Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Forum

  1. #1 Forum 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    This place still give me the creeps:
    http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopi...ilit=Golkarian

    Yes it IS the same Golkarian posting here, from just a few years back. I still find these people a bit intolerant, but more informed than I was. This is also the reason why I think creationism is dangerous to religion, there is no way to know for certain if this would have ended differently if I had a clear understanding of science and evolution.

    By the way the reason I was posting here was a curiosity about Schrodinger that lead me to one of the threads. And to me at the time a skeptic had to do with UFO's and ghosts, I was ignorant as to what it meant for religion.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    why is creationism dangerous to religion?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why is creationism dangerous to religion?
    Because it is demonstrably false and so undermines the truth within religions; because it is supported by willfully ignorant individuals who call into question the sincerity of true followers; because it demonstrates all that is bad about narrow minded self righteousness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why is creationism dangerous to religion?
    Because it is demonstrably false and so undermines the truth within religions; because it is supported by willfully ignorant individuals who call into question the sincerity of true followers; because it demonstrates all that is bad about narrow minded self righteousness.
    Bingo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    It undermines religion by process of claiming empirical evidence. Religion, based on faith, should never cross the line and make such claims. In crossing this line, they've tarnished religion with extremism and hostile dogma. They're trying to validate their ideas so strongly that they are advocating pseudoscience rather than religion.

    As for the link itself, and the first post, the reason why educated individuals can make such fallacies is because they were not taught logic. Logic is not necessary for memorizing test answers.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    It undermines religion by process of claiming empirical evidence. Religion, based on faith, should never cross the line and make such claims. In crossing this line, they've tarnished religion with extremism and hostile dogma. They're trying to validate their ideas so strongly that they are advocating pseudoscience rather than religion.

    As for the link itself, and the first post, the reason why educated individuals can make such fallacies is because they were not taught logic. Logic is not necessary for memorizing test answers.
    Francis Collins isn't exactly educated for memorizing test answers, he has created some fairly brilliant genome sequencing techniques, but I do understand what you mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Because it is demonstrably false
    yet it is not. none of you have shown it to be false, you have just presented an alternative. you have not shown that it is not true and cannot be done.

    because it is supported by willfully ignorant individuals who call into question the sincerity of true followers; because it demonstrates all that is bad about narrow minded self righteousness.
    that is just a biased opinion from one who is narrow minded and self-righteous along with being willfully ignorant.

    It undermines religion by process of claiming empirical evidence
    so? there is no law that says it can't be done.

    Religion, based on faith, should never cross the line and make such claims. In crossing this line, they've tarnished religion with extremism and hostile dogma
    now yoou are elevating science to be the ruler over life without proper permission or authority. where do you get the mandate to make science the final determiner?
    most likely it is self-appointed.

    They're trying to validate their ideas so strongly that they are advocating pseudoscience rather than religion
    i am not going to play verezen's game and call this a logical fallacy but you have no evidence other than the fact that they dismis your scientific results. which they are allowed to do.

    seems you are trying to force your beliefs down everyone else's throats and denying them the right to freely choose what they want to believe.

    i am afraid that allyou have shown is that the adherents to evolution are the real danger.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    i am not going to play verezen's game and call this a logical fallacy
    Don't worry, it's not a logical fallacy... Carry on.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    i am not going to play verezen's game and call this a logical fallacy
    Don't worry, it's not a logical fallacy... Carry on.
    Awesome. I was going to say the same thing, but I decided against arguing with someone this aggressively stupid.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Awesome. I was going to say the same thing, but I decided against arguing with someone this aggressively stupid.
    I trust you do not have copyright on this phrase. :wink:
    I shall add it to my repetoire.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quickly, before archaeologist takes over the thread, what do you think about my posts in the other forum?

    By the way, I know from my own experience, that deliberately misunderstanding the points of another poster is something creationists often do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quickly, before archaeologist takes over the thread
    don't worry i have no intentions of doing so. i just asked a few questions for clarification.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    This place still give me the creeps:
    http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopi...ilit=Golkarian
    Unless you are refering to the avatars I don't know why you say this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Yes it IS the same Golkarian posting here, from just a few years back. I still find these people a bit intolerant, but more informed than I was. This is also the reason why I think creationism is dangerous to religion, there is no way to know for certain if this would have ended differently if I had a clear understanding of science and evolution.
    Well that depends on your expectations. Compared with an encounter I had with the Richard Dawkins website, your enounter here is pretty tame. I logged on to express some solidarity with the outrage and contempt I felt for the film, "Expelled: no intellegence allowed." I thought they would appreciate that even Christians found this film disgusting. My mistake. They took exception to the idea that a Christian could be a scientist. Pretty bizarre! But then you find narrow minded people everywhere and of every persuasion.

    Anyway it is clear from the very first post in the thread you are talking about that these are not reasonable people. They seem to have a similar faith in a sacred fundamentalist atheist dogma that a scientist cannot be a Christian. Frankly it is boring. I found the original article by Collins to be far more intesting. It is the wackos on both extremes of this issue that challenge our belief that human beings are an intellegent form of life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    By the way the reason I was posting here was a curiosity about Schrodinger that lead me to one of the threads.
    Hmmm... I shall have to find that thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Quickly, before archaeologist takes over the thread, what do you think about my posts in the other forum?
    Well any support for religion on a website like that is just asking for it though I was sympathetic with your effort until the discussion turned to evolution and creationism, when from my point of view your posts lost much of its rationality.

    For example: "In fact the creation of humans is the only part of the Christian creation story that contradicts evolution." This doesn't make any sense to me. If you are going to interpret one part with idiot literalism then why not another part as does archaeologist? The fact is that none of these idiot literal interpretation stand up to scrutiny because it creates too many contradictions. Sure you can just make up stuff to "explain away" these contradictions as archaeologist does all the time, but that doesn't prove anything.

    Some of these are so old and simple that children ask about them all the time: Who did Cain and Seth marry? Who was Cain afraid of in Genesis 4:14? The answer in Genesis 6:1-2 that the earth had men in it and that Cain and Seth married the daughters of men does not agree with the idiot literal interpretation of these anti-science pseudo-Christian cults. Sure you can make up weird stuff like the Sons of God being angels which gave birth not to "men of renown" like it says but instead to fairy tale giants. It seems that people like archaologist love these fairy tale like interpretations because they think that self-lobotomy should be a Christian's test of faith.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman ultraviolet_catastrophe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18
    bill hicks quote:
    "have you noticed how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •