06 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanIt is an irony that EVOLUTION has distilled in humans an ability to believe in completely irrational things.
How could I hate something I don't believe exists?
What I do hate is that humans put their lives in the hands of faith and the supernatural, instead of reason and a common sense view of the world.
You might hate the fact but it was a belief in a creator that helped Newton and Einstein uncover their views of the universe.
Religion has enabled large groups to fight for a common cause and conquer other cultures. It is not just the "opium of the masses" but a social force, sometimes for good.
Children can be made to behave by avoiding the bogeyman.
Adults need more. When tapeworms where rife, then the pig became unholy. Diets bad? Fish on friday. etc. etc.
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by petrosianpupilThe irony is that all these things could have been accomplished without the notion of god.
It is an irony that EVOLUTION has distilled in humans an ability to believe in completely irrational things.
You might hate the fact but it was a belief in a creator that helped Newton and Einstein uncover their views of the universe.
Religion has enabled large groups to fight for a common cause and conquer other cultures. It is not just the " ...[text shortened]... e. When tapeworms where rife, then the pig became unholy. Diets bad? Fish on friday. etc. etc.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanSo you think it's reasonable to believe that there was no intelligent mechanism involved in the formation of life from non-life and that all of life is simply one big mistake?
How could I hate something I don't believe exists?
What I do hate is that humans put their lives in the hands of faith and the supernatural, instead of reason and a common sense view of the world.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanAnd the greater irony is that you cannot provide any evidence to prove the statement you just made.
The irony is that all these things could have been accomplished without the notion of god.
Excluding the guillotine, would you care to make a list of some of the useful things that were invented my atheists?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by amannionScience attempts to develop workable theories. Creationism aims to refute those theories but aside from some generic 'god did it' does not bother to present their own theories.
If there was a god, I definitely wouldn't want to know him/her/it. The very notion of a god fills me with dread - that is, the notion that there might be able to exist supernatural aspects to this world, makes no sense to me at all and I would hate to live in such a world.
You mention neither side proving their case in the creation/nature debate. That's ...[text shortened]... t's not really a debate is it?
Both sides are coming from entirely incompatible positions.
You mean to say that 'god did it' cannot be regarded as a theory for why a certain phenomena happened which has no other coherent explanation?
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't need to, it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that these things are not contingent upon god's existence.
And the greater irony is that you cannot provide any evidence to prove the statement you just made.
Excluding the guillotine, would you care to make a list of some of the useful things that were invented my atheists?
Instead of trying to be childish by attempting to score points with your little off-topic snipes, why don't you go back to playing with your toys and leave the discussions to the grown ups.
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2becker'Mistake' implies there is right and wrong: plan and failure to follow it: intelligence. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that there is no intelligence in the formation of the universe and you know I do already, so why bother asking that question?
So you think it's reasonable to believe that there was no intelligent mechanism involved in the formation of life from non-life and that all of life is simply one big mistake?
06 Feb 07
Surely true scientists should approach the subject (and a good many more) with agnostic skeptism, rather than true atheism, which is a statement of belief. After all we probably can never know what happened pre big bang, and as for god it depends what you conceptualise for the term.
One measures a circle, beginning anywhere- Charles Fort
06 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by london nickI'm not sure what agnosticism or atheism have got to do with scientific methodology. Scientists should approach science of any sort with a scientific mind, the question of god is irrelevant to the nature of empirical investigation, regardless of whether they are atheists or theists or anything in between. Also, I think you're confused about atheism, what do you mean 'true atheism'? Do you mean strong atheism? I am a weak atheist and by this I hold a position of denial, not one of belief, so your statement about atheism needs some clarification.
Surely true scientists should approach the subject (and a good many more) with agnostic skeptism, rather than true atheism, which is a statement of belief. After all we probably can never know what happened pre big bang, and as for god it depends what you conceptualise for the term.
One measures a circle, beginning anywhere- Charles Fort
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanI meant the view that the existance of god/gods is unlikely, even perhaps unproveable but possible. Many seem to think that scientists should be atheists, and I was making the point that saying definatively that either god does or does not exist is an unscientific statement of belief.
I'm not sure what agnosticism or atheism have got to do with scientific methodology. Scientists should approach science of any sort with a scientific mind, the question of god is irrelevant to the nature of empirical investigation, regardless of whether they are atheists or theists or anything in between. Also, I think you're confused about atheism, what ...[text shortened]... tion of denial, not one of belief, so your statement about atheism needs some clarification.
People are too quick to dismiss that which does not fit their world view.
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by london nickWeak atheism is scientific, it is an empirically justified position based upon observation (or the lack of it).
I meant the view that the existance of god/gods is unlikely, even perhaps unproveable but possible. Many seem to think that scientists should be atheists, and I was making the point that saying definatively that either god does or does not exist is an unscientific statement of belief.
People are too quick to dismiss that which does not fit their world view.
If I could be 100% scientific about everything, I would, but you're quite right, people do often dismiss that which is not in their world view.
06 Feb 07
Originally posted by petrosianpupilSuch as? Big, flying bearded men in the sky creating universes? One so powerful yet still seems to spend his entire existence caring about such insignificant specks as us. No, that's the worst narcissisms of religion. Evolutionary theory is about simplicity. It only required heredity, and mutation. So simple, yet explains so much.
It is an irony that EVOLUTION has distilled in humans an ability to believe in completely irrational things.