[Closed] christian baiting

As Evolution is only a theory

*weeps quietly*

You can already get stick on feet Rusty. [url= http://www.evolvefish.com ]Evolve Fish[/url]

Anyone for a story?

[img] [/img]

Alternatively, they realise, however subconsciously, that their supernatural beliefs have no basis in reality and cannot stand any kind of rational analysis, so do not wish to be humiliated?

You are so missing the point. Some people don't consider religion as a series of answers to scientific questions. It's about a belief in something beyond the everyday. This is important to many people, and a lot of Christians are scientists and even believe in evolution too. Faith in God is one thing, faith in the factual veracity of the bible is another thing, really.

Remember all the hoo-hah about that bishop supposedly 'not believing in God' that was in the tabloids? He'd clearly done a lot more intelligent thinking on the subject than the people that pointed and laughed at him. Just goes to show that the subject is a lot more complicated than a lot of people realise - maybe even some folk on this thread 🙂

PS I am not religious.

Militant_biker, you've just ruined the ending!
Hate it when people do that, can you not put "Spoiler Alert"?

god dam you MB!

God*

the subject is a lot more complicated than a lot of people realise

Really, its not. People may hijack respected institutions of learning to read theology and some even receive their PHD's! which is an intellectual disgrace!

I consider this the academic equivalent of studying fairyism and to infer some deeper meaning from religion is wrong.

It is either true or it isnt, it cant be true for one and not another that is delusional and if it helps people through their day then thats fine but that doesnt imply truth either.

'You can already get stick on feet Rusty.'

stick on feet is is even more devilishly genius than a evolved fish.

i could have done with those. i might have to get me a few made up for emergencies.

i did feel like i was gonna burn in hell for the whole journey home though so maybe theere is something in this god thing.

He hates the creationists, really.

I'm sure he does - well thinks that they're wrong - but he's saying that a belief in God isn't necessarily incompatable with evolution. He stated that he's agnostic so has he said he's atheist elsewhere?

[i]As Evolution is only a theory[/i]

This is one of the favourite arguments of creationists but they're missing the point of the word THEORY which has several different possibilities depending on context.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory ]Wikipedia (as always) provides a good enough laymans description[/url]

In fact the excellent Darwin exhibition at the Natural History Museum had a video of various scientists describing the meaning of the word theory when applied to evolution.

molgrips.

Thank you for your considered reply:
You said

You are so missing the point. Some people don't consider religion as a series of answers to scientific questions. It's about a belief in something beyond the everyday.

Accepting that there is no afterlife is very, very difficult. It's cold hard world out there for the non believer, but [b]only[/b] if that non believer has no imagination whatsoever:
Belief in the principles of science and rationality do not exclude one from wishing to experience "something beyond the everyday".
The beauty of the Universe and the contemplation and wonder that it generates are available to our everyone, regardless of faith. This to me is true mysticism. As, funnily enough is riding my bike, going for a walk etc.
All of them induce a sense of wonder and fulfilment in me that the daily grind cannot. I feel no need to link this with any kind of supernatural belief.

People like to congregate with like minds. Social groups provide comfort for the sick, a feeling of belonging and community. Non of this is dependant on nonsensical belief in a higher being.

All the social and emotional benefits of religion are available to non believer. There is nothing to be scared of in non belief.

and carbon dating isn't as acurate as most people believe

particularly for fossils which are made of silicates...

It is either true or it isnt

surely objective reality is moot? There is no way to determine if our senses are reporting actual sensations or just delusion. The best we can do is look for consistency and pattern and attempt to construct meaningful explanations. You might say that the universe, whatever it may be, serves as a framework for existence. We might actually be in The Matrix. Whatever is 'really' out there, what seems to matter is interaction and sensation, [b]what[/b] we do rather than why...

loved this bit by Sir Richard . . . .

[i]"It's like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five ..." [/i]

It's like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five

If the original 2s were actually a number between 2.25 and 2.4999999…, they do actually add up to five 😉

It's like saying that two and two equals four

yeah, but 2 [b]what[/b] ?

What about other complementary scientific theories of evolution that are not Darwynian theories. Such as the theory that one type of evolution in addition to Darwynian evolution is the ability of species to adapt the environment to themselves? Or is that not allowed? Or of non-reductionist systems theories of evolution utilising complexity theory? Are we allowed to discuss them? 😀

This book covers the topics quite well I feel

[img] [/img]

Darwinian Evolution can certainly explain some forms of evolution but not all. There are other scientific theories to explain the evolution that Darwin's theories struggled with no?

the ability of species to adapt the environment to themselves

Is that what we do? Well, a bit of adapting here, a bit of fekking up there....

What about other complementary scientific theories of evolution that are not Darwynian theories.

Sure, go ahead. As long as there is evidence to back up the theories then that can only be for the best. If there aren't, however, be prepared to be ridiculed!

Although the tag-line: "A new synthesis of Mind and Matter" rings alarm bells....

surely objective reality is moot? There is no way to determine if our senses are reporting actual sensations or just delusion. The best we can do is look for consistency and pattern and attempt to construct meaningful explanations

You may be right and Sam Harris also describes the unlikely scenario of the world as we see it being a simulation on a computer. However this doesn't help us develop a framework for physical and personal interaction.
Science allows us to act and react on what we perceive now as tangible and real. Science will change its view if and when we realise we are pawns in a giants computer game. It at least allows us the tools to respond to new information.

Mr Ralli,

Feel free to expand.
I am really enjoying this you know.
I think it's important to make the most of our freedom to disagree with each other, in public, whilst we still have the chance.

Not getting into the pro anti Christianity thing but find a bunch of people who on the whole base their bike purchases on advertising claiming that this bike bit is however many percentage lighter/stiffer/faster than last years bit trashing another belief system mildly amusing.
If all the claims were true I would now have a bike that floated on air, was stiff enough to support a skyscraper, and could comfortably approach light speeds without breaking sweat (This vast increase in speed could be the sole reason for my corresponding increase in mass over the same period).

Err - I am not going to rely on memory to expand, but the book's an interesting read. It examines consciousness and the definition of "life". Maybe the word "consciousness" sets off fewer alarm bells?

If all the claims were true I would now have a bike that floated on air, was stiff enough to support a skyscraper, and could comfortably approach light speeds without breaking sweat (This vast increase in speed could be the sole reason for my corresponding increase in mass over the same period).

You've got a Rock Lobster 853 too?

You've got a Rock Lobster 853 too?

S'all true, ahem, apart from the stiffness bit.
I'm on my second. Fist got nicked, spent a couple of months looking for a replacement and then ordered another.

The Duster with the Alfine kit from Evans looks nice though.........

However this doesn't help us develop a framework for physical and personal interaction.

I demur. I think our framework should be independent of the nature of reality. Belief in science is only slightly more justifiable than religion, it's all conjecture.

Simonfbarnes

Belief in science is only slightly more justifiable than religion, it's all conjecture.

Explain that one and stay fashionable.

Accepted current science is based on testable hypotheses not conjecture. To call it conjecture is to say it cant be proved.
Modern science concerns itself with what can and cant be proved. Religion is conjecture, science is not.

Rusty Spanner = Vim Fuego!

SfB -> What has 'belief' got to do with science?

Belief in science is only slightly more justifiable than religion, it's all conjecture.

Science is built on axioms and from these axioms we build our system. If these axioms are incorrect (scientific methodolgy etc) then the conclusions will be false.
We use significance at a probability of 1 in 20 but a lot of time theory drives research ... not the other way round eg The attempt to find a mechanism for evoloution lead to DNA after a long time looking.Some of Einstein theories have no evidence yet (probably do now not read aroind this for a decade or more)and also the Higgs - Boson particle etc.
We may just be very good at designing experiments that prove what we want/expect to find rather than rejecting null hypothesis etc.
Rarely do scientist take the years of failed research/lack of evidence as an indication that they are wrong. they keep going till they have the evidence. This is the general nature of science methodology clearly evolution etc etc has massess of evidence to support it and nothing really to counter it.
[b]Science is not absoloute but is by far and away the best mechanism we have for discovering things and reporting them accurately.[/b]

We use significance at a probability of 1 in 20

Dawkins in his well known book makes the point regarding Atheism and probability. Proving god doesnt exist is currently not possible however that doesnt mean their is a 50:50 chance that he does exist. It means we are all agnostics to a certain extent as we are agnostic about fairies.

Mostly we just accept was scientists tell us rather than investigate things ourselves. Apparently the moon isn't made of cheese but I think the milk marketing board is behind a cover up.

It means we are all agnostics to a certain extent as we are agnostic about fairies

Are you saying that atheists are agnostic in a sense?

If you experienced watching faries dancing in your garden on a number of occasions, would you think you were going mad or would you be happy to think that you believe in fairies?

I'm not convinced that Domestos kills 99% of all Germans stone dead.

That Schweinsteiger's a big lad. He could probably gargle a pint before breakfast.

Are you saying that atheists are agnostic in a sense?

Of course, there is no other explanation. Only the most dogmatic person can say with complete certainty that god does not exist.

If you experienced watching faries dancing in your garden on a number of occasions, would you think you were going mad or would you be happy to think that you believe in fairies?

I would think I was going mad. Unless I was able to prove to others what I had seen.

the subject is a lot more complicated than a lot of people realise

Really, its not.

Really, it is. If you see no worth in religion, doesn't mean that no-one else does. As a non-religious person myself I unfortunately can't make the reasoned pro-religious points that we apparently need to hear. However I am quite aware of the tendency of people to ridicule that which doesn't make sense [i]to them[/i] in absolute terms, having grown out of it myself that 15 years ago.

Religion is of great value to a lot of decent intelligent people. So who are we to say that it's rubbish? What would you gain by persuading people to see the world the way you do? Would you take pleasure in seeing their faith and belief system crushed? How upset would they have to be before you were pleased with yourself?

The debate isn't religion vs science, it's "religious science" vs science. You can be a scientist and still be religious.

Religion is of great value to a lot of decent intelligent people. So who are we to say that it's rubbish? What would you gain by persuading people to see the world the way you do?

Its the fact that its the nice, decent, polite religious people that give the platform for the out-right nutters / extremeists / fundamentalists to flourish. With out organised religion these people would be receiving therapy in a padded room, not running a fair proporion of world affairs!

Personal religion is fine, its when it gets "out there" and organised. Shame really.

SSP

Would you take pleasure in seeing their faith and belief system crushed?

No, not crushed. But those belief systems are the basis of dangerous amounts of power, money, and violence. They are not immune to criticism.

[url=

Brigstocke's rantette says it all really.[/url]

From the response to my contribution earlier perhaps this thread should have been titled "Evolutionist bating" - s****, LOL !

molgrips

Personally, I will be happy when we can all laugh at each others beliefs
without anyone getting blown up.

Organised religion has always been forced down the throats of the majority of the world's population, backed by extortion and increasingly, the threat of violence if anyone is prepared to disagree.
"Kill those who do not believe in Islam" placards, Christian Voice telling me what I can and can't go and see at the theatre.

You also say

Religion is of great value to a lot of decent intelligent people. So who are we to say that it's rubbish?

Religious fanatics run some of our schools, pollute our airwaves (have you HEARD Thought For The Day? :D) and tell people that human suffering is good, part of a higher plan. Oh, then they ask us for money.

And you are upset that we might offend them by telling them that their invisible friend is not real?

Priorities please.

Molegrips

I see no positive value in religion whatsoever.The fact that other people see value in religion is immaterial and of no concern to me.
If something makes sense then by definition it needs to make sense to everybody, if it doesnt either they need to provide proof or they will be considered delusional. Many scientists I am sure were considered thus until they were later proved correct.

Religion is of great value to a lot of decent intelligent people

If people find value or strength in believing in things that are basically unprovable fairy stories then that causes me no issue, it still doesnt make those stories true however.

What would you gain by persuading people to see the world the way you do

I dont know but its not the way I see things that matters I would only suggest that people see it the way it is.

Would you take pleasure in seeing their faith and belief system crushed? How upset would they have to be before you were pleased with yourself?

I would take pleasure in seeing all faith based systems crushed, if that could be done without hurting people then all the better. I would take no pleasure in hurting anyone.

At the crux of this is the argument that faith and belief is personal and harmless. This is not true it dicates economic and social policy everywhere and whilst the Pope continues to tell people in Sub Saharan Africa that the use of Condoms is wrong whilst millions die each year from Aids and scientific research is halted in the US through an irrational belief that stem cell research is wrong people need to speak out against religion.

Organised religion has always been forced down the throats of the majority of the world's population, backed by extortion and increasingly, the threat of violence if anyone is prepared to disagree.

Much like western capitalism, you mean?

Christian Voice telling me what I can and can't go and see at the theatre.

Christian Voice is one bloke with a photocopier and a mailing list, who somehow gets an awful lot of airtime.

Its the fact that its the nice, decent, polite religious people that give the platform for the out-right nutters / extremeists / fundamentalists to flourish. With out organised religion these people would be receiving therapy in a padded room, not running a fair proporion of world affairs!

Tyger

I think SSP and surfer, along with others, answered your question succinctly.

Mike: 1. Yes, just like western capitalism.
2. Christian Voice are dangerous because they legitimise the idea
that it is perfectly reasonable to be deeply offended, then protected by law if someone does not agree with your irrational beliefs.
It's the religious equivalent of stabbing someone in the street because they "disrespected" you.

the Pope continues to tell people in Sub Saharan Africa that the use of Condoms is wrong whilst millions die each year from Aids

We might do better attacking particular aspects of a religion rather than the religion itself. Protestants are generally OK - those that don't burn catholics anyway...though perhaps they think they're helping reduce death from Aids?