Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. Standard member randolph
    the walrus
    14 Dec '08 00:56
    FabianFnas, in particular. You seem to get rather mad when spiritual ideas are brought up in the science forum, yet you persist in invading discussions here with scientific ideas- clearly not "spiritual". I think that if you expect spirituality to stay out of science, you should keep science out of spirituality.
  2. Subscriber Rajk999
    Enjoying
    14 Dec '08 00:59
    Originally posted by randolph
    FabianFnas, in particular. You seem to get rather mad when spiritual ideas are brought up in the science forum, yet you persist in invading discussions here with scientific ideas- clearly not "spiritual". I think that if you expect spirituality to stay out of science, you should keep science out of spirituality.
    Are you saying those that are spiritual are more tolerant than the scientific ?
  3. 14 Dec '08 01:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by randolph
    FabianFnas, in particular. You seem to get rather mad when spiritual ideas are brought up in the science forum, yet you persist in invading discussions here with scientific ideas- clearly not "spiritual". I think that if you expect spirituality to stay out of science, you should keep science out of spirituality.
    no no, please my friend, science is for me a confirmation of my spirituality. its only when the science becomes unsientific that we need to reject it and place it in the realms of mythology!
  4. Standard member randolph
    the walrus
    14 Dec '08 03:06
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Are you saying those that are spiritual are more tolerant than the scientific ?
    No, I'm saying that there seems to be a double standard.
  5. 14 Dec '08 08:15
    Originally posted by randolph
    No, I'm saying that there seems to be a double standard.
    You mentionned my name, and therefore I have to answer.

    First of all, please, give me links to where I am anti-spiritual in the Spiritual Forum, and we take it from there. I'm sure that there are plenty so you will not have any problem finding them. Else I will take it as a general accusation from you, and this wasn't what you intended, was it?

    I don't think I am anti-spiritual in my thinking. I think physics in general with evolution, particle-physics, BigBang is remarkable creations of god (if he exists). By denying evolution, you deny one of gods greatest creation, and therefore god himself. I find this horrible.

    I see too many fundamentalistic christians who set themselves over science. They think that if science doesn't confirm the genisis, then the science is wrong. However, if it confirms events in the bible, then the science is right. The bible is by them is the Truth in the smallest letter. They demand extensive proofs from science, that they discard anyway, but give no proofs that holds from their own view.

    I say that god created a set of laws of physics. In these laws you get a glimps of god himself. For me, physicists are more priest and know more about god than the pope himself, because they know the essence of god!

    But I'm not christian (more than in tradition. I'm brought up as a christian and in my teenage I saw all the paradoxes of the bible and the words of all priests who thought they have all the answers but really didn't know much.), but I have a difficult time when I see the glory and beauty of the laws of physics, which made it possible to form galaxies, stars, planetary systems like ours, a planet with the ingrediences and properties to produce life, and with the aid of evolution gave lifeless matter a body and later intelligence, and this denyes christian fundamentalists...

    So when I see lies about Science, masked in spiritual wordings in the Science Forum, I react.
    When people trying to preach their fundamentalist views in science in order to turn our evil science to what they think is spiritually right, then I react.
    And they, the fundamentalists think they have the right to invade the Science Forum with clearly spiritual matters, clear anti-science matters, then I react.

    Do I do the same thing in the Spiritual Forum? I don't think so. So please, give me some links, and I defend them if I think you are wrong, and excuse them for those where you're right.
  6. 14 Dec '08 08:18
    Originally posted by randolph
    FabianFnas, in particular. You seem to get rather mad when spiritual ideas are brought up in the science forum, yet you persist in invading discussions here with scientific ideas- clearly not "spiritual". I think that if you expect spirituality to stay out of science, you should keep science out of spirituality.
    Fab does tend to get "territorial" when iy comes to topic, but he's a good fellow {particularly in comparison to some of the idealogues we suffer here}. My answer is always "Let anyone who wants to post a reply of ANY kind do so---to heck with the forum name." If you don't find the post to be relevent, ignore it.
  7. 14 Dec '08 08:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Are you saying those that are spiritual are more tolerant than the scientific ?
    Overall I'd say that is true. Full-blown, dyed-in-the-wool, amoeba-to-human Evolutionists, for example, are some of the most virulent reactionaries on the planet.
  8. 14 Dec '08 09:43
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    Overall I'd say that is true. Full-blown, dyed-in-the-wool, amoeba-to-human Evolutionists, for example, are some of the most virulent reactionaries on the planet.
    lol, one tends to find that when an idea is unsupported by evidence and based not on reason but postulation, people do become emotional as they attempt to defend their dogma, perhaps this may account for the phenomena.
  9. 14 Dec '08 09:48
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    Overall I'd say that is true. Full-blown, dyed-in-the-wool, amoeba-to-human Evolutionists, for example, are some of the most virulent reactionaries on the planet.
    Don't agree.
    Scientific methods and observations are stronger than beliefs. Unsupported dogma is worse than supported proofs.
    Knowledge goes before bible.
    Fundamentalists always lose every discussion that is about evolution.
  10. 14 Dec '08 10:23 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Don't agree.
    Scientific methods and observations are stronger than beliefs. Unsupported dogma is worse than supported proofs.
    Knowledge goes before bible.
    Fundamentalists always lose every discussion that is about evolution.
    i raised the subject of the unscientific nature on evolution, based on the following, that it cannot be subject to the scientific model, that it cannot work on the basis of irreducible complexity, that there is no evidence in the fossil record, that it is mathematically improbable that a material view of the existence of life arose, that it cannot nor does not explain consciousness and morality, that mutations are essentially destructive, that the idea that the early atmosphere was a reducing one is based on cyclical thinking, that there are no evidence for the transmigration of species, i mean come on, not one of these issues has satisfactorily been addressed, therefore i dispute your claim that a theist will always lose every discussion with regard to evolutionary science, not every one surely!

    that the Bible is full of knowledge and more importantly, wisdom, the application of knowledge is self evident when one takes the time to examine it. this is probably the greatest failing of the atheist, failure to examine its contents.

    i would assert that theocracy has nothing to fear from science, in fact i am very much indebted to science for confirming many of the truths that i cherish, however science without spirituality is fundamentally flawed as immaterial entities simply cannot be evaluated properly through material avenues, for example simply studying the physiology of the mind is hardly enough to help us make sense of its meanderings, is it?
  11. 14 Dec '08 13:42
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i raised the subject of the unscientific nature on evolution, based on the following, that it cannot be subject to the scientific model, that it cannot work on the basis of irreducible complexity, that there is no evidence in the fossil record, that it is mathematically improbable that a material view of the existence of life arose, that it cannot no ...[text shortened]... t will always lose every discussion with regard to evolutionary science, not every one surely!
    The only thing you prove here is that you are not familiar with the theory of evolution, and that you are not very scientific minded.

    As I don't want to go off-topic, without being criticized for it, I stop here.
  12. 14 Dec '08 15:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    The only thing you prove here is that you are not familiar with the theory of evolution, and that you are not very scientific minded.

    As I don't want to go off-topic, without being criticized for it, I stop here.
    yes, because you say it is, therfore it must be, lol.
  13. 14 Dec '08 16:14
    http://unreasonablefaith.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/doonsbury-creationist.jpg
  14. 14 Dec '08 17:30
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes, because you say it is, therfore it must be, lol.
    No, because you believe there are no proofs for evolution. Therefore you don't know much about evolution.

    I can continue to discuss evolution here, despite we are in the Spiritual Forum, but for this I'd like to have permission for that. Permission I get if this thread is continuing to discuss evolution. Else, I stay shut.
  15. 14 Dec '08 18:16
    Originally posted by randolph
    FabianFnas, in particular. You seem to get rather mad when spiritual ideas are brought up in the science forum, yet you persist in invading discussions here with scientific ideas- clearly not "spiritual". I think that if you expect spirituality to stay out of science, you should keep science out of spirituality.
    FabianFnas is as entitled as anyone else to post about spirituality. He and I don't see eye-to-eye on such matters but that does not mean that I disagree with him - in fact, I appreciate comments and think the Spirituality forum becomes less that it otherwise could be if he (and others like him) do not post and express their opinions.

    Spirituality must be able to hold under the harsh light of scrutiny; otherwise, it is only fantasy. Non-theists would hold that to be the case anyway, and they are entitled to that opinion. Personally, I can poke holes on both sides of the extreme in this debate, and I don't get too worked up about particular points of view (except in cases where rationality clearly has departed). That allows me the luxury of actually listening to all the voices in the debate, and not just the ones I agree with.