[Closed] blind faith - creationists

you might want to elaborate on that mud shark some off us can do an epistemological debate !!!

As a theory evolution is one of the most robust that science has at present to doubt that is like doubting the earth is round and that we orbit the sun ....yes these also may be wrong if every observation we make is a mass halucination but it does seem somewhat remote....there is no evidence to support the assertion that it is not as described. Still people's propensity to doubt that which has evidence and belief that which has none- religion, horoscopes, homeopathic remedies,psychic abilities etc-is almost boundless.

Well I'm not sure about that! But then being more of a philosophical bent than a scientific one I tend to have a problem with so called facts....

We can of course keep moving the goalposts! The accepted understanding of "facts" would have been acceptable if scientists had proved the authenticity of the Tourin shroud. Carbon dating would have been the gods work! As it was religion retreated into its "philosophical" "what is truth"? "what are facts"? role.
Accepted science reinforces Darwins theories and only by understanding theories relationship to other theories and facts we can be sure the basis of Darwin's evolution theory is by most accepted definitions a fact.

Interpreting facts in the way I suspect you refer to allows us to doubt the "fact" that we exist. We can question the reality of everything we see, how we see them and even our understanding of our own consciousness.
We could give credence to the concept that we don't exist but are really the subject of a computer program/game being executed on supercomputer. As outrageous as this sounds we don't and may never know if this is the case. Those diverting scare resources into investigating this would be ridiculed however it has the same scientific merit as debating differing concepts of truth.
Retreating into this purely philosophical debate offers nothing to explain what we consider to be the world we inhabit and is simply the cry of those who have nothing to contribute except trying to rubbish a science that strives to offer real world contributions, these viewpoints are quite rightly marginalized.

surfer - Member

This seems to be the the de facto position of believers that beacuse it cant be proved not too exist their is a 50% proabability that it does exist. Flawed logic and the same logic that can be extended to fairies, Spaghetti monsters and teapots etc!

Yeah right, well teapots do exist - I remember we had one in our house when I was a kid. Dark brown I think it was.

And finally, quite a fun article in The Telegraph today on the perils of how science can be corrupted

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5028380/The-Global-Warming-Three-are-on-thin-ice.html

Here's a FACT: If it's written by Christopher Booker, it's probably not worth reading.

I do love a good creationist/religion thread. Throwing global warming in could just create a perfect internet storm!

Yeah right, well teapots do exist - I remember we had one in our house when I was a kid. Dark brown I think it was.

I have just enjoyed a particularly nice post run brew myself.

I was referring to the Bertand Russell flying model however!

I am neither stupid, nor mad, so I don't believe in religion. I won't apologise if I offend anyone!

Stupid people are highly suceptible to religious dogma. It's all about realising that you can freely think for yourself. If you are the type who is easily intimidated into toeing the line, you'll probably be a religious person. If you are inquisitive by nature and with half a brain, you will realise that all religion is superstitious rubbish and is fundamentally flawed. Conversely, science uses a methodology of logic and makes no assumptions to unanswered questions - this would be unsafe.

It is because of our openness to learn and rationalise, that we have made important discoveries about our world. We therefore know that these old scriptures and traditions are a nonsense. It still shocks me how many people subscribe to this folklore!

For some lighthearted (and not so light hearted entertainment) on the matter, google Pat Condell. He's a ex-standup comedian who's satirical and clever videos are a breath of fresh air!

Spongebob, you claim that "I am neither stupid, nor mad" and yet, you then go on to also claim "Stupid people are highly suceptible to religious dogma", which suggests that you are in fact, very stupid 😯

On the people who deny the climate changing it is always one of two things:

Really hot summer - just a blip, nothing to see here, move along!
Slightly cold winter - OMG! Climate change isn't happening! See? It was the aliens that did it!

You did notice it wasn't the sceptics going on a trip to the Arctic in an attempt to prove something from one year's data?

Here's a FACT: If it's written by Christopher Booker, it's probably not worth reading.

To the OP:
show her this thread... 😉

To be fair, whilst he does come out with a lot of guff, he does also quite often bring important issues to light and is spot on in his reasoning. Your post is an ad-hom attack, hence more worthless than anything he writes.

He managed to get some many inaccuracies into one column, that there's an award for bad writing on climate change named after him. My "ad-hom attack" will not be read by thousands of Telegraph readers who will take what he writes as fact and so did not need backing up; others are doing a very good job of that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/03/climate-change-daily-telegraph-christopher-booker

Spongebob, you claim that "I am neither stupid, nor mad" and yet, you then go on to also claim "Stupid people are highly suceptible to religious dogma", which suggests that you are in fact, very stupid

What Gus said.

I know a Christian who has a solid background in Materials Physics, a PhD in growth and characterization of magnetic multi-layers and is a world-renowned authority in X-Ray metrology and a leading researcher in the field. He's probably stupid or mad, eh?

He's probably stupid or mad, eh?

Probably not, but he's certainly balancing his undoubted brilliance with some stupidity. Yin and Yang.

Yin and Yang

What are those - some strange mystical forces ?

Probably not, but he's certainly balancing his undoubted brilliance with some stupidity. Yin and Yang.

Just like all the stupid people who are able to make sweeping generalisations backed up by some quotes from some books?

What are those - some strange mystical forces ?

Purely meant in an ironic balance type metaphor, but I'll withdraw it if it was a little sophisticated. Strike it from the testimony.

Just like all the stupid people who are able to make sweeping generalisations backed up by some quotes from some books?

Now there's pure irony for you...I think it's Christians, Jews, Muslims (just covering three of the bigger ones here) that make sweeping generalisations backed up by some quotes from some books...or is that what you meant?

Purely meant in an ironic balance type metaphor

Ah, I see that you have appeared to have missed the the ironic content of [i]my[/i] reply - oh well, never mind 🙄

Ah, I see that you have appeared to have missed the the ironic content of my reply - oh well, never mind

I didn't have you down as that sophisticated gg...I do apologise 😆 😳

Me sophisticated ? LOL ! ! ! You were right first time mate - I'm just a simple soul with very little understanding of complex issues 😯 🙁

My "ad-hom attack" will not be read by thousands of Telegraph readers who will take what he writes as fact and so did not need backing up

How about you tell me what's wrong with the original article which you dismiss solely because Monbiot has said that Booker writes a load of rubbish in other articles. Or can you not do that because Monbiot hasn't attacked that particular article, so disciples like you have nothing to quote?

just leave her. tell her you have little or no respect for her due to her beliefs (blind belief), that you cannot tolerate her due to her being unable to tolerate your gay mate and that she is a hypocrite when you consider she herself is/was a lesbo.

personally, i ****ing hate religion.

alternatively get her to read this...... (shamefully ripped quote from wiki)

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

I 'did the teapot' she said i was ridiculous, i mentioned i had as much proof as she did, she said miracles were proof, i said no they could be used to suggest god, and i'd like to see one. then i got abused! oh well. she's gone all remorseful for the 'friday dinosaur incident' as it will be known as.

I'm just leaving it - don't have time for the crap anymore.

I 'did the teapot' she said i was ridiculous

You did the teapot ? 😯

Well I'm not ****ing surprised that she said you were being ridiculous 😕

You did [url= http://www.graspr.com/videos/Song-I-m-a-Little-Tea-Pot-Cullen-s-abc-s-1 ]this[/url] ? ? ?

Proof of the missing link ???

Just check out JEJames logo on their adverts !!!!
It's as plain as a Bulgarian pinup !!!!

Proof if proof were needed. Nuff said.

I am quite a clever chap, and do not have a history of being led around by the nose in my thinking.

The only reason I can see for getting religion (which I do not rule out entirely) is that it [i]might[/i] provide a set of answers which are more satisfactory than those left in my largely materialistic (in the sense of being in no way spiritual) life which revolve around getting laid, keeping my tiresome job and paying for various things which are increasingly expensive and dull before dying, probably from eating too much butter.

In the time leading up to dying of butter I try to be nice to people, largely because it helps with my personal comfort if they are nice to me back, and it sometimes helps with the getting laid.

Deciding to take up religion might well make all this a bit more interesting. I am well aware that in no particularly true sense did god create the world. However, putting him in there as a piece of one's worldwiew and a reason for doing things slightly differently might well be rather interesting and satisfying.

In that sense it does not [i]matter[/i] at all whether it is all true, any more than it matters whether York City FC are actually the best football team in the country. It gives you something to do at weekends, and some sort of motivation. 🙂

A nice kidney risotto.

"religion ... might provide a set of answers which are more satisfactory than those left in my largely materialistic ... life"

BigDummy. That's, IMO, the most intelligent comment on this thread so far.

Creationists worry me though. I don't think you need to be so literal to be faithful. And you end up defending the indefensible. But maybe that's just me being reductionist.

Another observation though: Atheists have become terribly dogmatic, even rabid in their remarks.

I'm still waiting for RudeBoy to define 'proof' - his posts are a little bit worthless without that 🙂

In that sense it does not matter at all whether it is all true, any more than it matters whether York City FC are actually the best football team in the country. It gives you something to do at weekends, and some sort of motivation

BD, that is easily the best expression of my thoughts I have read. Chapeau to a truly great man 🙂

Atheists have become terribly dogmatic, even rabid in their remarks.

Of course we have they are talking utter sh1t 😆

In that sense it does not matter at all whether it is all true, any more than it matters whether York City FC are actually the best football team in the country.

York FC being the best team in the country (a quite ridiculous concept given Liverpools recent displays!) and your belief in that would cause little concern.
If however your belief extended to making other people believe it (and here is the important bit) they acted upon your assertion (foolish as it may sound) then those beliefs start to become important for other people as well as political and economic systems.
We saw a good example of this recently with the Popes evil mutterings about condom use in Africa.

Whilst some of the answers you seek may bring you satisfaction, as George Bernard Shaw famously stated. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one"

You quoted that Shaw before, and I have been thinking about it at some length since.

The second half of the dictum requires us to value sobriety more highly than happiness (I do not, certainly on Fridays) and the first assumes that we value being right over being happy. I am not sure that this is correct for a lot of people, and certainly, if being aggessively right leaves you feeling that there are not a lot of reasons to be happy then there must be something to be said for being a bit wrong from the point of view of one's morale.

🙂

I'm still waiting for RudeBoy to define 'proof' - his posts are a little bit worthless without that

I already have. Go back and have another read.

I do think things need to be repeated as this thread repeats itself frequently and the same unsubstantiated waffle is recycled.

If you are saying being wrong causes you no concern as long as you are happy then that is your choice. I would prefer to face up to life without the need for invisible friends. It may be "nasty, brutish and short" however I would prefer to face it undeluded and look for beauty that is all around us, who said it is enough to enjoy the garden without wanting fairies at the bottom of it (?)
If being happy is all that matters then doctors may just as well tell us we are all healthy regardless of our state of health. Truth matters.

[img] [/img]

I'm sorry? You think that an ad-hom attack is justified provided you can back it up?

No, I think that spending my time arguing about what a man wrote in a newspaper (that I don't read) on a thread on a mountain bike forum, when the thread isn't even about the same subject, isn't really worth doing.

I believe it was sunny outside, or I had something else to do.

There are things that it matters to be wrong about, and things that it really doesn't.

Clearly, the pope is on shakey ground to suggest that africans should abstain from condom use. If however two people volunteer at a soup kitchen, one of them because he believes that god tells us to love our neighbour and one because (say) he is looking for a job in social work and reckons this would be good experience to have on his CV, it is not clear that the believer's "error" is of any consequence. Soup is served, and there is a mild increase in everyone's happiness.

🙂

"I'm still waiting for RudeBoy to define 'proof' - his posts are a little bit worthless without that"

I already have. Go back and have another read.

"A nice kidney risotto."?

That's the only thing I can find you wrote after I challenged you to elucidate.

[img] [/img]

No, I think that spending my time arguing about what a man wrote in a newspaper (that I don't read) on a thread on a mountain bike forum, when the thread isn't even about the same subject, isn't really worth doing.

In fact given you don't ever read him, I'm struggling to understand how you were at all well enough informed to comment, or do you in fact base your opinions solely on what you read in a newspaper?

Have we got Grandpa Munster on our money now ?

So you retract your original comment?

I can't even remember what my previous comment was, to be honest.

If however two p

eople volunteer at a soup kitchen, one of them because he believes that god tells us to love our neighbour and one because (say) he is looking for a job in social work and reckons this would be good experience to have on his CV, it is not clear that the believer's "error" is of any consequence. Soup is served, and there is a mild increase in everyone's happiness.

What if the second person that volunteered was an atheist and helped simply to releive suffering. Would that show the first person up as a "brown nose" who is motivated by the mistaken belief that he is currying favour for the "next life"? Only the atheist is acting morally.

The important and mistaken theme here is that religion is at worst harmless and at best benevolent. If this was the case who would care what people believe? unfortunately it is not hence people like me are motivated to criticise those who try to legitimise it.

 

RB we all like a good joke, let us know when you have one. 😉