[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 20 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 20 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

I once asked lukewarm how he knows a tiny invisible elephant isn't floating over all of our heads all the time, and his answer was pretty much "that's ridiculous"

that isn't quite correct, but you might have the gist of it... the problem is, i'm not qualified to even summarize plantina's work in epistemology, much less argue in his stead

You're right I knew I wasn't directly quoting your words, only the gist of whatever you said. I can't be bothered to go find it.

I don't agree that the problem to which you refer is a problem however. I am if anything probably much less of an expert on the topic of religion than you are, but I'm still able to state how I feel and why. I think the greatest difference between us in this debate is when you state how you feel and why, it often makes no sense to me, or even means nothing at all. I think you are at least able to fully understand my position whether you agree or not.

I do recall thinking that I have never been presented any evidence at all of any god that couldn't also apply to the little elephants (sorry but anything meaning "that's ridiculous" doesn't qualify, since I feel the same about any god in that context). Maybe finding some answer to that for me could be your starting point?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

in any case you and i read the same thing differently

Apart from your reading of just that one sentence, I'm interested in your opinion of the article as a whole.

Wouldn't you agree that ring species illustrate in a concrete way how a species evolves from a different species by a series of gradual changes?

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jan 21 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

in any case you and i read the same thing differently

Apart from your reading of just that one sentence, I'm interested in your opinion of the article as a whole.

Wouldn't you agree that ring species illustrate in a concrete way how a species evolves from a different species by a series of gradual changes?

i agree that it illustrates in a concrete way how our understanding of species concept might not be as clear-cut as we thought

[kenberg]

luke warm, on Jan 20 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 20 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

I once asked lukewarm how he knows a tiny invisible elephant isn't floating over all of our heads all the time, and his answer was pretty much "that's ridiculous"

that isn't quite correct, but you might have the gist of it... the problem is, i'm not qualified to even summarize plantina's work in epistemology, much less argue in his stead

There is, of course, no way to know if an invisible elephant is floating over our heads. But it reminds me of something. I have mentioned I was an odd child. I did not believe in invisible elephants but at one time, I think I was around 9 or 10, I came to believe that whenever I had a difficult choice to make I split into two people, each following different paths in the universe, one of us living with the consequences of one of those decisions, the other with the other. I guess I can't say that I ever became completely convinced that this isn't true, but it now seems (highly) unlikely to me and mostly I don't think about it. One could take this, perhaps, as a precursor for how I eventually came to think of many religious issues.

[Elianna]

kenberg, on Jan 21 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 20 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 20 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

I once asked lukewarm how he knows a tiny invisible elephant isn't floating over all of our heads all the time, and his answer was pretty much "that's ridiculous"

that isn't quite correct, but you might have the gist of it... the problem is, i'm not qualified to even summarize plantina's work in epistemology, much less argue in his stead

There is, of course, no way to know if an invisible elephant is floating over our heads. But it reminds me of something. I have mentioned I was an odd child. I did not believe in invisible elephants but at one time, I think I was around 9 or 10, I came to believe that whenever I had a difficult choice to make I split into two people, each following different paths in the universe, one of us living with the consequences of one of those decisions, the other with the other. I guess I can't say that I ever became completely convinced that this isn't true, but it now seems (highly) unlikely to me and mostly I don't think about it. One could take this, perhaps, as a precursor for how I eventually came to think of many religious issues.

I think that is a theme in several books and movies.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 21 2009, 09:19 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 21 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

in any case you and i read the same thing differently

Apart from your reading of just that one sentence, I'm interested in your opinion of the article as a whole.

Wouldn't you agree that ring species illustrate in a concrete way how a species evolves from a different species by a series of gradual changes?

i agree that it illustrates in a concrete way how our understanding of species concept might not be as clear-cut as we thought

I want to ressurect a comment that I posted earlier during this same thread:

Quote

Its useful to have some background information about just where the distinction between micro and macro evolution came from. One of the two creation myths included in Genesis includes the following

Quote

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Many creationists are willing to except so-called "micro-evolution" because it doesn't result in the emergence of a new species. They are unwilling to except "macro evolution" because it violates their interpretation of Genesis.
They entire distinction comes about because creationists are trying to force their so-called "science" to conform to what's probably a mistranslation of a mistranslation...

This latest post of Jimmy's is a classic example what happen when one harnesses the scientific method to Biblical literalism...

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Jan 21 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

at one time, I think I was around 9 or 10, I came to believe that whenever I had a difficult choice to make I split into two people, each following different paths in the universe, one of us living with the consequences of one of those decisions, the other with the other.

Did you make up that theory by yourself? You should have published it, then you would have been decades ahead of modern cosmology. A few years ago I read in some popular science magazine about the idea that whenever some quantum accident can turn out in one way or another, the time axis forks, i.e. the universe splits up in two, corresponding to each of the two outcomes.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 21 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

i agree that it illustrates in a concrete way how our understanding of species concept might not be as clear-cut as we thought

I gather that the "our" in your phrase "our understanding of species concept" refers to those who don't believe in evolution.

I agree with you that a misunderstanding of the species concept is at the root of many of the false arguments against evolution.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on Jan 21 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jan 21 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

at one time, I think I was around 9 or 10, I came to believe that whenever I had a difficult choice to make I split into two people, each  following different paths in the universe, one of us living with the consequences of one of those decisions, the other with the other.

Did you make up that theory by yourself? You should have published it, then you would have been decades ahead of modern cosmology. A few years ago I read in some popular science magazine about the idea that whenever some quantum accident can turn out in one way or another, the time axis forks, i.e. the universe splits up in two, corresponding to each of the two outcomes.

No one suggested it to me, and now that I think of it, I never until now mentioned it. Oh well, another bungled chance for fame.

The grandchildren seem not to have any crazy ideas. A pity, really. Or maybe they just don't tell anyone either.


But back to the god/evolution issue.

I accept evolution largely because I trust the scientific process. I haven't checked the science and I cannot particularly defend evolution against well educated critics. Same for quarks or big bang. The physicists say so, so it's OK by me. Science has a long history of getting things right, correcting errors, extending theories and so on.The (very) predominant view is that humans evolved from other species so I suppose that it's true.

I don't accept religious claims partly because they don't seem likely. Gods, whether Greek or Hebrew, impregnating women just seems unlikely to me. But more, I don't trust the process. Too many things are said to be true because it says so in the Bible. If there is no way to hold to the truth of it, then we are told we must interpret it poetically, or in God's way, or some such. Or just not bring it up. It's the religious approach to finding truth that seems wrong to me.


So I am not prepared to act as a paid expert in either debate, but I trust the scientific process, I don't trust the religious process, and petty much that's that.

[Winstonm]

Quote

So I am not prepared to act as a paid expert in either debate, but I trust the scientific process, I don't trust the religious process, and petty much that's that.

That pretty much sums up my views as well. To me it seems the scientific process is about discovering truth while the religious process is about redefining truth to fit an agenda.

[mikeh]

somewhat off topic, but (to me, anyway) both astounding and impressive was finding some of the youtube videos from gogreen18... many of her videos have apparently been suppressed due to complaints, presumably from religious zealots.. but a google search will connect to you some.

[Fluffy]

kenberg, on Jan 21 2009, 06:34 PM, said:

I think I was around 9 or 10, I came to believe that whenever I had a difficult choice to make I split into two people, each following different paths in the universe, one of us living with the consequences of one of those decisions, the other with the other.

I had similar idea around that age as well. It was more like there are multitude of universes reaching this point, and althou most will follow my current decision, at least one will continue with the other path.

[Fluffy]

Terrorism is bad, terrorists are muslims, muslims are religious, so religion is bad.

I have the feeling that terrorism is making atheism grow in America, is this nonsense?

[Al_U_Card]

Depends on your perspective.

Christianity is in more developed/educated areas so it is losing favor with the "masses".

Islam is in less developed/educated areas so it remains popular and as these area's populations increase, so does the number of practitioners.

Atheism and Agnosticism are not really either indifference or neutrality per se.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Jan 25 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

Terrorism is bad, terrorists are muslims, muslims are religious, so religion is bad.

I have the feeling that terrorism is making atheism grow in America, is this nonsense?

Yes.

[Winstonm]

Fluffy, on Jan 25 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

Terrorism is bad, terrorists are muslims, muslims are religious, so religion is bad.

I have the feeling that terrorism is making atheism grow in America, is this nonsense?

Actually, it is more than just silly it is dangerous. This thinking equates terrorism to Muslims, and hence Christianity to non-terrorism. It is the classic stereotyping done by everone from the Crusaders to George Bush in conceptualizing a Mulsim enemy against who the good Christians could war.

Problem is it leaves out of terrorism groups like the Catholic IRA or Zionist Irgun and doesn't speak to the actions of the Christians of the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem witch trials.

[sireenb]

Fluffy, on Jan 25 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

Terrorism is bad, terrorists are muslims, muslims are religious, so religion is bad.

- Terrorism is VERY bad
- Not all terrorists are Muslim. There are terrorists of all religions.
- Not all Muslims are religious. Muslims, like all other people, have a wide range of beliefs structures and degrees of adhering to praying, fasting, etc.
- Religion is bad (I strongly agree, but try to find a better reason without making sweeping incorrect discriminatory statements)

As a Muslim by birth I found your post very offensive although I do not practice religion at all.

[Fluffy]

sorry sireen, my intention was kinda the contrary. I don't think at all that what I wrote is correct, I am just wondering if people think incorrectly that way or not.

[sireenb]

Fluffy, on Jan 25 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

sorry sireen, my intention was kinda the contrary. I don't think at all that what I wrote is correct, I am just wondering if people think incorrectly that way or not.

Thanks for the apology. I am sure many people think that way.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 25 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

Problem is it leaves out of terrorism groups like the Catholic IRA or Zionist Irgun and doesn't speak to the actions of the Christians of the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem witch trials.

***** winston, why only go back 400 years?