Recent Posts
Mystics in India, with the rope tricks and other levitation stuff, maybe, but they aren't Buddhists as far as I've ever heard. The steel bar thing, I've got no idea.Buddhists allegedly levitate and break solid steel bars over their heads.No, we don't. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyway?
I may have mistaken the levitation from one religion to another.
Actually, I watched a Chinese buddhist break a steel bar by slamming it into his forehead on a martial arts documentary. I was aghast. Boards I had seen. This was something else entirely.
Well, yanking kids out of school because science doesn't say what some bible-thumping parents would like to hear is completely ludicrous and insane. And no, it doesn't surprise me. Then again, not much surprises me about America anymore.
"Subjective evidence" is only an expression from an individual who wants people to buy what he says without providing any sort of reference, measurable data, or the like. As a person, you can think what you like, and whatever floats your boat. But when it comes to societal norms, education systems and the like, your "subjective evidence" is meaningless.
At least if you don't want a society where hundreds of factions, each touting their brand of subjective evidence, are actually going for one another's throats in an all-out (not figurative) war.
It's also what your founding fathers wrote in the constitution, that no religion should be given special consideration in the laws, if you need a reference.
Sometimes I think it's all a big misunderstanding. As an atheist, I consider the human evolution from simians the most likely alternative of how we ended up here. I have no problem seeing that amino acids could have been a product in some early atmosphere, and I know enough biochemistry to know that that's the only leap of faith required for the basis of life. Amino acids form proteins, proteins can be transcribed from DNA and RNA, and with the help of a certain amount of fat, you get a cell. Cells can divide. The rest, as they say, is history. We still have single-celled life today, so it's no great stretch. To me, it's not a big Belief I need to swallow. To some, however, it is always referred to as a belief, a religion, a faith.
And perhaps THAT is the main reason for their ire, and not the idea that evolution criticizes what they believe? After all, fundamentalist religion has no problem with quantum mechanics or most other branches of science. And all throughout history, the pattern has been the same. Fundies get up in arms when they feel threatened by an opposing RELIGION.
In that case, get over it. Biology is a science, just like all the others. It's not interested in you, your religious views, or anything regarding you. It is in no way a religion. It can't Prove that God doesn't exist. Those who regard biology as a science do not Believe in it.
Sometimes I think it's all a big misunderstanding. As an atheist, I consider the human evolution from simians the most likely alternative of how we ended up here. I have no problem seeing that amino acids could have been a product in some early atmosphere, and I know enough biochemistry to know that that's the only leap of faith required for the basis of life. Amino acids form proteins, proteins can be transcribed from DNA and RNA, and with the help of a certain amount of fat, you get a cell. Cells can divide. The rest, as they say, is history. We still have single-celled life today, so it's no great stretch. To me, it's not a big Belief I need to swallow. To some, however, it is always referred to as a belief, a religion, a faith.
And perhaps THAT is the main reason for their ire, and not the idea that evolution criticizes what they believe? After all, fundamentalist religion has no problem with quantum mechanics or most other branches of science. And all throughout history, the pattern has been the same. Fundies get up in arms when they feel threatened by an opposing religion.
Well said. Exactly my point. While as you say a small leap of faith, evolution as origin of life does require it just as any other theory does. What makes more sense to you naturally may cause a screaming fit in a zealous Muslim. It's all relative.
Buddhists allegedly levitate and break solid steel bars over their heads.No, we don't. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyway?
Perhaps I have mixed up my religions with this one as well. I was under the impression Shaolin is related to Buddhism.
Baddass monkMost likely a parlor trick. The piece of metal appears to have been broken in four or so pieces. Notches were probably cut into it so that it would break. I think an unadulterated piece of metal would only break into two pieces.
Yeah, that and all the dust flying thru the air, or whatever that was. This looks like it was footage of a travelling Shao Lin expo that toured the U.S. slightly less than a decade ago. I doubt that they were claiming it was steel, themselves.
Well, yanking kids out of school because science doesn't say what some bible-thumping parents would like to hear is completely ludicrous and insane. And no, it doesn't surprise me. Then again, not much surprises me about America anymore.
"Subjective evidence" is only an expression from an individual who wants people to buy what he says without providing any sort of reference, measurable data, or the like. As a person, you can think what you like, and whatever floats your boat. But when it comes to societal norms, education systems and the like, your "subjective evidence" is meaningless.
At least if you don't want a society where hundreds of factions, each touting their brand of subjective evidence, are actually going for one another's throats in an all-out (not figurative) war.
It's also what your founding fathers wrote in the constitution, that no religion should be given special consideration in the laws, if you need a reference.
Sometimes I think it's all a big misunderstanding. As an atheist, I consider the human evolution from simians the most likely alternative of how we ended up here. I have no problem seeing that amino acids could have been a product in some early atmosphere, and I know enough biochemistry to know that that's the only leap of faith required for the basis of life. Amino acids form proteins, proteins can be transcribed from DNA and RNA, and with the help of a certain amount of fat, you get a cell. Cells can divide. The rest, as they say, is history. We still have single-celled life today, so it's no great stretch. To me, it's not a big Belief I need to swallow. To some, however, it is always referred to as a belief, a religion, a faith.
And perhaps THAT is the main reason for their ire, and not the idea that evolution criticizes what they believe? After all, fundamentalist religion has no problem with quantum mechanics or most other branches of science. And all throughout history, the pattern has been the same. Fundies get up in arms when they feel threatened by an opposing...
Very well put!
In that case, get over it. Biology is a science, just like all the others. It's not interested in you, your religious views, or anything regarding you. It is in no way a religion. It can't Prove that God doesn't exist. Those who regard biology as a science do not Believe in it.
Very well put overall. However, I also feel that there are some "scientists" who have more of an agenda than most. And these people seem to think that science can "disprove" religion.
A lot of this stuff goes both ways.
Yeah, that and all the dust flying thru the air, or whatever that was. This looks like it was footage of a travelling Shao Lin expo that toured the U.S. slightly less than a decade ago. I doubt that they were claiming it was steel, themselves.
The show I saw was more believable, but this was all I could find while at work. Most sites are blocked from here. I could only use the link since Google had it in the results list. YouTube is strictly a no-no here, heh heh.
Without reading 350 plus posts -- how in the world did this thread go from Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize to Buddhists breaking bars with their head?
I made an innocent observation on a side conversation and someone got very heated about it since I presume they took it as an attack on their idol, Darwin. Everyone else on topic left the thread after that...
Incidentally how does one Smurf? I have seen those avatars as people's posts before, but never knew the trick to getting them.
LOL! Kirth, now you know how I feel with some of the statements that you've said about conservatives. ;)Them damn liberals, too! I don't like them much either, these days.Welcome to the dark side Kirth, the centrists of the libertarian party welcome you...
Mwuah hahahaha!
He doesn't like us much, either, I'm afraid...
;)
LOL! Kirth, now you know how I feel with some of the statements that you've said about conservatives. ;)Them damn liberals, too! I don't like them much either, these days.Welcome to the dark side Kirth, the centrists of the libertarian party welcome you...
Mwuah hahahaha!
He doesn't like us much, either, I'm afraid...
;)
One of us! One of us! Tee hehehehe!
In that case, get over it. Biology is a science, just like all the others. It's not interested in you, your religious views, or anything regarding you. It is in no way a religion. It can't Prove that God doesn't exist. Those who regard biology as a science do not Believe in it.Very well put overall. However, I also feel that there are some "scientists" who have more of an agenda than most. And these people seem to think that science can "disprove" religion.
A lot of this stuff goes both ways.
Quite true.
You'll notice that people get all rilled up and say you are making straw-men when you say that evolution doesn't prove the origins of life, which it doesn't nor is it meant to. But then in the very next breathe they claim that based on science (meaning evolution in that case) that the origin of life by (explanation of random factors forming bonds and dna from free floating protein strands and random fat groups etc) is the most sensible explanation.
If someone truly was so gun-ho about evolution theory they would admit that they have no idea about the origin of life and stop right there. If someone wants to believe a powerful entity (maybe aliens) started it or just random factors, well that is all personal preference at this point, but totally irrelevant to the issue. Believing in one origin over the other does not mean one is delusional or irrational or immoral.
If someone truly was so gun-ho about evolution theory they would admit that they have no idea about the origin of life and stop right there.
Yep. They would point out, as I do, that evolution does not involve the origin of life, that it's a separate question... and then leave the origin of life aside until we know more.
If someone truly was so gun-ho about evolution theory they would admit that they have no idea about the origin of life and stop right there.Yep. They would point out, as I do, that evolution does not involve the origin of life, that it's a separate question... and then leave the origin of life aside until we know more.
and we know a lot ;)
If someone truly was so gun-ho about evolution theory they would admit that they have no idea about the origin of life and stop right there.Yep. They would point out, as I do, that evolution does not involve the origin of life, that it's a separate question... and then leave the origin of life aside until we know more.
My wife sometimes can't understand how I can believe in evolution and still be (mostly) religious. They are separate issues.
Not to get too Matrix-y or Tron-y or Reboot-y, but it is like being a program in a computer system. You might understand how the different things in the system work, but doesn't tell you how the system came into being. Maybe there is some super programmer that devised it or maybe it just was a bunch of random bits that suddenly started working together. But understanding the rules of the system doesn't describe the origin of the system.
My view is, if there is a deity, then why could it not have a perfect psychohistory and physiohistory(?) method, and thus be able to use the rules of the system it set up to get a desired outcome.
My wife sometimes can't understand how I can believe in evolution and still be (mostly) religious.
You mean, like the Pope? Seriously, I never understood the conflict, either. If I were an omniscient God, I'd use something subtle, like evolution, rather than resorting to sudden appearances in a fanfare of smoke. No need to toot your own horn if you've got the juice.
In that case, get over it. Biology is a science, just like all the others. It's not interested in you, your religious views, or anything regarding you. It is in no way a religion. It can't Prove that God doesn't exist. Those who regard biology as a science do not Believe in it.Very well put overall. However, I also feel that there are some "scientists" who have more of an agenda than most. And these people seem to think that science can "disprove" religion.
A lot of this stuff goes both ways.
Quite true.
You'll notice that people get all rilled up and say you are making straw-men when you say that evolution doesn't prove the origins of life, which it doesn't nor is it meant to. But then in the very next breathe they claim that based on science (meaning evolution in that case) that the origin of life by (explanation of random factors forming bonds and dna from free floating protein strands and random fat groups etc) is the most sensible explanation.
If someone truly was so gun-ho about evolution theory they would admit that they have no idea about the origin of life and stop right there. If someone wants to believe a powerful entity (maybe aliens) started it or just random factors, well that is all personal preference at this point, but totally irrelevant to the issue. Believing in one origin over the other does not mean one is delusional or irrational or immoral.
However... taking your child out of a school that teaches science as it stands to the best of our knowledge, because that science might conflict with what you enjoy reading in an old book you happen to favour regarding the beginnings of the human race, and also trying by every legal and not-so-legal trick in the book to forbid teaching of said science to other children... that makes you delusional, irrational or immoral. Suck it up.
However... taking your child out of a school that teaches science as it stands to the best of our knowledge, because that science might conflict with what you enjoy reading in an old book you happen to favour regarding the beginnings of the human race, and also trying by every legal and not-so-legal trick in the book to forbid teaching of said science to other children... that makes you delusional, irrational or immoral. Suck it up.
True enough, but if someone at said school was using the setting to attack your families beliefs, and I mean attack as in saying if you are religious you are delusional. Then removing your child from that setting, where the person is abusing their authority is certainly reasonable and rational. Then working to get such a person dismissed so they couldn't abuse other children would also be rational.
But I agree, sticking one's fingers in one's ears and screaming just because you don't want to hear about some scientific evidence is silly. Abusing a position such as a board of education, to purposefully make the students ignorant is inappropriate as well. The answer to bad speech in general is more speech, though of course people in positions of power where they have a greater control on the speech allowed and others are compelled by law to attend have a higher standard they should live up to.
P.S. I'm a hetero man, I don't suck, I lick. :P
If you're any sort of scientist, not counting theology here, you do think as I do on this issue. Thus, the only ones who don't are at best hobby philosophers. We can live with that... as long as they don't get positions of political authority in related areas.
It's one of the absolutely most important issues for today's society to make sure the religious fundamentalists do NOT get the chance to let their personal religious feelings dictate the field of science.
If you're any sort of scientist, not counting theology here, you do think as I do on this issue.
Wait, what exactly am I being signed up for here, again?
It's one of the absolutely most important issues for today's society to make sure the religious fundamentalists do NOT get the chance to let their personal religious feelings dictate the field of science.
Yes! That I'll agree with. Who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future.
If you're any sort of scientist, not counting theology here, you do think as I do on this issue.
I was actually meaning the "It's not delusional to be religious" part, sadly there are many that believe in fact it is and some of those hold teaching positions and use those positions to impress that belief on others.
According to an interview I saw on Danish news yesterday, the 5 people on the committee were at first split 3-2 against giving it to Obama, but the two convinced the other three that he should have it (one of the two was the chairman of the committee). Such negotiations were, however, apparently not uncommon.
They should make an acception....come on, Darwin....greatest scientist in history....Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine(though i wish it where more generally awarded for discoveries in biological science than specificially medicine and Physiology) I also kind of think that this year, the prize should have posthumously awarded to Charles Darwin for his work on the theory of evolution by natural selection.I think i'd rather focus on the nobel prizes that really matter, rather than the peace prize.Like the Nobel prize for humour?Nobel prozes are not awarded posthumously.
Greatest Darwinist in history too.
he he he ... I see into the future, President Obama will win the Academy Award, an Emmy, and Guinness Book of World Records for his record amount of television presentations given by an US president ... ;)
Watch, you will see. And Kanye West will be the presenter... lol
I'm actually glad he (Obama) is actually in the public eye... better than spending half your presidency on vacation.
Actually, the history of humanity proves that none of our attempts have found a way to ensure peace. You think MAD ensures peace? Tell that to those that get hit by American Cruise Missiles. Tell that to the civilian population of Iraq and Afghanistan.
You don't create peace by threatening someone.
No but you can't have peace either by being complacent, being friends to everyone, and not having protection.
This has been proven over and over again throughout the course of humanity. Sure we should try but not throw our hands completely in the air like some of the naive believe.
Yeah, that Gandhi guy was pretty stupid... the "Martin Luther King Jr." was too.
We just had the annual pumpkin festival last weekend, the winner was a whopping 1153 lbs.Sounds like you have an anti-baked goods agenda, but as long as you recognize the value of the Nobel Prize for the Largest Pumpkin, we're good.
Art is already kind of covered by the litarature prize. Personally i disagree, i think actually, higher levels of scientific literacy and the attendant lower levels of theism really would be far better for the world than a nobel prize in baking
Disclaimer: I like pumpkins.
However, those poor pumpkins on steroids make me sad. Those growth hormones shorten their life spans and permanently damage their brains!!!
Disclaimer: I don't like cauliflower.
Dude, let's try to keep it civil! Do you want to reignite the great cauliflower/broccoli wars again?
I also have nothing to add but a hearty WTF? (and not just about a preference of cauliflower over broccoli).
That being said, I wish I'd had a bet going on one of this. The odds must've been insane that Obama would get the Nobel Prize on those online gambling places that track these things. You could've made some serious cash betting on that long shot.
Don't you know that ___________ sux?
May I politely ask that the insults aimed at religious people be kept out of this thread. Post in the civil religious discussion for that sort of thing, thank you.
The news this morning continues to be surreal. The DNC has announced that the Republicans are throwing in their lot with terrorists by thinking out loud that Obama didn't do anything in his first ten days of office to deserve the prize.
Must... resist... urge... to... assert... facts!