Religulous [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

dukebound85

Jun 19, 2008, 06:06 PM

There's a big difference between religiousness and sexual identity. Your sexuality is intrinsic to who you are. It's like ethnicity and skin colour. You do not arbitrarily choose which sexuality to be or which ethnicity to be. These do deserve our respect.

Religion is very much the opposite. Your religion is arbitrary chosen and demonstrably false (To break it gently there was no ark filled with every animal, and there's no such thing as miracles, and no sea was ever parted. No one is being reincarnated. Aliens aren't coming back to earth.). It on preys on people's fears and selling them the idea that the are being just and good through subscription. It deserves to be challenged and mocked where it is ridiculous. No matter how people try to sell it 'faith' has no virtue to it at all. It's just like all 'beliefs', challenging, debating, and mocking is healthy.

If you feel the need to hide your religion away from challenge, then there's every chance you already realise it is absurd and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

how in the heck do you know it's false? also, religion DEFINES who i am to say otherwise is utter bs. sorry i am seriously offended by your comment. what gives you the right, no, make that what makes you so sure that you are right to the point that you are correct and anyone who is religious is someone who cant grasp reality.....

have you ever asked the question why is there ANYTHING at all? to act like you KNOW all the answers without knowing the truth yourself is absurd
:rolleyes:

Aren't you raising an eyebrow right now? :confused:

yes i am but if it were concerning sexual identity, it would have been called out on the next reply

bull ****. People's religion is intrinsic to who they are as well. You think the folks walking around today just said "hmmm, I think I'll be a muslim, or something..". Try telling a Jew that their religion has nothing to do with their identity and see what the response is.

exactly

valdore

Jun 19, 2008, 06:06 PM

Andy, I'm totally with you here - I see no reason to not call people out for having absurd and illogical beliefs.

Much Ado

Jun 19, 2008, 06:09 PM

This idea of the followers being chosen by the deity doesn't withstand the point that there are multiple religions, some of which are even based around the same deity. If you were chosen why aren't you a Muslim? Or a Jew?

Exactly!

It's all well and good saying 'Hey look, God chose me, I didn't choose him', but who was it then who said 'Be a Muslim' or 'Be a Hindu' to those who chose those faiths?

religion DEFINES who i am

So said a Christian friend of mine, shortly before ditching the faith and becoming a Buddhist. If he was called by God in the first place, then why turn his back?

Gelfin

Jun 19, 2008, 06:14 PM

It has become intrinsic to who I am.

A language note rather than a religious one: Something cannot become intrinsic to you. That isn't what intrinsic means. It always was, or it isn't. You can argue that your religion is important to you, but you cannot call it intrinsic because you were not born with it. Whether your religion was bestowed upon you by God or by other humans doesn't matter. That it was bestowed at all makes it extrinsic.

blackfox

Jun 19, 2008, 06:15 PM

I'll keep an eye on this movie - perhaps it will be good, but I can see a lot of ways in which it could fail.

As for Bill Maher - I love his HBO show, but find his stand-up to be lacking.

His stance on religion is well-known - and while he has definitely had some hilarious observations to that end, he is hardly open-minded. We'll see how this plays out in the movie...

.Andy

Jun 19, 2008, 06:21 PM

I could argue that I didn't choose my religion but God chose me. He revealed to me the truths through my own experiences and His Word. It has become intrinsic to who I am. I could not deny the existance of God without deceiving myself and denying who I truly am.
You weren't specially chosen by 'god'. You're an awesome person with awesome thoughts, awesome actions, and an awesome personality. That's you. You have that autonomy intrinsically - ascribing yourself who you are because of god is selling yourself short. You'd be great and have the same aspirations and behaviours god or not. If you lost your faith you'd be exactly that same passionate and thoughtful person you are now.

So thats how you justify mocking the faithful/religious?

Thats bigotry, my friend. In a nice. little. box.
Beliefs deserve to be mocked when they're patently false and absurd. If someone wants to sell intelligent design or creationism as science they deserve to be mocked and laughed out of town for their stupidity. It's not science. If they pretend that they were born in to their religion or specially chosen by god then they also deserve to have that mocked for their delusions of grandeur. There's a difference between bigotry and challenging people's perceptions, which is exactly what initial point was. Your religion is arbitrary, whereas your ethnicity/sexuality is intrinsic.

how in the heck do you know it's false? also, religion DEFINES who i am to say otherwise is utter bs. sorry i am seriously offended by your comment. what gives you the right, no, make that what makes you so sure that you are right to the point that you are correct and anyone who is religious is someone who cant grasp reality.....
I have no idea what you are saying here. You weren't born with you religion. It isn't intrinsic to who you, you've arbitrarily chosen it, or had it thrust upon you by indoctrination. If you were born in the middle east you'd likely be a muslim, in Burma likely a buddhist, in Hollywood likely a scientologist....

have you ever asked the question why is there ANYTHING at all? to act like you KNOW all the answers without knowing the truth yourself is absurd :rolleyes:
I don't claim to know any answers. Quite the contrary. You are the one ascribing ANYTHING and everything to god. By claiming that you are loud and clearly shouting that you have all the answers. I'd much rather take the humble road of admitting I don't know what things are, but am happy to read, do the research, and logically challenge preconceptions. I'll be more than happy to die without deluding myself into thinking I have all the answers.

floyde

Jun 19, 2008, 06:27 PM

Well I wouldn't be offended if someone made monkey jokes about me because of my atheistic stance. I might find it annoying, sure, but I wouldn't call them bigots or intolerant. As long as no one incites hatred, persecution or infringes on other people's rights, then it's all just a healthy (if rather annoying) exercise of free speech. Just so you understand where .Andy's coming from, think about this: if someone made fun of a person who believes in fairies, you might think that it's rude, but you would rarely use the label 'intolerant'. For some of us, belief in religion and belief in fairies seems pretty much like the same thing.

obeygiant

Jun 19, 2008, 06:34 PM

Beliefs deserve to be mocked when they're patently false and absurd. If someone wants to sell intelligent design or creationism as science they deserve to be mocked and laughed out of town for their stupidity. It's not science. If they pretend that they were born in to their religion or specially chosen by god then they also deserve to have that mocked for their delusions of grandeur. There's a difference between bigotry and challenging people's perceptions, which is exactly what initial point was. Your religion is arbitrary, whereas your ethnicity/sexuality is intrinsic.

Sure. The creation museum is stupid. Make fun of it. Be my guest. There are fringe aspects to every group or community. But thats not license to mock all religion across the board. I guess thats what they call a slippery slope. So wear good shoes.

To say that religion isn't intrinsic to someone's identity is just wrong. Measure the heated responses you get when you state your opinion outside of the PRSI "safe" area. If its not intrinsic, then why didn't all the jews in Hitler's Germany just stop being jews? Why go to the camps if its just some "arbitrary choice"?

Virgil-TB2

Jun 19, 2008, 06:41 PM

I think you guys are arguing at cross purposes.

Yes, Religion defines who you are and is hard to separate from the individual.
Yes, Religion is "built-in" and not a rational choice in that sense.
No, Religion is not a *rational* choice, by definition.
No, that's not a jab at believers, it's just a fact.

In fact, to the degree that Religious belief *is* irrational and indoctrinated at birth, it mimics things like sexual orientation that are biological in origin.

So IMO we should tolerate people who are religious and not make fun of them because it's just as rude (and unproductive) as making fun of any racial or gender group, but we also should make fun of the religion itself as much as possible.

i.e. - The person can't help what they believe, but what they believe is seriously stupid and should not be respected.

Virgil-TB2

Jun 19, 2008, 06:44 PM

skunk

Jun 19, 2008, 06:52 PM

.Andy

Jun 19, 2008, 06:56 PM

To say that religion isn't intrinsic to someone's identity is just wrong.
I'm not sure what your point is. Read Gelfin's definition of intrinsic, yours is a ambiguous construct that is trying to derail what you were initially taking issue with (and were wrong).

Measure the heated responses you get when you state your opinion outside of the PRSI "safe" area.Is this some kind of threat? Or are you claiming that because a lot of people believe it then it must be true?

If its not intrinsic, then why didn't all the jews in Hitler's Germany just stop being jews? Why go to the camps if its just some "arbitrary choice"?
I'm guessing you're being disingenuous but I'll play along for fun! You honestly think jews were rounded up solely based on their religion? Did the nazi's ask them if they were practicing jews and let them go if they said they weren't religious?

Answer me this - if you took jewish infants and grew them outside of the jewish community/society, lets say on a desert island, at 20 years how many do you think would end up claiming to be of the jewish religion? (p.s. the answer is none - its not intrinsic).

Gelfin

Jun 19, 2008, 06:56 PM

To say that religion isn't intrinsic to someone's identity is just wrong. Measure the heated responses you get when you state your opinion outside of the PRSI "safe" area. If its not intrinsic, then why didn't all the jews in Hitler's Germany just stop being jews? Why go to the camps if its just some "arbitrary choice"?

Look, it isn't that hard to sort this out. Just stop using that word. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

Actually, I think maybe you know it doesn't. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to pull a fast one by equivocating the Jewish faith with the predominant Jewish ethnicity. Hitler didn't much care who actually went to Synagogue.

Furthermore, a trait does not need to be intrinsic to be difficult to cast off. One's first language is not something one can just give up, but it is not intrinsic. Tradition and culture are hard to abandon, but they are not intrinsic. The opposite of "intrinsic" is not "arbitrary choice."

pooky

Jun 19, 2008, 07:06 PM

Religion is very much the opposite. Your religion is arbitrary chosen and demonstrably false (To break it gently there was no ark filled with every animal, and there's no such thing as miracles, and no sea was ever parted. No one is being reincarnated. Aliens aren't coming back to earth.). It on preys on people's fears and selling them the idea that the are being just and good through subscription. It deserves to be challenged and mocked where it is ridiculous. No matter how people try to sell it 'faith' has no virtue to it at all. It's just like all 'beliefs', challenging, debating, and mocking is healthy.

To be fair to religious people...

Lots of people are delusional due to some intrinsic mental illness. So, for some at least, perhaps their religion is intrinsic.

.Andy

Jun 19, 2008, 07:10 PM

To be fair to religious people...

Lots of people are delusional due to some intrinsic mental illness. So, for some at least, perhaps their religion is intrinsic.
I'd argue not. Their delusion might be intrinsic to their organic mental illness, but their chosen religion is still very much extrinsic.

obeygiant

Jun 19, 2008, 07:21 PM

I'm not sure what your point is. Read Gelfin's definition of intrinsic, yours is a ambiguous construct that is trying to derail what you were initially taking issue with (and were wrong).

Ok fine. Make fun of anybody you want to. Religion is grey area and isn't "intrinsic". Although I know a few muslims who would just assume chop off their arms or legs instead of casting off their faith. But if you think mocking and laughing at people who are faithful is "healthy"? Then slam a Foster's and have at it haus.

Is this some kind of threat?

No. You read that as a threat? Relax babe.

floyde

Jun 19, 2008, 07:34 PM

Ok fine. Make fun of anybody you want to. Religion is grey area and isn't "intrinsic". Although I know a few muslims who would just assume chop off their arms or legs instead of casting off their faith. But if you think mocking and laughing at people who are faithful is "healthy"? Then slam a Foster's and have at it haus.
...

Perhaps with our mocking we could save a limb our two. That's our motivation, it's not just for the sake of making fun of people. Some of us feel that religion is harmful. In a weird way, you could say that we're just trying to help. If you feel that no help is required, then simply ignore us.

mactastic

Jun 19, 2008, 07:41 PM

yes i am but if it were concerning sexual identity, it would have been called out on the next reply
Ah yes, the persecution complex. No one called out this comment in the next reply, therefore no one ever will. :rolleyes:
Although I know a few muslims who would just assume chop off their arms or legs instead of casting off their faith.
I know a few people who would rather chop off their arms or legs instead of eating meat. Does that mean vegetarianism is intrinsic?

I also know a few people who would rather stick hot pokers in their ears than listen to country music. Does that mean rock and roll is intrinsic?

obeygiant

Jun 19, 2008, 07:45 PM

Perhaps with our mocking we could save a limb our two. That's our motivation, it's not just for the sake of making fun of people. Some of us feel that religion is harmful. In a weird way, you could say that we're just trying to help. If you feel that no help is required, then simply ignore us.

Well I guess you could rationalize mocking a particular group as "helping" them. I'd just assume not say anything and let them be. Why not curb your own behavior instead of having the butt of your joke ignore you. If you stood in a street corner in Dearborn, Michigan and pointed and laughed at every woman wearing a Hajaab I doubt anyone would assume that you're just helping them.

.Andy

Jun 19, 2008, 07:48 PM

Ok fine. Make fun of anybody you want to.
Thanks I will.

Religion is grey area and isn't "intrinsic".
No it's not intrinsic I'm glad you've admitted you're wrong. But why on earth would religion be a 'grey area'? What does that mean? Is it a vacuous attempt to somehow protect it from challenge?

Although I know a few muslims who would just assume chop off their arms or legs instead of casting off their faith.
Again this has nothing to do with anything.

But if you think mocking and laughing at people who are faithful is "healthy"?
No. Challenging, and debating, and mocking patently false preconceptions and assertions is healthy. There's a difference - again you're trying in vain to blur the lines between the two. There is no virtue in faith. Those who have sold you that idea are liars.

Then slam a Foster's and have at it haus. Now this is a preconception that deserves mocking. Australian's don't drink Foster's. You can barely even buy it here. It's a horrid piss-weak beverage that is exported and to countries that have destroyed their palates ;).

obeygiant

Jun 19, 2008, 07:51 PM

Ah yes, the persecution complex. No one called out this comment in the next reply, therefore no one ever will. :rolleyes:

Ah yes. The "Persecution Complex" defense. To be used anytime some opposes making fun or defends reglion in any way. Quite effective. :)

I know a few people who would rather chop off their arms or legs instead of eating meat. Does that mean vegetarianism is intrinsic?

I also know a few people who would rather stick hot pokers in their ears than listen to country music. Does that mean rock and roll is intrinsic?

Once again, mac. I'm tied up by your logic and equivalency counter arguments. Because being religious is the same as listening to country music.

skunk

Jun 19, 2008, 07:53 PM

Because being religious is the same as listening to country music.In that they are both choices of dubious value, yes.

obeygiant

Jun 19, 2008, 07:55 PM

Thanks I will.

Where you absent the day they were teaching the golden rule in Kindergarden? Wait do they even have skool down there? ;) :)

obeygiant

Jun 19, 2008, 07:57 PM

In that they are both choices of dubious value, yes.

LOL. Thanks for that, skunk. :)

calculus

Jun 19, 2008, 07:57 PM

Because being religious is the same as listening to country music.

In that they are both choices of dubious value, yes.

Well, in my eyes Gram Parsons was a God...

skunk

Jun 19, 2008, 08:02 PM

Well, in my eyes Gram Parsons was a God...God would have been able to handle the morphine.

calculus

Jun 19, 2008, 08:04 PM

God would have been able to handle the morphine.

Possibly so, but could (s)he have written Thousand Dollar Wedding?

LethalWolfe

Jun 19, 2008, 09:34 PM

SLC Flyfishing

Jun 19, 2008, 10:39 PM

There's a big difference between religiousness and sexual identity. Your sexuality is intrinsic to who you are. It's like ethnicity and skin colour. You do not arbitrarily choose which sexuality to be or which ethnicity to be. These do deserve our respect.

Religion is very much the opposite. Your religion is arbitrary chosen and demonstrably false (To break it gently there was no ark filled with every animal, and there's no such thing as miracles, and no sea was ever parted. No one is being reincarnated. Aliens aren't coming back to earth.). It on preys on people's fears and selling them the idea that the are being just and good through subscription. It deserves to be challenged and mocked where it is ridiculous. No matter how people try to sell it 'faith' has no virtue to it at all. It's just like all 'beliefs', challenging, debating, and mocking is healthy.

If you feel the need to hide your religion away from challenge, then there's every chance you already realise it is absurd and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I disagree entirely, I've tried to change my religious beliefs, I see all the evidence against religion. But still I can't seem to make myself feel differently about god and my relationship with him. Much like a homosexual individual I imagine. Anyone who likes to go around mocking religious persons as idiots or "sheep" needs to re-evaluate the respect they claim all people deserve.

That or from now on I'll make it a point to mention on a more regular basis how moronic and hypocritical all anti-religious people are.

SLC

SLC Flyfishing

Jun 19, 2008, 10:54 PM

There is no virtue in faith. Those who have sold you that idea are liars.

Care to explain this, with the concrete evidence that good science demands of course!

SLC

floyde

Jun 19, 2008, 11:21 PM

Well I guess you could rationalize mocking a particular group as "helping" them. I'd just assume not say anything and let them be. Why not curb your own behavior instead of having the butt of your joke ignore you. If you stood in a street corner in Dearborn, Michigan and pointed and laughed at every woman wearing a Hajaab I doubt anyone would assume that you're just helping them.

Well, like I said, it's not about mocking for the sake of mockery. The situation you describe would cause harm instead of helping those women. Something I would do is the following:

If I were friends with a muslim woman, I would sit with her with a copy of the Qur’an and I would try to make her see how silly the verses that keep her oppressed are. I would attempt to make her understand that she is not inferior to men, that she needn't cover herself in shame (it's her choice to cover or not) and that there's no such thing as a God that would subject her to such abuse and humiliation. So, as Virgil-TB2 said, it's not about making fun of the people who believe, but rather, the beliefs themselves. I would do the same with people who think they'll be rewarded with heavenly virgins if they become suicide bombers as I would with "God hates fags" type of Christians or with Scientologists throwing away their life savings to pay for ridiculous stories about aliens and volcanos and mass-murdered thetans.

So we try to make people see how ridiculous these beliefs are, not because we purposely want to offend them, but because we hope that perhaps they'll snap out of it and they'll quit doing all these harmful things to themselves and others.

Now I didn't start this thread only to discuss the movie. I'm interested in discussing the validity of "preaching" (for lack of a better word) atheism. I've been debating with myself wether it's OK for people like Maher to make this kind of movie, or for Dawkins to write the type of books he writes. In my opinion religion is harmful, but I don't know if I should just let people be or if I should try to talk people out of religion (not force that upon them, but expose my ideas so that they can decide for themselves). I've not reached a conclusion about that yet, so I'm interested in people's opinions about this.

floyde

Jun 19, 2008, 11:41 PM

Care to explain this, with the concrete evidence that good science demands of course!

SLC

Consider the following statement:

"SLC Flyfishing, I've got this great book! It's by a being called Jake, He knows the meaning of the universe and wields the absolute truth! He told me that He could reward you with eternal bliss, but first you have to believe in Him. You believe in Him, right? Oh, Jake also said you should give me $100 as proof of your devotion to Him."

Now if I were to tell you that (even if I actually had a book), and you believed me, we could safely say that you could be considered a gullible person for believing in such a preposterous claim without evidence, right?

Gullibility isn't normally considered a virtue. In fact, I'm sure you would agree with me if I told you that it's a bad thing to believe in sensational claims without first demanding proof, except when those claims are about religion, of course.

mithrilfox

Jun 20, 2008, 12:07 AM

People make fun of anyone and everyone for any and every reason. Religion is just another way to make fun of people.

Now, if Bill Maher were doing this with race... boy, he'd lose his head. But nope, he's doing it to religion, and bashing religion is OK, especially Christianity. You can sort of bash Islam a little, but don't dare do it as much as you do it to Christianity. It's still open season on Christianity.

It's weird, how societies decide what can and cannot be made fun of, and how you can and cannot make fun of it.

Moral of the story? People are cruel and evil. I already knew that, so it doesn't bother any of my sensibilities or worldview.

mithrilfox

Jun 20, 2008, 12:08 AM

Consider the following statement:

"SLC Flyfishing, I've got this great book! It's by a being called Jake, He knows the meaning of the universe and wields the absolute truth! He told me that He could reward you with eternal bliss, but first you have to believe in Him. You believe in Him, right? Oh, Jake also said you should give me $100 as proof of your devotion to Him."

<cough> ... complete strawman ... <cough>

blackfox

Jun 20, 2008, 01:23 AM

Perhaps we should merge this thread with the once concerning brain-scan data, or better yet start another thread entirely to deal with the topic of sexuality/race/religion.

Because this makes (2) threads that are off the rails.

Not that this can't be interesting stuff - but it is poorly focused to be sure.

pooky

Jun 20, 2008, 01:25 AM

Anyone who likes to go around mocking religious persons as idiots or "sheep" needs to re-evaluate the respect they claim all people deserve.

I for one have never claimed that all people deserve respect. People above the age of 10 (plus or minus) who believe in faeries, easter bunnies, and teakettles orbiting halfway between Mars and Jupiter deserve to be mocked. Irrational beliefs deserve to be pointed out for what they are. People with irrational beliefs don't get as much respect as people lacking irrational beliefs. For example, the guy who hangs out in the city park near my house and sincerely believes that he is the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte and that the government is listening to him through his toaster because they don't want him to reconquer Europe doesn't get as much respect from me as the guy sitting nearby wearing a suit and holding a briefcase who sincerely believes he is an accountant.

If I went 'round claiming I was an emperor because some moistened bink lugged a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

.Andy

Jun 20, 2008, 03:18 AM

words
You didn't read the thread did you.

I disagree entirely, I've tried to change my religious beliefs, I see all the evidence against religion.
Your religion still isn't intrinsic. The definition of intrinsic has been posted numerous times in this thread. Your religion is arbitrarily chosen. No matter what song and dance you make.

But still I can't seem to make myself feel differently about god and my relationship with him.
You can't have a relationship with an imaginary being. If it were anything but god you were referring to you'd be suspected of a mental illness.

Much like a homosexual individual I imagine.
Your religion is still not intrinsic to you. Homosexuals are born with that tendency. The religion you prescribe to is arbitrarily chosen, or you were indoctrinated. QED. That's all there is to the matter.

Anyone who likes to go around mocking religious persons as idiots or "sheep" needs to re-evaluate the respect they claim all people deserve.
I agree. However where religious people start peddling their beliefs as legitimate (intelligent design is science! Naohs ark is real! Miracles are real! Check out this E-reader, psychiatry is out to kill you) they deserved to be laughed at. Absurd beliefs like all the animals in the world were rounded up and placed on a yacht that a man (who lived for 950 years!) built deserve nothing but ridicule. As do people who pretend that their supernatural deity of choice is speaking to them or has specifically chosen them.

That or from now on I'll make it a point to mention on a more regular basis how moronic and hypocritical all anti-religious people are.
Feel free. I'm probably more moronic and hypocritical than most so I'll appreciate your wrath. If it's cathartic send me a PM to such effect. All I ask is you can back up your assertions with something more than claims of a relationship with an supernatural being.

Care to explain this, with the concrete evidence that good science demands of course!
If only you asked proof when it came to being sold a religion.

Now, if Bill Maher were doing this with race... boy, he'd lose his head. But nope, he's doing it to religion, and bashing religion is OK, especially Christianity.
<cough> ... complete strawman ... <cough>
Only 12 hours late with the post and covering exactly the same ground as has been gone over in the thread already. You can't equivocate race and religion. You are born with with your race, you are not born with your religion. Religion is an arbitrarily choice (directly through the individuals choice or indirectly through indoctrination). All choices can be put under scrutiny just fine. But it's in the religionists best interests to cultivate a society where you can't, just can't (!) challenge someone's beliefs or point out where they are irrational.

SLC Flyfishing

Jun 20, 2008, 09:58 AM

.Andy, I never claimed my religion is intrinsic. In fact, it goes against my religious beliefs to claim that religion is intrinsic, I believe we're here to be tested and see whether or not we have the faith to grasp the truth and hold to it. But what I did claim is that now that I've come into contact with what I feel is the truth, I can no longer force myself to believe otherwise.

Thing is .Andy, that I am a University Student, I'm taking all the Biology and Chemistry and Anthropology classes, I see the evidence against religion on a daily basis. I spend hours upon hours everyday with people who can't stand the fact that I believe in god. I've even had my current job threatened when the Professor found out that I'm a religious person (if only I'd been gay, then I'd have a case in which I might have had an easier time defending myself.) I'm surrounded by persuasive evidence that my beliefs are false, yet no matter how I try, I can't deny the feeling I have about god and my place in this world. Perhaps I don't really believe all the sensationalist stories from the Bible are true as told, but rather stories that give people an idea of how to handle the challenges of life in a dignified manner. Still, I feel I've received personal witness of God's existence, no I haven't seen him, no I haven't heard him speak, but I have regularly felt his presence in my life at times when I needed a friend and no one else has been there for me. In the end, that's why I'm not comfortable denying his existence.

But I suppose you'll come back with some sarcastic response about how it's really the chemicals in my brain that I have a relationship won't you.

Here's where I stand in the end.

I believe in science, I believe that man has the ability to learn about the world around him, and that the practice of science is guided by god. However, since this life is a test (and also we're here to imporve ourselves and are on a sort of "eternal progression" scale) god isn't going to just come right out and say what's true and what isn't. That's where I think the illusions of grandeur come in on the part of unbelievers. You all think that because you can't find physical evidence that god exists, then then he must not. You're so in love with yourselves and are living inside your heads, you think that you have the ability to know everything simply based on physical evidence. You are all very proud of yourselves for "not being deceived" by religion, and you should be, they're all false. But god exists and you'll not be able to definitively prove otherwise.

People like you .Andy, think they know it all (sure you'll claim to know nothing, but you don't really believe that and it shows). Ya know, 80 years ago people would have told you that Atoms were the smallest most basic unit of matter, argue with them and say there's more to it than that and you would have been laughed out of the Chem building. But then someone split one and a whole bunch of particles came flying out, the greatest minds in the world had to re-evaluate their beliefs all the sudden. There are examples in all branches of the sciences, and I'm not saying scientists are stupid for believing what they do, just that for the people with the worlds greatest track record of having to go back on their assertions to say that what I believe is patently false, seems a bit more than hypocritical. Perhaps one day, some scientist will look far enough and finally find that undeniable proof of a god, but somehow I don't think that god will be happy with his decision to finally accept his existence.

For now I'll go with my heart and say that while I may not understand all the physical aspects of the universe, I know with a certainty the things that matter. And no amount of mocking will make me think otherwise, instead in only strengthens my beliefs.

SLC

imac/cheese

Jun 20, 2008, 11:03 AM

Let's not beat about the bush. Either you chose your religion or your parents chose it for you by proxy. This idea of the followers being chosen by the deity doesn't withstand the point that there are multiple religions, some of which are even based around the same deity. If you were chosen why aren't you a Muslim? Or a Jew?

I didn't say people of other religions were chosen by their deities, but I am stating that I was chosen by mine. The Bible states in Ephesians 1:4 "...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world..." The Jews are God's chosen people, but I am not a Jew because I believe in that the Messiah has already been here once.

You weren't specially chosen by 'god'. You're an awesome person with awesome thoughts, awesome actions, and an awesome personality. That's you. You have that autonomy intrinsically - ascribing yourself who you are because of god is selling yourself short. You'd be great and have the same aspirations and behaviours god or not. If you lost your faith you'd be exactly that same passionate and thoughtful person you are now.

I was specially chosen by God. Seeing as I was the one who experienced the choosing, you are either saying I have been deceived or am lying about my experiences. Seeing as you have no idea what happened in my life, it seems extremely presumptious for you to assume you have the answer. I can understand that you do not believe in God, but you are stating that belief as if it is fact. I do, however, thank you for the compliments about my complete awesomeness.

I have no idea what you are saying here. You weren't born with you religion. It isn't intrinsic to who you, you've arbitrarily chosen it, or had it thrust upon you by indoctrination. If you were born in the middle east you'd likely be a muslim, in Burma likely a buddhist, in Hollywood likely a scientologist.....

There are countless people born in a variety of regions throughout the world that are chosen by God and change the religion they grew up with.

I don't claim to know any answers. Quite the contrary. You are the one ascribing ANYTHING and everything to god. By claiming that you are loud and clearly shouting that you have all the answers. I'd much rather take the humble road of admitting I don't know what things are, but am happy to read, do the research, and logically challenge preconceptions. I'll be more than happy to die without deluding myself into thinking I have all the answers.

It is amusing to me that you state in one part of your post that I definitely was not chosen by God but then later claim that you do not have all the answers. If you don't have all the answers, how do you know I wasn't chosen by God? I don't claim to have all the answers either. I do, however, have faith in God and in my salvation through Jesus Christ.

Of course if one does't believe in God, the Holy Spirit, or my faith, that leaves me simply looking deluded in their eyes. I understand that and can accept any mocking that might be thrown my way. On the flip side, it leaves you looking deluded in my eyes. I see those without Chirst as being deceived by the god of this world. I do not, however, wish to mock or laugh at these people. I prefer to pray for rather than mock people and I do pray that one day you, .Andy, will come to see the truths that I have seen.

A language note rather than a religious one: Something cannot become intrinsic to you. That isn't what intrinsic means. It always was, or it isn't. You can argue that your religion is important to you, but you cannot call it intrinsic because you were not born with it. Whether your religion was bestowed upon you by God or by other humans doesn't matter. That it was bestowed at all makes it extrinsic.

I appreciate the langauge note. I looked up the definition of intrinsic to see what it was I was actually stating. The definition I saw was this: belonging to the essential nature of a thing.

My essential nature has been changed by my faith. When I believed in Christ, I was filled with the Holy Spirirt and everything about me changed. Since I was born-again, my faith is intrinsic to my new being.

I could also say that since God chose me before the foundation of the world, my faith has always been intrinsic to who I am. It was just dormant for many years.

Iscariot

Jun 20, 2008, 11:38 AM

Religion is a choice. If you argue that God chose you, fine; God made the choice. Just like with any other choice, if you want people to respect that choice, you have to earn it. There is no choice that automatically confers a certain amount of respect, because even the most noble of choices could be made for the wrong reasons or corrupted towards the wrong ends. Another notable example would be the choice to be a police officer, typically a very respectable choice, but when made for the purposes of brandishing power, it quickly becomes a choice that can no longer be respected.

You may argue that your right to make that choice must be respected, but once you've made it, all bets are off. If you are concerned about respect, you can certainly choose to earn it.

Queso

Jun 20, 2008, 11:44 AM

I didn't say people of other religions were chosen by their deities, but I am stating that I was chosen by mine. The Bible states in Ephesians 1:4 "...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world..." The Jews are God's chosen people, but I am not a Jew because I believe in that the Messiah has already been here once.
Although I concede you believe you were chosen to follow your path, had you been born in Israel, North Africa or even India I suspect you would feel just as chosen in following the path presented by your subsequent culture. Therefore it would be less that you were chosen by the Christian version of god (whom as you know I don't think exists anyway) and more that you were chosen to be a Christian by your environment. It's nurture rather than nature if you will ;)

imac/cheese

Jun 20, 2008, 02:00 PM

Although I concede you believe you were chosen to follow your path, had you been born in Israel, North Africa or even India I suspect you would feel just as chosen in following the path presented by your subsequent culture. Therefore it would be less that you were chosen by the Christian version of god (whom as you know I don't think exists anyway) and more that you were chosen to be a Christian by your environment. It's nurture rather than nature if you will ;)

The culture I grew up in did give me more experiences with Christianity than other religions, but my environment actually led me to choose atheisism. Everything that I was told and everything I saw in our culture led me away from faith. My personal experiences and what I feel was a prompting from God led me to search the Word of God for truth.

If you are correct, and there is no God, then of course no one has been chosen and all those who think they were chosen have actually been deluded by their environment. If I am correct and what the Bible says is accurate, Christians have been chosen and those of other religious faiths and those of no faith at all have been deceived by the god of this world. The root of this discussion boils down to who is right about the existence of the Christian God, which is a very open debate at this point in time. This discussion is definitely an interesting spin on nurture vs nature. :)

.Andy

Jun 20, 2008, 07:05 PM

(if only I'd been gay, then I'd have a case in which I might have had an easier time defending myself.)
This illustrates your intellect and where you're coming from perfectly.

I'm surrounded by persuasive evidence that my beliefs are false, yet no matter how I try, I can't deny the feeling I have about god and my place in this world.
This is perfect delusion. I know I'm wrong, but I don't want to be.

Here's where I stand in the end.
If only it were. You've written another 10 000 words saying exactly the same thing!

That's where I think the illusions of grandeur come in on the part of unbelievers. You all think that because you can't find physical evidence that god exists, then then he must not.
No. I think it's a delusion of grandeur when people carry on about god revealling himself to them, selecting them especially as a child of his, and being with them (metaphor!!!) in times of need.

You're so in love with yourselves and are living inside your heads, you think that you have the ability to know everything simply based on physical evidence.
You're starting to babble now.

You are all very proud of yourselves for "not being deceived" by religion, and you should be, they're all false. But god exists and you'll not be able to definitively prove otherwise.
How did you go in your epistemology exams at your university?

People like you .Andy, think they know it all (sure you'll claim to know nothing, but you don't really believe that and it shows).
I hope it shows I don't 'believe' in the supernatural.

Ya know, 80 years ago people would have told you that Atoms were the smallest most basic unit of matter, argue with them and say there's more to it than that and you would have been laughed out of the Chem building.
You would have been unless you can show some experimental evidence. A hypothesis is completely useless to everyone if there is no way to test it.

But then someone split one and a whole bunch of particles came flying out, the greatest minds in the world had to re-evaluate their beliefs all the sudden.
Yes when there was evidence :rolleyes:. Even you're analogies are terrible! Newsflash: When people make stuff up they have a hard time being believed. It's not difficult. It's not science being horrible and nasty. I guess making things up and being believed in church is easier.....

There are examples in all branches of the sciences, and I'm not saying scientists are stupid for believing what they do, just that for the people with the worlds greatest track record of having to go back on their assertions to say that what I believe is patently false, seems a bit more than hypocritical.
No. From a scientific perspective (since that's how you're arguing this) you are completely foolish for being convinced of something for which there is no evidence. It's not scientists being hypocritical, it's holding higher standards and not believing everything they are told. Skepticism is a good thing for knowledge.

Perhaps one day, some scientist will look far enough and finally find that undeniable proof of a god, but somehow I don't think that god will be happy with his decision to finally accept his existence.
Ah. So if we find evidence for god, and believe in god because of that irrefutable evidence, god will not accept us anyway. Glad you got in while you could!

For now I'll go with my heart and say that while I may not understand all the physical aspects of the universe, I know with a certainty the things that matter. And no amount of mocking will make me think otherwise, instead in only strengthens my beliefs.
Why on earth would you be so fickle as to have your 'beliefs' strengthened by mocking? Surely you'd want to have them strengthened by continually challenging your beliefs and knowledge. The atom would never have been split with that attitude.

.Andy

Jun 20, 2008, 07:13 PM

I didn't say people of other religions were chosen by their deities, but I am stating that I was chosen by mine.

I was specially chosen by God.

There are countless people born in a variety of regions throughout the world that are chosen by God

I could also say that since God chose me before the foundation of the world
So does god choose people at random for salvation? Or is it like basketball at school where he picks the most talented first down to the kid with no coordination? Does he take turns with other gods? Does Satan get a choice? How do the gods decide who chooses first?

It must be a boon to your self esteem to be picked by god before so many other people in the world!

Digital Skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 02:09 AM

Andy, I'm totally with you here - I see no reason to not call people out for having absurd and illogical beliefs.

Or absurd sexualities? Is that correct?

Exactly!

It's all well and good saying 'Hey look, God chose me, I didn't choose him', but who was it then who said 'Be a Muslim' or 'Be a Hindu' to those who chose those faiths?

So said a Christian friend of mine, shortly before ditching the faith and becoming a Buddhist. If he was called by God in the first place, then why turn his back?

Do some research, you will find out why. But I take it you won't and you'll just flame me.

i.e. - The person can't help what they believe, but what they believe is seriously stupid and should not be respected.

Same thing with sexuality and race too right? We don't have to make fun of the person, just their skin color. :D

Perhaps with our mocking we could save a limb our two. That's our motivation, it's not just for the sake of making fun of people. Some of us feel that religion is harmful. In a weird way, you could say that we're just trying to help. If you feel that no help is required, then simply ignore us.

We are, and the sad part is that the lack of religion is harmful too. That argument is about as idiotic as the gun theories people put up. Take away the guns, and nothing is safe, give everyone a gun and we are all safe.

Yeah, I am pretty sure the blip of existence most people have is much better than much of human history.

Just to note, I plead the fifth on religion since both sides are f%$ked up and ignorant.

Once you READ THE BOOKS instead of forming your own biased opinion (that's everyone) many of you will be surprised.

Beric

Jun 21, 2008, 02:53 AM

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 21, 2008, 03:03 AM

Or absurd sexualities? Is that correct?

Do some research, you will find out why. But I take it you won't and you'll just flame me.

Same thing with sexuality and race too right? We don't have to make fun of the person, just their skin color. :D

We are, and the sad part is that the lack of religion is harmful too. That argument is about as idiotic as the gun theories people put up. Take away the guns, and nothing is safe, give everyone a gun and we are all safe.

Yeah, I am pretty sure the blip of existence most people have is much better than much of human history.

Just to note, I plead the fifth on religion since both sides are f%$ked up and ignorant.

Once you READ THE BOOKS instead of forming your own biased opinion (that's everyone) many of you will be surprised.

Sorry, Skunk, but most of this has already been touched on. The definition of Intrinstic has been repeated a million times, and the arguments are there for why pulling the race or homosexual card in comparison to the religion card doesn't work, but of course...

Do the research and you'll see why. But I take it you won't and you'll just flame me.

While I disagree on lack of religion being intristically more harmful, I, as an atheist, certainly disagree with Richard Dawkins on the issue of ridding religion completely. If I could say "all religion be gone," and it happen, I'd choose not to, because I think such a sudden transition on a massive scale (every person) would be very harmful to those who couldn't handle it, emotionally or what-have-you. Where I do agree with the OP is with situations like the one he describes. To defend a belief such as that women are inferior and need to wear head-dresses and such is disgusting, and I would do everything in my power to convince that person that they are not inferior. As with anything. I may throw in some stuff about God in there, but ultimately, if you believe because of faith, you can't be touched. While that's a scary attribute of religion, it's one that just has to be dealt with in ignorance (for the most part). As has been said many times, it's not about making fun of religion just for the sake of mocking the person...and I hope you can re-read the thread and maybe see that making fun of a belief revolving around an intergalactic confederacy leader blowing up billions of humans on volcanoes with hydrogen bombs billions of years before the Earth was around and making fun of someone because they are black are not the same thing. You could insert any religious fairy-tale in that space - I only use Scientology because Christians have no problem making fun of that whacky religion, but do have problems with people making fun of their own.

As for the last part, I assume you mean the holy books? I've read the Bible and it was what originally turned me away from Christianity a few years ago. The way I read this, you are making the assumption that those non-religious do not read the holy books and merely craft up these ad hominems in their head to justify infidelity. Not the case at all. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it is how it sounded to me.

By the way, Skunk...I hope my post doesn't come off too upset, but I am still extremely upset at you for your personal assumption-making about my financial and mental situation, as well as your [untrue] comments on how I'm just a lazy teenager who gets everything bought for him in that iPhone thread. I do not expect an apology, I'm simply pointing out that if my post seems rude, it may be reflective of that upset.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 21, 2008, 03:13 AM

To believe in the Big Bang, or that we evolved from simple life, does require faith. We have never observed it. Scientists have observed fossils and other evidence nowadays, but we can never know what really happened. We can only make a guess.

My personal belief is that Evolution is a religion. I don't hold anything against it for that, but have we ever actually observed what happened 60 million years ago? No. We've simply made guesses. As such, it does take some element of faith in either scientists, or, if you are a scientist, in what you see in the ground. It's not like some bacteria has come forward in time and said, "I'm your ancestor". We have not actually observed what happened millions of years ago.

I'm not saying any other religion can be believed either on living evidence. But no one can honestly say he observed what happened millions of years ago.

Sorry, Beric, this topic has been beaten into the ground, even here...do a bit of research on evolution and you will see. "It is my opinion that it is a religion..." doesn't work, either, because language exists for a reason. There is a definition to the word religion and evolution is a religion only when language no longer really means anything.

In case you're curious, though, we have observed plenty of evolution. You are correct in saying we did not observe our own ancestors, but we also generally don't observe murders. We have many documented cases of evolution that we have seen, in birds, wolves (dogs), foxes, et cetera, and we can even replicate evolution when we'd like in a few generations. On top of that, there are mountains of evidence, including genetic evidence, fossil evidence, anatomical evidence (generally comparitive anatomy), and co-evolution. You mentioned fossils specifically, but the interesting thing is that even if the entire fossil record disappeared (and by disappeared, I mean we had no record of any fossils, none had ever been found, that sort of thing), there'd still be an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution.

All that's just nonsense, though, if you do not care about evolution. So I guess the main questions to ask are:

1. What do we worship?
2. Who's going to kill us if we don't?
3. Where is the fact deitisation?

et cetera, et cetera. The fact that evolution is a constantly updated, modified, deconstructed, and reconstructed scientific model should be evidence enough that it's not a religion, but I guess you can spin the word religion any way you want if you need to.

By the way, in order for those beliefs to be faith, they'd have to be:

1. Completely baseless. Meaning, no evidence for them at all.
2. Supreme fall-ons. They would have to be something we trust in completely and would never wish to change.

Suffice it to say, both evolution and the Big Bang Theory could be debunked and completely thrown away if the evidence demanded it.

skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 03:33 AM

I didn't say people of other religions were chosen by their deities, but I am stating that I was chosen by mine.You are by extension, therefore, saying that everyone of a different religion or none is deluded, lost and condemned to hellfire. This is an absolute corollary of your statement. This is an odd premise from which to build any society relying on consensus.

.Andy

Jun 21, 2008, 03:55 AM

To believe in the Big Bang, or that we evolved from simple life, does require faith. We have never observed it. Scientists have observed fossils and other evidence nowadays, but we can never know what really happened. We can only make a guess.
I guess we should throw out the legal system then. No matter how much evidence there is that a crime has been committed (DNA, fingerprints, motive, no alibi, smoking gun, confession etc) if we didn't witness it can never be proven. We can only make a guess. Ergo, the legal system is a religion.

rhsgolfer33

Jun 21, 2008, 03:56 AM

You are by extension, therefore, saying that everyone of a different religion or none is deluded, lost and condemned to hellfire. This is an absolute corollary of your statement.

How is that directly corollary? He's not saying that everyone else's religion is wrong. He's saying that he was chosen in his, that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks every one "chosen" in a different faith is going to burn in hell. Many people who believe they are chosen for their religion probably believe this, but it's by no means an absolute corollary of his statement. I've meet many people who felt they were chosen by their religion, but were open and accepting of others beliefs and by no means though that because somebody believed something different that they were going to hell.

Personally, I don't believe I was chosen, its a path that I chose to follow (and had absolutely no push towards, I never attended church until the age of 19), but to say that my belief in God isn't part of what makes me who I am today would be absolutely false. Its as much a part of me as my European ancestry and has probably had far more influence over me. You can mock my beliefs all you want, it really doesn't do anything to me, I just know that you won't be in my little heaven when I get there, just like I probably won't be in somebody of another faiths. (What do you know, a Christian, that accepts all religions as equal, and some of you thought they didn't exist).

rhsgolfer33

Jun 21, 2008, 04:00 AM

I guess we should throw out the legal system then. No matter how much evidence there is that a crime has been committed (DNA, fingerprints, motive, no alibi, smoking gun, confession etc) if we didn't witness it can never be proven. We can only make a guess. Ergo, the legal system is a religion.

You know that he's quite right. Scientist cannot prove it and revise theories like this all the time. Thats why its called the Big Bang Theory, not the Big Bang Law. Its like the theory of plate tectonics, generally accepted, but not totally proven.

Personally, I believe in it, but again, its a theory, theories in science change quite often. I don't know how many times I've heard the theory on how the dinosaurs died change in the last 10 years.

skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 04:07 AM

Sorry, Skunk, but most of this has already been touched on.Please use the correct username: abbreviations will not suffice in this instance. :cool:

skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 04:12 AM

How is that directly corollary? He's not saying that everyone else's religion is wrong. He's saying that he was chosen in his, that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks every one "chosen" in a different faith is going to burn in hell.He is also saying that his "Christian" god is the One True God. Any monotheistic religion can only play at being inclusive of other beliefs. It's not rocket science. Come to think of it, it isn't science at all, but what it certainly is is exclusive of those who worship other gods. Rule #1: "Thou shalt have no other god but me." Ring a bell?

.Andy

Jun 21, 2008, 04:13 AM

You know that he's quite right.
No he's not. And you don't understand the difference between the definition of a colloquial theory and a scientific theory.

Scientist [sic]....revise theories like this all the time.
Which is the strength of the scientific method. As new evidence is uncovered the scientific theory is broadened/narrowed to include the new evidence. If the evidence completely contradicts the theory it is thrown out. It's falsifiable, unlike religion. Evolution or Plate tectonics is not a religion because both are scientific theories that provide an explanation encompassing the evidence, and allow predictions based on that evidence. Again a scientific theory is falsifiable. It's the opposite of religion, unless you misunderstand theory to mean a colloquial 'guess'.

Queso

Jun 21, 2008, 04:16 AM

The influenza virus is a great example of evolution at work, easily observable by medical professionals on a daily basis.

rhsgolfer33

Jun 21, 2008, 04:22 AM

He is also saying that his "Christian" god is the One True God. Any monotheistic religion can only play at being inclusive of other beliefs. It's not rocket science. Come to think of it, it isn't science at all, but what it certainly is is exclusive of those who worship other gods. Rule #1: "Thou shalt have no other god but me." Ring a bell?

He's by no means saying that its the one true God, you're inferring that, which, given general Christian beliefs is valid, but whose to say he has general Christian beliefs?

I'm completely inclusive of other beliefs and I happen to believe in a monotheistic religion. Who's to say that because I believe rule #1, that someone else has to? Your example only rings true if you believe in the the Christian Bible as utter and complete truth, which, some religions don't, including my own brand of religion. It would be ridiculous to accept that a collection of stories, edited and abridged by aristocracy throughout the ages is entirely true (imo). I could also believe that the God I worship is the same God that other's worship, just in different ways, I could also take it to the extreme and tell you that the God I worship is the same as the Gods that polytheistic religions worship.

skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 04:30 AM

Or absurd sexualities? Is that correct?Could you please define for us what makes a sexuality "absurd" in your opinion?

Do some research, you will find out why. But I take it you won't and you'll just flame me.This kind of answer is not acceptable in the PRSI Forum. Present an argument or butt out.

Same thing with sexuality and race too right? We don't have to make fun of the person, just their skin color.Sexuality and race are not choices. Religion is. We can make fun of the foibles associated with any kind of sexuality or race, but not of the facts themselves, cf. "absurd".

Just to note, I plead the fifth on religion since both sides are f%$ked up and ignorant.

Once you READ THE BOOKS instead of forming your own biased opinion (that's everyone) many of you will be surprised.Your argument is weak to the point of non-existence.

rhsgolfer33

Jun 21, 2008, 04:32 AM

No he's not. And you don't understand the difference between the definition of a colloquial theory and a scientific theory.

Which is the strength of the scientific method. As new evidence is uncovered the scientific theory is broadened/narrowed to include the new evidence. If the evidence completely contradicts the theory it is thrown out. It's falsifiable, unlike religion. Evolution or Plate tectonics is not a religion because both are scientific theories that provide an explanation encompassing the evidence, and allow predictions based on that evidence. Again a scientific theory is falsifiable. It's the opposite of religion, unless you misunderstand theory to mean a colloquial 'guess'.

A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Pretty much word for word out of my geology textbook.

I'm not agreeing with him as either one being a religion (I'm also by no means saying any part of religion is theory, the Earth was not created in 7 days), I see that as totally false, but saying that plate tectonics or the big bang theory doesn't take some kind of faith to believe in is misguided I feel. Obviously you have faith in the people making these observations, especially since these theories can never be proven since they resulted from a past event that isn't terrible like to happen again with the exact same conclusion. Sure, is it a correct theory, probably pretty close, but I can only say that because I have faith in the thousands of scientists that worked to produce these theories.

skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 04:33 AM

He's by no means saying that its the one true God, you're inferring that, which, given general Christian beliefs is valid, but whose to say he has general Christian beliefs?It seems pretty obvious that if you can't even agree with the first commandment you would not be a Christian.

rhsgolfer33

Jun 21, 2008, 04:34 AM

The influenza virus is a great example of evolution at work, easily observable by medical professionals on a daily basis.

But quite a few people who are religious believe in microevolution, try convincing them of macroevolution.

.Andy

Jun 21, 2008, 04:35 AM

GreenRed
Ziggy are you poking fun at the red/green colourblind members of the forums ;)?

skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 04:35 AM

A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.It's a working hypothesis, which is more than you can say of any religion.

rhsgolfer33

Jun 21, 2008, 04:40 AM

It seems pretty obvious that if you can't even agree with the first commandment you would not be a Christian.

"Thou shalt have no other god but me."

It really depends on how you read the commandment. Maybe he has no other God but the Christian God, but that doesn't mean he can't accept somebody's religion that has a "different" God as equally valid, if it really is a "different" God. Just because I believe in "the Christian God" doesn't mean I don't look equally upon someone that believes in "the Muslim God." Personally, I think they're probably the same God, I just don't believe the Koran to be part of Gods word, while I accept the Christian Bible as being at least somewhat shaped by God/Jesus.

It's a working hypothesis, which is more than you can say of any religion.

Which I agree with. Like I said, I believe in all scientific theories as well as in a God and in Jesus as my savior, so even though I'm quite radical in my beliefs I'm still technically a Christian (by its most basic definition.

.Andy

Jun 21, 2008, 04:43 AM

I'm not agreeing with him as either one being a religion (I'm also by no means saying any part of religion is theory, the Earth was not created in 7 days), I see that as totally false, but saying that plate tectonics or the big bang theory doesn't take some kind of faith to believe in is misguided I feel.
Unfortunately how one 'feels' has very little (if any) bearing on science and the scientific method.

Obviously you have faith in the people making these observations, especially since these theories can never be proven since they resulted from a past event that isn't terrible like to happen again with the exact same conclusion. Sure, is it a correct theory, probably pretty close, but I can only say that because I have faith in the thousands of scientists that worked to produce these theories.
You don't have to have faith in the scientists at all. All the evidence is presented for you to read in peer-reviewed journals. You can read it, analyse it, and decide if you come to the same conclusions. If you don't you are free to challenge them with your own peer-reviewed paper. What's more you can go and verify/challenge any evidence that you want physically yourself. Each paper will outline exactly how they gathered their data, what techniques they used for analysis, the assumptions they made, and even spend a lot of time outlining the limitations of their work. What's more you can request they send you any raw data that's not included in the paper. Science is cool like that. If it turns out the paper is false the scientific method is self-correcting. Without independent verification of the results the paper will be withdrawn/fade into significance. How does religious faith work?

But quite a few people who are religious believe in microevolution, try convincing them of macroevolution.
Can you explain to us briefly the difference? From a scientific source (i.e. not the discovery institute)?

rhsgolfer33

Jun 21, 2008, 04:54 AM

Can you explain to us briefly the difference? From a scientific source (i.e. not the discovery institute)?

A basic definition:

Micro would be the evolution at the species or lower level.

While macro would be above the species level.

There are plenty of scientific studies that reference changes at the microevolution level, as well as studies at the macro level. I can reference a few articles, one on microevolution among coat colors of sheep if you'd really like.

Here's the link that good ole wikipedia uses for its definitions, which are the same as I was taught above: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

I do believe in evolution at both the macro and micro evolution level, its not like its counter to my religious beliefs.

Whats the discovery institute anyway? Edit: Ah, I see, well one of the large players in the Discover Institute was a large funder of the science building at the college I attend. No intelligent design is taught in science courses there. The Howard Ahmanson Foundation has definitely benefited me, even if I don't agree with some of their members. But eh, who cares about discover institute.

.Andy

Jun 21, 2008, 05:09 AM

A basic definition:

Micro would be the evolution at the species or lower level.

While macro would be above the species level.

There are plenty of scientific studies that reference changes at the microevolution level, as well as studies at the macro level. I can reference a few articles, one on microevolution among coat colors of sheep if you'd really like. That's cool rhsgolfer :). It's just the way you presented your previous post it appeared as if you were arguing a creationists misunderstanding of the definitions. I'm glad you weren't speaking for yourself and that chose talk origins - it's an interesting reference. To explain myself I'll use their quote;

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

I do believe in evolution at both the macro and micro evolution level, its not like its counter to my religious beliefs.It all depends on your religious beliefs.

Whats the discovery institute anyway?You don't want to know :D;)! Save yourself some brain cells and don't google :).

rhsgolfer33

Jun 21, 2008, 05:13 AM

You don't want to know :D;)! Save yourself some brain cells and don't google :).

Haha, you were too late, but eh, one of their board of directors foundations paid for most of my schools science building, but their message isn't being taught there (even-though its a religious school).

Its all good, I'm much more open and liberal on the religion front than most "religious" people. Although most probably wouldn't classify me as religious seeing as how I've been to church once in 20 years.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 21, 2008, 06:07 AM

Please use the correct username: abbreviations will not suffice in this instance. :cool:

Oops! Haha...really sorry, Skunk. I meant Digital Skunk, I should've used the full name :o

Ziggy are you poking fun at the red/green colourblind members of the forums ?

Er, not intentionally, no. I just use green for my main text and red for edits.

floyde

Jun 21, 2008, 11:22 AM

We are, and the sad part is that the lack of religion is harmful too. That argument is about as idiotic as the gun theories people put up. Take away the guns, and nothing is safe, give everyone a gun and we are all safe.

Yeah, I am pretty sure the blip of existence most people have is much better than much of human history.

Just to note, I plead the fifth on religion since both sides are f%$ked up and ignorant.

Read my other posts. I'm still debating with myself about this. The truth is that I don't know if the world would be better off without religion, but neither do you. I wasn't trying to imply that removing religion would remove all evil, but surely we could reduce the rate of not so bad people doing harmful things, thinking that in fact they're doing something good. This is just my opinion, like I said, if you don't like it, then simply ignore it.

Once you READ THE BOOKS instead of forming your own biased opinion (that's everyone) many of you will be surprised.

I used to be a Catholic. I read The Bible, it almost made me vomit. I'm not even joking. How the ramblings of morally-challenged misogynist bronze-age bigots became known as the word of God is beyond me.

pooky

Jun 21, 2008, 11:26 AM

But quite a few people who are religious believe in microevolution, try convincing them of macroevolution.

Which, of course, has no bearing on the influenza argument. Any microbiologist will tell you that "species" has no real meaning for microbes. But we can talk about clades, and define macroevolution as a significant caldogenic event.

Many of the various strains of influenza we see are quite different from each other. So different, that to call this an example of microevolution would be equivalent to calling the event that led to humans, chimps, gorillas, and baboons from a single ancestor microevolution. Viruses mutate incredibly fast, and they maintain virulence by making pretty big changes to their genomes. Sure, it's still influenza, in the same way that humans and chimps are both still mammals.

Finally, I would like to point out that microevolution vs. macro- is a bit of a false dichotomy. Most examples of macroevolution are really a large accumulation of micro events, coupled with the separation of two populations. Two populations change a little each generation, after a while, you bring them together, and the changes look pretty big. "True" macroevolution (i.e. a single event leading to the separation of species) happens rarely, and usually is the result of auto- or allopolyploidy in plants.

Digital Skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 01:10 PM

floyde

Jun 21, 2008, 01:56 PM

Yes, as a "Pleading the 5th" believer I will "______" for you. Catholics are the worst, plain and simple. Studying much of religion and culture and philosophy from the outside and inside lends one to see how twisted everyone's personal selfish opinions are.

The Catholic church is the worst example of Christianity there is, and in fact is against what the Jesus figure stood for, but the world needs to make a mockery of religion so what better way to do so then pick the worst church in history to be its poster child.

I didn't pick Catholicism as a poster child:eek:. I was born in a predominantly Catholic country, that's why I used to adhere to that religion. I'm stating that as fact, and I didn't intend to pick a "bad example" (they're all equally dreadful to me) of Christianity, I just said that so you would know that I have read The Bible and I do know the teachings. So my opinion on religion isn't misinformed (biased perhaps, they're just opinions after all).

Oh BTW, the Christian Bible and the Catholic one are the same, and they're equally revolting.

The interesting fact is that we don't know anything. An atheist is just as lost as a diehard Muslim. The atheist doesn't want to believe it, but it's a fact. No one was there when the universe began, so no one knows $h!t. What pisses me off about atheists is that they think they do, and what pisses me off about popular religion is that they can't even get their holy days correct 90% of the time.

We're not "lost", simply because we have no use in someone "finding" us. The thing is, I don't give a s#!+ if I don't know how the universe began. I accept that my puny brain is practically inexistent compared to the huge vastness of the universe, and that it is quite possible that mankind will never hold such knowledge, let alone me. There's a currently accepted theory, based on observable evidence, that states that the universe originated from the Big Bang. Of course it doesn't answer the "why" question, we have much to do before we get to that point (we might never get there at all), and of course it could be proven wrong eventually. These leads us to what you were saying : we don't know s#!+. Does that mean we should materialize an explanation out of thin air (i.e. invoke a God which I can't prove doesn't exist, but that has equally left no trace of evidence of his existence) just so that we wont feel the burden of our ignorance? Just so that we wont feel small? Just so that we wont have to feel afraid? The answer for me is no.

If some crazy nut job wants to go around cutting off private parts for God's Kingdom, throw him/her in with the rest of the 85% that uses some non-religious excuse to abuse people or hurt them.

No my friend, there's a big difference. A non-religious excuse is punishable by law, but religion tends to be unassailable. In some muslim countries, people who abuse women will never get any sort of punishment, because they are believed to have done the "right thing" in accordance to "God's law". In your country, at least for now, people who commit crimes for religious motives are punished. But for how long? Christiantiy in the US keeps growing and growing. That's the reason why we can't throw such people with the rest of us, even if the motivation for evil is the same in all of us (it's a human thing).

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 21, 2008, 01:59 PM

Please feel free not to read this horribly long post.... I wouldn't.

I am only quoting you since you have the shortest post. But I will comment for everyone.

The part about absurd sexual preference was a sarcastic one about putting the word absurd in front of the word belief. The fact remains that someone will believe something, and someone else will disagree and say it's absurd. I hope people will stop taking that cheap shot on religion, and other topics.

Religion is a choice no matter what, even for the poster that said God called him. God may call you, but it's still your choice whether to follow Him or not, so saying that God calls and you are automatically a disciple is wrong.

Sexuality is a naturally given thing, there is more to that, but the main problem with having religious discussions with atheists and religious nut jobs alike is that there is no common ground. So there is no way this thread could handle a lot of the deepness that is grounded in sexuality.

Yes, as a "Pleading the 5th" believer I will "______" for you. Catholics are the worst, plain and simple. Studying much of religion and culture and philosophy from the outside and inside lends one to see how twisted everyone's personal selfish opinions are.

The Catholic church is the worst example of Christianity there is, and in fact is against what the Jesus figure stood for, but the world needs to make a mockery of religion so what better way to do so then pick the worst church in history to be its poster child.

The interesting fact is that we don't know anything. An atheist is just as lost as a diehard Muslim. The atheist doesn't want to believe it, but it's a fact. No one was there when the universe began, so no one knows $h!t. What pisses me off about atheists is that they think they do, and what pisses me off about popular religion is that they can't even get their holy days correct 90% of the time.

Taking religion out of the picture won't cure anything. Religion isn't the cause of evil, it's people (blah blah blah we heard it before).... seriously though, not even a small part of evil will be taken away. Just because people use religion as an excuse to kill, doesn't mean that people won't find another excuse to blow some poor innocent African kid away.

Or hang an African American from a tree.
Or put a bomb under a building with a daycare
Or shove a plan into a building
Or drag some college student from a pickup truck
Or unload a clip in a poor neighborhood to get one guy
Or... you get the idea.

It's silly to believe that religion is the root of anything other than some people's ability to control their naturally selfish and evil tendencies. In all my studies, I say keep it, since most followers of some religion find a way to keep their bad sides under control. Or some teenage girl decides not to sleep around with her classmates, get pregnant, and bring in another welfare baby because she doesn't want to face the wrath of God.

If some crazy nut job wants to go around cutting off private parts for God's Kingdom, throw him/her in with the rest of the 85% that uses some non-religious excuse to abuse people or hurt them.

On a side note, personally, bashing a religion is much like bashing a culture (or race for those that can't take it deeper, and need to remain on the surface). I may be African American, but I choose to adopt the Jamaican and AA culture of my parents. I could have left it behind and just been some dark skinned American, but I choose to be this way, and a lot of times, it's against the grain.

p.s. Thanks for the civility and open-mindedness, which is rare in any discussion where the two sides don't have common ground.

I am addressing the bold parts...

We are talking about something that relies solely on faith to believe in. A major part of the God hypothesis is that God does not want us all to know he exists; atleast not in a very obvious way (i.e. like evidence). The reason for this clause in the God hypothesis is obvious, though I won't state it here. The problem is, and even though you're going to disagree in the comparison, you can't just make a claim, then make assumption that everyone who doesn't buy it is going based on faith. If I say I saw Sasquatch, you (or atleast I) would think I was crazy. If you believed my story, you'd be taking that on faith because there is no documented evidence besides anecdotal stories and the like, that sasquatch exists. So, with that particular example in mind, I don't understand how not believing me that I saw Sasquatch would be just as much a position of faith? If you have personal reasons to believe, fine, but there are an unlimited number of things, not just physically evidential things, that could be found/seen/documented/studied/whatever, that could lend credibility to the God hypothesis, but the fact of the matter is simply that none of those pieces of evidence exist. So while you are arguing an agnostic position here, that we don't have the evidence to say one way or the other, you're missing the fact that lack of evidence for something doesn't mean existence/non-existence are both equally likely, or that both are equally positions of faith.

I agree with you on a lot of points. One thing I think should be made clearer is that it's very difficult to do things because of a lack of a belief. When a person says, "I hate gay people because the Bible says it's wrong/it's a sin/whatever," this is using their religion to justify a bigotry, whether that's really the message of the religion or not is irrelevant. How often do you hear someone say, "I killed him because there is no God," or "The lack of God told me to kill them." Actually, one of the more common things I hear is "Without God, we'd all go killing and raping and stuff," which is EXTREMELY scary, because it tells me that without an imaginary friend/punishment/et cetera, that person would be killing and raping and such. I certainly am not.
Don't take that the wrong way, though. I am absolutely not saying religion causes people to be evil, I'm not advocating the extermination of all religion today from the face of the Earth...it's simply that a lot of whackjobs have a loophole that they can either a) escape the law, or b) escape responsibility by taking advantage of.

I'll say that again just for clarification: Religion is not the root of all evil, it doesn't necessarily make people evil.

I'm also seriously confused by where you come up with this figure of 85% of criminals using non-religiosity as their excuse for crimes :confused: Unless I misunderstand this.

By the way, this has nothing to do with the topic at all...but I don't understand how, as a black person, you can like the term African-American? I hate the term, because it makes the following assumptions:

1) All black people came from Africa (which is technically true, if you consider all humans originated from Africa, but that's not what the term refers to, the term leaves out any of the other places black people could come from, which is...anywhere, really, but specifically Jamaica, et cetera.)

2) All black people are American. If you see a picture of a black person, you may say "African American," but what if he's British? Suddenly, you look like presumptuous cock and the person may be offended by your assumption.

3. No white people came from Africa. So, what if I am white and was born in Africa, now I live in America and am a citisen. So I'm not an African-American?

Maybe I get too worked up over it, but it seems like too much of a baseless and assumptuous term to use when you could just use "black," the same way people use "white," "Asian," or whatever. Then again, maybe one day we'll finally be able to say our society is non-bigoted enough to not worry about race that much anyways. If you have to make specific terms for a race of people so as not to offend them, then racism in our society is not in check. We should strive to all just be, atleast socially, human beings.

Sorry for the off-topic rant :P

Gelfin

Jun 21, 2008, 02:32 PM

It's silly to believe that religion is the root of anything other than some people's ability to control their naturally selfish and evil tendencies. In all my studies, I say keep it, since most followers of some religion find a way to keep their bad sides under control.

Most people find ways to keep their bad sides under control, with or without religion. The benefits of mutual trust, respect and compassion among humans are self-evident without reference to a deity or even a specific code of behavior. The claim that we cannot have those qualities without religion is a longstanding slander.

It is a rhetorical sleight meant to strengthen the faith in its members, but an unintended consequence is often inculcation of the idea that people who do not worship as we do (for whatever local definition of "we") are bad, immoral people who wish us harm and cannot be reasoned with unless they become "good" people by submitting to us and to our faith. In the worst cases it leads to dehumanization of anyone who does not share the faith.

The claim that only religion makes people good is thus exactly the avenue through which religion can make people evil. It doesn't take much digging to see the ugly underbelly of it. On one hand it encourages trust, respect and compassion within its own auspices. On the other, it encourages mistrust, disrespect and at best only conditional compassion towards outsiders. Also embedded in the claim is a tacit threat: don't question the faith, or risk moving to the other side of that chasm in our eyes.

The worst offenders become so hardened that they regard every interaction with outsiders as a sort of battle. Instead of an opportunity to find common ground, they see it as a test of their ability to hold fast and continue repeating the dogma in the face of an enemy who is sent by the Devil to tempt them into straying. The very existence of such people thus constitutes an attack on them and their faith. Marginalizing and abusing people starts to look like a victory for the "good guys" to some, even though by any reasonable outside estimation they have long since become the bad guys.

Everyone is subject to this kind of breakdown of morality. It's one of the less pleasant parts of what makes up humanity. The only workaround is not to flee to dogmatic absolutism, but to recognize that these traits are in all of us, and not to be too hasty in believing one has the market cornered on morality.

Digital Skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 05:00 PM

All good points. And thanks again for the civility.

Floyde, I didn't mean to say that you were bringing up Catholicism to slander religion. I understood what you said so I hope there are no hard feelings. I don't want to stand on either side of the fence, atheist or religious, but in my lifetime I have read and understood that the Catholic church is a very disgusting one.

I was merely stating that I feel for anyone that has to go through that circus of doctrine and conflicting practices. There are certain areas of Catholicism that don't have the same exact Bible as popular Christianity though. Some of them have canonized additional books even.

As for the religious excuse, not every religion is performing negative acts against other people, much of the examples are coming from one religious group, and there are sprinklings of others. It's still a matter of the person being inherently evil.

floyde

Jun 21, 2008, 06:01 PM

All good points. And thanks again for the civility.

Floyde, I didn't mean to say that you were bringing up Catholicism to slander religion. I understood what you said so I hope there are no hard feelings.

No problem, no hard feelings :)

As for the religious excuse, not every religion is performing negative acts against other people, much of the examples are coming from one religious group, and there are sprinklings of others. It's still a matter of the person being inherently evil.

Right, what troubles me though, are the cases in which a person is granted immunity after committing a crime that's in accordance to "God's law". I think that at least that problem would be eliminated if there were no religions. But who knows, really.

Digital Skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 06:14 PM

Right, what troubles me though, are the cases in which a person is granted immunity after committing a crime that's in accordance to "God's law". I think that at least that problem would be eliminated if there were no religions. But who knows, really.

Yeah, I think so, but as is the case in much of history people will find other ways and excuses to hurt people. There are some religions that will forever force other groups of people under their control as per doctrine, and there are people that will use religion to do the same, against doctrine (slavery in the US).

If there wasn't as much religion, or it weren't as strong and influential, people will use some other method.

Or should I say, that taking out the religious-ness would lower the evil deeds that happen in the name of God, but much of the bad things that I wold like to stop aren't religiously initiated. I would much rather like Baltimore City to stop blowing people away for chump change, and for teenagers to stop having so many children. If they need religion to do so, then let me open the church door for you.

I truly want to commend you Floyde on being very sensible by the way.

skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 06:23 PM

If there wasn't as much religion, or it weren't as strong and influential, people will use some other method.The danger of religion is that people can use doctrine or faith to avoid any real argument in justification of the most outrageous positions. Since it is impossible to question a god (and we all know how he "moves in mysterious ways") his self-appointed and self-selected representatives feel no compunction in saying that following his "word" is justification enough for any stance.

Much Ado

Jun 21, 2008, 06:40 PM

DS- can I ask what you meant by this?

Do some research, you will find out why. But I take it you won't and you'll just flame me.

Once you READ THE BOOKS instead of forming your own biased opinion (that's everyone) many of you will be surprised.

Digital Skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 06:52 PM

The danger of religion is that people can use doctrine or faith to avoid any real argument in justification of the most outrageous positions. Since it is impossible to question a god (and we all know how he "moves in mysterious ways") his self-appointed and self-selected representatives feel no compunction in saying that following his "word" is justification enough for any stance.

Correct, but the inherent danger in science is that much of the standing theories today can't be proven, so they will remain as theories. Darwin was a fool to believe a few observations constitute a theory that explains the entire creation of life on earth. I don't have any answer, but Darwin's isn't the end all since he couldn't test it.

The same for the Big Bang theory. People accept BOTH flimsy science theories and religion on blind faith based on what suites them.

Pulling old rocks out of Africa doesn't prove Darwin's theory, neither does quoting a verse from an old book.

DS- can I ask what you meant by this?

Sure, that was in response to a statement a poster made about being "chosen" of God. How God calls people to be of a certain faith, mainly Christianity. A lot of people, even Christians, don't bother reading the book, and don't know that God may call, but people don't have to answer.

Basically saying that religion is still a choice no matter what.

My reasons for the biased opinions stems from people's abilities to block out one side of the argument because they don't understand. The one thing I personally see in diehard atheists (no one so far) is that they think being an atheist is hard, and takes a lot of studying. They refuse to take the time to read any religious book Bible, Koran, or theological, in order to better understand their position. At least the religious folk have both sides of the argument understood.... that is the religious people that actually take the time to read and understand their religious books.

I apologize for saying everyone, and only supporting one side over the other, I should have caught that.

The interesting thing about Ben Stein's movie, is that he tries his best to keep it NOT religious, especially since he is a religious guy. But he does stump the hell out of an extremist atheist who reverts to claiming that aliens seeded the earth millions of years ago.... like he could support that in anyway. :rolleyes:

At least I could pick up one of the religious books and get a good story and something more down to earth... yes pun intended.

Gelfin

Jun 21, 2008, 09:23 PM

Correct, but the inherent danger in science is that much of the standing theories today can't be proven, so they will remain as theories.

This is not a danger. This is a formalization of the way each of us has no choice but to live every day of his life. You see things going on around you and attempt to figure out what they mean. You come up with ideas consistent with what you've experienced and go with them until you experience something else that suggests you inferred wrongly, and then you reexamine what you thought you knew and you try again. Repeat until the day you die.

Absolute knowledge sounds nice, but you can't have it. None of us can. Our tough luck. The best we can do is come up with rigorous methods to check ourselves, to be sure that the claims we tentatively assert to be true are truly supported by the things we have observed. The day-to-day practice of science is less about saying things that are true than it is about the attempt to scrupulously avoid saying things that aren't.

Darwin was a fool to believe a few observations constitute a theory that explains the entire creation of life on earth. I don't have any answer, but Darwin's isn't the end all since he couldn't test it.

Darwin was neither a fool nor believed he had explained all of creation, and while Darwin could not test the theory of evolution by natural selection, we can and have, and our observations have overwhelmingly confirmed that theory.

The same for the Big Bang theory. People accept BOTH flimsy science theories and religion on blind faith based on what suites them.

Pulling old rocks out of Africa doesn't prove Darwin's theory, neither does quoting a verse from an old book.

I must call shenanigans here. You have just finished complaining about critics (and sometimes proponents) of religion not reading the Bible, but then you turn around and suggest contemporary theories in cosmology, biology and geology are based on evidence so "flimsy" you feel comfortable equivocating it with reading verses out of the Bible in terms of reliability and predictive power.

So then presumably you are fully conversant with all the evidence in these disciplines, right? I mean, you'd have to be able to explain all the evidence said to support those theories in order to point out why it doesn't do so.

The one thing I personally see in diehard atheists (no one so far) is that they think being an atheist is hard, and takes a lot of studying.

Being an atheist is not hard except insofar as religious people attempt to make it so.

They refuse to take the time to read any religious book Bible, Koran, or theological, in order to better understand their position.

Admittedly I have not interacted with you much, but I take great exception to this comment. You are quite simply mistaken.

At least the religious folk have both sides of the argument understood.... that is the religious people that actually take the time to read and understand their religious books.

I need to see some evidence that "religious folk have both sides of the argument understood." I'll grant you that some believers have actually read the books they claim represent absolute truth, but if you are counting the chicanery of Expelled as evidence that religious people look at "both sides" then you are sorely mistaken.

Quite the contrary, the precise problem is that natural selection denialists arrogantly presume that a lifetime spent in the rigorous pursuit of understanding in a scientific discipline can be met with an understanding of that wan straw man labeled "Science" the denialists so dearly love to flog. It's scarcely a straw man at all, really. More a filthy and tattered white lab coat hanging on a stick with a couple of handfuls of hay in the pockets.

Atheism may not be hard, but good science is. If you want to upturn a theory so deeply entrenched and overwhelmingly reliable as natural selection, you've got more work ahead of you than most denialists are willing to do, because a lot more work than you think went into establishing it in the first place.

The interesting thing about Ben Stein's movie, is that he tries his best to keep it NOT religious, especially since he is a religious guy. But he does stump the hell out of an extremist atheist who reverts to claiming that aliens seeded the earth millions of years ago.... like he could support that in anyway.

At least I could pick up one of the religious books and get a good story and something more down to earth... yes pun intended.

Scientific theory is not composed of "good stories," and Dawkins was not "stumped." He was deceived as to the thrust of the interview and then abusively edited in an attempt to make it sound as if he actually believes in that idea. He most assuredly does not.

The point was that this would be one possible example of how life perhaps could have originated on Earth through an act of intention that does not admit of any supernatural source. If asked (and no doubt he has been), Dawkins would instead stick to the claim that life on Earth was most likely not begun by an act of conscious intention at all. An hypothetical for the sake of argument, particularly when offered to meet certain conditions set up by the interviewer's question, is not the same as a scientific claim.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 21, 2008, 09:29 PM

Correct, but the inherent danger in science is that much of the standing theories today can't be proven, so they will remain as theories. Darwin was a fool to believe a few observations constitute a theory that explains the entire creation of life on earth. I don't have any answer, but Darwin's isn't the end all since he couldn't test it.

The same for the Big Bang theory. People accept BOTH flimsy science theories and religion on blind faith based on what suites them.

Pulling old rocks out of Africa doesn't prove Darwin's theory, neither does quoting a verse from an old book.

Sure, that was in response to a statement a poster made about being "chosen" of God. How God calls people to be of a certain faith, mainly Christianity. A lot of people, even Christians, don't bother reading the book, and don't know that God may call, but people don't have to answer.

Basically saying that religion is still a choice no matter what.

My reasons for the biased opinions stems from people's abilities to block out one side of the argument because they don't understand. The one thing I personally see in diehard atheists (no one so far) is that they think being an atheist is hard, and takes a lot of studying. They refuse to take the time to read any religious book Bible, Koran, or theological, in order to better understand their position. At least the religious folk have both sides of the argument understood.... that is the religious people that actually take the time to read and understand their religious books.

I apologize for saying everyone, and only supporting one side over the other, I should have caught that.

The interesting thing about Ben Stein's movie, is that he tries his best to keep it NOT religious, especially since he is a religious guy. But he does stump the hell out of an extremist atheist who reverts to claiming that aliens seeded the earth millions of years ago.... like he could support that in anyway. :rolleyes:

At least I could pick up one of the religious books and get a good story and something more down to earth... yes pun intended.

*sigh* How many evolution threads do we need before people start understanding idea and evidences...

as for the second bolded area:

I guess Ben Stein's movie was a success then. He successfully spinned Richard Dawkins words to make people believe he really stumped him and claimed to believe that aliens seeded the earth millions of years ago, when in fact Ben Stein asked him a completely different question, then took it out of context to make him look stupid. Good job on that one, Benny!

Digital Skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 09:41 PM

Absolute knowledge sounds nice, but you can't have it. None of us can. Our tough luck.

Exactly. Think about that and then read what you wrote down below about Dawkins and Darwin.

Darwin was neither a fool nor believed he had explained all of creation, and while Darwin could not test the theory of evolution by natural selection, we can and have, and our observations have overwhelmingly confirmed that theory.

He was, scientists at the time called him one as well. And you are completely wrong about our observations. You don't even need Ben Stein to show you. His simple explanations in the movie help the general audience understand really quickly the large loop holes (http://books.google.com/books?id=pbZT5wV_6awC&dq=Darwin’s+Black+Box+by+Michael+J.+Behe&pg=PP1&ots=2AZCLkGN66&sig=nIgsY2r5D7rK639JMUrFnJFye6w&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP12,M1) in evolution though. And we (humans) are the worst candidate to try to prove the theory of evolution.

I must call shenanigans here. You have just finished complaining about critics (and sometimes proponents) of religion not reading the Bible, but then you turn around and suggest contemporary theories in cosmology, biology and geology are based on evidence so "flimsy" you feel comfortable equivocating it with reading verses out of the Bible in terms of reliability and predictive power.

So then presumably you are fully conversant with all the evidence in these disciplines, right? I mean, you'd have to be able to explain all the evidence said to support those theories in order to point out why it doesn't do so.

This was sarcasm really. But yes. Some scientist has one unproven theory that is trying to prove another theory. No one was there when it started, so.... read your first statement up top.

And as well, you are basically saying that you are a theologian to disprove religious concepts right? Don't worry, I know that you can't, and neither can I for all of science theory and religious theory.

Being an atheist is not hard except insofar as religious people attempt to make it so.

For you maybe, not for many others.

I need to see some evidence that "religious folk have both sides of the argument understood." I'll grant you that some believers have actually read the books they claim represent absolute truth, but if you are counting the chicanery of Expelled as evidence that religious people look at "both sides" then you are sorely mistaken.

Religious folk can have both sides because it's not hard being an atheist. You actually have to read books and live life as a practicing believer of some faith. When you don't have any faith then you simply don't have any faith.

Scientific theory is not composed of "good stories," and Dawkins was not "stumped." He was deceived as to the thrust of the interview and then abusively edited in an attempt to make it sound as if he actually believes in that idea. He most assuredly does not.

The point was that this would be one possible example of how life perhaps could have originated on Earth through an act of intention that does not admit of any supernatural source. If asked (and no doubt he has been), Dawkins would instead stick to the claim that life on Earth was most likely not begun by an act of conscious intention at all. An hypothetical for the sake of argument, particularly when offered to meet certain conditions set up by the interviewer's question, is not the same as a scientific claim.

You blindly missed the point. He still said that life began by seeds from aliens, which is just as absurd as much of what we get from the other religious sides.

Personally, I just sit back and watch and quiz both extreme sides of the fence and watch them loosely explain their stance on hard and sometimes simple questions. Atheists blindly believe the unproven theories of scientists and religious followers do the same with their stories and philosophies.

I guess Ben Stein's movie was a success then. He successfully spinned Richard Dawkins words to make people believe he really stumped him and claimed to believe that aliens seeded the earth millions of years ago, when in fact Ben Stein asked him a completely different question, then took it out of context to make him look stupid. Good job on that one, Benny!

So Ben was acting like a fanatical atheist then?

p.s. No one wants to read such long posts, let us try to keep them short. :)

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 21, 2008, 10:13 PM

So Ben was acting like a fanatical atheist then?

p.s. No one wants to read such long posts, let us try to keep them short. :)

No, Richard Dawkins didn't actually claim to believe that, despite what it looked like in the movie, and no, he wasn't. He was acting like a propogandist, and whether you're atheist or religious, if you're a propogandist, you're a propogandist. Just because you hate atheism doesn't make propoganda on his side right and on an atheist's side wrong. They're both equally wrong.

Digital Skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 10:32 PM

No, Richard Dawkins didn't actually claim to believe that, despite what it looked like in the movie, and no, he wasn't. He was acting like a propogandist, and whether you're atheist or religious, if you're a propogandist, you're a propogandist. Just because you hate atheism doesn't make propoganda on his side right and on an atheist's side wrong. They're both equally wrong.

I never said, or meant to say that he believed it. He mentioned it as a plausible theory, you can't slice that down anymore. Whether Ben twisted his arm or not he said it after Ben asked him a question.

I am not sure whether you are stating that I personally hate atheists, since I don't, quite far from the truth. My fiancee and I have a professor friend in the field of philosophy that was once a Christian in Africa, then moved to the US and renounced. Atheist for sure, but a sensible one that won't call anyone religious a bigot or insane or ignorant.

He won't call anything they believe absurd either, he is much like the OP Floyde, a sensible atheist that has their beliefs. I personally hate anyone that is a fanatic to the point of blind devotion. The strongest of any group asks questions that may challenge their beliefs. Most fanatical Christians/religious followers don't want to do that, and neither do many fanatical atheists that work hard trying to disprove relatively unprovable stories while accepting unproven but widely accepted scientific theories.

Gelfin

Jun 21, 2008, 10:39 PM

Exactly. Think about that and then read what you wrote down below about Dawkins and Darwin.

At no point did either of them lay claim to absolute knowledge. You are inventing self-serving points.

He was, scientists at the time called him one as well. And you are completely wrong about our observations. You don't even need Ben Stein to show you. His simple explanations in the movie help the general audience understand really quickly the large loop holes in evolution though. And we (humans) are the worst candidate to try to prove the theory of evolution.

So all that's needed to have useful knowledge is to take a complex subject you do not understand, have someone simplify it for you to an easily knocked-down soundbite they then proceed to knock down, and then you are qualified to think you understand the whole theory so well you don't even need to know anything deeper. This novel theory will save a lot of people a great deal of money on grad school.

So far as we know, we (humans) are the only candidate to try to establish any theory whatsoever.

This was sarcasm really. But yes. Some scientist has one unproven theory that is trying to prove another theory. No one was there when it started, so.... read your first statement up top.

Absolute knowledge is not needed to make reliable inferences from past experience. You were not there when a the traffic lights in your town were installed, much less invented. You do not know how their traffic controller works, and you have not been watching constantly to be sure no one has tampered with them. You have no absolute knowledge that a yellow light means the light is about to turn red, but I bet you brake all the same.

And as well, you are basically saying that you are a theologian to disprove religious concepts right? Don't worry, I know that you can't, and neither can I for all of science theory and religious theory.

I wouldn't necessarily say theologian, just like I wouldn't presume one needs to be a practicing scientist to understand and discuss scientific concepts, but I do have an entirely reasonable expectation that people who criticize something should be sufficiently conversant in the thing they are criticizing to make sense when talking about it.

Religious folk can have both sides because it's not hard being an atheist. You actually have to read books and live life as a practicing believer of some faith. When you don't have any faith then you simply don't have any faith.

Please stop assuming that atheist and scientist are the same thing.

You blindly missed the point. He still said that life began by seeds from aliens, which is just as absurd as much of what we get from the other religious sides.

I got your point. I am calling you on the dishonesty of that point.

Actually, now that you mention it, though, although it is implausible nigh unto impossibility, an "alien seeding" hypothesis is still many orders of magnitude more probable than a supernatural explanation of life on Earth.

Personally, I just sit back and watch and quiz both extreme sides of the fence and watch them loosely explain their stance on hard and sometimes simple questions. Atheists blindly believe the unproven theories of scientists and religious followers do the same with their stories and philosophies.

Is this a little like amusing yourself by intentionally sabotaging productive discussion through calculated obtusity? Look, I'm as big a fan of Socrates as the next guy. Probably bigger, now that I think about that statement, but throwing up your hands and declaring everything is rubbish without actually listening to what people are saying and responding intelligently does not make you Socrates.

Equivocating between religious dogmatism and the ongoing process of scientific inquiry suggests a lack of deep understanding of either.

djellison

Jun 21, 2008, 10:41 PM

Digital Skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 11:02 PM

At no point did either of them lay claim to absolute knowledge. You are inventing self-serving points.

No I am not. And yes people have. Read.

So all that's needed to have useful knowledge is to take a complex subject you do not understand, have someone simplify it for you to an easily knocked-down soundbite they then proceed to knock down, and then you are qualified to think you understand the whole theory so well you don't even need to know anything deeper. This novel theory will save a lot of people a great deal of money on grad school.

You missed the point, and you are also criticizing yourself while not adding anything to the discussion. As was stated before, no one is an expert or has much knowledge on the subjects at hand. You are proving yourself wrong.

So far as we know, we (humans) are the only candidate to try to establish any theory whatsoever.

You missed the point and this proves that you aren't reading for understanding. You are just waiting to type your next rebuttal. The human species, is the worst candidate to study, to prove macro evolution, since we are the youngest species to walk the planet.... okay.

Absolute knowledge is not needed to make reliable inferences from past experience. You were not there when a the traffic lights in your town were installed, much less invented. You do not know how their traffic controller works, and you have not been watching constantly to be sure no one has tampered with them. You have no absolute knowledge that a yellow light means the light is about to turn red, but I bet you brake all the same.

Straw man!

I can go and ask a civil engineer, we have no one to ask about the origin of species. Next!

I wouldn't necessarily say theologian, just like I wouldn't presume one needs to be a practicing scientist to understand and discuss scientific concepts, but I do have an entirely reasonable expectation that people who criticize something should be sufficiently conversant in the thing they are criticizing to make sense when talking about it.

So what are you quoting me for and post here? If you aren't adding to the conversation and only trying your best to deflate my statements with nothing but opinions, then why are you here? Is it self serving?

Please stop assuming that atheist and scientist are the same thing.

I am not, and never came close to making the distinction. In fact, much of my opinions about bad scientists come from my biology professor who was a devote Christian and molecular biologist.

I got your point. I am calling you on the dishonesty of that point.

Actually, now that you mention it, though, although it is implausible nigh unto impossibility, an "alien seeding" hypothesis is still many orders of magnitude more probable than a supernatural explanation of life on Earth.

This is your opinion. If you feel that way, then why knock any other ideas about anything else in the world... about the world and universe.

Is this a little like amusing yourself by intentionally sabotaging productive discussion through calculated obtusity?

No it's not.

Look, I'm as big a fan of Socrates as the next guy. Probably bigger, now that I think about that statement, but throwing up your hands and declaring everything is rubbish without actually listening to what people are saying and responding intelligently does not make you Socrates.

Never said it was rubbish, just not as definite as people want it to be. And/Or, that both sides are still putting their faith in something.

Equivocating between religious dogmatism and the ongoing process of scientific inquiry suggests a lack of deep understanding of either.

Wrong, Socrates did this and he had a great understanding of both, and it's been happening since then non stop.

Anything else you'd like to add? :D Preferably not a loose criticism of something I already said that you take out of context?

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 22, 2008, 12:28 AM

Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

This:

I never said, or meant to say that he believed it. He mentioned it as a plausible theory,

IS WRONG! He mentioned it as a tongue-in-cheek (as he puts it) answer to Stein's question of how he thinks INTELLIGENT DESIGN could be true, not a theory for the origins of the universe.

Other important points are bolded.

As for this:

I am not sure whether you are stating that I personally hate atheists, since I don't, quite far from the truth. My fiancee and I have a professor friend in the field of philosophy that was once a Christian in Africa, then moved to the US and renounced. Atheist for sure, but a sensible one that won't call anyone religious a bigot or insane or ignorant.

He won't call anything they believe absurd either, he is much like the OP Floyde, a sensible atheist that has their beliefs. I personally hate anyone that is a fanatic to the point of blind devotion. The strongest of any group asks questions that may challenge their beliefs. Most fanatical Christians/religious followers don't want to do that, and neither do many fanatical atheists that work hard trying to disprove relatively unprovable stories while accepting unproven but widely accepted scientific theories.

I misunderstood and I apologise. It came off to me that while you didn't hate atheists, per se, you hate atheism. Apparently that isn't true and I apologise for assuming. (Isn't it nice when people apologise for assuming things about other people, DS?).

As for the other paragraph, I don't get how calling religious beliefs crazy or what-have-you is necessarily "fanatic." I certainly don't go around calling every religious person I see (boy, I'd run out of breath fast!) a bigot/delusional freak/whatever else one can think of. I spent many years debating with religious and non-religious people, constantly questioning my beliefs, and it was only through questioning belief systems that I ever became an atheist, anyways. Atheism was my last resort! I was in the [large] group that believe atheists to be immoral, basically stupid people. Now, I have no problem calling myself atheist (obviously), because I am.

And your arguments against evolution are becoming a bit redundant at this point. The only argument is "we couldn't have been there, therefore it's a flimsy theory." Evolutionary biology is one of my favourite pass-time study topics and I find it very interesting, and one could immerse themselves, not even in hypotheses, opinions, explanations, et cetera, but in straight evidence for evolution for years and years if they studied hard enough. There's a LOT of research and such that has gone into evolutionary theory, and it has stood the test of time. It only takes one thing to disprove a theory, and evolution is still going. As Gelfin has explained to you, the constant revision of science is a strength. Ben Stein in his movie likes to make it sound like you can't question evidence for evolution without being ridiculed, but in fact, if you go to an evolution conference, it is basically nothing but debate and questioning! So, besides your lack of understanding of the theory, what is it about the Theory of Evolution that you believe fits this description:

Faith: Complete trust or confidence in something based on spiritual apprehensions rather than proof.

Evolution has mountains of evidence in favour [so far], God has zero [so far]. So explain to me again..how is believing evolution to be the most solid theory of organised complexity and ancestry we have today, and believing that there's a God who created the universe, no questions asked, and nothing you can say or do can touch that belief, on equal grounds in terms of faith-requirement? I'm really curious..

Gelfin

Jun 22, 2008, 12:47 AM

No I am not. And yes people have. Read.

Far be it from me to presume to know what you expect me to read. You will have to make and substantiate your own arguments. I won't do your work for you.

You missed the point, and you are also criticizing yourself while not adding anything to the discussion. As was stated before, no one is an expert or has much knowledge on the subjects at hand. You are proving yourself wrong.

As a response to the paragraph you quoted, this makes no sense at all. You will have to explain this point you say I am missing.

My complaint was that you have taken a facile caricature of an entire scientific discipline, a caricature intentionally constructed so as to be easy to shoot down, shot it down as you were noseringed into doing, and you honestly think that any deeper investigation would be superfluous.

You're trying to claim that people don't know what they're talking about when you don't really know what they've said.

You missed the point and this proves that you aren't reading for understanding. You are just waiting to type your next rebuttal.

Not agreeing with you is not the same as misunderstanding your point, no matter how often you use that statement to ward off criticism without responding to it. If I don't understand what you're getting at, I'll tell you so. See above.

The human species, is the worst candidate to study, to prove macro evolution, since we are the youngest species to walk the planet.... okay.

Humans are far from the "youngest species to walk the planet." At the very least, all domestic species of animals, created by a guided rather than natural selection process, are by definition more recent than humans, but you have not indicated what this has to do with anything.

Again, as the only species on the planet capable of studying anything at all, we are the best equipped by default. You may not be satisfied with our ability to do so, but that's no excuse to give up doing it.

I can go and ask a civil engineer, we have no one to ask about the origin of species. Next!

And by your standards you would be taking the word of the civil engineer on faith, and the civil engineer, who got his knowledge from textbooks, would be taking his knowledge on faith, and the person who invented traffic lights is long dead, so we cannot ask him.

The point, though, remains: You don't need any of those people to tell you how a traffic light works. You have a wealth of evidence at your disposal already that allows you to infer significant conclusions about how traffic lights operate without reference to any domain-omniscient authority.

This idea you have that knowledge cannot be trusted unless it is direct, firsthand and absolute is silly, and you apply it selectively to reach the conclusion you want to reach.

So what are you quoting me for and post here? If you aren't adding to the conversation and only trying your best to deflate my statements with nothing but opinions, then why are you here? Is it self serving?

I am not deflating your statements. I'm only pointing out how they didn't have any air in them to begin with. If you would care to make some coherent arguments instead of just waving your arms and shouting this unsubstantiated "pox on both your houses" drivel, perhaps we could get somewhere.

I am not, and never came close to making the distinction. In fact, much of my opinions about bad scientists come from my biology professor who was a devote Christian and molecular biologist.

Indeed you did not make the distinction. That's why I made it for you. You made the claim that religious believers are better able to see both sides of the evolution debate. I asked for your reasoning for that claim, and your response was that being an atheist is easy, so it's easy for religious people, who study religion, to also see the "easier" other side which doesn't require any study.

You equivocated scientists with atheists in order to make a dishonest point.

This is your opinion. If you feel that way, then why knock any other ideas about anything else in the world... about the world and universe.

This statement makes no sense.

Never said it was rubbish, just not as definite as people want it to be. And/Or, that both sides are still putting their faith in something.

How definite do you think people want "it" to be, for whatever antecedent of "it" you happen to be talking about, and how definite would you allow them to have "it?"

Regardless of what you mean, you are confusing two completely different notions of "faith." One kind of faith is believing what you're told despite evidence to the contrary. The other is inferring the best explanation for the evidence at your disposal and tentatively trusting that inference until more evidence comes along to contradict it.

You may lack a preference due to absence of a firm moral or epistemic criterion to distinguish them, but in both pragmatic and utilitarian terms, one of the two works and the other does not.

Wrong, Socrates did this and he had a great understanding of both, and it's been happening since then non stop.

The part where you're confused is that Socrates actually asked questions that were pertinent to the subject at hand. You've spent all your time perfecting your end-zone dance and neglected to practice any football. If you want to be Socrates, you've actually got to make a good faith effort at argumentation, not simply skip to the end and declare you're wise because you know everybody else knows nothing. Further you do not seem to understand that the Socratic method is a persuasive strategy as much as anything. If your questions are not gently leading people into the position you want them to be in, then you're doing it wrong.

What you're doing is a lot less like Socratic inquiry and a lot more like, well, amusing yourself by intentionally sabotaging productive discussion through calculated obtusity.

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 01:25 AM

As for the other paragraph, I don't get how calling religious beliefs crazy or what-have-you is necessarily "fanatic." I certainly don't go around calling every religious person I see (boy, I'd run out of breath fast!) a bigot/delusional freak/whatever else one can think of.

You're not a fanatic.

I spent many years debating with religious and non-religious people, constantly questioning my beliefs, and it was only through questioning belief systems that I ever became an atheist, anyways. Atheism was my last resort! I was in the [large] group that believe atheists to be immoral, basically stupid people. Now, I have no problem calling myself atheist (obviously), because I am.

As have many, and some have gone the other route and kept the faith.

And your arguments against evolution are becoming a bit redundant at this point. The only argument is "we couldn't have been there, therefore it's a flimsy theory." Evolutionary biology is one of my favourite pass-time study topics and I find it very interesting, and one could immerse themselves, not even in hypotheses, opinions, explanations, et cetera, but in straight evidence for evolution for years and years if they studied hard enough. There's a LOT of research and such that has gone into evolutionary theory, and it has stood the test of time. It only takes one thing to disprove a theory, and evolution is still going. As Gelfin has explained to you, the constant revision of science is a strength. Ben Stein in his movie likes to make it sound like you can't question evidence for evolution without being ridiculed, but in fact, if you go to an evolution conference, it is basically nothing but debate and questioning! So, besides your lack of understanding of the theory, what is it about the Theory of Evolution that you believe fits this description:

Faith: Complete trust or confidence in something based on spiritual apprehensions rather than proof.

Evolution has mountains of evidence in favour [so far], God has zero [so far]. So explain to me again..how is believing evolution to be the most solid theory of organised complexity and ancestry we have today, and believing that there's a God who created the universe, no questions asked, and nothing you can say or do can touch that belief, on equal grounds in terms of faith-requirement? I'm really curious..[/COLOR][/FONT]

False. (http://books.google.com/books?id=pbZT5wV_6awC&dq=darwin%27s+black+box&pg=PP1&ots=2AZCLlIOb6&sig=LWPXbVtwxvMUpkMZe_pA6ZToQrA&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DDarwin%2527s%2Bblack%2Bbox%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail)

Far be it from me to presume to know what you expect me to read. You will have to make and substantiate your own arguments. I won't do your work for you.

The problem is that you aren't doing any work at all. Your just saying that you are disagreeing and giving bad reasons why.

and you honestly think that any deeper investigation would be superfluous.

Wrong, never mentioned that, as I said, you are just quoting opinion.

Not agreeing with you is not the same as misunderstanding your point, no matter how often you use that statement to ward off criticism without responding to it. If I don't understand what you're getting at, I'll tell you so. See above.

But you don't know that you are misunderstanding the simple point I am trying to make since you keep proving it wrong with the wrong comments.

Let me help by stating this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=define%3Astraw+man&spell=1):

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. ...

Humans are far from the "youngest species to walk the planet." At the very least, all domestic species of animals, created by a guided rather than natural selection process, are by definition more recent than humans, but you have not indicated what this has to do with anything.

Again, as the only species on the planet capable of studying anything at all, we are the best equipped by default. You may not be satisfied with our ability to do so, but that's no excuse to give up doing it.

First off, based on the theory of evolution and popular science that both the world of science and world of religion understands, yes we are the youngest species. You are just wrong here.

Second of all, I am not trying to state that humans aren't the best candidate to study evolutionary theory. I honestly don't know where on earth you are getting this from.

What I was commenting on, was a statement made that basically and simply said: "We can prove evolutionary theory by studying the human species." And that is FALSE. The human species is the worst species with which to study evolution.

And by your standards you would be taking the word of the civil engineer on faith, and the civil engineer, who got his knowledge from textbooks, would be taking his knowledge on faith, and the person who invented traffic lights is long dead, so we cannot ask him.

Wrong again, because there was someone there to record the inventors steps so that we can reproduce the traffic light. Traffic lights are proven technology based on proven science. Besides, based on the quoted person, what you said isn't related. Read it again.

This idea you have that knowledge cannot be trusted unless it is direct, firsthand and absolute is silly, and you apply it selectively to reach the conclusion you want to reach.

Nope, the fourth or fifth time you use a bad opinion to disagree with me. Knowledge cannot be trusted unless you get it from a proven and tested source. That can be stretched from the world of science all the way to journalism.

I am not deflating your statements. I'm only pointing out how they didn't have any air in them to begin with. If you would care to make some coherent arguments instead of just waving your arms and shouting this unsubstantiated "pox on both your houses" drivel, perhaps we could get somewhere.

And you are adding what to the discussion? Oh, insults, yeah. Good show.

Indeed you did not make the distinction. That's why I made it for you. You made the claim that religious believers are better able to see both sides of the evolution debate. I asked for your reasoning for that claim, and your response was that being an atheist is easy, so it's easy for religious people, who study religion, to also see the "easier" other side which doesn't require any study.

Never stated it. And the second bold point is horrible wrong. Ask any even keeled religious follower and they will tell you that it takes constant study. The bad ones, the ones that most people point out, don't study, which is why they look and are stupid.

You equivocated scientists with atheists in order to make a dishonest point.

Number 6.... nope.

How definite do you think people want "it" to be, for whatever antecedent of "it" you happen to be talking about, and how definite would you allow them to have "it?"

About as definite as the facts that all of human history has discovered. No one is debating whether adding 2 and 2 equals four. :rolleyes:

You may lack a preference due to absence of a firm moral or epistemic criterion to distinguish them, but in both pragmatic and utilitarian terms, one of the two works and the other does not.

Wrong again, and proof that you don't read. I stated early on that I plead the fifth. But you might not be from the states so I apologize.

The part where you're confused is that Socrates ... [Quote]

And where did I state that I was doing it his way? You are the one leading it in that direction right now. You aren't bringing up an argument, you are stating opinion. You aren't even asking or answering questions. You are simply running your mouth.

[Quote]What you're doing is a lot less like Socratic inquiry and a lot more like, well, amusing yourself by intentionally sabotaging productive discussion through calculated obtusity.

No actually, we both are doing that. You aren't adding anything what so ever. All that typing and you really didn't say anything. A lot of other posters get it, while you don't since you choose not to read what others have said. The OP even gets it, and we discussed things and made statement and came to an understanding.

You are just running your mouth for a yet to be proven reason.

How about we both **** so that the thread can continue, and posters that have to deal with our long posts that I am sure no one wants to read.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 22, 2008, 01:48 AM

You're not a fanatic.

As have many, and some have gone the other route and kept the faith.

I wasn't saying it because I believe such self-evaluation always leads to atheism, only addressing the point that people need to be open-minded, debate, et cetera.

False. (http://books.google.com/books?id=pbZT5wV_6awC&dq=darwin%27s+black+box&pg=PP1&ots=2AZCLlIOb6&sig=LWPXbVtwxvMUpkMZe_pA6ZToQrA&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DDarwin%2527s%2Bblack%2Bbox%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail)

Wow, I don't even know how to respond if you believe D'sBB is still considered a completely factual rebuttal to evolution. I honestly don't.

Perhaps now we're going to start talking about how the Flagella disproves evolution. *yawn*

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 02:00 AM

...

Point is that a simple Google search yields you quite a bit much debate from all sides, that link was the first hit, and it's an entire book some of which I read and somewhat agree with and somewhat disagree with. Much is sound reasoning, and some not in favor of the theory of macro-evolution is from the science community.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 22, 2008, 02:09 AM

Point is that a simple Google search yields you quite a bit much debate from all sides, that link was the first hit, and it's an entire book some of which I read and somewhat agree with and somewhat disagree with. Much is sound reasoning, and some not in favor of the theory of macro-evolution is from the science community.

I'm aware there's a lot of debate between creationists and proponents of the theory of evolution. The thing you don't realise is that there is NOT a lot of argument within the scientific community. There is a lot of argument on particular pieces of evidence, as they have to constantly be re-evaluated, re-tested, and re-fit into the theory to make sure things are consistent. I've read Darwin's Black Box, and I've read many anti-evolution books. His book was terribly received in scientific community, and many of the arguments he uses in the book are set up in such a way that they can't be tested or challenged. A.K.A. not science. Science needs to be able to be attacked and scrutinised in every way, shape or form, and D'sBB, as well as many books similar to it, purposely uses old, non-factual, religious (such as the classic argument from design and irreducible complexity), and sometimes untouchable arguments to spread a point. Do I think books like that are bad? No, but I don't think pulling up a link to an essentially disproven book to say the statement that evolution has mountains of evidence in favour of it is wrong, with no further explanation, is very characteristic of someone who understands evolution, or wants to seriously discuss it.

I'll try to pick up this discussion tomorrow, though, guys. It's 2 in the morning now, and I haven't slept more than two or three hours a night the past week, so I'm going to turn in a bit early tonight. Sleep well!

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 02:18 AM

.....

What I can't do is post every link that I find that doesn't support evolution. You will have to find it on the web, or just wait for me to post all of them after searching for them for hours.

Do the search as well. Give me a link that disproves D'sBB and other. Not that I want to compare you with the other poster, but you can't sit back and berate someone for not giving you enough info if you are just going to "claim" that it's wrong.

I thank you for not being like Gelfin, but meet me halfway. Show me where scientists have the overwhelming evidence for large scale evolution, because it's not spread throughout the libraries or the web.

I search and all I find are arguments and debates about why it's flawed. Parts of it are upheld, but the overall theory is F...L...A...W...E...D.

Prove what I am finding wrong and I will stand corrected.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 22, 2008, 02:45 AM

I will work towards a bit harder tomorrow, DS, since I really need to sleep (perhaps someone else can chime in, though).

Here's just a quick search on google:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2007/07/01/books/1154680128921.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Also, one of the only books I've read by Richard Dawkins was "The Ancestor's Tale," which is a large, beautiful, and very informative book about common ancestry and macroevolution. A good read, either way.

Now, posting a bunch of links and stuff doesn't really say much. Unless you give me a specific thing about, say, D'sBB to discuss, I can't really do much, as most people don't publish step-by-step debunkings in one large file, unless you're the makers of Loose Change, in which case, everyone does a step-by-step debunking, because it's really easy.

As for Macroevolution, I'll post more tomorrow, but I'm really not understanding what it is you're finding flawed. Perhaps if you can give me an example, that'll help. There are no documented cases of an organism or anything that is irreducibly complex, and can't be explained in the simple, step-by-step increments that natural selection demands. Many have tried, such as Flagellas, whatever that beetle was (bombardier beetle?) that shoots some exploding stuff from its butt...but all of these attempts to find irreducible complexity have been proven wrong. I understand IC is not the only argument one might have against Macroevolution, but you'll have to elabourate on others. Our genetic code is a very compelling piece of evidence for evolution, so maybe searching for genetic evidence for evolution or something might help...

Here's another random site(s):

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/3/710?etoc

Again, I'm not saying anything about these websites, just posting a bunch of links with examples of the kinds of things you can find. Also keep in mind, the internet is not really the best bank of knowledge out there and if you're really looking for some good reading on Evolution, find a really good bookstore or library or something.

Also, there's a lot of books on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, et cetera...

http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/browse/nav.asp?visgrp=nonfiction&exp=164604&N=936933&Ne=164605+169047+169666+936933&act=BC_ANC

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Macroevolution/Elisabeth-S-Vrba/e/9781891276491

Et cetera...

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 03:03 AM

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/how-to-disprove.html

http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved.html

http://www.alexmeske.com/Essays/inteldesignevol.htm

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080602-003-eedfs.html

Here are a few of mine. I had to call a theologian friend of mind to get some. But the ones he gave aren't religious in nature, and the one I pulled aren't either... I hope.

I am tired as well. My philosopher fiancee and I were laughing at the horrible way Gel depicted Socrates and what was wrong with both his/her and my own statements.

You tend not to speak too many definite/finite statements when your fiancee, her good friends, your professors, and your job all center you around fact finding.

My job usually keeps me up until deadline, but this time I stayed up later because this thread is rather interesting.

There were some at Amazon, but a lot of the reading I have done online, and from what you are asking, I didn't want to bring Creationist and religious supporting documents into the fray, hence the short list.

I also left out the articles and papers supporting merging both concepts and new ways of religious thinking that state that God is the originator of evolution. Who believe the book and it's notion that God created everything, but did so via evolution and the big bang etcetera.

Kashchei

Jun 22, 2008, 03:05 AM

DS and I have history on this topic, and he has recently (via PM) all but admitted that he has no scientific training. I think that in order to debunk a theory, one must completely understand it. Because DS does not have any training in evolution, he cannot come to an informed decision on this complex topic. Unfortunately, DS is not alone in making this common error.

In order to show how easy it is to argue against a evolution, I have attached the following flowcharts showing the difference between the thought processes of the scientist and the person of faith. You can decide for yourself which you think is the more intellectually rigorous.

Gelfin

Jun 22, 2008, 03:05 AM

How about we both **** so that the thread can continue, and posters that have to deal with our long posts that I am sure no one wants to read.

Since you have made no sound arguments whatsoever, misrepresented and distorted at every turn, made wild claims and then defended yourself only by denying having made them, made demonstrably wrong statements and then claimed demonstrations of such wrongness are "opinion" so that you feel you don't have to address them, I wholeheartedly agree. I am not interested in wasting any more time on someone whose only tactic is rhetorical dishonesty.

I have the best possible reason to disagree with you: You have not provided a single reason I should. I am happy to try to find common ground with anyone, but you cannot decide what ground you want to claim you are standing on.

If your fiancee is really a philosopher, have her help you construct an argument. Surely she would know how, and surely she can see that you don't.

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 03:10 AM

......

So what the ****** is your scientific training? And since no one here has any including yourself, should we all just shut up and move on?

As I said in the PM rather bluntly.

....

Wow, you are SO right about that. That proves it! I was wrong about everything and the statement you made proved that I was completely wrong and that macro-evolution is a sound argument that NO ONE disputes.

Oh wait.... you didn't say anything. You're still waxing your ego. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the short reply.

p.s. She does, and she is forwarding a good deal of your garbage statements to her colleagues. Besides, you still haven't stated anything worth arguing about. Still just criticizing. Read up on (http://ec.hku.hk/acadgrammar/general/argue/illogic/detectin.htm) what you do best... hey look! It even supports Darwinism! It could really help you, and you too Kashchei.

Kashchei

Jun 22, 2008, 03:22 AM

So what the ****** is your scientific training? And since no one here has any including yourself, should we all just shut up and move on?

DS, is your last question a rhetorical one, or would you really like an answer?

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 03:31 AM

DS, is your last question a rhetorical one, or would you really like an answer?

Answer please. :rolleyes:

Just humor me if you wish as to why you think anyone on this forum is a proven expert on anything. And, to why we should not talk or discuss things that we aren't experts on though we can pull expert opinion.

I will even give you a few hours to do so while I go to sleep.

And don't forget this (http://ec.hku.hk/acadgrammar/general/argue/illogic/detectin.htm).

Kashchei

Jun 22, 2008, 03:38 AM

.Andy

Jun 22, 2008, 03:58 AM

False. (http://books.google.com/books?id=pbZT5wV_6awC&dq=darwin%27s+black+box&pg=PP1&ots=2AZCLlIOb6&sig=LWPXbVtwxvMUpkMZe_pA6ZToQrA&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DDarwin%2527s%2Bblack%2Bbox%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail)
It's surprising to see anyone still taking Behe seriously. He was torn apart in court for his dishonesty and intellectual contortions in the Dover Trial. He's a shrill and a member of the Discovery Institute and is motivated religiously and politically, not scientifically. The court transcript is available here (http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm). It's long but well worth reading for anyone who is interested in this subject. I highly recommend you give it a read (I still haven't finished it all but have read Behe's testimony and the ruling). Here are some excerpts from the court ruling from wikipedia to remind everyone of the non-scientific ridiculousness of Behe's ideas;

"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."

"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."

"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."

"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."

SLC Flyfishing

Jun 22, 2008, 09:29 AM

So all that's needed to have useful knowledge is to take a complex subject you do not understand, have someone simplify it for you to an easily knocked-down soundbite they then proceed to knock down, and then you are qualified to think you understand the whole theory so well you don't even need to know anything deeper. This novel theory will save a lot of people a great deal of money on grad school.

This is great, you've outlined your own methods for arguing against religion (or spirituality as I prefer to call it). Reduce it to an easily knock-downable form, ignore all else, then proceed to ridicule. But can't put the shoe on the other foot apparently! Funny how people tend to expose themselves when they get worked up!

SLC

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 10:05 AM

DS, I'm happy to debate with people willing to do so on an factual level. When religion or emotion enter into the debate, people tend to talk past one another. I admire your faith but I don't value opinions based exclusively on it.

Never said I have any faith. Which is why I PMed you. You are automatically assuming that I have faith in religion just because I am not sold on evolutionary theory.

And as I said before, no one here has many facts. If there were any group spitting "facts" around it would be the religious supporters, since they can go grab a book of theirs and pull from the source. There haven't been too many molecular-biologists ripping quotes from their books, or claiming to be foregoing experts. No theologians either just to be fair.

No one on the evolutionary side has pulled ANY facts except for ZiggyPastorius. And the religious side all but left knowing this thread would turn into a flame bait. Most are really just voicing their opinions. The rest are ignoring the basic rules of conversation, and trying to tackle someone's argument or stance by concentrating on one point and ignoring the others.

Mainly because they don't want to read through long posts.

For example:

....

Yeah, I gave reasons for posting it... then via ZiggyPastorius's very calm and civil gesture posted more links to other sites on the fly as did he.

And there are good links and books that I read through last night. Those are a must read too.

This is great, you've outlined your own methods for arguing against religion (or spirituality as I prefer to call it). Reduce it to an easily knock-downable form, ignore all else, then proceed to ridicule. But can't put the shoe on the other foot apparently! Funny how people tend to expose themselves when they get worked up!

SLC

Now that I have gotten some sleep I can see that both Gelfin and I are both not doing a good job of even having a good conversation. He followed a good deal of ways to create a bad argument, and used it to NOT prove any point or take any stance, he just flamed.

But I was too immature to just simply ask where he stands or provide any proof to his claims.

Thanks for noticing this as well SLC.

Queso

Jun 22, 2008, 10:07 AM

This thread is hilarious :D

One point though, nobody has ever said evolution explains the origin of life. It only explains the diversity of life.

Oh, and there's still no god :D

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 10:12 AM

This thread is hilarious :D

One point though, nobody has ever said evolution explains the origin of life. It only explains the diversity of life.

No one can prove that one species becomes another over time.

Oh, and there's still no god :D

Prove it! ;)

Seriously you don't have too, just kidding.

Queso

Jun 22, 2008, 10:23 AM

No one can prove that one species becomes another over time.
LOL. One species doesn't "become another". Two groups of the same species living in different environmental conditions gradually adapt to those conditions through thousands of generations and eventually become different enough to no longer be considered the same. Two different species from a common ancestor.

Sometimes, as with lions and tigers or wolves and dogs, the two species with a common ancestor can still interbreed, but they are still different species.

You have to get away from this idea of evolution as Humans springing from monkeys. It doesn't work that way :D

Mackan

Jun 22, 2008, 10:52 AM

For those who seem to object to ridiculing religous people and religion.

What would your reaction be if a 45 year old guy said "Yeah - I believe in Santa"

Would you smirk, chuckle, laugh, feel pity?

Doug

I guess if we had found a "holy book" left by Santa, telling people how to eat, dress, live and treat others, it would have been a religion as well...

.Andy

Jun 22, 2008, 11:06 AM

No one can prove that one species becomes another over time.
If you're trying to flog the micro/macroevolution horse it was already discussed and debunked a few pages back in the thread. There's plenty of links and evidence for you to read there. If you're talking speciation as something separate (:confused:) there's a few pages at talkorigins here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html) on instances of observed speciation for you perusal. It's even got references for you to go and check out the original research papers.

The wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) page is also quite good in explaining all the different types of speciation (that's right, it's so well known that there are multiple categories of speciation). Wikipedia also references the following two sites: One from the university of Berkeley here (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_45) (this is quite well done and explains things for a non-science audience wonderfully - definitely well worth bookmarking) and another excellent explanation here (http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/speciation.html) from a anthropologist from the university of Wisconsin (I especially like this last one but it's a lot more reading) :).

rhsgolfer33

Jun 22, 2008, 12:01 PM

No one can prove that one species becomes another over time.

Well there is this thing called the fossil record thats used to relative date rocks, you can basically see once species turn into another one. Its used to tell the order in which rocks were deposited and if most of the deposits are fairly intact, you would see the evolution that occurred over time.

Here's a picture that illustrates what this is about, this can be proven as well, just ask your local geologist if he knows of any areas that have fossil assemblages exhibiting this. If you really don't believe that the original species change into a different but similar new species then, whatever, you're denying something that is proven through millions of years of fossil records (basically the same as someone sitting there watching this process and writing it down).

Image courtesy of: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/strata_gradual.gif

Gelfin

Jun 22, 2008, 12:08 PM

This is great, you've outlined your own methods for arguing against religion (or spirituality as I prefer to call it). Reduce it to an easily knock-downable form, ignore all else, then proceed to ridicule. But can't put the shoe on the other foot apparently! Funny how people tend to expose themselves when they get worked up!

I'd really like to know what you mean by this, specifically. The only comment about I made in this thread that was arguably critical of religion was not really so much about religion at all, but instead about how human nature sometimes warps religion. Not even DS took exception to that.

Feel free to quote me directly. I'd very much like to know specifically where you think I took a reductionist view of religion, and why you think so.

Now that I have gotten some sleep I can see that both Gelfin and I are both not doing a good job of even having a good conversation. He followed a good deal of ways to create a bad argument, and used it to NOT prove any point or take any stance, he just flamed.

I tend to agree that that exchange went off the rails very badly, and for my own part in that I apologize, but it bears mentioning that what you just said about me is exactly what I was thinking about you the entire time.

Starting with Post #99 I was taking issue with your bad arguments, hoping you would come back with better tempered versions of them. After that I became increasingly frustrated as your replies ranged from non-responsive to abusive, the result being, as you have observed, that both of us wasted a lot of words saying not much of anything.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 22, 2008, 12:23 PM

Never said I have any faith. Which is why I PMed you. You are automatically assuming that I have faith in religion just because I am not sold on evolutionary theory.

And as I said before, no one here has many facts. If there were any group spitting "facts" around it would be the religious supporters, since they can go grab a book of theirs and pull from the source. There haven't been too many molecular-biologists ripping quotes from their books, or claiming to be foregoing experts. No theologians either just to be fair.

No one on the evolutionary side has pulled ANY facts except for ZiggyPastorius. And the religious side all but left knowing this thread would turn into a flame bait. Most are really just voicing their opinions. The rest are ignoring the basic rules of conversation, and trying to tackle someone's argument or stance by concentrating on one point and ignoring the others.

Mainly because they don't want to read through long posts.

For example:

Yeah, I gave reasons for posting it... then via ZiggyPastorius's very calm and civil gesture posted more links to other sites on the fly as did he.

And there are good links and books that I read through last night. Those are a must read too.

Now that I have gotten some sleep I can see that both Gelfin and I are both not doing a good job of even having a good conversation. He followed a good deal of ways to create a bad argument, and used it to NOT prove any point or take any stance, he just flamed.

But I was too immature to just simply ask where he stands or provide any proof to his claims.

Thanks for noticing this as well SLC.

Well, to be fair, DS, I didn't provide much argument, either. I basically grabbed a bunch of links and posted them..not much there. In fact, .Andy did a lot more than me, and basically did exactly what you asked in providing the transcription of that Behe court case.

More stuff:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/01/01/html/ft_20020101.1.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/23/7899

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/19/evolution-makes-testable-predictions/

Et cetera. If the human taming of wolves that eventually led to what we know today as Dogs is not convincing enough...then to be honest, I don't know what would be a good example of "macro-evolution," (which is just a fancy word for micro-evolution over time that leads to a different species than was originally observed).

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 12:31 PM

....

No, please accept mine first. I really should have just calmed down and kept it civil or try better at explaining, and simplifying my statements. As a journalist I should be ashamed.

...

Right indeed, but what you gave was a start at turning the thread back to what the OP intended... civil discussion. Thank you.

Right, but Stanford theorists suggest this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) which is an interesting read from one of the few journalistically sound sources the states have left. Personally, it goes out there, but as those scientist and other think, evolution is a theory that can't really be solidly proven or dis-proven.

Microevolution, as in slight changes in a species, can be proven just by looking at us indeed. Not to contradict myself though because our own species doesn't prove macro. And in many ways dis-proves it.

Don Lindsay (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/index.html) is guy I stumbled upon last night but couldn't stay awake enough to go through much of his writings on evolution.

I did however go through some of his other articles, and they are a good read if you want to see how people that just have questions think.

And going by what some say, and I do agree with, similarities may not prove common ancestry, but simply the best answer for a common problem.

This is also from the Wiki, and doesn't disprove anything, just states that evo theory isn't a fact. And [url=http://en.allexperts.com/q/Evolution-3839/Evolution-Disproved.htm]this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion) asks some simple questions about mutations and concepts of evolution that are sketchy.

I think you just have to stop thinking that the lack of solid evolutionary proof, denies it entirely. It just shows that it's still a theory being worked on constantly, and still doesn't dis-prove any other theories.

Francis Collins is another of the even keeled sensible researchers, a medical doctor, and director of the genome institute says here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921,00.html) and here (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19848_1.html) that there was creation and evolution.... sustaining both theories.

p.s. Just to restate my claim. I don't want to mention where I really stand, and I am trying my best to show that both sides of the fence have their problems. But now I guess it's best to note that I do take Francis Collins opinion as my own. I am a practicing Disciple that does take the low road of evolutionary theory as evidence of ID.

There are questions that I still do have from both however. And I personally love to doubt my faith.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 22, 2008, 01:03 PM

No, please accept mine first. I really should have just calmed down and kept it civil or try better at explaining, and simplifying my statements. As a journalist I should be ashamed.

Right indeed, but what you gave was a start at turning the thread back to what the OP intended... civil discussion. Thank you.

Right, but Stanford theorists suggest this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) which is an interesting read from one of the few journalistically sound sources the states have left. Personally, it goes out there, but as those scientist and other think, evolution is a theory that can't really be solidly proven or dis-proven.

Microevolution, as in slight changes in a species, can be proven just by looking at us indeed. Not to contradict myself though because our own species doesn't prove macro. And in many ways dis-proves it.

Don Lindsay (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/index.html) is guy I stumbled upon last night but couldn't stay awake enough to go through much of his writings on evolution.

I did however go through some of his other articles, and they are a good read if you want to see how people that just have questions think.

And going by what some say, and I do agree with, similarities may not prove common ancestry, but simply the best answer for a common problem.

This is also from the Wiki, and doesn't disprove anything, just states that evo theory isn't a fact. And this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion) asks some simple questions about mutations and concepts of evolution that are sketchy.

I think you just have to stop thinking that the lack of solid evolutionary proof, denies it entirely. It just shows that it's still a theory being worked on constantly, and still doesn't dis-prove any other theories.

Francis Collins is another of the even keeled sensible researchers, a medical doctor, and director of the genome institute says here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921,00.html) and here (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19848_1.html) that there was creation and evolution.... sustaining both theories.

p.s. Just to restate my claim. I don't want to mention where I really stand, and I am trying my best to show that both sides of the fence have their problems. But now I guess it's best to note that I do take Francis Collins opinion as my own. I am a practicing Disciple that does take the low road of evolutionary theory as evidence of ID.

There are questions that I still do have from both however. And I personally love to doubt my faith.

I will check out those links, but I have to clear some things up:

Creation is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

Theory and fact both have different meanings in a scientific context. No, evolution will never become a "law," but neither will Gravity. They are both theories, and thus, unprovable. However, that does not excuse what evidence we do have for them (even if you don't think there's a lot), and they are still the best theories we have to date to explain the complexities of life (NOT the origin of life. Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life).

When we're talking about the truth value of creationism, I suppose we will just have to disagree.

By the way...I just want to share this, for no real reason. This isn't an argument, this isn't meant to prove/show/say anything, I just felt like sharing it. I wrote this on my facebook profile back when I first became familiar with evolutionary theory (I started reading about it about five months after I became atheist).

Life and the world as we know it, is the most beautiful thing imaginable. There's so much around us, complex organisms of all kinds, all who have evolved to benefit themselves and their survival for billions of years...The concious-raising power of natural selection is such a great thing, it amazes me how there are so many that, based on their faith, still refuse to accept it and see the world as the beautiful thing that it is...

It's a wonderful thing to be able to live each day, without everything I do needing to be so closely monitored. I could be having sex with my girlfriend right now, and whether I'm 15, 20, or 80, it's still and always would be the most beautiful thing in the world; and I can still have the cognition to know whether to do it or not.

Without god, I can co-exist. People who believe in coexistence often realise that if religion was not, it would be so incredibly easy...people could walk by an abortion clinic, and instead of running in and killing the doctor in the name of god, just say, "I feel sorry the little not-yet-human fetus, but it's that person's right to get an abortion, and that doctor's job." But, yet, we don't have that. We have murders in the name of god, disagreements in the name of god, and people being shunned and murdered by friends, families, strangers, and government alike, just because they choose to love someone the same sex as themselves.. and in an age which is supposed to be the age of reason, science is attempting to be shot down more and more.

I can look up into the night sky, all alone, wondering how everything began. The most wonderful feeling I can ever imagine, is being able to say, "We don't know...But maybe we will someday."
Seeing through eyes with the delusion of god, the world is still filled with wonder, but a wonder which can only be answered by a simple, arbitrary answer, which raises more questions than it asks.

It is true the world is "seemingly," designed, but this is only a delusion. Natural selection and the laws of nature create that delusion, and by better understanding the world through the things we can prove, you'll find that not knowing and searching is so much more fulfilling than just assuming we all know...

I cannot see, through eyes of reality, how a creator adds any more purpose to our lives...The purpose and goals we set for ourselves are our own. They make us individual, instead of all the same. To live a riteous life, as defined by someone else (Someone non-existent), so that you can ultimately benefit yourself through eternal life seems vain to me, and choosing for myself what I want to do and how I want to be seems...me.

I love life, and I'm going to live life. I'm going to enjoy every second of it. I'm going to grow my hair that inch longer. I'm going to have those dirty thoughts a few more times. I'm going to sleep in that five extra minutes. And I'm going to try to benefit myself and those I love with everything I do. Without god...Because this the best life I'll ever have, and the only one.

Of course, I know there's a lot in that we've touched on and disagree on, but I just wanted to share it. My thoughts have come a long way since then, but a lot of it is still the same. Where others see glory in "God's creation," I saw so much added glory in the world when I finally got the courage to realise I don't believe in God. Just a personal anecdote, sorry for hijacking the thread.

Also, I'm not really understanding this...so you agree with his overall conclusion, but you don't agree with this conclusion of his:

Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles of variation and natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant "gaps" in the progressive development of life's complex structures that would require divine intervention.

Not saying you have to...or that you should accept common ancestry based on this scientist's opinion, but...you seemed to have looked at everything he said about God and his tie to evolution, but just ignored the parts about how he believes evolution and common ancestry are very solid theories. By the way, don't think I think evolution and creationism are opposites...it's certainly possible to believe in both. I just don't, because I don't see any reason besides believing in God in the first place, to suppose God was just ****ing with us with all this evidence.

AHAHAHA @ The fact that Steven Pinker (the only guy who was Atheist and pro evolution) is the only name at the end not completely capitalised. :P

Also, I disagree with this part of the first guy's section:

Science's tools will never prove or disprove God's existence.

I'm a non-agnostic atheist, unlike my fiancée, who is an agnostic atheist, and I believe that we can, and one day will know how the universe began, and I don't think it's going to be God.

This is an interesting page, too:

[url]http://mwillett.org/

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 01:11 PM

Theory and fact both have different meanings in a scientific context. No, evolution will never become a "law," but neither will Gravity. They are both theories, and thus, unprovable. However, that does not excuse what evidence we do have for them (even if you don't think there's a lot), and they are still the best theories we have to date to explain the complexities of life (NOT the origin of life. Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life).

Correct, which is why many still don't accept evolution as the answer all.

The interesting thing, is that trying to define evolution and using the web to do, gives answer to the contrary... evolution DOES try to explain the origins, or that it's end goal is to.

As for the quote, I used to think the same way when I was an atheist as well. But it is written by someone that I am sure never went to far into religious studies to understand the more solid stuff. There are just too many misconceptions in the statement and too many missed points. Not trying to prove it wrong though.

No problem, no hijacking going on.

floyde

Jun 22, 2008, 01:16 PM

I am a practicing Disciple that does take the low road of evolutionary theory as evidence of ID.

There are questions that I still do have from both however. And I personally love to doubt my faith.

DS, if you care for some advice, I think it's better to start off by reading The Origin of Species instead of going backwards by reading books that attempt (and fail) to disprove evolution. It is necessary to know beforehand what it is that one is trying to disprove, don't you think?

skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 01:21 PM

As a journalist I should be ashamed.As a journalist you should certainly be clearer.

Francis Collins is another of the even keeled sensible researchers, a medical doctor, and director of the genome institute says here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921,00.html) and here (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19848_1.html) that there was creation and evolution.... sustaining both theories.

p.s. Just to restate my claim. I don't want to mention where I really stand, and I am trying my best to show that both sides of the fence have their problems. But now I guess it's best to note that I do take Francis Collins opinion as my own. I am a practicing Disciple that does take the low road of evolutionary theory as evidence of ID.As far as I can see, the view that our existence as a species is evidence of Intelligent Design is just as indefensible as straight Creationism. If a designer were to place so many obstacles, false trails, redundant species and risks of cataclysmic disaster, not to mention a strong tendency to self-destruction, in the path of his or her designated goal (homo sapiens sapiens), he or she is either an obsessive gambler or simply not very intelligent after all. You have said on various occasions, after much beating about the bush and obfuscation, that you are not a person of faith, and yet here you are, positing a presumably divine creator being (if you are indeed a "disciple" of Francis Collins). Your ambiguity continues to be puzzling, and your refusal to take a stance while berating those who do is frustrating. The evidence for evolution is there to see in the fossil record, as your mentor says. Whilst the theory of evolution has never claimed to explain the origins of life, it does explain the processes seen in the fossil record and in living species. To call Darwin a fool is beyond foolish.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 22, 2008, 01:47 PM

Correct, which is why many still don't accept evolution as the answer all.

The interesting thing, is that trying to define evolution and using the web to do, gives answer to the contrary... evolution DOES try to explain the origins, or that it's end goal is to.

As for the quote, I used to think the same way when I was an atheist as well. But it is written by someone that I am sure never went to far into religious studies to understand the more solid stuff. There are just too many misconceptions in the statement and too many missed points. Not trying to prove it wrong though.

No problem, no hijacking going on.

I don't accept it as the answer all, I accept it as the best theory we have today to describe the complex variation we see in life.

No, it doesn't. I don't care what you read, natural selection is a mechanism by which random mutations that benefit the organism lead to its survival and gets passed to offspring, continuing the cycle, in its simplest form. There is nothing there about the origins of the Earth. Maybe other things try to, but Evolution DOES NOT try to explain the origin of life.

That note was also written a year and a half ago. It's not meant to prove atheism, it's not meant to be convincing, and it's certainly not intended to represent my full beliefs, it was just something I felt like sharing. I was a person of faith, until about two years ago. I've read plenty of religious books and the like, including the Bible. My lack of beliefs are not based on "misunderstanding" of the position, and I've had so many religious discussions (I used to be a lot bigger into it than I am now), it almost sickens me, but I certainly do not intend that quote to represent why I am an atheist, it was just a spur of the moment thing, more of a poetic thing than an argument.

Plus, after reading the Bible, even if your God was real, I would still not worship it. I would accept its existence, sure, but God's a pretty disgusting individual not worthy of my praise, at the very least.

Edit: Perhaps you should expose my obviously weak atheist mind to this "solid stuff" in religion?

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 02:17 PM

DS, if you care for some advice, I think it's better to start off by reading The Origin of Species instead of going backwards by reading books that attempt (and fail) to disprove evolution. It is necessary to know beforehand what it is that one is trying to disprove, don't you think?

I have.

As for the other comments, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Still no solid proof for anyone.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 22, 2008, 02:23 PM

I have.

As for the other comments, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Still no solid proof for anyone.

.Andy posted some very good information related to Behe and Darwin's Black Box, you just ignored it. I wasn't trying to post any absolute evidence, and if you really wish to learn about it, you're still going to have to do some research and such on your own. I enjoyed reading those links you sent me, by the way.

And:

But it is written by someone that I am sure never went to far into religious studies to understand the more solid stuff.

This is the second time you've done this. Do you have an obsession with making accusations about me or something? Ad hominems are a poor tactic.

Also:

Edit: Perhaps you should expose my obviously weak atheist mind to this "solid stuff" in religion?

Address this, please.

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 02:27 PM

.Andy posted some very good information related to Behe and Darwin's Black Box, you just ignored it. I wasn't trying to post any absolute evidence, and if you really wish to learn about it, you're still going to have to do some research and such on your own. I enjoyed reading those links you sent me, by the way.

I didn't ignore them. I went out and found more up-to-date information. I hope that no one ignored that stuff.

This is the second time you've done this. Do you have an obsession with making accusations about me or something?

No, I actually thought that you didn't write that, I thought someone else did.

On the same note however, if I wrote the same thing about believing in a God, wouldn't you say pretty much the same thing.... that I haven't done enough digging into theories that attempt to disprove Him.

As for evo-theory, I have done my research, as have others that just don't see it as being the end all, as many have stated over and over again. We are beginning to discuss things that we have already passed.

And unlike yourself, I am not posting links that disprove evolution from religious points.... but there are plenty that DO prove that evolution and ID go hand in hand, like this (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/240326.htm) one.

By the way, much of the links you posted aren't new, and aren't saying anything different.

But I guess you could say the same about mine if you wanted to.

The point remains, which will be ignored, that none of us are qualified to settle the issue. Those that want to claim to have read the Bible aren't theologians and are more likely to have not read the entire thing or obtained a good understanding of it... contrary to actual theologians that remain in their respective faiths.

The fact is = evo-theory isn't solid
The fact is = creationist theory isn't solid
The fact is = we are still looking for answers to questions asked 10,000 or more years ago. Nothing has changed.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 22, 2008, 02:49 PM

I didn't ignore them. I went out and found more up-to-date information. I hope that no one ignored that stuff.

No, I actually thought that you didn't write that, I thought someone else did.

On the same note however, if I wrote the same thing about believing in a God, wouldn't you say pretty much the same thing.... that I haven't done enough digging into theories that attempt to disprove Him.

As for evo-theory, I have done my research, as have others that just don't see it as being the end all, as many have stated over and over again. We are beginning to discuss things that we have already passed.

And unlike yourself, I am not posting links that disprove evolution from religious points.... but there are plenty that DO prove that evolution and ID go hand in hand.

By the way, much of the links you posted aren't new, and aren't saying anything different.

But I guess you could say the same about mine if you wanted to.

I never saw any "more up-to-date" articles which brought Behe's dead credentials back up.

I have no no idea what you mean by that...you didn't think I wrote what? You told me in an iPhone thread once that I'm likely a "lazy teenager who doesn't have a job and doesn't pay for anything himself," and I mentioned something about it (which you did ignore), then you post about how I probably have never gotten into the more "solid" evidence for religious stories, posted from those people with credentials to better state they are an expert in things we cannot know.

And no, I try to stay away from saying stuff like that. Maybe in specific cases. For example, if you told me evolution is false because flagellas are irreducibly complex (not saying you said that, just an example), I would probably say something like, "you just haven't done enough research in..." blah blah, because that's a tired argument which has been proven wrong. It's really quite phenomenol how creationists have all these impeccable arguments for why evolution is false, and all this evidence disproving it...but yet, it hasn't been. Maybe it's not the strongest theory in the history of mankind, but it's still a strong theory. I don't accept everything anyone says about evolution, but I've also done research, and I don't see any reason to believe we did not evolve from a common ancestor and that "macro-evolution" does not exist.

What I try to do instead in religious arguments, is ask for specific points, then try to refute them. It's really hard to disprove a point that's never been proposed in the first place.

The rest is a fair enough point. Though, there is nothing that says evolution and ID go hand-in-hand. If you are a Christian, and you feel compelled by the evidence for evolutionary theory, if you want to keep your faith, you have to say stuff like "God probably used evolution..." et cetera. This is not compelling evidence that they go hand in hand, it's just compelling evidence that you can be both.

If you'd like to stop the discussion, though, that is fine. The reason nothing new is being brought is because neither of us are giving specific points...we're just posting links and saying "what I've read has compelled me to this conclusion..." Well, philosophical arguments aside, there is still no evidence for the existence of God. To be truly fair, we must start with no God and look for God, not start with God and seek to "disprove" him.

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 02:56 PM

If you'd like to stop the discussion, though, that is fine. The reason nothing new is being brought is because neither of us are giving specific points...we're just posting links and saying "what I've read has compelled me to this conclusion..." Well, philosophical arguments aside, there is still no evidence for the existence of God. To be truly fair, we must start with no God and look for God, not start with God and seek to "disprove" him.

I could care less about stopping the discussion. But it's not effective trying to post points about a stance on something then have four or five people as the same questions and try to refute them in a slightly different manner each time. The thread starts getting redundant, as it has.

I wouldn't say that creationists have solid proof that evolution doesn't exist, because as you said there isn't any. What they come up with are solid questions, that evo-theory can't answer, or questions that twist evo-theories arms, like anything about mutations. For many people, not being able to answer the simple stuff is enough reason to think theory isn't as sound as people want it to be.

I do agree, that to start the search for God you must start without Him. Being an atheist is nothing new for a lot of Christians or other religious people, even the ones that didn't have screwed up lives, then accept the faith.

And yes, the part of the post that's in bold shows that you do understand what is really going on.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 22, 2008, 02:57 PM

I could care less about stopping the discussion. But it's not effective trying to post points about a stance on something then have four or five people as the same questions and try to refute them in a slightly different manner each time. The thread starts getting redundant, as it has.

I do agree, that to start the search for God you must start without Him. Being an atheist is nothing new for a lot of Christians, even the ones that didn't have screwed up lives, then accept the faith.

And yes, post that part in bold shows that you do understand.

Yes, I agree. So is this a positive or negative post?

Kashchei

Jun 22, 2008, 02:57 PM

Answer please. :rolleyes:

Just humor me if you wish as to why you think anyone on this forum is a proven expert on anything.

Here, in a nutshell, is the difference between the debating styles used in these PRSI threads. The majority of us feel the need to have thought through topics before we argue against or in favor of them. On the other hand, some take strident positions without having thought through the topic at all. These people are generally content to echo opinions they have heard from others (most often on talk radio or in church). DS, unfortunately, falls into the latter camp. He has admitted to arguing about a topic without being an expert. His opinion is therefore without value, despite the fact that it is deeply felt and strenuously argued. This affliction is unfortunately all too common today, appearing most frequently--although certainly not exclusively--on the right side of the political spectrum.

Digital Skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 03:01 PM

Yes, I agree. So is this a positive or negative post?

It's positive for sure. :)

.....

As has everyone else, so stop trolling. And you still didn't answer the question. Should we just stop talking about it all together since none of us are experts?

And a new one for you... Do you argue anything at all, since you aren't an expert on anything in these forums?

I will give you plenty of time, since it took you long enough to post something intelligent (but still a flame) the first time, even though you didn't answer the question yet.

Kashchei

Jun 22, 2008, 03:47 PM

And you still didn't answer the question. Should we just stop talking about it all together since none of us are experts?

And a new one for you... Do you argue anything at all, since you aren't an expert on anything in these forums?

I will give you plenty of time, since it took you long enough to post something intelligent (but still a flame) the first time, even though you didn't answer the question yet.

DS, think of my posts not as flames, but rather as meta comments. I realize that nothing, including indisputable facts, will change your mind, which is why I have posted in this thread. This has been in the effort of showing others that your uninformed opinion is not worth engaging in debate. To put it another way, would anyone on MR debate the topic of dark matter or whether string theory has seven or ten dimensions? Only the astrophysicists, since they are the only ones with a true understanding of the topic. No one would listen to you or me expound on this topic since this is well outside our area of expertise and our opinion would be meaningless. The same is true for your opinion on evolution.

skunk

Jun 22, 2008, 04:08 PM

Do you argue anything at all, since you aren't an expert on anything in these forums?You do not have to be an expert in a particular field to point out a logical fallacy.

.Andy

Jun 22, 2008, 05:21 PM

Correct, which is why many still don't accept evolution as the answer all.
Not a single scientist accepts is the answer to all. Otherwise we wouldn't still be researching it. Seeing as you're so keen on logical discourse, this is a golden example of a strawman argument.

I didn't ignore them. I went out and found more up-to-date information. I hope that no one ignored that stuff.
Where did you do this? I went back over your posts and you didn't once post anything that refutes Behe's 'ideas' being anything more than pseudoscience of the realm of astrology.

I wouldn't say that creationists have solid proof that evolution doesn't exist, because as you said there isn't any. What they come up with are solid questions, that evo-theory can't answer, or questions that twist evo-theories arms, like anything about mutations.
Creationists don't come up with any questions for scientists about evolution. They regurgitate where they consider holes in evolutionary theory, highlight it (often completely wrongly as they don't understand evolution). Find me a single paper where creationist thinking has supplied any evidence that has changed/altered/added to evolutionary theory at all (to save you time there isn't). The anti-evolution religious aren't motivated by furthering human understanding, they are motivated by being right, affirming their god, and with the case of ID trying to foist that god onto children in school. The Wedge Document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) is public knowledge, and if you can read that and still think that IDers have knowledge in mind when they peddle ID, you are clinically insane.

There is no problem with 'mutation' in evolutionary theory. There is only problems with mutation if you don't understand what is meant by mutation and gene. Start with an understanding that gene doesn't necessarily mean DNA encoding a protein. In evolutionary terms 'gene' can mean anything from DNA encoding a protein to any DNA that is inherited by association, encoding or not, that changes frequency/association across populations. Again Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html) has a good, referenced page for your perusal on the topic of mutation. Dawkin's book The Selfish Gene is also a wonderful layman's introduction to the subject.

For a very simple recent example (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html) of mutation, we have observed bacteria gaining the ability to metabolise citrate after growing them for 44,000 generations.

For many people, not being able to answer the simple stuff is enough reason to think theory isn't as sound as people want it to be.
What answers to simple problems are lacking? Spell them out. 99% of the time it's a misconception or a misunderstanding of evolution in the first place, largely due to obsfucation.

The fact is = evo-theory isn't solid
Yes it is. There is literally millions of pieces of evidence across all fields of science for it, none against it, it's falsifiable, and it can make (and does make) valid, useable predictions.

The fact is = creationist theory isn't solid
Nice try at falsely equivalence. Creationist theory is completely made up. There is no evidence for it. There are millions of pieces against it. It is not falsifiable, and does not make useable predictions. It is not a scientific theory. It is a religious construct. It is not scientific in the slightest.

The fact is = we are still looking for answers to questions asked 10,000 or more years ago. Nothing has changed.
And finding them at an increasing rate due to science. It's awesome. Everyone should get involved.

Iscariot

Jun 22, 2008, 06:45 PM

To believe in the Big Bang, or that we evolved from simple life, does require faith. We have never observed it. Scientists have observed fossils and other evidence nowadays, but we can never know what really happened. We can only make a guess.

My personal belief is that Evolution is a religion. I don't hold anything against it for that, but have we ever actually observed what happened 60 million years ago? No. We've simply made guesses. As such, it does take some element of faith in either scientists, or, if you are a scientist, in what you see in the ground. It's not like some bacteria has come forward in time and said, "I'm your ancestor". We have not actually observed what happened millions of years ago.

I'm not saying any other religion can be believed either on living evidence. But no one can honestly say he observed what happened millions of years ago.

Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life. Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang or the origin of life.

I would strongly suggest against labeling something a religion when you don't even know what it isn't.

I'm aware there's a lot of debate between creationists and proponents of the theory of evolution. The thing you don't realise is that there is NOT a lot of argument within the scientific community.

There's actually practically none. I'm sure you're familiar with the "List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution" (101 scientists). Most of them are actually computer scientists, and nearly none of them are biologists. However, even taking the list at face value, it represents .0027% of scientists in the US.

The fact is = evo-theory isn't solid

Strictly speaking we know more about the theory of evolution than we do about the theory of gravity. Not being "solidly" able to fully explain every detail doesn't a falsification make.

The fact is = creationist theory isn't solid

Largely because there is no such thing.