Out of Pod Experience

This needed a new thread.



One thing that truly irks me , irks I say... is this polarized “two party political system” that separates the “Sciencrats” from the “Religublicans ” (science or religion is all we ever get) It is like we are living in some two party system where, if you choose to vote for that ever illusive third party candidate, you are branded a fool and deemed as, essentially, a non-registered voter! LOL.

& Before you claim to be open minded and level headed… do you even know what the insignificant third party in between science and religion is? Yes? No? Well… lets see…






Rant.

I am going to use EVOLUTION as an example, because I don’t think there are many on these forums who would argue against it in favor of creationism. Unless you are living in a hole somewhere, refusing to look at anything resembling a fossil record, you know that life forms have developed and changed over time in step with their ever changing environment.

The insignificant other is not not voting for science in this pole, it has already won by all intents and purposes. Alternatively, inferring that there might be “bigger questions” to ask, is not suggesting that we are being swayed towards the side of, Religublicans. What it means is that we have further questions that we feel have not yet been adequately addressed.




Example question 1. Obviously why does life exist at all?

The question is not so much “who created life” the question is more like “what the hell?” Existence itself, is extraordinary to us... & for that existence to manifest life and eventually consciousness that is able to perceive itself, as well as said existence, is many many times more extraordinary.




Example question 2. Is it really a given that we should exist? Or is it really all by chance?

We don’t know, but there is a certain frustrating “well duh we (as well as all life) are here because evolution dictated it” resonating from the Sciencrats. It is frustrating because it refuses to let us ask other larger questions like, is this really the best way that we could have evolved? Are there other forms that could have solved problems like flight and locomotion then the ones that we see? Could there be a reason why it is this way, and not the other way, that is as of yet unimagined? Questions that do NOT involve a god at all, though it is instantly assumed that a god is in the undertone.





Example question 3. Does evolution have a hidden natural direction that can be offset by cataclysm?

In the fossil record, it would appear that things had a tendency of getting bigger and more complex. Eventually life became colossal giants as predator and prey continually evolved along side one another. Only through consecutive cataclysms that created multiple mass extinctions, were smaller life forms able dominate the world, if only for a time. Eventually we popped up and commences killing everything that was really big, before it could, presumably, evolve into something even bigger, yet again… and thus we seemed to have inherited the earth (at least for a time)

Is this a natural pattern to this thing called “evolution” that would be repeated over and over, like some kind of path of least resistance model?






I can keep going but I won’t. This is getting looooooog. But this goes out to all of you “Sciencrats” and “Religublicans” out there, if you do not AT THE VERY LEAST understand the nature of the “Insignificant third party candidate” then you cannot possibly pose a legitimate argument for or against one. You are simply a closed minded zealot honing in on your own little corner of existence. What is important is the FREEDOM TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS regardless of what the answers are, without people gathering their pitchforks and assuming that we are secretly batting for either side. Expand your way of thinking... Srsly. Maybe you can call the third party vote "Philosophy", we don't really care... we just want a legitimate seat on the ticket somewhere in between religion and science.


Signed,
Homosapien playing a video game and posting on a gaming forum.

Oh it's that guy again.
I think we already covered your "research and understanding" ability to great length (and hilarity) in previous threads. Please, never stop posting... you are half my fun on these forums.

Best argument I'd put forward as the Insignificant Other is that both are indeed the same.


Life on Earth and Evolution all depended on criteria that can be measured in physics, chemistry and mathematics. Plus a rand variable.


The fact that there is a rand variable for assessment (if we had the masses of data that have already transpired and been lost) illustrates that all previous sub-types, ancestors, religions, etc... are infact the only available outcome.


The only resistance is in the information oriented into the belief system of the observer.


In physics electrons have bonds, enthalpies and properties (ie spin etc) but all of these share a dependancy on the surrounding space.

If you try to convince a Christian that Christ didn't exist, you'd be told "don't bother". If you tried to convince an Islamist that the Prophet Muhammed was anything other than the Prophet Muhammed you would be told "don't bother". If you tried to convince a Hindu that Vishnu was likely the equivalent of a President or Prime Minister with hands in all of society's pies and Ganesh was a bullish person that had a lot of wealth and a desire to procreate polygamously you would again be told "don't bother".


Fundamentally, by attempting to reason with religion you are attempting to replace the properties contained in the region of the brain that allow that belief to be coherent with other properties, that then represent the belief in a different format. You are essentially trying to carry out bio-chemical brain surgery by talking to others about something they hold with zeal.


The same goes for the Science / Religion debate:

Essentially, I'd hold that the only way we have come about is definately intelligent development within our biome, in a withdrawn and thoroughly objective observation it would appear that electrons and their properties in localised areas (e.g.molecules in the body) are moving around the planets surface under what the electron-structures themselves consider "I'm moving around".

Therefore the insignificant other is accepting both, that Science can prove intelligent design, therefore that design represents God, or a fraction thereof.

Yeah... op really needs to do some actual research on what evolution is.

I had to learn that in Bio 101.

#1: No one knows... anyone who says they know is lying

#2: It is not by chance... amino acids form when the elements are placed near each other. There is no random chance, they only fit together 1 way and will find each other.

#3: Natural Selection is a process, regardless of a "cataclysm." It always occurs. Cockroaches will survive a nuclear war while we won't because they would be selected to survive the condition. Why? Because they're pretty f****ing horrifying.

Surfin's PlunderBunny, I just have to say... your post is about as simple Simon as could have been imagined. It pains me to imagine being trapped in a mind so closed off and unable (or perhaps unwilling), too even fathom greater questions and ideas.


But thus, sadly, is most of the world.
Here, have a cookie.

You do realise it's all theory, don't you?

Charles Darwin also wrote a book about how it is okay to enslave African people, as they are closer to animals than humans [in his opinion], and therefore are justifiable for a life of servitude.

You want to take his side?

I think you and anyone else asking these questions, should do their own research and come to your own conclusions about how you feel about your place in the universe.

Hopefully, you will come to realise the only thing that matters is understanding and knowing who YOU are. Everything else is secondary.

To understand the nature of existence is to know the answer to this question, without it you have no business pontificating on this topic.

Sorry.

oh, and IBDS/IBL

Charles Darwin may not have solved all the intricacies of the topic: Science vs God. But when it comes to Evolution he is still essential reading. As for his penchant for loving the enslavement of African's it shows again that bias preceedes evaluation. Sign of his times making him, and then changing his perception based on it.

As for my own passages about deities in other religions they are all retracted and were only used as n-th term illustrations to show that although the Prophet's / God/s of all religions can be rationalized (or bastardized) using modern day hindsight, trying to convince someone of something other than their belief is, at the very least, difficult.

You seem to attempt to marginalized people disagreeing with you, (or posting critically of you), rather then presenting an arguement to them. Or ignoring them.

I find that extreemly dissapointing from somone who wants to be taken seriously.

I would urge you to take a different approach, and make your points clearer, or present them a different way if you do not think other understand them.

Holding true to the spirit in which the topic was meant for, is the more important then getting involved in some kind of poop flinging contest about all the usual drivel.


Also, does your browser not have a right click function that allows you to correct basic spelling mistakes?

what science?

what religion?

you are only irked with silly ideas in a mind you can't control. feel bad about that instead. its sad not to know freedom.

stop confounding your own mind with foolish concepts you insist on putting mental value in.

pot stirring for the sake of drama does nothing for your own growth.

your welcome