When will religion be overteken by logic?

I didn't equate them with science. I only said that science doesn't rule out possibilities. It's actually more fascinating in the philosophical level which produced science itself. Science doesn't close the possibility of an invisible man. Only close minded people will rule out such possibilities. At the same time, this represents that they are illogical as there is no logic in denying possibilities whether it's in the field of science or not.

Another illogical notion you seem to advocate here is that truth can't exist outside of science. It's in the very contrary that science is just a small set of overall truth.

 

You sound as if science and spirituality should be mutually exclusive. This itself is never scientific nor logical. That's what I was trying to point out.

 

I'm suggesting that there are selection processes that guided our evolution.

I'm proposing that how we are constructed is NOT and accident and that there isn't justification for suggesting that a god is a requirement, because there has been sufficient natural decision making at work from the time of first life.

 

Was an executive in business software industry, mostly on the sales, marketing, business strategy and product management side. Worked for global corps and five start ups over the years.

Knowledge enables us to mitigate the effect of a disease instead of simply emotionally reacting to its symptoms. I can imagine the satisfaction of disarming the family narcissist. - cheers.

 

That's also nonsense. Of course not all accidents are positive. There are a gazillion genetic diseases not to mention a goodly number of people with barely functional intelligence and all kinds of biological misfunctions of negative consequence. OTOH, most "accidents of birth" result in perfectly "normal" humans.

As for bad accidents resulting in us not being here, one could say a 3 kilometer long asteroid hitting the earth 65 million years ago was one helluva bad accident, yet it ended the age of dinosaurs and ushered in the age of mammals of which we humans are the result. So a really bad accident turned out to be the reason we are here in the first place. Hmmmmmmmm.

 

Science doesn't do anything BUT rule out possibilities. We accept the theory of relativity because ovet the last 100 years oftesting nobody has found a way to discredit it. Does that mean it is "true"? No. Science has no way of doing that.

Scientific method doesn't have a way of proving truth. It depends on serious effort to prove falsity through independent experimentation, review, etc.

There is every reason in the world to be highly skeptical of ideas that we have no possibility of testing.

Invisible man? Please. We know how mass affects light. Harry Potter's cloak is a cool story element, but it isn't real.

 

Animals do not only look after their own pleasure. Its obvious animal behavior is not a field you know a thing about.

You should look up what "cooperative altruism" is. It forms one of the necessary foundations of human civilization. It has nothing at all to do with any notions of god you may have. The fact that religions have always attempted to describe and codify this set of behaviors and enforce them with righteous punishment is yet another example of religion being a wholly human social construct.

 

Unless you are challenging the assumption of science that we may meaningfully observe the universe you are way off base here.

"Spirituality" is an element of the supernatural. Science has no possibility of addressing or including the supernatural.

 

Not at all mutually exclusive. In fact, science has NOTHING to say about spirituality, other than "still no evidence" or "could not replicate reported conditions" or some such.

If a spiritualist presents a testable spiritual hypothesis to a scientist, he'll test for it and report the results no matter what.

A spiritualist cannot render an equivalent service to a scientist, because spirituality isn't science, its philosophy and personal belief. Entirely different intellectual domains.

 

We are in violent agreement. Of course that does not negate the notion of one's "accident of birth".

 

I totally agree.

To me, "accident of birth" includes the circumstances into which one was born. Bill Gates was born into a family where his father was a noted lawyer and top national expert in international trade especialy with the far east and his mother was on the boards of a number of significant corporations. That's one heck of an accident of birth that does include that he is certainly intelligent enough to use that education and consultation.

But, I don't care too much about that. I'm just not willing to accept the creationist characterization that evolution is dominated by accident when selection has been the key player by determing which genetic combinations and which mutations are accepted and which are rejected.

Selection processes led to DNA.

 

Selection processes dominate all life including ours. In one respect there is even an intellectual selection process going on in this debate. Ultimately, regardless of the consequences, science will win out. So I guess we got that goin' for us.

 

Humans have developed to the positive since the beginning. When one sees how complex an eyeball is, a few negatives things gone wrong could have screwed it all up. That's just an eyeball. Of course you could pull another billion trillion years out of your butt and say that would make it work,,,,,and you do., but the odds of chance just aren't there.

 

Selection doesn't work that way. Mutations and genetic combinations don't happen all at once to everyone. If some indiviual is born with a problematic trait, selection processes will make it less likely that it will become significant in the population. If it is an advantage, the opposite is more likely.

 

Well we are making a little headway at least. You are correct if natural selection had "gone wrong" then the eyeball wouldn't have evolved to be what it is today, it would be something different and superior, because that is what the evolutionary record clearly shows.

When natural selection "goes bad" that lifeform is less successful in its environment. If all the individual's of that species have the bad selection, then they will become extinct, but if some of those individuals have say, a rare recessive gene expression that improves rather than debilitates the badly adapted characteristic, the species survives or speciates.

It would seem you don't care to know what you don't know because you know enough to believe in what you believe in.

 

Looking at the title more closely.....

Logic has always overteken religion....

But religion will always oversoulcalibur logic.

 

It should be very simple to shut these atheists up. Just provide proof of your religious claims.

 

Bay area? Raider fan here.

 

Have you ever wondered why there is a Universal Genetic Code?

 

Spent 8 months in San Francisco, and travelled all over the US, but home is Toronto. Leafs fan here.

 

Tarheel, Raider, Dodger, minor league azz fisting.

It's a new sport but

 

You said that Buddhism best matched your beliefs, so that means you had some sort of beliefs prior to believing in parts of Buddhism. What were those beliefs and what were they based on?

 

And you consider these to be MYTHS?

 

yep, just like the bible is myths, same thing, if one choose to believe all or part of them is up to them

 

I did, I believe in an afterlife and reincarnation, and Buddhism was the closet religion I found to the belief

I do not for instance believe in a virgin birth of Buddha or the later virgin birth of Jesus - I think these stories were created to enhance the religions

I thought I was clear on this already