Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[grumbler]

Next you'll tell us that such characteristics as lactose tolerance may simply be in part a factor of environment rather than pure evolution with even such disparate peoples as tropical asians able to gain it in a matter of generations when living in milk drinking societies. Dream on, evolutionotard!

  Exactly.  The use of lactose tolerance/intolerance (which is seldom genetic) as evidence for evolution (especially evolution between one generation and the next) is teh funnay.

[Eddie Teach]

You are mistaken.  He is arguing that to debate me is futile due to a personal trait of mine.  that is an argument "to the man" which, translated into Latin, is ad hominim shortened to ad hom.

He is claiming that, but as a statement, not an argument. He obviously didn't feel the need to go into his reasons.

[Neil]

How do you measure evolution?

Through the changed characteristics of species over time.

An excellent way to measure it.

My main quibble was with your 'thousands of generations', when it is clearly possible to measurable change in hundreds of generations, even without deliberate intervention.

[Iormlund]

Was there some different quality to religion in the Middle Ages that allowed rational scholars to use consistent logical means to reach conclusions, was William of Ockham a mutant religious type, for he was both religious and deeply questioning of universals?  Perhaps the blanket condemnation of religion is better suited toward a pentecostal/fundamental variety of religion that obviates logic for those who have such a mindset?

I find that the consistent scientific endeavors of the Jesuits, the religious nature of others in the sciences, shows not that a strict compartmentalization of religion and logic need be the case, but rather that a worldview combining such factors in the human mind (quite capable of such radically different beliefs, religious or otherwise) is more important.

Logic is not a binary switch. The human mind can easily operate logically and illogically at the same time. For example, it is fairly reasonable to conclude that a +7 damage Magical Sword is better than a +3 damage Magical Sword, despite the lack of evidence for the existence of magical swords at all.
In the end the basic premises are bullshit, so however bright the author, most attempts to introduce reason within a religious framework usually end up like 'Who would win, the USS  Enterprise or an Imperial SSD?' debates on the web.

[Berkut]

I think that while it is entirely possibly to "combine" reason and religion, it is not at all important to do so.

It comes about simply from a standpoint that the religious are made so usually long before they have any ability to evaluate their beliefs logically or rationally. And that belief, especially in the past, is built in at a culturally unassailable position. It is simply not conceivable to question your faith, so the brilliant minds either compartmentalize their faith away from their scientific curiosity, or go to incredible lengths to build this Rube Golbergesque sort of logical constructs to try to shoehorn their fundamentally irrational faith into a rational structure.

The former results in science, the latter results in Jesuits.

[PDH]

Jesuits, though, are quite famous for questioning their faith...

[PDH]

Logic is not a binary switch. The human mind can easily operate logically and illogically at the same time. For example, it is fairly reasonable to conclude that a +7 damage Magical Sword is better than a +3 damage Magical Sword, despite the lack of evidence for the existence of magical swords at all.
In the end the basic premises are bullshit, so however bright the author, most attempts to introduce reason within a religious framework usually end up like 'Who would win, the USS  Enterprise or an Imperial SSD?' debates on the web.

I think that my main quibble is that such illogic/logic combinations are a constant part of the human mind and psyche...it is naturalized by some into not being important.

[Berkut]

Jesuits, though, are quite famous for questioning their faith...

Nobody ever said reconciling faith with an inquiring mind was easy!

[Razgovory]

It is a small mind indeed that can't hold two conflicting idea at the same time.

[Pat]

I need look no further than my own country to say that your theory is wrong. Sweden, too, has a long history of credible government, and it certainly wasn't lack of credibility in government that caused a lack of faith in religion. In 1809 we made a product of the french revolution our king and instated a liberal constitution that wasn't replaced until 1976, as a mere formality of modernization. At the time it was the second oldest constitution in the world, after the American. We had a stable and gradual transition from monarchy to democracy, and a stable and gradual transition from religion to atheism.

I thought a big chunk of Sweden broke off in 1905 and formed their own country. 

Maybe I am incorrect, though, and that was a different Sweden which suffered the schism.  If your Sweden didn't suffer this, then I will concede that your country disproves the "all" portion of my statement about governments losing credibility.  It certainly does not impact the theory itself.

If a single case disproves a theory, then the fact that i am not religious disproves your theory that the US is a religious country.

That was not a part of Sweden, that was Norway, which was a part of Sweden-Norway. Which was a union between Sweden and Norway, two countries with different parliaments, different legal systems, etc.

Norwegians leaving the union was a matter of Norwegians losing faith in the Swedish king of Norway-Sweden, and had nothing to do with Swedish people losing faith in Swedish government. Most people in Sweden thought we did the right thing by letting them go.

I seriously doubt anyone is buying that this would lead to Swedish people losing faith in religion.

[Barrister]

While there's quite a bit of evidence showing that the earth is not 6000 years old, I would challenge you to show any evidence  that proves Jesus was not resurrected, or that we do not go to heaven.

Most atheists would only argue there's no proof either way on those points.  But you went the extra difference to say that things like heaven and the resurrections aren't just unknown, but false.  Which must means you think you have some evidence on those points...

You have a funny idea of proof for a trial lawyer. 

Anyway, since you consider these ideas non-falsified, and from this derive that they have to be allowed as true (i.e. you lead your life as if resurrection happened and if people were going to heaven), I cannot but marvel at your selectiveness. 

When was the last time you sacrificed a young male goat to Zeus? Or made auguries to Janus before embarking on a new venture? I will not even suggest going to your neighbouring village and kidnapping their young men to tear their hearts out on the altar of Huitzilopochtli.

Of the countless thousands of gods, goddesses, half-gods and heroes, you ignore and consider false all but one. At least I am consequent in what I do - I extend the same treatment to all of them.

That is where you are mistaken.  I consider heaven and the resurrection as non-falsified, then through faith accept them as true.  I have never claimed that my faith is proven.

But you didn't actually answer my question - instead you just turned around and attacked me.  What basis do you have for saying that heaven is proven to be false?  Or did you (as I think you did) over-reach in your statement?

[Berkut]

I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.

Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.

[grumbler]

An excellent way to measure it.

My main quibble was with your 'thousands of generations', when it is clearly possible to measurable change in hundreds of generations, even without deliberate intervention.

We are in agreement here, and indeed, when environments change rapidly, measurable evolution is speeded up by perhaps orders of magnitude over evolution that is merely tweaking the capability of a species to exploit a fairly static environment.

[grumbler]

Logic is not a binary switch. The human mind can easily operate logically and illogically at the same time. For example, it is fairly reasonable to conclude that a +7 damage Magical Sword is better than a +3 damage Magical Sword, despite the lack of evidence for the existence of magical swords at all.

I like this analogy, and within two months will be claiming it as an original.

[Barrister]

I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.

Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.

I was only asking for proof because Marty seemed to say he had such proof, or else why would he say that heaven and the resurrection were "false".