They don't deny, they just don't believe. Again a common theistic misrepresentation.

cHriS wrote: "but science can’t help the atheist either, it does not have the answers and will never have them."

Which answers? and please provide proof of such a wild claim.

cHriS wrote: "I believe in god and I like ice cream. I can no more tell you why I believe in god than I can tell you why I like ice cream. Try it, if you like ice cream, tell us why you like it."

Fortunately, neurologists can probably tell you why you like ice cream. The evidence for such things is well known for those who prefer knowledge to superstition.

Just because you cannot comprehend doesn't mean that therefore no one can.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "and with the TV thing, we may have something that makes us prefer people that look like us, but that doesn't equal sexism/racism.

Those are things that you have to be taught ( as they say in South Pacific). No one is born hating black, white, gay, etc.
"

Ahh.... That old magic shield. You know, when I wrote my post and was thinking about that type of world, I wasn't envisioning people drinking Kool-Aid all day and being lobotomized. I was thinking about respect for choice. Not for what the people choose, but choice itself. But, as I said, it is rather idealistic.

Regarding the study shown on TV, .... No, it didn't prove that we're born racists and sexists, etc.... It did prove that we're born automatically preferring people who are like us. I would imagine that hardwiring would make us susceptible, in the extreme, to racist, etc... ideas. I mean, heck, we know how into "the other" we are, or how not into "the other" we are .... Now, we know we're actually born preferring people who are like us. Ouch. It rather makes my idea of accepting people's right to choose and respecting their right to walk their own path, even if it's different from our own, more difficult, I'd say. We'd really need to make a conscious choice and live that out.

It's up to us whether or not we do that.

[Gary]

Micki wrote: "This is gonna sound like a silly thing to say but can you have 1 without the other? I don't know if we can?"

Why not?

Religion at its core is believing in a particular truth despite what evidence or opinions others have.

Science at its core is not believing but observing and then postulating what the truth may be, while also accepting that we do not yet know all the truth or whether we will be able to know it all.

You can certainly not have science by discarding all evidence and reason, all technology and discovery, for dogma.

You can certainly not have religion by forgoing belief for opinion and the freedom to change that opinion based on new or better information.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "and with the TV thing, we may have something that makes us prefer people that look like us, but that doesn't equal sexism/racism.

Those are things that you have to be taught ( as th..."

I think you are seeing 'prefer' and immediately jumping to a glass half empty conclusion.
Preference does not automatically lead to hating the other stuff.
Preference does not equal prejudice.

(Sounds a bit like it should be a bumper sticker. Think I need more coffee)
Preferring Sean Bean doesn't mean you hate George Clooney.

Outright hate and prejudice is a learned behavior.
How our kids are hardwired at birth isn't near as important as what we teach them along the way.

and a world of choice is what we already have. Gaining open minded respect for your choices does not automatically go together.

Most of the time when people talk of having their choice respected, they mean not challenged.

A world where we are able to talk over our differences is a nice sounding one, and don't let go of that idealism, we need all we can get, but there are too many grey area, too many choices in the world and too many people who think their choice overrides other people choices.

After all, in your final paragraph you talk about accepting other people and then ended with a list of exceptions to the acceptance rule.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Preference does not automatically lead to hating the other stuff."

Hmmm....

I actually don't think preference automatically leads us to hate other stuff.

What I think and what I wrote is it seems that being hardwired to prefer those who are like us might make us susceptible to such things as racism or any other ism as such isms have to do with defining others as "other" and less than. In my opinion.

Perhaps I should rephrase ....

Such hardwiring perhaps leaves some of us susceptible to ....

Ultimately, though, as I said, it comes down to choice. In my opinion.

And, ... finally, I suppose this might be something for science to study further. If that's what you're getting at .... A hypothesis. Does our hardwiring regarding preference lead us to be more susceptible falling into isms?

Not being a science person, I'm not sure what would go into investigating that possible connection.

Regarding, "After all, in your final paragraph you talk about accepting other people and then ended with a list of exceptions to the acceptance rule." ...

Do you mean in my original post?

Remember, in that post, I said,

"I think, if everyone lived this challenge and respected the right of all others to freely choose their own paths, the question posted in this thread wouldn't matter very much.

(If we were to do this, extremists wouldn't do horrid things, as they'd need to live lives that respected the freedom of others to choose for themselves. School bullies would cease to exist; it wouldn't just involve religion.)"

Murders, sex offenders and abusers don't allow their victims freedom of choice. Correct? I'm not so idealist as to think all murders and other violent offenses would cease, though they might be more limited. It would be hard to accept a murderer, rapist, or abusive significant other or parent when living by a standard of accepting the rights of others, things murderers, rapists and abusers don't do.

My point isn't to accept all ideas and behaviors, including assaults on human beings. My point is to accept the right of all people to choose their own path. If people truly evolved and matured, part of that would be to accept people's ability to make choices without accepting the choice itself. If we did live by that standard, we wouldn't go to the extremes we've seen in the past and see currently. People wouldn't shun those who are different; people wouldn't think it's their mission in life to convert others to their way of thought and way of life.

Again, idealistic. But, it's how I try to live my life.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Preference does not automatically lead to hating the other stuff."

Hmmm....

I actually don't think preference automatically leads us to hate other stuff.

What I think and what I..."

I understand you are talking about our hardwiring making us suscpetable, but you seemed to be going very glass empty on the idea.
Wasn't sure if that was your intent or just that typing isn't great at presenting tone and mood.

I think it's an interesting point, but didn't think it was one you should mope over. That's all.

my comments about the last paragraph of your original post was that you had a big message about acceptance and then added 'Except for..."

One, it appeals to my sense of irony ( "two things I can't stand: people who are prejudice against race or nationality, and the Dutch!") and two, if you have exceptions to the rule, then the next person has exceptions to the rule, then we have gone in a big circle.

Abortion is murder ( at least that's what the guy with the sign in front of planned parenthood shouted at me ), so people who are pro-choice, aren't included on the list of people whose choice has to be accepted.

So, we should accept/respect/allow choice, except when we shouldn't, but everyone wants their choice to be on the 'accepted' list.

As they say in Doctor Who: 'The whole thing is a a ball of wibbily-wobbily, timey-whimey stuff'.

It's a nice idea, but like the last Star trek movie, it falls apart if you think about it for five minutes.

(Apparently, if I try to avoid mentioning religion, my default setting is referencing science fiction pop culture.)

accepting people's ability/right to make choices without accepting the choice itself is pretty much what we have now.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "accepting people's ability/right to make choices without accepting the choice itself is pretty much what we have now. "

Is it?

If so, why are so many interested in converting people to their way of thinking and way of life.

If so, why would it matter if we decided to choose religion or science?

Why do so many teens bully and harass those who make different choices? Heck, children, teens and adults. Because they accept the choices of others ...?

It would also depend on geography. America or Saudi Arabia? Vermont or Kentucky?

On another note, I hadn't thought about abortion. That would be a problem. When does life begin? Conception or birth? Is that the guide we'd use to determine murder?

And, about irony .... I suppose, on a certain level, that was ironic. Hmmm.... Focusing on the irony of that, though, might detract a bit from the main point. Accepting everyone's right to choose their own path ... and, in doing so, we would lose some of the extremism we've known thus far.

Not moping over the other, I just found it chilling ... as did some of the people I work with. I, after all, see and value choice.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "accepting people's ability/right to make choices without accepting the choice itself is pretty much what we have now. "

Is it?

If so, why are so many interested in converting peo..."


Then you need to define terms.

How do you accept someone's right to choose and not accept their choice and how is that a different world from now?

I accept that people make choices on this board, and as we've seen, I have big problems with some of those choices.
How would I be doing things differently, going by your idea?

[cHriS]

Travis wrote:Science has largely discarded the missing link idea, as there's evidence of a common ancestor, so you are right in that there is no missing link, but are still presenting faulty logic concerning evolution, as well as that odd jumble argument that no missing link means no evolution."

Prehistoric Autopsy, a BBC programme aired in October took us back nearly four million years and reconstructed a Neanderthal, a Homo erectus and one of our earliest prehistoric ancestors – Lucy.

This is from the BBC website….
They meet probably the most famous of all our early ancestors. She is called Lucy from the species Australopithecus afarensis and she lived 3.2 million years ago. Lucy's species had traded life in the trees for life on the ground, but this ability to routinely walk upright came at a price and it is one we are still paying today. Once again with the help of a team of international experts, this follows the rebuilding of this iconic prehistoric ancestor from the bones up. To make the reconstructions as accurate as possible Alice and George have travelled the globe, gathering evidence from the world's leading scientists. In the lab at the Prehistoric Autopsy HQ, scientists put the latest theories to the test to see how similar or different we really are to our ancient ancestors, while experimental archeologists look for clues as to how they lived. All the research has been fed to a team of model makers who have spent months painstakingly reconstructing skeletons, muscles, skin and hair.

The programme was very interesting, showing us what Lucy may have looked like and suggesting to us that she was our earliest ancestor.

But it was almost as if science ‘wants’ her to be our ancestor rather then is 100% sure she is. Piltdown Man had the scientific community fooled for a while thinking it was the missing link and although Lucy is not a hoax the evidence is very weak.

Luck on her own was not evidence enough, it was Dikika Baby that seemed to add that bit more evidence because of its brain size.

To divert away from Lucy for a paragraph……. People have been sentenced for murder even though a body has never been found. Reasonable doubt I assume.

I do not see the evidence for Lucy being our earliest prehistoric ancestors as being beyond reasonable doubt. To me there is still a question mark over our evolution.

As for the ice-cream thing, no one has has a go which seems to prove something. Hazels link is not playing by the rules as SHE did not say why she liked the stuff.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "accepting people's ability/right to make choices without accepting the choice itself is pretty much what we have now. "

Is it?"

I don't understand the point of confusion.

There are plenty who do not accept people's ability/right to make choices.

So, no, what we have now is not a world in which people accept the right of others to make their own choices, even if they don't accept the choices.

If we did live in a world in which we accepted the right of others to make choices, even if we didn't accept the choices per se, we wouldn't have things like bullying and harassment and a country that imprisons women for not dressing appropriately and a state that says people have to believe in God or face criminal prosecution.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "But it was almost as if science ‘wants’ her to be our ancestor rather then is 100% sure she is."

What does DNA show? Do we have her DNA?

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "But it was almost as if science ‘wants’ her to be our ancestor rather then is 100% sure she is."

What does DNA show? Do we have her DNA?"

From what I understand, No.

It is because she is thought to have walked on two legs that the link has been made.

I copied this from the university of Texas site....Is evolution a fact or a theory?

Both! The genetic change over time in organisms, known as biological evolution, is an observable fact which can absolutely be observed in both living organisms and in the fossil record. The "theory of evolution" refers to the evolutionary mechanisms that may affect change within a population. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been tested to the extend that the observed results are reliably predictable and therefore considered true.


We can use the word 'considered' in the same way as you would use the word 'believe'.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:Science has largely discarded the missing link idea, as there's evidence of a common ancestor, so you are right in that there is no missing link, but are still presenting faulty logic ..."


So, science isn't right because it has only 'some' evidence, but religion has none and people think both should be treated as being on equal footing...?

How come only one side is subjected to the reasonable doubt rule?

and can you explain this 'it's like science wants her to be our earliest ancestor' line?
She is our earliest ancestor, or at least the earliest that we've found.

Do you say 'I want this to be my other sock, when you find it under the bed?



and I like ice cream because of the taste, the texture ( especially when they put chunky stuff in smooth...that's a good contrast), it's something that helps cool you when it's hot and then there's the boring reasons, our bodies are geared to crave fat and sugar.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "accepting people's ability/right to make choices without accepting the choice itself is pretty much what we have now. "

Is it?"

I don't understand th..."

again accepting the right to choose but not the choice is not a clear statement to me.

It sounds like hating the sin, but loving the sinner.

I'm not trying to be snide here, but I am not seeing how the two ideas fit and really need a concrete example.

If I accept that people on this site believe in god, how do I treat them that shows/proves I accept their choice, but not the choice.

How is the conversation different from what we have here now?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "But it was almost as if science ‘wants’ her to be our ancestor rather then is 100% sure she is."

What does DNA show? Do we have her DNA?"

From what I understand, No..."


No, we can't, because considered implies some facts/evidence to back it up. Belief requires none of that.

and despite the fact that you are getting your science from Texas is a bit questionable, the guy in your quote says evolution is real and observable, what we don't fully know is all the mechanisms for causing the process.

So, your proof that evolution is questionable is quoting a guy that says it's real and observable.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: There is no proof to this claim and in fact evidence to the opposite...."

The point I am making is that we are here in 2012 and we have both religion and science. If we could start over, mankind would invent/discover/rename religion and science again anyway.

There is no proof to this claim and in fact evidence to the opposite.

We are all living the evidence and what evidence to the opposite, there is is weak.

apes show morality, altruism and a sense of justice

You would like to think that because of a few inconclusive tests.

Unfortunately we still have enough to support the bigotry and hatred of others that religion encourages, however more and more people are willing to reject the immorality of many religions even if they are not ready to reject religion as a whole.

I may agree with you on this point or on a percentage of it. But this has nothing to do with what has been passed on to us from previous generations. And what future generations don't like about us they will correct, when it is their turn.

So you admit religion is flawed despite being mostly based on a flawless being? You also give up on humans because you think they are fundamentally flawed.
Yes religion is flawed. The rest are your words not mine.

Where the difference between science and religion is. With science a disagreement can be resolved amicably by independent adjudication and evidence. With religion, belief requires no compromise and certainly no evidence.

Ok,prove that my belief is wrong with your independent adjudication and evidence.

"Accident" implies purpose, so you cannot even comprehend the possibility that non-monotheists are talking about.

Gods purpose, maybe?

What is your alternate hypothesis to evolution

There are other hypothesis as you know, but that does not rule evolution out. It just that what evidence we have at the moment is weak.

Which answers? and please provide proof of such a wild claim

Time will run out long before science ever gets near an answer.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I'm not trying to be snide here, but I am not seeing how the two ideas fit and really need a concrete example.

If I accept that people on this site believe in god, how do I treat them that shows/proves I accept their choice, but not the choice.

How is the conversation different from what we have here now? "

Okay ....

First, I'm not talking about here, now, on this thread. I'm talking about life. Our daily life. Of course, that does extend to this thread, but I'm talking about life in general.

Next ...

You're not trying to be snide but really need a concrete example.

An example of one's ability to respect a person's right to choose without accepting their choice ...?

When I was in graduate school, I was friends with a woman in my program. One day, she asked if I wanted to go out to eat before I left campus and went home. We went to grab a bite, and she shared something about her past as we ate. She told me she'd been having an affair with a married man for years. Further, she told me she recently got pregnant. She thought he'd leave his wife. He didn't. She got an abortion.

She sat an looked at me.

I told her I was so sorry.

She said something along the lines of .... That's what you have to say to me? I can't believe it! You believe in God. Aren't you going to tell me I'm bad? Bad for having an affair? Bad for getting pregnant? Bad for having an abortion?

I told her I didn't think it was wise for her to have an affair with a married man. It was, at the very least, starting a relationship with lies; that usually ends badly. I told her that I, personally, would not have had an abortion in that situation. However, it was her life. It was for her to choose. Affair or not. Abortion or not.

I've never cheated. I don't have any positive things to say about cheating. I think it's wrong.

I've never had an abortion. I can't foresee myself having an abortion for any reason other than rape or if the baby was sick in some way, while in the uterus, or deformed to the point that s/he would die a painful death when born. To save my life? Well, that would depend. Knowing me, I'd hold out to the last possible second and .... I'm just not sure.

If I were to be really honest, I'd even have to say I think cheating is disgusting and have no respect for that choice. Regarding abortion, well, that's a hard one. I can say I've known a couple women who used abortion as a form of birth control. They had multiple pregnancies and abortions. One to the point that she couldn't get pregnant when she married, the man she'd had a longtime affair with, and wanted to conceive. That ... that disgusts me. But, that's an extreme situation. I don't think many women do that.

However, regardless of my feelings and personal choices, I don't think it's for me to tell people what to do, to make choices for them. It's not for me to tell those people that they can't have relations with married men. It's not for me to tell those women that they shouldn't have abortions.

I can honor their right to make their own choices but not honor the choice itself.

I can sit across the table from a woman who, in my opinion, did something that was wrong and disgusting (the affair) and did something that I find questionable. Yet, I can honor her ability to make choices and treat her with respect and friendship.

Interestingly, the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase didn't occur to me. (Nor does it. Ever.)

When I was sitting there, first hearing her story, I wasn't thinking about "God" and evil and sin. I don't even think, at first, that I was thinking about my ideas regarding affairs and abortions. I was thinking about her, my friend. The fact that she'd lived this lie and kept this part of her life a secret. I was the first person she told about any of this. I thought about the hopes she must have had and the pain she must have felt. I thought about the fact that she went through it alone. And, I felt so sad for her.

It wasn't until she mentioned my belief that "God" popped into my head. Even after she brought that up, I wasn't thinking about "God" and the rules of the religion in which I'd been raised.

In the end, she told me she wanted me to tell her she was wrong and evil and would pay a price. She told me she picked me on purpose. Out of all her friends at school, she knew I believed in "God" and wanted me to chew her out.

I didn't say, "Oh, honey.... Hate the sin and love the sinner."

I asked her why.

She said she was feeling so badly about everything. She felt she messed up, totally. She regretted the abortion. She wanted me to tell her she was as bad as she felt. She wanted someone to make her feel low and like dirt. She felt that was what she deserved.

At that point, I suggested she might need help getting through this and offered to go to a school counselor with her. I wasn't sure if colleges had "guidance counselors" but would go with her if they did, if she wanted. If they didn't have counselors, I offered to help her find a therapist in town and would go with her if she wanted the support. She said she'd think about it.

After that night, she avoided me and never spoke to me again. But, that's not really the point nor does it go to your need for a specific example.

If you continue to be confused, please let me know. Hopefully, this clarifies things sufficiently.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm not trying to be snide here, but I am not seeing how the two ideas fit and really need a concrete example.

If I accept that people on this site believe in god, how do I treat th..."

I think I would have liked an example that left me feeling less sad, but yes, that was the sort of thing I was looking for.

I still don't think the concept you are presenting is something I can a hundred percent agree with, but I can at least better understand where you are coming from.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: There is no proof to this claim and in fact evidence to the opposite...."

The point I am making is that we are here in 2012 and we have both religion and science. If we could start ove..."

If both were to be wipe out, science would be rediscovered, religion would have to be recreated.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: There is no proof to this claim and in fact evidence to the opposite...."

The point I am making is that we are here in 2012 and we have both religion and science. If we c..."
....and so we are back to square one

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: There is no proof to this claim and in fact evidence to the opposite...."

The point I am making is that we are here in 2012 and we have both religion and s..."

If by square one you mean people keep calling you on false claims, faulty logic and a completely made up equivalency, then yes, we are.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: If both were to be wipe out, science would be rediscovered, religion would have to be recreated. .."

If you don't understand the term 'back to square one'; we are back to 2012, having science and religion with us.

If by square one you mean people keep calling you on false claims, faulty logic and a completely made up equivalency, then yes, we are.
.."
You don't seem to be able handle other peoples views very well.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "But it was almost as if science ‘wants’ her to be our ancestor rather then is 100% sure she is."

What does DNA show? Do we have her DNA?"

From what I understand, No..."

It's so interesting....

I always assumed there was a genetic link. I don't know why.

Now, within the last couple of weeks, I saw a program on the History Channel. It's called "Mankind: The History of Us." I was doing a couple things at the same time, the program on in the background. But, I took notice at one point. The narrator said scientists have found a man from pre-history whose DNA is in all men today. I thought that was super cool!

I was about to write that to you and thought ....

What? All men? How did they figure that out?

Interesting how easily we take in information as true, without giving it any thought at all.

Now, it may well be true, and I've not stopped thinking evolution is accurate.

However, ....

I took that in without thinking, until I was about to write you. So, I started looking around a bit. I found the following ...

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-2...

In reading the article, I found scientists tested 38 men on each continent. That, to me, seems like a VERY small number. However, I don't know what mathematical whatnot goes into this, and it said scientists wanted a large group of men to test. Why do scientists view that number as large? I'd view a couple million men to be a large sample. I find myself wondering what went into that.

The upshot.... It occurs to me that I need to give this sort of stuff more thought and research it. But, in addition to that, it makes me wonder how many things we ... or I ... take as fact without even thinking. Eyeopening.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: If both were to be wipe out, science would be rediscovered, religion would have to be recreated. .."

If you don't understand the term 'back to square one'; we are back to 2012, havin..."

I do have a problem with other peoples that belief magic should be granted the same respect and consideration as science.

The belief that faulty logic is the equal of actual logic because both phrases have the word logic in them is a problem I have too.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "But it was almost as if science ‘wants’ her to be our ancestor rather then is 100% sure she is."

What does DNA show? Do we have her DNA?"

From what I ..."

Scientists don't get invited to many parties, so 38 might seem like a huge crowd to them.

Or, if you wanted a realistic answer, it might be something as boring they only needed a certain amount of test subjects for their project and got more.
With some cases of mathimatical whatnot you can extrapolate from a smaller group to a larger population.

One of the things that amazes me about science is how they can take what seems like a little thing and it can lead to something huge.

Amazing place, the world.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "The programme was very interesting, showing us what Lucy may have looked like and suggesting to us that she was our earliest ancestor."

Again misconceptions based on a poor comprehension of the science. Going back beyond the modern population boom thanks to technology and science, a high percentage of all species died before achieving reproduction. This means that if every single creature fossilised, it would be very rare to find a direct ancestor but much more common to find a close relative to your ancestral line.

Of course fossilisation is actually extremely rare, so we get "snapshots" of species over millions of years. So we are likely to find individual fossils that represent species closely related to our direct ancestors.

All this is well understood, but it is true that creationists deliberately try to represent this as significant doubt. Which it isn't.

cHriS wrote: "But it was almost as if science ‘wants’ her to be our ancestor rather then is 100% sure she is."

What is this 'entity' called science. Are you deliberately trying to paint it as a singular body so that you can propagate the usual conspiracy theories?

Science does not "want" Lucy to be the ancestor. Scientists predicted that we would have an ancestor with certain characteristics mostly gleaned from analysis of other fossils and DNA evidence of our nearest related contemporary relatives. The theory of evolution predicted that we may find hominids with characteristics common to hominids and apes. This prediction then was bore out by the fossils of a creature that is either in direct lineage or closely related to the direct lineage.

cHriS wrote: "Piltdown Man had the scientific community fooled for a while thinking it was the missing link and although Lucy is not a hoax the evidence is very weak."

The evidence for what exactly, and in what way "weak". A typical form of attempted intellectual deception by creationists is to take one thing out of context and then attempt to conflate any doubt in that to the entire theory which has overwhelming positive evidence.

It's like the deception of "8 out of 10 cats preferred our cat food..." when you fail to finish the sentence ("to a bowl of rusty nails")

cHriS wrote: "To divert away from Lucy for a paragraph……. People have been sentenced for murder even though a body has never been found. Reasonable doubt I assume."

That's a really good illustration actually, thank you. If you had overwhelming evidence that a woman was missing, her body never found. However, you then found a load of evidence that a man had met with her just previous to her going missing, and a lot of other people had gone missing after they went missing, the man had previous convictions for violence, had motive, had DNA evidence of the missing girls blood on him, then you find fresh evidence of burial at his lakeside home, and then you dig up - her sister - would that be 'beyond reasonable doubt' that he'd killed her too?

In the same way "Lucy" is evidence of a hominid ancestral species, either by being directly in our lineage or closely related to our lineage.

The term "Missing Link" is also completely misleading. It's like saying that we're not sure you're human because we cannot dig up every corpse of your direct ancestors and confirm its direct lineage from an arbitrary point.

"Missing Link" is favoured by creationists who know that finding any "missing link" means that now you have doubled the amount of "missing links" you need to find.

It's almost like creationists "want" science to be wrong.

cHriS wrote: "To me there is still a question mark over our evolution."

What question mark? That life evolves? (Lots of mutually supportive evidence) or that we evolved (Lots of mutually supportive evidence) or that we were magicked into existence about 6000 years ago and suffered at least one mass almost-extinction between then and now (actual evidence against).

cHriS wrote: "As for the ice-cream thing, no one has has a go which seems to prove something. Hazels link is not playing by the rules as SHE did not say why she liked the stuff."

"Has has a go"? At what? You like ice-cream, I'm not that fond of it myself. The basic science of why we like things is well known, the only difficulties are addressing the enormous complexities of interaction of that basic science.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "We can use the word 'considered' in the same way as you would use the word 'believe'."

Or you can use it correctly.

Considered should be used in the context of "this idea is accepted as the best fit to the evidence given"

Belief would be accepting the idea whether or not the evidence fits.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "....and so we are back to square one
"

That you are claiming that religion is the source of morality with no proof and with evidence that animals can display traits of morality, altruism and even justice while lacking any ability to transfer abstracted belief to one another. Yup you are back to square one.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "In reading the article, I found scientists tested 38 men on each continent. That, to me, seems like a VERY small number."

It would heavily depend on how wide a genetic diversity of men was tested and whether we know the DNA codes for something. Since it was men only I'd imagine it was also a localised mutation to the Y chromosome that was therefore easy to identify.

Shannon wrote: "I'd view a couple million men to be a large sample."

Without looking up the data I wouldn't know, however it would be a lot more complicated than just numbers. Testing a sample of one million men from China would be fairly inconclusive, especially from a rural area that may have not seen much travel. Meanwhile a small sample of genetically diverse men would be highly indicative if the chances of the particular mutation being identical is small.

Shannon wrote: "The upshot.... It occurs to me that I need to give this sort of stuff more thought and research it. But, in addition to that, it makes me wonder how many things we ... or I ... take as fact without even thinking. Eyeopening. "

This is indeed a problem, but it works both ways. Quite often scientists will release information to the public that is highly simplified, because sometimes it takes a lot of scientific training to understand why something is indeed significant.

This kind of issue is what creationists and other pseudo-scientists take advantage of, by cherry picking evidence or by misrepresenting the meaning of results they not only forward their agenda, but also make it very hard for scientists to help people understand what's going on.

Certainly many people take things as 'fact' without thinking, but then again most people expect 'facts' to be simple and easily digestible. This obviously isn't true. For example how does the internet work? Most people would be able to give a simple answer. That answer would probably not be accurate and contain assumptions that are completely untrue, but it would make a comprehensible model. A network engineer, a computer scientist, a physicist and a mathematician would all have slightly different models according to how they want to understand it, but none of them would look at the common persons perception of the internet and say "yes that's 100% right" because if they did someone could easily show times when that simple model was wrong.

cs has repeated this simplistic world view with his comments on the question "is Evolution fact or theory?" To a scientist "facts" are theories. Physical "Laws" are also theories, but usually theories that are easily expressed as a single equation or concept.

The reason that scientists have theories instead of facts is because they don't "believe" in them. A good scientist always accepts that the best theory is still a model of what really is, and there may always be a better model.

Good scientists have the due humility to say that a theory may be 99.99%+ right, but never 100% because you should always accept the chance that a better theory may explain more. (At least until everything is 100% explained.) 100% certainty "facts" are the realm of belief and arrogance as to be that certain is to wilfully ignore any possibility of evidence which may raise doubt.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "You don't seem to be able handle other peoples views very well. "

Strong words from someone who has casually dismissed the combined views of tens of thousands of scientists who have each spent decades understanding, researching, demonstrating, predicting, vindicating and utilising a major biological theory to understand and even improve our world on the strength that he thinks he intuitively knows better.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "But it was almost as if science ‘wants’ her to be our ancestor rather then is 100% sure she is."

What does DNA show? Do we have her DNA?"

From what I ..."

Shannon,I think know what you are thinking about. I watch a similar programme a couple of weeks ago.

Many of us alive today have about 3% Neanderthal genes according to new research. Neanderthal was one of our prehistoric ancestors from 70,000 years ago.

What science is not sure about is whether this was due to interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans in the past or because we all came out of Africa from the same ancestry.

Neanderthal 70,000 years ago is one thing, but Lucy 3.2 million years ago. We need a lot more evidence before we can be sure she was an ancestor. I am not convinced.

[Maria]

Travis said: "our bodies are geared to crave fat and sugar."

Geared by who/what? Science? Nature? Thor?

To quote Shannon.... "Hmmmmmmm...."

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Considered should be used in the context of "this idea is accepted as the best fit to the evidence given"
..."
Best Fit? to the evidence.

Maybe you are agreeing with me. The evidence that Lucy is an ancestor, is weak, but since it is all the evidence there is, maybe it is better to try and make it fit rather than keep an open mind.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: The evidence for what exactly, and in what way "weak". A typical form of attempted intellectual deception by creationists is to take one thing out of context and then attempt to conflate any doubt in that to the entire theory which has overwhelming positive evidence.
..."
Less than 40% of Bones from Lucy were found and no hands and very little skull. All we have are artist impressions of what she looked looked. On her own the evidence was not enough.

It was finding the Dikika Baby skull that seemed to add that bit more evidence because of its possible brain size.

Weak evidence.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: The evidence for what exactly, and in what way "weak". A typical form of attempted intellectual deception by creationists is to take one thing out of context and then attempt to conflat..."


Weak evidence and yet it's more evidence than you have for religion, which you claim is equal to science.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Travis said: "our bodies are geared to crave fat and sugar."

Geared by who/what? Science? Nature? Thor?

To quote Shannon.... "Hmmmmmmm....""

by nature. Sugar for energy, fat for insulation and a back up when food is scarce.


Thor is why we are geared to like shwarma.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: The evidence for what exactly, and in what way "weak". A typical form of attempted intellectual deception by creationists is to take one thing out of context and then atte..."

The subject is Lucy. I assume you agree with me about her since you are changing direction in mid flow.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "You don't seem to be able handle other peoples views very well. "

Strong words from someone who has casually dismissed the combined views of tens of thousands of scientists who have ..."

dismissed what?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: The evidence for what exactly, and in what way "weak". A typical form of attempted intellectual deception by creationists is to take one thing out of contex..."


No, the subject is evidence and how you seem to think science doesn't have enough.

Lucy is an example you are focusing on to avoid presenting any evidence for religion.
I assume because you agree with me that religion has none and should not be viewed as the equal of science.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: to avoid presenting any evidence for religion"

The subject just now is Lucy. Evidence for religion? Look all around you religion is everywhere, to much maybe, what more evidence do you want? Maybe you mean God.

[Maria]

"Thor is why we are geared to like shwarma."

:)

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: to avoid presenting any evidence for religion"

The subject just now is Lucy. Evidence for religion? Look all around you religion is everywhere, to much maybe, what more evidence do y..."


No, Lucy is the example you are using in the talk about evidence.

So, when you were saying religion had as many answers and as much evidence as religion, you were misspeaking, as you really meant god?

Why did you keep saying religion when you meant god?
careful, that could get mistaken for changing direction mid flow.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "The subject is Lucy. I assume you agree with me about her since you are changing direction in mid flow."

I didn't change direction, I was asking you what you meant by "weak evidence", "weak" considering what exactly?

Is the evidence strong that the direct descendants of Lucy are modern humans? Maybe not, perhaps she died before she could breed and a sister, cousin or distant relative sired our line. Is the evidence strong that she is exactly the confirming evidence that the theory of human evolution predicted, a primitive hominid with ape and human like characteristics at about the right age. Yes.

Is the evidence for human evolution weak? No. The evidence for human evolution is as strong as the evidence for the theory of gravity.

Creationists would like to use specific uncertainties in one tiny sliver of evidence to imply general uncertainties in a broad span of knowledge. It is far beyond bad science or poor education, it is outright attempts at deception.

cHriS wrote: "The evidence that Lucy is an ancestor, is weak, but since it is all the evidence there is, maybe it is better to try and make it fit rather than keep an open mind. "

Again you try to deceive by not mentioning evidence for what and then implying that Lucy is all the evidence there is for whatever you are sideways referring to. If you mean Lucy's remains are the only evidence for Lucy then you are right but the point is somewhat supercilious. If you are trying to say that Lucy is the only evidence for human evolution then you are staggeringly wrong. The evidence from human evolution is incredibly strong. From the basic mathematical logic of heredity and variation, to the physiological, DNA, palaeontological and other masses of mutually supporting evidence.

cHriS wrote: "Evidence for religion? Look all around you religion is everywhere, to much maybe, what more evidence do you want? Maybe you mean God."

Evidence there exists religions, yes, evidence that this means religion is right - quite the opposite. The existence of myriad, mutually exclusive hypotheses that religion puts forward is actually mutual evidence against any religion being right.

Many kids believe in Santa, this does not prove the existence of Santa.

cHriS wrote: "dismissed what?"

earlier cHriS wrote: "We can use the word 'considered' in the same way as you would use the word 'believe'."

In that one pompous statement you equated belief with an opinion based on study, evidence, experiment and confirmation. So you dismissed not just the expertise but the work of teams of people working to discover the truth.

It's the equivalent of saying "lets get rid of courts of law, trials, investigation and evidence and let people's guilt and innocence be determined by an uninformed mob after any person is accused of a crime... After all it's just the same."