[Closed] The creation museum

got to admire the ignorance of religious nuts.

Not when it's wilful/cynical profiteering and exploitation of the 'genuinely ignorant/brainwashed'

Not when it's wilful/cynical profiteering and exploitation of the 'genuinely ignorant/brainwashed'

I was being sarcastic but you managed to describe every church that's ever been in your reply

Many (probably most?) Christians don't look at the Bible in those terms, and nor was much of it written to be viewed in those terms.

Whilst I'd broadly concur with the first half of that statement, I'm going to call you out on the second.

When it was written, it was absolutely intended to be viewed in those terms. Humans are inquisitive, they want answers to big questions. The Bible was an early punt at answering those questions. People - including great scientists, astronomers - have been put into exile or worse for daring to question some of the 'scientific' claims made in the Bible. Galileo spent the last ten years of his life under house arrest for his heretical theories around heliocentricity.

The notion that the Bible was always supposed to be viewed as a collection of allegories has as much basis in historical fact as the Museum of Lies in the OP.

Anyone is allowed to believe anything but that does not give them a special pass to avoid ridicule

Whilst I'd agree with this, the dinosaur in the room here is whether ridiculing people is a particularly nice thing to do.

Jesus as a blond northern european type is funny as well.

And Adam with a belly button.

Also - a book of allegories is a very odd thing upon which to base a religion, is it not? I don't think many people would have signed up to follow the teachings of Fictional Jesus.

Deciding which bits are fact and which bits are intended to be "just" stories is problematic. If one part of the Bible is questionable, surely that throws the veracity of the rest of it into question? So what do people do in modern times, they pick and choose what to believe in based on what bits they like, and then get cross when someone suggests that their "faith" may not be wholly accurate because it must be true, it says so in the Bible.

It's not a dichotomy I'd relish having to deal with. If nothing else, being an atheist is a whole lot more straight forward. You base your understanding on available knowledge and evidence, and if later something comes along which shows that you were wrong then you can easily revise your understanding. Religion's stance of "this is the way it is" has little scope for evolution (ah, irony), there's no mechanism for revising things we now know absolutely to be untrue.

Veering wildly back on topic - anyone else think that museum is massively detrimental to kids' education, dangerous even? There could be potential future scientists and academics visiting that place who are being brainwashed (literally - that video of teachers talking about evolution looks the sort of mind control thing you'd see in a movie) into rejecting established science and stunting what could've been a promising career. Some kid who, perhaps, would otherwise have gone on to cure cancer, or a revolutionary renewable energy source. Shocking stuff.

"I'm all for free thought, but i would make this stuff punishable by death."

Yep - this stuff is [i]literally[/i] a crime against humanity.

"Put simply.
"Faith."
It requires no proof. "

It requires no THINKING - it's a lazy, superstitious, cynical, mediaevally ignorant way to absolve yourself of personally responsibility for the ****ing mess the world is in (caused in no small part by "faith"); and it's the essence of hypocrisy, because it allows you to judge everything else - science, empirical evidence - by the same lazy "facts don't matter" standards.

Revelling in ignorance is your choice, but don't you DARE try to argue that "faith" has the same evidential value as rational, scientifically demonstrable truth.

Yes it is cougar. I think religious indoctrination is very dangerous. Places like that should not be allowed by law to claim its anything but a fairy story. Not some sort of truth

However I guess that parents who take kids there will already be indoctrinating them so the damage will be done - just reinforced by the visit.

Sadly TJ is absolutely right. Kids who are visiting that place will be doing so with their parents. That's my biggest annoyance with all faiths / religions. By all means believe in what ever you wish, but let your children make their own minds up. Forcing your archaic beliefs on to your children is wrong.

Places like that should not be allowed by law to claim its anything but a fairy story

Exactly. We should use the full force of the law to force people to think only correct thoughts.

Nopw - we should use the law to prevent brainwashing and people claiming fairy stories are equivalent to scientific truth.

Christopher Hitchens sums it up

Cougar - Moderator

Whilst I'd agree with this, the dinosaur in the room here is whether ridiculing people is a particularly nice thing to do.

This, basically. I don't get religion but that's no reason to go around being a **** to people.

tjagain - Member

Nopw - we should use the law to prevent brainwashing and people claiming fairy stories are equivalent to scientific truth.

You're just saying what I said, only dressed up in shiny $10 words to sound more convincing. Glad we agree.

Ridiculing isn't nice, however, when you actually believe Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse and split the moon in two, Jesus was born of a virgin, the resurrection etc. they're almost inviting it. They're brainwashed, it's not like they're open to a reasoned debate, reason goes out the window here.

The likes of Wendy Wright deserve to be ridiculed, how do you have a reasoned discussion with a nutter like her (Google her).

Leave them alone until they try to make me obey their stupid rules is my creed. Keep it private - fine. Try to control me because of your religion - you get everything thrown at you

See euthanasia, abortion, etc

I'm a 100% atheist, but I'm not arrogant enough to assert that everyone with religious faith is a blind idiot. The ones that miss the whole point and get tied up in knots about fossil records though, they are blind idiots imho.

This, basically. I don't get religion but that's no reason to go around being a * to people.

Which would be great were it not for the fact that being a * to [i]some[/i] of these people is simply a case of fighting fire with fire...

And as Dirtydog points out so significantly, it's not as if we can rely on reason and rationalism as a way to win the argument.

They're like the donkey here:

except that in the Real World people die from their wilfully ignorant, implacable fundamentalism.

So I don't really understand why we should we feel particularly obliged to cut them much slack.

It's not as if they'd recognise that they [i]don't[/i] have the moral high ground...

https://www.indy100.com/article/scientist-looked-through-63-studies-conclude-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-metanalysis-7733926

Watch this and try not to ridicule, bet you can't.

Wendy Wright

They're brainwashed

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. The greatest minds of all time, from the pre-Socratics to contemporary philosophers, tend to see 'faith' as a separate, and quite legitimate, epistemological category... as I have stated more than once on here before.

As for the Dawkins clip above, while the interviewee is borderline certifiable - she never stood a chance with the famous polemicist. He hand picks the people he speaks with precisely to illustrate how mind-bogglingly dim religious people must be. Interesting that Alister McGrath got cut out of his footage, and that he never filmed his conversations with Rowan Williams.

And as Dirtydog points out so significantly, it's not as if we can rely on reason and rationalism as a way to win the argument.

You may be surprised to learn that mainstream religious folk don't sit around waiting for people of different or no beliefs to argue with. Surprisingly, for the most part, you wouldn't even recognise them, because they're just normal people going about life the same way anyone does.

Weird, huh? I mean, who'd have thought that people who have their daily lives to think about, or better yet, a faith more complex than can be described with crayons, aren't really that interested in arguing?

I have never in my life even thought about arguing about faith and whether or not God exists. I grew up with faith, while one of my brothers has none at all. Believe it or not, we mostly cycle together, talk about music, bug each other, and commiserate over Brexit. Meanwhile, I am interested in ancient texts, the transmission of ideas in late antiquity/the early middle ages, while friends who share the same faith perspective I do spend their time thinking about ethics, or philosophy, or physics, or whatever.

Contemporary atheists have no monopoly on 'reason and rationality'. But whatever.

sorry dude but faith is the opposite of rationality. By definition.

tj, it isn't and it never has been. In epistemology, there are different categories of knowing and perception. It is only now - and I mean, quite literally, in the last few years and in non-philosophical circles - that such dichotomies have been given any traction.

[quote=oldnpastit ]You're just saying what I said, only dressed up [s]in shiny $10 words[/s] without the implication that it's a bad thing to sound more convincing. Glad we agree.

@saxonrider

Interesting discussion here

I agree dirtydog, and to me it doesn't matter which way a person thinks afterward; what it illustrates is that the discussion around faith when held between rational people, is, well... rational.

Saxonrider - faith is belief without evidence. That is the opposite of rational thought. Rational thought is looking at the evidence and making up your mind based on that.

there is no evidence for faith - indeed the very definition of faith is so.

So faith is not rational.

simple as. Its what the words mean

Dictionary definitions

rational - based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Just me that keeps reading it as cremation museum then?

'Faith is belief without evidence'

'Faith is belief without proof'

Two quite different statements in my view. Probably due to my line of work, my mind works along the lines of 'how much evidence is there, do we have enough evidence to prove the case, is our evidence good enough?' and so on.

People who believe in God no doubt consider lots of things they see or experience or read as evidence for God's existence - the world around them, their experiences, the bible, their conscience, all sorts of things I suppose. They consider what the religion says and consider 'does that make sense in light of what I can see around me, what I've experienced etc.' and they reach whatever conclusion they reach. To some it adds up, to others it doesn't. Just the same as in a courtroom, both sides make their case on the evidence presented, the jury considers the evidence and whether it supports the prosecutions argument or the defences theory makes more sense (burden of proof arguments aside of course).

One person might say there is no evidence for God's existence, while another might say there is plenty. That comes down to the individuals perspective, whether they consider the evidence as credible or not. E.g. the bible - it exists, nobody would argue otherwise. It is put forward as evidence because of what is claimed within it. The disagreement comes after consideration of its evidential value, some people decide it has some, some conclude it has none. The credibility or value or relevance of the evidence is what is in question, rather than its existence in the first place, and that's why people reach different conclusions.

There are of course many people, on both sides of the argument, who are brainwashed and do not consider things for themselves and dogmatically stick to what they were told. Similarly, there are many very intelligent people who have spent years considering the evidence for and against, and some reach one conclusion and some the other.

I think 'faith is belief without evidence' is incorrect, but 'faith is belief without proof' is correct - many people with faith will have thought long and hard about the matter, and while there is not 100%, absolute, incontrovertible proof of God's existence, they still conclude, based on all the evidence for and against, that he does exist. It is not the preserve of the hard of thinking.

faith is belief without evidence - there is no evidence to support its hypothesis. Faith is belief without proof is also correct as there isn't any evidence to prove the existence of a deity.

I prefer "Faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking" Bill Maher

It presents an almost limitless opportunity for a huge arguathon on what 'evidence' is, with everyone wearing their semantics hats 🙂

think 'faith is belief without evidence' is incorrect, but 'faith is belief without proof' is correct

Really? By extension that would suggest that the scientific method (empirical) is predicated upon belief.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

I much prefer the scientific method of evaluation, which does not deal with 'proof'. Instead it relies on the observable, repeatable, predictable. I would say that faith is belief regardless of evidence. The faithful may (and do) choose to apply the word 'evidence' to anything they like. 'Face' in toast? <--- Evidence. Goat? <--- Evidence. Someone once wrote in a book that should you mock what's in the book then this makes the book true? <--- Evidence!

You can't simply use 'the World' as 'evidence' of a 'deity'. There are no existing known examples/instances by which to draw such a conclusion.

Take for example: If someone saw a car parked in the street - one might assume that it was driven there? Reasonable evidence being that it is a car, and cars are normally driven. Cars are made in factories by humans. Cars are made to be driven. We have testable, observable, repeatable evidence of these facts. Of course, the car may have been assembled at the side of the road and never driven. It may have been bounced across from the other side of the road. It may have been towed there by Geoff Capes.

So the existence of a car is not in itself watertight evidence of a driver. The existence of a car production line [b]is[/b] evidence of a maker. The existence of traceable, testable parts is further evidence of a maker.

But that doesn't (IMO) work for 'the Earth'. We simply assume that because we make things, so it goes that anything not manufactured by humans must still have been manufactured by a 'person'? A 'mind'?

I supposes 'proof' exists within a legal system, and in that I can see how people would compare a belief in God with belief in innocence or wrongdoing. But the 'evidence' for a so-called 'deity' is what, exactly? If I were up in court for some cooked-up or otherwise wrongful charge I wonder if I'd prefer to be evaluated by a jury using the scientific method or the faith method?

Faith does not seek to [i]prove[/i] anything. The word simply describes an internal response to certain types of experiences.

It's a long article, but have a read of [url= https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/01/doubt-and-the-creed ]this piece[/url], which articulates the difference very nicely. But remember, if you do read it, neither the author, nor I, are positing it as an argument. It is merely an attempt to explain the difference between faith and knowledge from a faith point of view.

It presents an almost limitless opportunity for a huge arguathon on what 'evidence' is, with everyone wearing their semantics hats

Yes! (Note to self: save self 15 minutes by waiting a couple more for a more succint someone to arrive 😉 )

thegreatape - Member

It presents an almost limitless opportunity for a huge arguathon on what 'evidence' is, with everyone wearing their semantics hats

with great opportunity to offend folk as well. I am sure I had to apologise to you once after a debate on this topic having strayed from the general to the personal.

Be careful folk

[s]As I say, the possibilities for arguments about what evidence is are almost limitless.[/s]. Crossed posts!

I don't recall that TJ so it must have been very trivial 🙂

The crux of what I was trying to say is that faith or belief in a deity is not the preserve of the thick. Plenty of very intelligent people have considered the matter at great length, with some reaching one conclusion and others the opposite conclusion. Whichever way they've settled, they haven't got there without giving great thought to the arguments for and against.

Whichever way they've settled, they haven't got there without giving great thought to the arguments for and against, as baffling as that may be to some who've reached the opposite conclusion.

May I point out that I am in no way suggesting that there aren't plenty of hard of thinking people on both sides of the fence as well.

plenty of bat shit mental people on both sides of the fence as well.

I wouldn't say so, no.

Which is what goes back to my previous points about this stuff being labelled as fiction and not portrayed as what actually happened in schools, museums and easter/christmas TV.

I'm happy to have a rational discussion about religion with somebody if it is rational and objective, bit like english literature.

Without evidence it's just talk.

About something that's pointless, anyway.

Ooh god you are so big we're really impressed down here...

Pah.

Ooh god you are so big we're really impressed down here...

I don't even mind the buggers thinking and acting like that - it's the active (and lazy; and downright pernicious) dismissal by Creationists and other reactionary, backward zealots and fundamentalists of intellectual rigour, the scientific method, and black-and-white empirical evidence, that's so offensive.

[b]And I have [i]absolute faith[/i] that this statement is true: so if faith is all you need, then I win the argument by their own puerile rules, don't I..?[/b]

Its were the religionists attitudes spill over into public life that I can't stomach it. We are prevented from doing things because of others religious beliefs

Jesus was born of a virgin

As an aside, isn't this a misinterpretation? "Virgin" in the original language means pure and virtuous rather than explicitly "not had sex" I thought?

The greatest minds of all time... tend to see 'faith' as a separate, and quite legitimate, epistemological category

I think there's some merit to this. I used to work with a guy who had one of the most brilliant minds I've ever come across, a genuine polymath. When I last spoke to him he was learning Russian, not because he knew any Russians or had any particular interest in Russia (beyond having an interest in just about everything), he just fancied the challenge and thought it might be interesting.

He was also a card-carrying church-going Xtian, something that I always struggled to align with his logical mind. So I asked him about it one day, and we lost an afternoon to discussion.

TD;DR - he compartmentalised his faith, put it in a box marked "other" where normal rules don't apply. He likened it to quantum physics, which was a difficult analogy to argue. He believed that the supernatural was exactly that - beyond nature.

One person might say there is no evidence for God's existence, while another might say there is plenty. That comes down to the individuals perspective, whether they consider the evidence as credible or not.

This is basically confirmation bias (on both sides of the debate). A believer may see something "miraculous" and think it's a message from God, reinforcing their beliefs; I on the other hand would see that and think "wow, that's a coincidence!" It's probably very difficult to be truly objective, we're both rejecting possible causes out of hand.

E.g. the bible - it exists, nobody would argue otherwise. It is put forward as evidence because of what is claimed within it.

I love this. "How do we know the Bible is true?" - "It tells us so in the Bible."

I don't even mind the buggers thinking and acting like that - it's the active (and lazy; and downright pernicious) dismissal by Creationists and other reactionary, backward zealots and fundamentalists of intellectual rigour, the scientific method, and black-and-white empirical evidence, that's so offensive.

This.

Sorry, we're thread-drifting again. If people want to believe that the world was created in six literal days, that light was created two days before a light source and that Adam rode into the Garden of Eden on the back of his pet dinosaur then more power to their elbow.

Teaching that as fact to impressionable young minds though, and knocking back history and science a hundred years? Get in the sea.

It's an incredibly interesting discussion this, watching dogmatic views, with no credibility given to the inquiring mind of the young. I grew up and was exposed continually to all that, I also experienced some very dubious teachings of Physics which I doubted at the time, as I doubted everything as a youngster. My view was then how could anything written by folk who believed the flat earth began and ended around the Mediterranean know anything?

That Bible is as clear as day to anyone with a brain a political device with which to control society and vest power within whoever is decreed by it's "God" to be the ruler, we are even today controlled by that belief, our armed forces fight for God Queen and country, most of them know, like politics, government, and the law that it is bullshit.
It is ironic however that no such similar discussion dare take place over the validity of the Koran, presumably because to do so invites death, or worse a ban.

Faith without evidence, why is that different from say Einsteins belief in molecules when at the time there was no evidence he must have had faith that there were in order to continue seeking proof.

The belief that Light contains Photons which must contain matter, I reason is not true, it's my opinion, I cannot prove it, doesn't stop me thinking about it and maybe one day like my general views on the composition of light we'll know the answer to, then the Museums of what used to be believed will educate kids in much the same way that Creationist museums are what some other people used to believe, No doubt there will be kids visiting them,who will know by instinct and reason, that it's all bollox, just the same as there are people who believe 650bs are fine on mountain bikes. The truth is it takes all sorts, and not many of them have a clue, because by and large as a species we are pretty stupid, hypocritical, manipulative and need constant re-assurance that we're better now than we were then, whilst others use that as a means with which to rule and become empowered.

There endeth the 'we should live and let live' sermon and as for 'belief' there are only two things to believe in, The Force and Karma both of which can be proved over a lifetime of experience.

As an aside, isn't this a misinterpretation? "Virgin" in the original language means pure and virtuous rather than explicitly "not had sex" I thought?

Nope, it has the sexual connotation.

This is why in medieval times, women's headwear [i]always[/i] covered their ears (and nuns' wimples still do) - because the female ear was a sexual organ, being the orifice through which Mary conceived, having heard The Word Of God.

Faith without evidence, why is that different from say Einsteins belief in molecules when at the time there was no evidence he must have had faith that there were in order to continue seeking proof.

Because scientists were seeking evidence: Einstein's [i]belief[/i] was not "faith", because he knew that scientific research was tying to find the evidence.

Faith [i]requires[/i] no proof, and actively rails against the idea of trying to find it.

Because then it's not about faith any more.

It's not really the existence of evidence, but the willingness to search for it, that differentiates rationalism from faith.

I am completely on board with that last post of yours, Cougar.

Thank you. (-:

It is ironic however that no such similar discussion dare take place over the validity of the Koran, presumably because to do so invites death, or worse a ban.

I can't comment on the former but I'm reaching for my Bullshit Button here on the latter. Like most "you'll get banned if..." comments it may well have been the case five years ago but is demonstrably untrue now. We have discussed it in the past, at length and relatively recently.

The only difference is that there are fewer actively-posting Muslims than Christians on the forum and so it's more difficult to spark a debate. Even with STW's ability to have an argument in an empty room it's unlikely to spawn a 47-page epic debate from a bunch of posters agreeing with each other.

Regular posters I'd hope would almost certainly know this, but if I thought for a minute that Islam (or Christianity, or anything else for that matter whether religious or not) held special verboten privilege as a topic of conversation in the Chat Forum, I'd resign my position as Moderator. I cannot and will not be a part of a group whose operational policy is selective censorship, this is something I feel incredibly strongly about. (Fortunately, aside from moderation inconsistencies between different Moderators, we don't do that.)

Faith without evidence, why is that different from say Einsteins belief in molecules when at the time there was no evidence he must have had faith that there were in order to continue seeking proof.

1. Make predictions
2. Be testable

Einstein did not have faith in molecules he believed [ he had evidence to support this and not just a book] it best explained observation.

the reality is one believe is a hypothesis to be tested by observation of the world and evaluated based on how well it describes reality, predicts events and is "provable
Religious belief is a guess that is supported by faith
They are not in any way shape or form similar in nature just because you used the word belief
Its the fallacy of equivocation at work here
[img] [/img]

The "ignore contradicting evidence" there could also be "pretend you never meant it all along claim it was just supposed to be allegorical."