Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MJ who wrote (235263)	1/20/2008 2:12:18 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 793917

But, again, it is a scientific theory that is being tested and examined with newly discovered information revising or filling it in when necessary, and it has most scientists on board with it. It is far more factual with huge bodies of research than is religion for all the reasons we have just mentioned- mostly that faith informs creationism. I learned that there were 9 planets in school. That "fact" has recently been altered as we learned more (poor Pluto), but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have been taught what we knew at the time through scientific observation. With religion there is nothing to teach since a Supreme Being is, as Many Moose said, unprovable. I agree with you; I don't see religion and science as mutually exclusive, either-- outside of the science classroom. Unless you are wedded to a literal Biblical interpretation, it seems to me to be quite adaptable if you get away from the manmade concepts. Science doesn't preclude the possibility of some originating force of some sort, but since it has no evidence of such, it really can't legitimately be considered fact. As for the mountaintop experience, we all have experienced it, I think, whether the awe arises from thoughts of a Supreme Being, or merely the immensity and beauty of the world in which we live. Religion has no exclusive claim on awe and inspiration, though religion is perhaps one way of labeling and explaining it. When I sing a Verdi Mass, I am filled with emotion and joy by the music, not by a belief in God. But I do respect that the composer was inspired by his own faith to compose such glorious works. I absolutely do NOT believe that religion is inherently negative. It is only the use of it (as mentioned in other posts) that can be destructive. When it is uses as a weapon or an enforced belief on unbelievers or even a way of treating others as somehow less worthy-- that is abuse.

To: MJ who wrote (235263)	1/20/2008 2:46:14 PM
From: the_wheel	Respond to of 793917

Keep Looking Up! I'm with you. You can also look deep down real small too. Time and Space go both ways, Big and Small. And so are WE. Heck, come to think of it you can just take a real quick glance any which old way you want if you know what to look for. It's all right there, even the DARK MATTER, you can IMAGINE THAT. All your base are belong to US. I got to go, the pre-game show is starting. I hope Big & Rich sing the Anthem. I like the way Big twirls his guitar around.

To: MJ who wrote (235263)	1/20/2008 3:06:43 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

Astronaut John Glenn said this: To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible. – Astronaut John Glenn His Bio is here.... johnglennhome.org

To: MJ who wrote (235263)	1/20/2008 10:27:11 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793917

Darwinian evolution says that things evolve because they make creatures more fit to survive and reproduce. Logically, this could apply not just to physical features but also to things like religion as well. Looking at it this way, although I won't advance it as my belief, we could say religion evolved and has become widespread because it makes its adherents, both as individuals and as groups, more fit to survive and reproduce. Religions that make their adherents less likely to survive and reproduce, like say the Jim Jones cult, die out. But religions that have lasted a long time and have lots of adherents, must logically provide fitness benefits to their adherents or they would've died out and certainly wouldn't have gotten to be old and large. So why then don't liberal-minded evolutionist types have respect for religion, especially the large long-lasting religions, as a product of evolution which promotes individual and group fitness? Why do they seem eager to tear it down regardless of its obvious evolutionary value? There's a lack of logical consistency here seems to me.