Creationists Are Dumb.

Illumination said:

Well thank god for that....A bit of humor... but I am glad you cleared that for me....I was bummed about it more than I realized evidentially as I blindly accepted it which is really quite not my nature

Namaste'

Click to expand...

many people asked his wife if he had converted before his death and she said no, and that it was a kinda sad thought.. that they both knew they would never see each other again..

I just have to chuckle whenever intelligent folks try to engage in religious/creation/evolution discussions. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER!!!!

There is a reason why it is called The Theory of Evolution just as Creationism cannot be empirically explained. Faith plays into the Atheist’s beliefs as much as it does the Christian Doctrine. The Atheist has faith that God doesn’t exist. They can’t prove God doesn’t exist just as the Christian cannot prove that She does exist. All of the quotes from Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov (science fiction writers) are about as relevant as Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Personally, I believe that something HAD to set all of this in motion. There is a central theme in nature that could not have occurred by accident. I can’t explain it in words but those who are tuned into the environment will understand – some call it Mother Earth, the Big Giant Head or whatever incorporeal entity pops into your head when you are couch-locked after burning some choice smoke. It transcends all organized religions.

As a Catholic, I always take offense to those antis that always bring up the priest molestation scandal to demonize the entire Church. There are tens of thousands of priests that have never molested children and to cast aspersions unfairly toward the entire Church and its membership is ignorant.

I always get a chuckle when someone claims that people engaged in reason and skepticism somehow has faith that there is no god or gods. Maybe if you actually read the quotes you might understand how science and reason has advanced humanity and in just a few hundred years we have sped up and surpassed by a large magnitude the knowledge gained in the preceding years all of the way back to our beginnings. I have no need to disprove a god any more than I need to disprove pink unicorns. It is up to the person that proposes an idea to provide a rationale for believing. You say it's faith, I say that's fine. But there is no equivalent on my end. I propose no such faith in anything or to dismiss anything.
Here's another quote from Sagan. Maybe this time read it so you understand a bit better.

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically [verifiable as true] worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Click to expand...

mindphuk:

It's ALL speculation. You cannot disprove that God doesn't exist just as those that do believe in God can prove She does exist. There is no emperical formula that validates either theory. "Science and reason" have nothing to do with it. Why don't you try explaining our own beliefs instead of quoting a science fiction writer.

FAITH is defined as: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

This applies equally to godless folks such as you and those that believe in a Diety.

Scrooge said:

mindphuk:

It's ALL speculation. You cannot disprove that God doesn't exist just as those that do believe in God can prove She does exist. There is no emperical formula that validates either theory. "Science and reason" have nothing to do with it. Why don't you try explaining our own beliefs instead of quoting a science fiction writer.

FAITH is defined as: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

This applies equally to folks such as you and those that believe in a Diety.

Click to expand...

Did you read a word I posted? I don't need to disprove god any more than I have to disprove Russel's teapot. I have never made an assertion that there is no god. You must have me confused with someone else. This is the whole point that you seem to be ignoring or not understanding. You cannot claim that I have faith in no god anymore than I can say the same about you and Sagan's dragon. Do you have faith that he doesn't have one in his garage or do you find there's no reason to even entertain such idea until someone can provide evidence?

People claim that god interferes with mankind and causes things to defy known laws of physics. These things can be tested. Otherwise you are correct, someone that merely has faith, has no reason to prove to me or anyone else. However, as soon as someone makes a positive claim about said deity, as is claimed by creationists, we have something to go on as they are presenting evidence for the existence of their god. Is it not reasonable to reject such claims and insist that they do not become part of the science curriculum at schools?

BTW, Carl Sagan was a real scientist that also wrote a sci-fi book. He is much more well known for his non-fiction books like the one I quoted from that gives good reasons why a rational, skeptical position and learning critical thinking skills is important for us as individuals and society and it is science class in schools where children are exposed to such ideas, often for the first time. Maybe you should read it, you might find it interesting.

What are the myths about beliefs that I will discuss?

1. All opinions are equal.
2. Challenging a belief is an insult.
3. Something is true because I feel certain about it.
4. A statement is an argument.
5. Disagreement is an argument.
6. Controversial beliefs can’t be justified.
7. An objection to a belief proves it’s wrong.
8. Knowledge requires an explicit justification.
9. Justified beliefs have to be certain.
10. All beliefs are rationally acceptable.

Thank you Ethical Realism for this epistemological lesson

mindphuk said:

Did you read a word I posted? I don't need to disprove god any more than I have to disprove Russel's teapot. I have never made an assertion that there is no god. You must have me confused with someone else. This is the whole point that you seem to be ignoring or not understanding. You cannot claim that I have faith in no god anymore than I can say the same about you and Sagan's dragon. Do you have faith that he doesn't have one in his garage or do you find there's no reason to even entertain such idea until someone can provide evidence?

Click to expand...

mindphuk said:

People claim that god interferes with mankind and causes things to defy known laws of physics. These things can be tested. Otherwise you are correct, someone that merely has faith, has no reason to prove to me or anyone else. However, as soon as someone makes a positive claim about said deity, as is claimed by creationists, we have something to go on as they are presenting evidence for the existence of their god. Is it not reasonable to reject such claims and insist that they do not become part of the science curriculum at schools?

BTW, Carl Sagan was a real scientist that also wrote a sci-fi book. He is much more well known for his non-fiction books like the one I quoted from that gives good reasons why a rational, skeptical position and learning critical thinking skills is important for us as individuals and society and it is science class in schools where children are exposed to such ideas, often for the first time. Maybe you should read it, you might find it interesting.

Click to expand...

To be honest with you – NO I didn’t read ANYTHING you posted. Frankly, what you write doesn’t amount to a Hill of Beans – just as what I write. My VERY first statement in this thread reads, “I just have to chuckle whenever intelligent folks try to engage in religious/creation/evolution discussions.”

Your beliefs AND my beliefs cannot be proven. I watched Sagan’s Universe as a kid and was enthralled.

I’m surprised that you didn’t quote Steven Hawking’s newest book, The Grand Design where, arguably, the smartest man on the planet argues that “(b)ecause there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist…”

This is STILL a theory with no empirical evidence to back up his assertions.

Because I’ve never seen an actual unicorn, I don’t have enough information to say they don’t exist. That is shallow thinking.

Scrooge said:

To be honest with you – NO I didn’t read ANYTHING you posted. Frankly, what you write doesn’t amount to a Hill of Beans – just as what I write. My VERY first statement in this thread reads, “I just have to chuckle whenever intelligent folks try to engage in religious/creation/evolution discussions.”

Click to expand...

If you don't read and consider others posts, then you don't really qualify as being in a discussion. Most of the points you bring up are already addressed in this very thread, so obviously you are not looking for any real exchange of ideas here or else you would have responded to them instead of regurgitating. It seems your sole motivation is to tout your opinion which by your own logic is worthless.

Why don't you try explaining our own beliefs instead of quoting a science fiction writer.

Click to expand...

He has gone to great lengths to explain himself, which you would not be ignorant of if you read his posts. And thanks for making me chuckle with your ad hominem attack.

Small Mindedness is defined as Selfish, petty, constrained in thought, limited in scope of consideration. Who is this describing? Someone who took the time to post a reasonable response which respectfully addressed your points, or someone who dismisses others opinions without taking the time to understand them?

I just read a new book called "How to Troll Internet Forums: And How to Come Off As A Hyper-douche While Doing It" by Scrooge.

I refuse to acknowledge his posts any further.

I am totally envisioning this when I read scrooges posts:

Scrooge said:

I just have to chuckle whenever intelligent folks try to engage in religious/creation/evolution discussions. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER!!!!

There is a reason why it is called The Theory of Evolution just as Creationism cannot be empirically explained. Faith plays into the Atheist’s beliefs as much as it does the Christian Doctrine. The Atheist has faith that God doesn’t exist. They can’t prove God doesn’t exist just as the Christian cannot prove that She does exist. All of the quotes from Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov (science fiction writers) are about as relevant as Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Personally, I believe that something HAD to set all of this in motion. There is a central theme in nature that could not have occurred by accident. I can’t explain it in words but those who are tuned into the environment will understand – some call it Mother Earth, the Big Giant Head or whatever incorporeal entity pops into your head when you are couch-locked after burning some choice smoke. It transcends all organized religions.

As a Catholic, I always take offense to those antis that always bring up the priest molestation scandal to demonize the entire Church. There are tens of thousands of priests that have never molested children and to cast aspersions unfairly toward the entire Church and its membership is ignorant.

Click to expand...

So set aside the fact the Vatican helped Nazis escape persecution from collapsed Germany? Set aside the fact that the catholic church helps those "few" child molesters get away with they're crimes?

I'm not trying to bash your religion, as I have been semi-debating Christianity on here and elsewhere for a bit now... but IMO Catholicism has to be the worst religion out there, I would worship the sun before I stepped foot in a catholic church.

Scrooge said:

To be honest with you – NO I didn’t read ANYTHING you posted. Frankly, what you write doesn’t amount to a Hill of Beans – just as what I write. My VERY first statement in this thread reads, “I just have to chuckle whenever intelligent folks try to engage in religious/creation/evolution discussions.”

Your beliefs AND my beliefs cannot be proven. I watched Sagan’s Universe as a kid and was enthralled.

I’m surprised that you didn’t quote Steven Hawking’s newest book, The Grand Design where, arguably, the smartest man on the planet argues that “(b)ecause there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist…”

This is STILL a theory with no empirical evidence to back up his assertions.

Because I’ve never seen an actual unicorn, I don’t have enough information to say they don’t exist. That is shallow thinking.

Click to expand...

you watched something called Sagan's Universe? you cant even properly remember the title.. let alone anything sagan was trying to convey..