Sartanis
-
Posts
9 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Sartanis
-
-
Genatically I would say absolutely races are real, to a point. How that matters is another issue entirely. Obviously our genetic markers differ between races. That is why we "appear" different.
This website has some useful informtaion on the topic.
http://www.racesci.org/racescinow/controversiesoverrace/2.html
I think for the most part race is a perception, the differances from one group of people to another are close enough that in the end the simply comes down to the fact we are all humans. We all share the same capacity to live, learn, love and hate. We share failings and triumphs.... the only race that should matter in the end is the human one...
0 -
Part of the reason they believe is that the claims are extraordinary. Humans are attracted to a greater or lesser extent to the different, to the exciting, to 'big things'. Scientists - good scientists at any rate - are not immune to this. It fuels their passion for their subject and energises their research. But then the two approaches part company. The scientist seeks evidence, the follower of religion seeks revelation and affirmation of faith. We would not expect a scientist to reject a hypothesis because he lacked faith in it; we should not expect a religious person to reject their beliefs because they lack evidence for them. The two approaches are quite different.
Yes they are quite different. One is verifiable, one abstract. One is practical and useful to humanity, the other not so much.
The findings of science are full of contradictions: if there were no contradictions then scientific investigation would be at an end. Contradictions are the life blood of science, why demand higher standards of religion?
As to atrocities, I have certainly read some atrocious research papers, and on a more serious note some of the marginalisation of unpopular scientists by the powerbrokers equate to professional murder. (And there cannot be a discipline that does not have its deep animosities.)
I have to disagree completely here. While contradiction may be present in science it is hardly its lifeblood. Understanding of the natural world is the lifeblood of science. Contradiction leads to further invesigation, whenever contradiction is found it is due to a lack of understanding. Science is adaptive, able to change as we discover new methods and theories. Religion is static, it does not allow critical thinking or it would not exist. The standards we apply to science, which are in many ways the same standards we apply to everyday life, should absolutely apply to religion. Its not about asking for a higher standard at all, just an equal one. If a scientist claims he/she has discovered an unlimited energy source they had better have the evidence to back that claim up!
The New Testament wipes away the tenor of the Old Testament. The message of the New Testament is arguably best summed up in the Sermon on the Mount. Therein is revealed a decidedly loving God who urges love on his people.
It is not rational to pick and choose what to belive in a "HOLY" book. If it is the word of God then it must all be true.
I don't hold with conspiracy theories, which is what you would need for the ambiguity to be a deliberate act. Yes, many interpretations are possible. How many versions of string theory do we have right now? By theorists all interpreting the same raw data. Theologists argue the Word, ut they do so with logic that may sometimes be much tighter than in a piece of scientific research.
Not a conspiricy theory, it is a tatic used even today by fortune tellers and horroscopes. If you leave something ambiguous then anyone can find meaning. Why would God need Ambiguity? why not just say what you meant to begin with?
Comparing the average Christian's views on theology with the views of the Church's leading scholars is akin to comparing the views of a Grade 10 student on science with those of a Nobel Laureate.
Yes you are quite right.
Revelation and faith.
Faith in the bible for its own sake is not rational. Personal revelations that cannot be verified or quatified are of no value outside the individual.
Just for the record Sartanis, since you are new here (and welcome), I am not a believer.
Yes they are quite different. One is verifiable, one abstract. One is practical and useful to humanity, the other not so much.
This Btw is obviously a personal opinion.
0 -
"Search and you shall find." - that there is no evidence to support your beliefs. Fixed!
1 -
You didn't really listen to what zapatos and Moontanman were saying. It's not about how nice you worded anything, it's that last apologetic sentence you tacked on. Coming here to rant is not "trying very hard to understand the rationale behind the Christian belief in the Bible". That's like trying to understand sports by going to a women's gardening club.
We're more than happy to discuss what you already know or think you know, but this is a science site and you're going to get called on your shit here. Oh, and welcome aboard!
I see what your saying. Point taken! thanks!
0 -
I find it rather tame, actually. It is a WTF moment. Why are the things you read in the bible supposed to be different in any way from what people read in harry potter or narnia? Seriously, WTF?
Ya thats pretty much what i was getting at, though Im not sure how to word it nicely
0 -
Perhaps your right... this is not the way to ask these questions. Although I am indeed curious I will have to find a less hostile way to ask...
0 -
This is a simple question to believers;
Why does anyone in this day and age believe in a collection of 2000 year old stories which make claims to the extraordinary without a shred of verifiable evidence?Oh of course some would make the claim that many individuals who are named inthe bible, many cities and even some events did in fact exist.
However it would be no different than if I were to write a story about Bill Clinton riding a flying unicorn and saving the world from evil with his magical powers... simply because Bill Clinton existed does not make it true in any way shape or form.The Bible is a story full of contradictions, atrocities, incest, murder andhate yet somehow makes claims of an unconditionally loving God. It is absolutely astonishing to me that anyone could truly believe that an omnipotent being would spew that as his word.
It is written (and in my opinion deliberately so) in such a way that it can,and is, interpreted in almost any way. Yet it seems that every individual Christian truly believes that they know the absolute truth, completely disregarding the views of other Christians.
How is any of this rationalized? Or is it simply a matter of choosing not toeven consider any of it even for a moment?
To any believers out there I would suggest reading the Viking myths and Sagas,yes they are wild and ridiculous... but they are at least consistent and opento very little interpretation. There is a reason we dont not believe these stories, what makes the bible any different?
0 -
This is a topic, obviously, about a theoretical event that casues the near-extinction of humanity. Lets say for example an asteroid or super-volcano kills eighty percent of the human population. Now there is no shortage of literature and movies delving into the onset or immediate aftermath of such an event. My questions are these however:
Lets say a thousand years have passed since the event, and the human population has begun to rebuild. In theory this should be long enough for whatever enviroment effects to have subsided.
What types of culture would likely exist?
What kind of remnants of our world would remain?
What is the likely hood that technological know how has been passed on to the remaining people? what level of develpment would there be?
I think its fun to just imagine what may happen and how humanity might evolve through such a disaster
0
The Seeker
in Religion
Posted
Atheist death bed experiences are in many cases people conceding to the wishes of loved ones who fear for that person's soul. Or it is likely simply born out of fear from a lifetime of brain washing. Near death experinces have many scientific explantions, the death of brain cells being the primary one which can induce hallucinations, trigger memories etc.
There is nothing spontaneous about DNA code.
Chrisitan spontaneous healing is no different than Atheist spontaneous healing, sometimes people get better. If your talking about televised faith healings its all bs. Have a look at this link http://thewordonthewordoffaithinfoblog.com/2009/05/26/ex-faith-healer/
What hospital statistics of religious patients?
There is no evidence for any of this whatsoever.
No idea what your taking about in the last paragraph.