religion

[Eliseus]

"Peter Mandaville and Paul James define religion as "a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing".[24] This definition has the virtue of taking into account the emphasis in the literature on the relationship between the immanent and transcendent without treating it in the modern way as a dualism of two separate worlds. There is no mention of 'God' or 'gods', allowing Buddhism, for example, to be considered a religion."

"The anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined religion as a "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."[26] Alluding perhaps to Tylor's "deeper motive", Geertz remarked that "we have very little idea of how, in empirical terms, this particular miracle is accomplished. We just know that it is done, annually, weekly, daily, for some people almost hourly; and we have an enormous ethnographic literature to demonstrate it".[27] The theologian Antoine Vergote also emphasized the "cultural reality" of religion, which he defined as "the entirety of the linguistic expressions, emotions and, actions and signs that refer to a supernatural being or supernatural beings"; he took the term "supernatural" simply to mean whatever transcends the powers of nature or human agency."

"The sociologist Durkheim, in his seminal book The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, defined religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things".[29] By sacred things he meant things "set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them". Sacred things are not, however, limited to gods or spirits.[note 2] On the contrary, a sacred thing can be "a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred".[30] Religious beliefs, myths, dogmas and legends are the representations that express the nature of these sacred things, and the virtues and powers which are attributed to them.[31]"

"In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, the psychologist William James defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine".[32] By the term "divine" James meant "any object that is godlike, whether it be a concrete deity or not"[33] to which the individual feels impelled to respond with solemnity and gravity.[34]"

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. Does prayer work.

2. Think of an experiment to do with prayer.

3. Conduct experiment.

4. Have others repeat experiment with same results.

Just because you didn't like the answers, doesn't make you some kind of right.

"A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 2010 global population of 6.9 billion."

Now let us assume for a minute, that people do things that they believe in. For example, you believe in evolution, so I'm assuming you wouldn't a join a "club" that contradicts your beliefs. That is roughly 2.18 billion people that have probably had some sort of success in their "test" to confirm their beliefs.

I bit again to your response, and I know you will laugh, it is completely irrelevant to you being wrong about your own belief in evolution, and you trying to deter away from your own stupidity again, but I'll bite with............ the exact same response you ignored earlier.

Show me your conducted experiences on the success of evolution. Oh wait, it would take too long to ever have any legit proof.

Here goes the big circle again for 50 more pages where you ignore everything, repeat that no one is understanding you or that we are all too dumb. Repeating that no one gave you answers to the answers they gave you. I'll tell you what, I'll stop posting and come back in 50 pages and respond to the exact same question you ask again. Err no I won't, I'm having too much fun mocking you right now. Would rather not wait to do that later.

Again, back to the original point.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Again conflating two completely different things.

It's impossible to discuss this subject with you when language itself proves to be an impassable barrier for you.

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like the fossil record

The fossil record is a piece of tangible, testable, predictable evidence, yes.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again conflating two completely different things.

It's impossible to discuss this subject with you when language itself proves to be an impassable barrier for you.

The fossil record is a piece of tangible, testable, predictable evidence, yes.

It would be conflating if he didn't ask for an example. He asked how someone could do said numbers in "religion". I gave him an example.

Let me rephrase this. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH IT. IT FITS THE CRITERIA HE PROVIDED TO HAVE AN EXAMPLE.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again conflating two completely different things.

It's impossible to discuss this subject with you when language itself proves to be an impassable barrier for you.

The fossil record is a piece of tangible, testable, predictable evidence, yes.

Also, are you an idiot? I'm currently, right now, responding to you in text that you have made it quiet apparent, you understand, or you wouldm't respond in the manner you do.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like the fossil record

That doesn't even... I just don't...

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nope, you never answered or rebutted anything from his post.

And by the way, that was a very good post, one of the better ones in this thread. It also clearly demonstrates how scientific results are easily falsifiable - if someone else conducts the same experiment and achieves different results that fall outside the margin of error (a margin which is very small but necessary to account for human discrepancy), it is then proven false.

The evolutionary theory was achieved using the exact same method. Every claim within it is easily falsifiable, and was not predicated on wishful thinking or a desire for it to be true. Scientists are completely neutral in this. They're not out conducting experiments for their ego, they simply want to figure out how the world works and how it came into existence. When one paleontologist finds a set of fossils in a geographic area that doesn't line up with a current scientific hypothesis, then they scrap that hypothesis and start over. They're not making claims and then working endlessly toward those claims to prove that they're true. Instead, they're working endlessly and using the scientific method to develop theory. Theory is not the starting point. There's a whole world of hypothesis and inference and study and research and observation and crosschecking and peer review that goes on before theory.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Show me your conducted experiences on the success of evolution. Oh wait, it would take too long to ever have any legit proof.

These two sentences are completely nonsensical, even if you assume experiences is meant to be experiments. This is why you're disqualified, and why you've disqualified yourself from rational argument. Don't blame us for your shortcomings. Get serious and learn how to articulate an actual point if you want to participate in these kind of discussions.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

.....

"Your right on the birth aspect, but your post doesn't imply that, it implies that it is impossible to have another species from a previous species without similarities."

I didnt imply anything. I said exactly what I meant. It IS impossible to have a new species that doesnt share similarities with it's nearest ancestor. A whale isnt going to give birth to a bird (even though these have similarities still). Instead, a whale will give birth to another whale with minor differences but still a whale. Repeat that process over and over and over and over....for billions of years....that is what evolution is.

"After robot made a comment about a horse eventually become a 4-toed creature of squirrel size, you said that wasn't possible then, now it is to try and save face."

I said a horse doesnt give birth to a squirrel not that a horse cannot eventually evolve into a squirrel like creator. The point is, the horse would first give birth to horse that has some mutation that makes it .000001% more like a squirrel. Then those traits would have to be selected for. Repeat that same process a few hundred times over the course of millions of years and boom...you got yourself a squirrel-like creature.

"some weird infatuation with Darwin"

Lol, what? I havent even read the Origin of Species....imagine that. Science has long moved on since Darwin. I give the man credit but modern science has a better grasp on the mechanisms of evolution than he did. He was even...gasp...wrong on some things! It's not like all science stopped when he died or every word he uttered is infallible unchanging truth.

Science, unlike your religion, isnt ruled by edict. It is ruled by experiment and evidence. It is an ongoing process that will never have all the answers but it has the BEST answers. As soon as you answer one question, "What is an atom made of?" you have made 50 more questions, "What are the individual parts that make up and atom made of?", etc. Some may see that as a flaw in science but I think it is the best part.

[iruinedyourday]

Based on how you creationists behave in this thread you better hope the atheists are right, otherwise your foul souls are going to burn for eternity cause you are a nasty bunch of posters.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These two sentences are completely nonsensical, even if you assume experiences is meant to be experiments. This is why you're disqualified, and why you've disqualified yourself from rational argument. Don't blame us for your shortcomings. Get serious and learn how to articulate an actual point if you want to participate in these kind of discussions.

It was meant to be experiences. Yes it does make sense. Cool story though.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Based on how you creationists behave in this thread you better hope the atheists are right, otherwise your foul souls are going to burn for eternity cause you are a nasty bunch of posters.

Yeah, you are right, I probably should of not participated in the first place. It's just so hard sometimes when you view forums like this for a game you enjoy, and so many people spewing idiocy. It's like you try, but just sometimes you can't help it.