Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.

[GhostAnime]

The human eye always struck me rather powerfully as the best example of specified complexity.

This is supposed to be evidence of a creator?

 

[Byzantine]

The human eye is backwards, you know. If it was intelligently designed it wasn't the sharpest mind that did it. (as amazing as what it does is, out eyes have a fundamental flaw, the blood vessels for some very stupid reason are on the OUTSIDE of the retina, think about that for a second, its basically a plug that instead of putting it in the back of the fridge they cut a hole through the fridge and connected it to the front, that isn't a logical way to set it up, and it has no advantages compared to a "proper" eye, like a squid's, or any other invertebrate, only vertebrates have that design flaw).

The brain is also, for all of its complexity, rather simple. We've been able to build computers that work faster and are less likely to break down than our own brains. I don't see the hand of some all powerful force sculpting us, there are far too many flaws that could easily be fixed by someone who is drawing the blueprints.

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists…

I'm sorry, but that quote is meaningless. The guy who said it clearly understood very little of why we don't believe, and it varies for everyone. For me it is simply a case of truly not wanting to believe its possible there is a God out there, I know you probably wouldn't understand but anything that lets the evils in this world pass and does nothing at all to help, something like that can't be benevolent, let alone all loving.

And since I feel like it, if you twist that little quote around a bit...

"A theist is someone who is certain that God exists, someone who has compelling evidence for the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be imagined in even remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that God exists…"

Get my point? You can't say we have to have certain evidence when you have none of your own to offer.

 

[3lmi]

Stereotyping people right away, yep.

 

[PokeJustice]

The human eye is backwards, you know. If it was intelligently designed it wasn't the sharpest mind that did it. (as amazing as what it does is, out eyes have a fundamental flaw, the blood vessels for some very stupid reason are on the OUTSIDE of the retina, think about that for a second, its basically a plug that instead of putting it in the back of the fridge they cut a hole through the fridge and connected it to the front, that isn't a logical way to set it up, and it has no advantages compared to a "proper" eye, like a squid's, or any other invertebrate, only vertebrates have that design flaw).

Richard Gregory's masterwork on the subject, "Eye and Brain", that I've open right in front of me, notes that the "design flaw" is less egregious than it seems. He notes that the blood vessels and nerve fibres (those visible with an opthalmoscope) skirt around the area centralis where visual acuity is most important, and therefore interfere very little with the precision of our vision.

The blood vessels also have important roles in healing. They sprawl outward, across the retina, in response to damage, bringing white blood cells with them and clearing away debris. They retract later when this damage has been repaired.

You can't say we have to have certain evidence when you have none of your own to offer.

If you intended to make an absolute claim about the existence of God, you would require evidence that we do not possess. I am making no such absolute claims.

All it takes to send the argument from dysteleology reeling is one example of a thing which doubtless was designed, and designed well.

Also, I'm not a theist. I'm a deist. I'm quite a bit more open to freethought than your garden-variety theist.

 

[GhostAnime]

That isn't the only flaw with the eye.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

 

[PokeJustice]

This isn't so much a flaw in the eye's design as a pointing-out of the fact that there are creatures much more visually gifted than human beings. That's true, but I fail to see how it matters--our eyes suit us, do they not?

 

[GhostAnime]

It isn't an argument for creation is all I'm saying.

 

[PokeJustice]

By "creation," do you mean "the individual creation of all living beings in much the same fashion as they appear today some six-thousand years ago," or ID?

 

[Profesco]

Richard Gregory's masterwork on the subject, "Eye and Brain", that I've open right in front of me,

You own a copy of "Eye and Brain?" I wonder what your personal library looks like, PokeJustice. ^_^

All it takes to send the argument from dysteleology reeling is one example of a thing which doubtless was designed, and designed well.

Do we have anything like that? The eye is indeed a very complex and serendipitously functional thing, but does "seems to be" designed qualify as "was" designed?

 

[GhostAnime]

I'm saying pretty much what Profesco's suggesting.

 

[PokeJustice]

You own a copy of "Eye and Brain?" I wonder what your personal library looks like, PokeJustice. ^_^

I've only now gotten around to reading my personal copy of Einstein's Theory of Relativity Versus Classical Mechanics by Dr. Paul Marmet.

I have a fairly sizeable collection of books.

Do we have anything like that? The eye is indeed a very complex and serendipitously functional thing, but does "seems to be" designed qualify as "was" designed?

While this has nothing at all to do with your question, I should note that I have just finished reading a brief piece authored by Behe for the Guardian and was bombarded by a showy display of contempt for the man on the part of those who elected to comment on the article, which was only some fifteen sentences long, and in which was little controversial said. I dislike the vitriolic nature with which some approach scientific discussion.

I am sorry for carting you off on that tangent. You asked how we might distinguish the appearance of design from the presence of design, and this is indeed a worthwhile question.

What complexity can be satisfactorily explained without intelligence and what cannot?

 

[GhostAnime]

Do you have any way to decide yourself?

 

[PokeJustice]

It's not a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of the limits of modern science.

 

[Profesco]

What complexity can be satisfactorily explained without intelligence and what cannot?

Rather than start a bent about trying to distinguish between something impossible without planned forethought and something possible within the operations of the simple logic of the natural universe, I'll concede that I don't really have an answer for that. *thoughtful*

I'm also beginning to worry we're straying too far from the topic, lol. Woops. =X

 

[AndyBananny]

The cons of basing our culture off of religion is that religion is man made. A man will always fail. Christianity is faith that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Christianity and religion are two very different things. Religion is on the outside and faith is on the inside. Religion is dressing up in a suit and tie and going to church on Sundays, feeling that you've done your obligated duties. Which salvation is a gift, not something you can work at. Faith is relying on God with prayer and reading your bible daily.

 

[GhostAnime]

So if religion is man-made, what makes Christianity any different? It's a religion too.

It's not a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of the limits of modern science.

Not good enough. We used to assign creation to everything we couldn't immediately explain but turns out they can be explained.

 

[PokeJustice]

We used to assign creation to everything we couldn't immediately explain but turns out they can be explained.

Fair enough, but I do not see naturalistic biology explaining the formation of irreducibly complex structures.

 

[GhostAnime]

Then you could just say "I don't know" rather that "it must be designed!" because that would be intellectually dishonest, wouldn't it?

Even if we never find explanations for everything, how do you explain the designer? You don't necessarily answer the question by bringing up something else unexplainable.

 

[Sabonea_Masukippa]

The cons of basing our culture off of religion is that religion is man made. A man will always fail. Christianity is faith that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Christianity and religion are two very different things. Religion is on the outside and faith is on the inside. Religion is dressing up in a suit and tie and going to church on Sundays, feeling that you've done your obligated duties. Which salvation is a gift, not something you can work at. Faith is relying on God with prayer and reading your bible daily.

I get what your saying. I still don't see what the big deal is about Jesus 'dying' for the sins He let happen is.

Fair enough, but I do not see naturalistic biology explaining the formation of irreducibly complex structures.

When they find one, they'll let you know.

 

[AndyBananny]

Everything came from something. Nothing can come from nothing. Christianity believes that we were born into sin and are leading ourselves further into destruction until we reach the big bang. The world believes everything started with the big bang and we get smarter until we reach the ultimate perfection and utopia.