Difference of Opinion

[edgray]

Not even close, but it's not a conversation I'm interested in.

well actually yes. Evolution is as real as atoms. Have a watch of the video here:

http://offtopicz.net/showthread.php?t=70945

The only reason this is ever in question is because of the religious vested interest in needing God to be the creator of man. This flies in the face of reality. And is the crux of what we're talking about here.

you're not interested in this conversation probably because it will mean you'll have to revise your world view. Or ignore it, which i the option you've gone for. Open minded??

If "believing that God and science are incompatible, even competitive, closes people's minds off to such ideas" is true, as you yourself agree, then how can such people do otherwise than to reject evolution or reject God??

Well rejecting evolution would be simply ignoring reality to maintain a supernatural belief.

I'm sure it's possible to believe in God and follow science, but it would only be a logical thing to do if the results of scientific enquiry changed what the notion of God is with each and every subsequent discovery.

You start with a set of unproveable & silly (imo) premises, then base the rest of your post on them. Bad logical form, and not a word about random chance.

Ok firstly which unproveable and silly premise? You need to clarify that before I can realistically dignify that with a response.

Also please clarify what you are referring to when you say "random chance", this is unclear to me, hence why I asked you to clarify.

Who ever said that God is not mathematical? If, as I believe, God created the laws of nature, then everything that naturally occurred did so as an extension of His creation ... including the mathematics that make everything make sense.

Because he can allegedly bypass the mathematical laws of the universe and perform miracles. If God obeys the mathematical rules, then he cannot guide life with this "invisible hand", can he? Nor whip a planet into shape. Nor would there be any need to, given the mathematical laws will do that anyway.

:24: No you're not open. Not even close. You argue against it like someone insulted your mom! :24:

In what possible way is what I said NOT open minded? You're not open to the possibility of anyone else's view point on God, nor are you open to the physical world and it's natural laws outside of the realm of God. So now you're attacking me with an utterly baseless attack? Let me state my place again: I am open to the idea of a God, and I am open the much larger possibility that there isn't one. You cannot get a much more open viewpoint than that.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

:24: No you're not open. Not even close. You argue against it like someone insulted your mom! :24:

Ad hominem - a.k.a: a fallacy. Oh noes, you are using irrationality :eek

 

[Pumpkin]

THANK YOU. This thread has finally answered a question I have had since....I joined this forum.

WHO is Kimmy dating.

All the rest is just blah

People can believe in whatever they wish, as long as they are not causing any harm to me

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

THANK YOU. This thread has finally answered a question I have had since....I joined this forum.

WHO is Kimmy dating.

All the rest is just blah

People can believe in whatever they wish, as long as they are not causing any harm to me

Hahaha! The mystery is unraveled :cool

 

[Pumpkin]

haha yes!

Love having a mystery solved!

 

[Minor Axis]

:24: No you're not open. Not even close. You argue against it like someone insulted your mom! :24:

Regarding Ed being open minded, he has said before that God is a possibility, even if it is a small one (paraphrased). I think his objection centers around how much does God meddles in our lives and influences our universe. Ed, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[BornReady]

Evolution is as real as atoms.

I agree. The question scientists ask isn't whether evolution happened. That's been settled. The question is how evolution happened. And scientists have a good theory about that.

I also agree with Accountable. Religion and science don't have to be incompatible. Yes, fundamentalist Christianity and science are incompatible but it doesn't have to be that way. Bishop Spong is a liberal Christian leader who fully accepts science and is still religious. Fundamentalists would claim Spong isn't a real Christian but that's their problem. Fundamentalists would also claim Accountable isn't a real Christian. Again, their problem. Accountable has as much right to that title as anyone else. I've been told modern Taoism is compatible with religion. Although I have never investigated that claim for myself.

Hahaha! The mystery is unraveled :cool

lol What mystery?

 

[Francis]

In the past, I've often changed my opinion because of what someone else wrote. But I've decided you're right. I'm not going to do that anymore.

Sarcasm.. I love it... :24:

 

[All Else Failed]

Well, I am very secure in what I believe in, so it doesn't bother me if someone is the exact opposite. I may get heated in discussion over issues but nothing bad.

 

[All Else Failed]

oh, and then I kill them.

 

[BornReady]

Sarcasm.. I love it... :24:

I thought you might.

 

[Accountable]

well actually yes. Evolution is as real as atoms. Have a watch of the video here:

http://offtopicz.net/showthread.php?t=70945

The only reason this is ever in question is because of the religious vested interest in needing God to be the creator of man. This flies in the face of reality. And is the crux of what we're talking about here.

you're not interested in this conversation probably because it will mean you'll have to revise your world view. Or ignore it, which i the option you've gone for. Open minded??



Well rejecting evolution would be simply ignoring reality to maintain a supernatural belief.

I'm sure it's possible to believe in God and follow science, but it would only be a logical thing to do if the results of scientific enquiry changed what the notion of God is with each and every subsequent discovery.



Ok firstly which unproveable and silly premise? You need to clarify that before I can realistically dignify that with a response.

Also please clarify what you are referring to when you say "random chance", this is unclear to me, hence why I asked you to clarify.



Because he can allegedly bypass the mathematical laws of the universe and perform miracles. If God obeys the mathematical rules, then he cannot guide life with this "invisible hand", can he? Nor whip a planet into shape. Nor would there be any need to, given the mathematical laws will do that anyway.



In what possible way is what I said NOT open minded? You're not open to the possibility of anyone else's view point on God, nor are you open to the physical world and it's natural laws outside of the realm of God. So now you're attacking me with an utterly baseless attack? Let me state my place again: I am open to the idea of a God, and I am open the much larger possibility that there isn't one. You cannot get a much more open viewpoint than that.

A real discussion about evolution beyond the "is not / is too" dance (which you & I would be on the same side of) is way beyond my time commitment and current level of study ... and beyond my personal interest. We're here. Where's beer? Let's get used to it.

In fact, this entire discussion has gotten way deeper than I care to go. It's not really more than curiosity & trivia to me. I wouldn't categorize a deeper understanding of God as "changing my notion" of him, though now that I see the phrases side by side in this sentence, they're really synonymous, aren't they?

For the "invisible hand" you mention: I believe God gave us free will. Can't have free will if there's an invisible hand knocking us about. And being able to do something, such as break natural law, doesn't require doing it. Any scientist (to continue with the analogy) worth his salt will observe an experiment without interrupting it, even though he may be tempted to screw around with it. Though, if the Bible is to be believed, He screwed up on that rule at least once.

Does it make sense? Nah, not completely. But neither does it do harm. You & I have a difference of opinion without an apparent resolution. I'm cool with that.

Oh yeh, I wasn't attacking you, I was teasing you. Sorry for the offense.

 

[sexysadie]

Please explain for once what is it you found so hard to believe or so ridiculous in my post and stop spewing your juvenile and nonsensical reactions and smearing them all over the board

nonsensical:24:I think somebody's learned a new word recently and just loves to use it any chance he gets...:24:

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

INFORMAL FALLACIES

Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous

Fallacy of the single cause ("joint effect", or "causal oversimplification"): occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Red herring: This occurs when a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.

RED HERRING FALLACIES

Ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the argument.

Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning

Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer

Judgmental language: insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment

Poisoning the well: where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say

Straw man argument: based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
Perverted analogy: twisting an opponents analogy to mean something broader than intended

Style over substance fallacy: occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument

Nice try, Sadie
You've done all those things in your arguments, just letting you know...

 

[dkwrtw]

lol at this thread still going, Part of me wants to read through all 20 pages of it but then the other part is like "naw" lol

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I'm sure it's put on quite a show for its viewers too lol.

 

[Xeno]

How do you handle a difference of opinion? I'm not talking something minor like.... that's green... and someone says no... it's ivy. I'm talking about a topic that can get really personal. Examples:

Religion.
Sexual Preference.
Money.
Government.

You know.... the heart of things.

What do you do when your beliefs are being questioned or attacked? Do you take a stand and argue until you're blue in the face? Do you 'man up' and realize it's only gonna get uglier if you pursue the conversation and take the high road and back off?

Does anyone who offers their opinion on anything really need to shove it down the throats of others? Does anyone who doesn't agree with another's opinions need to keep at them until both are beside themselves with anger?

What does any of it prove?

Whatever happened to being able to agree to disagree? Civility?

Your thoughts?

I, personally, believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and it should be respected no matter what he/she may think overall. It is always good to discuss something, but in order to do so one must have an open mind and be respectful towards others who may differ in opinion as well as beliefs. All arguing does is distance ourselves from ever knowing one another for who we are underneath the discussion itself. My views are that there is no right or wrong when it comes to ideals, beliefs, religion, politics, or simple discussions so long as no one is being harmed physically. I rather find people who think differently than myself or others to be unique at times and very interesting. I suppose if more people learned to accept people for who they are and their beliefs then the world could be a bit better and civilized as it claims to be these days. Then again...as usual...those are just my own thoughts on the matter.

 

[sexysadie]

INFORMAL FALLACIES

Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous

Fallacy of the single cause ("joint effect", or "causal oversimplification"): occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Red herring: This occurs when a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.

RED HERRING FALLACIES

Ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the argument.

Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning

Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer

Judgmental language: insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment

Poisoning the well: where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say

Straw man argument: based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
Perverted analogy: twisting an opponents analogy to mean something broader than intended

Style over substance fallacy: occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument

Nice try, Sadie
You've done all those things in your arguments, just letting you know...

Copy paste, copy paste....lol...what, no four letter words for me this time???...lol You're unbelievably transparent Kimmy....perhaps that's why you get so angry. In any case, I've said my piece and now I'll sit back and wait for your adolescent reply, I'm sure you won't disappoint me...lol

btw....most of the examples you've posted sound more like you....

{Judgmental language: insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment)

nuff said...now I'm putting you on ignore. Have a great day!:nod:

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I, personally, believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and it should be respected no matter what he/she may think overall. It is always good to discuss something, but in order to do so one must have an open mind and be respectful towards others who may differ in opinion as well as beliefs. All arguing does is distance ourselves from ever knowing one another for who we are underneath the discussion itself. My views are that there is no right or wrong when it comes to ideals, beliefs, religion, politics, or simple discussions so long as no one is being harmed physically. I rather find people who think differently than myself or others to be unique at times and very interesting. I suppose if more people learned to accept people for who they are and their beliefs then the world could be a bit better and civilized as it claims to be these days. Then again...as usual...those are just my own thoughts on the matter.

Wise one

 

[EliseLouisiana]

I actually enjoy hearing other people's opinions on subjects such as those. My partner has incredibley different views to me on the majority of things - religion, suicide and death sentence being the main ones.
You should be able to discuss controversial things and accept other people's views. It doesn't mean that your opinion will ever change.