Notices
Results 1 to 86 of 86

Thread: If dinosaurs could talk . . (Creation Museum)

  1. #1 If dinosaurs could talk . . (Creation Museum) 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/muse...3dinosaurs.asp



    Here is a couple of quotes I found within the article:

    "In the next room, guests learn how the “facts” get distorted by museums and school textbooks."

    "Our generation has been brainwashed with stories about dinosaurs who died “65 million years ago.” Yet most people don’t realize that this is just a façade . . "



    Here is my question: Are they making up the story as they build the museum? Or, did they make up the story before they began building the museum?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    That's a good question. While I read the linked page for laughs, I did wonder if any people involved on this museum are less than earnest.

    A hint:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis
    Our hope is that people are going to walk away from the museum knowing that the Bible’s history is true. Then they’ll be ready to take the next step and say to themselves, "If the history is true, then maybe I can believe the rest of the Book … including the gospel."
    So you see a sophisticated reasoning: means A to end B. This suggests to me the museum may bullshit for a greater end.


    Anyway, more fun:
    An adult T. rex let loose in Corruption Valley: "Look, don’t blame God for my ferocious appetite. God originally made us to eat plants (Gen. 1:30), but Adam’s sin brought a curse upon the whole world."

    Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Guests will discover the answer from dinosaurs who were there.

    Dinosaur "kinds" loaded onto Noah’s Ark: "It’s easy to explain how we fit on the Ark..."
    Well, who is more credible? Naysayer scientists or eyewitness dinosaurs who were there, on the Ark...


    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I suppose the T Rex must have been built entirely different then as well, as in not adapted to killing animals and eating their flesh. The ridiculousness is astounding.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    I laughed, I do believe there are a lot of questions to be had on this article. It's practically pornography for atheists. To add insult to injury, here is a funny quote:

    "Their “sworn testimony” will astound the world." (that's about the dinosaurs talking)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    It may as well include a flying saucer crew of alien time travellers as scientifically advanced witnesses to Creation, and a living gyrating robot Elvis in the gift shop: "Amen to that."
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    It may as well include a flying saucer crew of alien time travellers as scientifically advanced witnesses to Creation, and a living gyrating robot Elvis in the gift shop: "Amen to that."
    No, wrong mythology.

    Remember that although these guys may take their mythology ridiculously serious, they are pretty exclusive about it too.


    Perhaps the thing to do is to set up a rival museum next door based on the mythology from a different culture. Greek? or Norse? Using the same intense seriousness, mocking the obvious truth as much as possible.

    Kind of like: People of been brainwashed to believe that the moon is a big chunk of rock but the we know the truth that it is really the silver chariot of the Goddess Artemis who shoots moonlight down upon us with her bow.
    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  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    It may as well include a flying saucer crew of alien time travellers as scientifically advanced witnesses to Creation, and a living gyrating robot Elvis in the gift shop: "Amen to that."
    No, wrong mythology.

    Remember that although these guys may take their mythology ridiculously serious, they are pretty exclusive about it too.


    Perhaps the thing to do is to set up a rival museum next door based on the mythology from a different culture. Greek? or Norse? Using the same intense seriousness, mocking the obvious truth as much as possible.

    Kind of like: People of been brainwashed to believe that the moon is a big chunk of rock but the we know the truth that it is really the silver chariot of the Goddess Artemis who shoots moonlight down upon us with her bow.
    good idea, but suggesting it here won't help much. Who would build such a museum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    good idea, but suggesting it here won't help much. Who would build such a museum?
    No one of course. Putting out that kind of money really requires taking that mythology terribly seriously. But the imagery of building such a competitor is instructive anyway, don't you think?
    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  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Well we do have public subsidized multiculturalism in some parts. For example we pay Native shamans to teach spirituality in elementary schools. Then the Greek girls all get up in translucent robes with spears... sigh.

    The Canadian chimera exists to juxtapose.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: If dinosaurs could talk . . (Creation Museum) 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/docs2005/0523dinosaurs.asp



    Here is a couple of quotes I found within the article:

    "In the next room, guests learn how the “facts” get distorted by museums and school textbooks."

    "Our generation has been brainwashed with stories about dinosaurs who died “65 million years ago.” Yet most people don’t realize that this is just a façade . . "



    Here is my question: Are they making up the story as they build the museum? Or, did they make up the story before they began building the museum?
    One has to wonder if they are marketing specifically to angry atheists, whose dollars no doubt they would love to have!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    good idea, but suggesting it here won't help much. Who would build such a museum?
    No one of course. Putting out that kind of money really requires taking that mythology terribly seriously. But the imagery of building such a competitor is instructive anyway, don't you think?
    Sure, but the reality of the idea would be instructive to creationists, the idea is too easy to avoid.

    But anyways is it possible that the museum is tax exempt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    But anyways is it possible that the museum is tax exempt?
    Very possible. Either it is for profit or it is not. People have a right to use their money for something they think is worthwhile without the government sticking its greedy hands into it every time. Whether you or I think that it is a worthwhile cause really doesn't come into it.

    http://www.irs.gov/charities/charita...=96099,00.html

    If it is using tax money that is something else. If it is using tax money then the public has a right to withdraw that money from things it does not see as worthwhile.
    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  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    .....People like these....they make me so embarrassed to be from the same species...how can they be so deliberately ignorant and stupid?

    They would say anything to make their religion doctrine 'true' (at least, true to them)...
    But they have literally NO grip on reality at all!

    And we don't give these people psychiatric care?! They obviously need it!


    ....I just can't wrap my brain around how stupid some people are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    .....People like these....they make me so embarrassed to be from the same species...how can they be so deliberately ignorant and stupid?

    They would say anything to make their religion doctrine 'true' (at least, true to them)...
    But they have literally NO grip on reality at all!

    And we don't give these people psychiatric care?! They obviously need it!


    ....I just can't wrap my brain around how stupid some people are.
    People are not responsible for their intellectual capacity. The handicapped do not embarass me at all.

    It is the arrogant, willfully ignorant, intolerant bigots that make me embarassed when they imagine that being the same biological species is all it takes to make them human. Frankly I can see more humanity in the oranguatans, chimpanzees and bonobos, so a little difference in genetics and intellectual capabilities doesn't bother me at all. I can even laugh at their antics without being nasty. They need our care and support to help their survival. But there are members of the homo-sapiens species whose survival do not interest me in the least and they make it quite clear that the world would be a far better place without them.
    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  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Yes I absolutely agree with that : get rid of the religion minded morons who deliberately seek to destroy the FACTS and conclusions science gives us: the world would be a far better place without them.


    Your post does have errors, though - the mentally handicapped are the only ones not responsible for their intellectual capacity. Growing up in a North American country gives one very little excuse for lacking in education. It is the poor choices one makes in following any religion; being raised to believe is a hard thing to conquer and free your mind from, but it can be done.

    Second, 'humanity' refers to belonging to Homo Sapiens, not Pan, Pongo, nor Gorilla. Though I would prefer their company to any religion minded Homo any day.


    These particular people -who are not handicapped- deliberately chose long ago to accept only their religion as the ultimate truth; rather than learning proof derived from the ground up, with zero assumptions. It is a choice they made. They choose to be stupid, when the results of science proof -things which work- are all around them. They could choose any field and thread of inquiry and learn the proof - but instead they accept only what their bible says. In this case of Paleontology, where the proof of MILLIONS of years is very well documented in several independent methods...their manifesto is blitheringly stupid. Incredibly moronic.
    I mean, there's disproof, and then there's blow-you-out-of-the-water utterly destroy your inane babble disproof.

    This would be a case of the latter.

    But since it renders large swaths of the christian bible utterly WRONG it is instead declared to be not true. As if a declaration from a group of delusional dolts could render the science findings of Paleontology untrue!
    Declarations without proof - the cornerstone of religious dolts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Adversarially telling people they are WRONG is not helping. This hardens minds and feeds fanaticism. So the atheist who takes an argumentative dismissive position I think must either fail to understand human nature, or must prefer trashing people over helping them.

    Better show how some ideas are right. Without entrenching people about it. Dinosaurs are an excellent example: Kids adore dinosaurs. They love the dinosaur toys and fantasy movies and playing T-rex at the playground. Now literal Christians have accepted the dinosaur world intuitively is just right. This is no small victory for science thanks to how dinosaurs were offered: no strings, no confrontation, to the public.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    I guess that's the argument between Richard Dawkins and (someone else who's name escapes me).

    I don't have patience for the religious. Call it a character flaw if you like; I don't see it as such. They are so blindly stupid that for me, there is really no point in making any effort at all. What do you think you could do? Get them to finally say that yeah, maybe there could have been dinosaurs millions of years ago??? But they'll immediately turn around and say that GOD was STILL there and the bible is STILL true, only they don't know how to explain it???? It is exactly like trying to reason with idiots of varying degrees from the local loony bin.

    Go bash your head against a brick wall if you like, I've got better things to do with my time. I'll say the facts as they are, and those who don't like them because it interferes with their personal fantasy can go blow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    I guess that's the argument between Richard Dawkins and (someone else who's name escapes me).

    I don't have patience for the religious. Call it a character flaw if you like; I don't see it as such. They are so blindly stupid that for me, there is really no point in making any effort at all. What do you think you could do? Get them to finally say that yeah, maybe there could have been dinosaurs millions of years ago??? But they'll immediately turn around and say that GOD was STILL there and the bible is STILL true, only they don't know how to explain it???? It is exactly like trying to reason with idiots of varying degrees from the local loony bin.

    Go bash your head against a brick wall if you like, I've got better things to do with my time. I'll say the facts as they are, and those who don't like them because it interferes with their personal fantasy can go blow.
    I don't have patience for the anti-religious. Call it a character flaw if you like; I don't see it as such. They are so blindly stupid and willfully ignorant that for me, there is really no point in making any effort at all to try to convince them to think rationally.

    At least with the relgious, we KNOW for a FACT that they learn new things like the value of science. After all it was religious people who invented it. But for atheists who insist on behaving like fundamentalist religious nuts while they lie to themselves with the most ridiculous claims like they saying they only believe what they have proof for and pretending that they themselves are the true scientists just because they reject religion -- there is just no teaching them anything.

    At least we KNOW for a FACT that religious people can learn to understand the truth of the theory of evolution, after all Charles Darwin was one of them himself. Yeah he discarded his faith in the process but many other did not. This is natural for the religious because they know for a fact that their understanding of reality is limited, and so it is no suprise that they often find that their religion is compatable with other truths like the theory of evolution. But fundamentalist atheists who measure rationality by the limits of their own unfounded opinions, often recognize no possibility that anyone might have a better understanding of reality than they do -- demonstrating that their ignorance is not compatable with anything else.

    At least we KNOW for a FACT that religious people can learn to appreciate the value of religious freedom and the right of people to disbelieve whatever they choose. But it seems rather apparent that these anti-religious fundie irrational atheists have a tendency to declare that anyone who doesn't agree with them are just loony's and like Mao Tse Tung use this bigotry of theirs that relgion is disease as a excuse to slaughter everyone who disagrees with them.

    At least we KNOW for a FACT that religious people CAN see value in people for who they are and not based simply on whether they agree with their stupid opinions, even though there are many fundamentalists who make no effort to do so. Fundamentalist ideologues of both theist and atheist varieties are a plague of ignorance on the world but at least the religious have some sort of belief which tells them to improve themselves, but these anti-religous nuts apparently don't have anything but their bigotry and hatred.

    All these anti-religous fundies can go bash their head against a brick wall if they like, and maybe by smashing another skull full of hatred and bigotry, they will make the world a better place. I certainly have better things to do than wasting time with such people. Those are the facts as they are, but I am sure there are many of the religous who will disagree with me and take pity on these pathetic creatures. I wish them luck in their efforts with these bigots but I do not envy their having to wade into the muck of their personal fantasies in an effort to make a dent on their nearly unbounded ignorance.
    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  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Adversarially telling people they are WRONG is not helping. This hardens minds and feeds fanaticism. So the atheist who takes an argumentative dismissive position I think must either fail to understand human nature, or must prefer trashing people over helping them.
    Yep.

    The fundies are not opposed to evolution without good reason. It is the nonsense rhetoric of anti-religious atheists with these absurd claims that evolution proves there is no God and the apalling philosophical application of evolution in Social Darwininsm that is the cause for this. Atheists continuing to push evolution has not only served to prove to these Christians that evolution must be wrong but has even caused them to start their own universities supporting creationism -- to oppose the anti-reiligous ideological rhetoric with their own.

    This invasion of a scientific issue with ideological rhetoric is the death of science and the only way to halt this anti-scientific trend, is going to be showing that the SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution is not incompatable with Christianity. I have explained repeatedly that I personally think that evolution is even more compatable with Christianity than this idea of design in living things -- which frankly makes no sense at all.
    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  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    If your bible claims that there is a god and has a doctrine that does not include evolution - or even dinosaurs, which this thread is about - then it is proven wrong and, just like a faulty experiment on your part, shows the conclusions (i.e. there is a god!) to be WRONG.

    Once again, mitchianity declares that athiests = religious fundamentalists. (Which is oxyMORON bullshit: furthermore, for one, I don't intend to go murdering the religious. So take your comparisons and shove them up beside your brains. Your weasling attempt at a blindsiding false argument FAILS.)

    He pulls the same stunt he tried before of equating science to religion (at least in his mind). And he does so because he can't reconcile the rationality of science with the irrationality of belief in a god that he so desperately clings to. He has to utterly abandon science: its findings and its protocols when it comes to his god, if he wants to preserve his religion. If he doesn't, and applies science (in other words, BE a scientist) then his religious fantasy will shatter like a glass ball. THIS is the death of science - someone educated in science that rejects it when it suits him, yet uses the intelligence gained by learning it in attempts to pull it down to the level of religion and destroy it - at least in the uneducated and less subtle minds. There is a word for this kind of person: hypocrite.



    His god cannot be scientifically proven. So how could he possibly claim he knows it exists while claiming to still be a scientist?

    It really is curious to see such denial short-circuiting the rational brain entirely in this guy. It operates in so many people. Well, mitchianity can keep going around with a blind spot a mile wide. He loves religion, so he proves he is not interested in facts. He declares that his universe cannot be restricted to facts alone, and that anyone stating this is therefore somehow = a religious fundamentalist.

    His god forbid the possibility that a fact alone atheist might actually be correct!
    His god forbid the possibility that his religion is incompatible with science and its findings!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    C_Sensei:

    I see you haven't change any. You are still doling out your judgement based on an idealized idea of "only science, ever" and try and put yourself into this bracket. You are fooling nobody but yourself. You refuse the possibility of a scientist, even the best ones, being a theist as well, despite the undeniable existence of examples in history and today. You still try and fit people into your view of what they should be and how they should believe.

    You are indeed the type of person I would avoid as much as fundamentalists.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    The issue we are endlessly debating is this:

    Are religion and science mutually exclusive?

    I say yes, I give the solid reasons for it that others, much better than myself, like those in your SIGNATURE have given.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    Carl Sagan gives very good reasons for religion to be rejected. (None of which are the dogma mitchianity claims them to be; they are facts.) So why don't you make a tirade against him too, hypocrites? Because he presents the same argument (which I learned from reading him) without the uncaring impatience I have?

    You're being emotional and sensitive. If you were a scientist, then instead of acting like any other religious fool, you would give logical and concrete reasons why religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. Since that's impossible, you appeal to emotions, asking for *special* consideration like any slime-sucking criminal lawyer would. You think you deserve some special consideration and some special respect. You don't.

    "Blasphemy Is A Victimless Crime" - Richard Dawkins
    I'd be very surprised if anyone informed who reads these forms has any illusion at all that Richard Dawkins has basically the same attitude I do.
    So here's some advice: since I am really small-fry compared to the fame this guy has, why don't you go use your so-called unbeatable premise and show how very incredibly wrong this argument when advanced by him must be! It would be such an amazing strike of victory for your side of the argument to blow this guy out of the water with the TRUTH of your Mitchianity! Since the "religious fundamentalist club of atheists" (pppffffftHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...sorry, can't help laughing my ass off at the moron every time) already has two members he can be the THIRD!


    You guys are such hypocrites it makes my head swim.
    You can detest me for how I put the message across as much as you like.
    But ignoring the message and then trying to twist and pervert it simply because you hate the messenger???
    That's lunacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Passionate beliefs can be positive things. Passionate beliefs that encourage and engender the development of hatred, that lead individuals to despise others, might rationally be thought to be bad things. C.Sensei, you appear to fall into the second scenario. T

    he strength of your beliefs and their importance to you are apparent. However, the vitriol you dispense in communicating them will turn away all but the already converted. This may not bother you. It certainly doesn't bother me. I shall always defend the right of people to demonstrate that they are arrogant prats, whatever their beliefs.

    Now to matters of substance. You seem to be conflating religion with some form of absolutism. That is rather a narrow minded approach. Or perhaps just ignorant. Religion has fundamentalists, literalist adherents, but it also has believers at the opposite end of the spectrum who view their religion as giving structure to a way of life that trys to be responsible, caring and aspiring. Those towards that end of the spectrum should have and do have no difficulty in reconciling their religion with their science. Perhaps if you were more imaginative you would see how they manage it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    I was more imaginative (key word) once.
    Then I learned Science, how it works, what its findings are.

    Religion is simply not compatible with Science. That is not a belief, that is not what I 'want'. That is a simple fact. You can choose to ignore the fact, you can pretend it doesn't exist, but that won't change the fact from actually being so.

    I don't like at all that there is no life after death. I don't like at all that the people I knew and loved no longer exist, anywhere. I really don't like at all that I will pass into the exact same non-existence I was in 100 years ago! But just because I really don't like that is no valid reason to invent all kinds of fantasies to fool myself that it isn't so.

    You want to invent fantasies and put your belief and your faith into stories that run counter to long-established facts? That's your look out.

    But don't equate my upholding science and facts as the same thing you do.
    It isn't the same.
    At all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The greatest scientists have been blessed with awesome imaginations. You don't seem to understand that.


    What the **** has religion got to do with an afterlife? Not all religions consider there to be an afterlife. You are confusing fundamentalism with all religion in exactly the same way all fundamentalists do. Consequently, for me, it's like watching a train wreck when you post.

    Plenty of scientist have had no trouble reconciling religion and science. Plenty of scientists do not even see a need to reconcile, since they view the two as perfectly compatible. Those are facts, but your narrow minded approach prevents you from seeing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1
    If only dinosaurs could speak.

    Held hostage for nearly two-hundred years by the enemies of God, several dinosaurs are now free to set the record straight. No more lies. No more false testimony. No more propaganda.

    Combining the “magic” of modern technology and the truth of God’s Word, AiG’s Creation Museum has discovered the secret to bringing dinosaurs “back to life.” A sauropod, a T. rex, a dinosaur raptor, a triceratops—these are just a few of the dinosaurs that you’ll meet in the completed museum.

    Their “sworn testimony” will astound the world.

    The truth-telling begins in the lobby, where guests come face to face with a pair of young T. rex dinosaurs, living alongside Adam’s children.
    http://www.uxsight.com/category/19170/dinosaurs.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by cici02
    The truth-telling begins in the lobby, where guests come face to face with a pair of young T. rex dinosaurs, living alongside Adam’s children.
    How sad that a Christian should be so self righteous and deceived that they confuse blind lies with the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    How sad that a Christian should be so self righteous and deceived that they confuse blind lies with the truth.
    Oh come now Ophiolite. Its ok. Everyone can see the truth for themselves in the new museum next door


    The Norse Gods can speak.

    Held hostage for nearly two-hundred years by the enemies of the gods, several of the pantheon awaiting us in Valhala are now free to set the record straight. No more lies. No more false testimony. No more propaganda.

    Combining the “magic” of modern technology and the truth of the Vikings, the museum next door has discovered the secret to bringing gods “back to life.” A plastic Thor, a ceramic Odin, a Loki of wood, an exquisite Freya in 9th century copper — these are just a few of the Norse gods that you’ll meet in the completed museum.

    Their “sworn testimony” will astound the world.

    The truth-telling begins in the lobby, where guests come face to face with a pair of young Titans, living alongside Viking forefathers.
    http://vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/index.php?id=940&L=3
    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  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    I was more imaginative (key word) once.
    Then I learned Science, how it works, what its findings are.
    From the tone of your posts, I might conclude you didn't learn it very well. Let's take a look at this post to see what I mean.

    Religion is simply not compatible with Science. That is not a belief, that is not what I 'want'. That is a simple fact. You can choose to ignore the fact, you can pretend it doesn't exist, but that won't change the fact from actually being so.
    What evidence and test can you offer to demonstrate this fact? What repeatable experiment have you to offer? By what definition is this fact as opposed to belief/opinion? Now I am not ignoring your belief, but I do note that some religious world views seem completely compatible with science. If there is even one that is compatible then your belief is false, and therefore not a fact.

    I don't like at all that there is no life after death. I don't like at all that the people I knew and loved no longer exist, anywhere. I really don't like at all that I will pass into the exact same non-existence I was in 100 years ago! But just because I really don't like that is no valid reason to invent all kinds of fantasies to fool myself that it isn't so.
    Here we have another opinion that you have couched as a fact. Once again it is not something science is able to provide any evidence to substantiate.

    You want to invent fantasies and put your belief and your faith into stories that run counter to long-established facts? That's your look out.

    But don't equate my upholding science and facts as the same thing you do.
    It isn't the same.

    At all.
    Unfortunately, for you, it is the same. You are doing exactly what you ridicule others for doing. You seem to delude yourself into thinking your beliefs are facts. They are your own forms of fantasies with your own stories, and then you pretend that they are long established by dredging up a few non-sequitur facts that help you rationalize it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Actually, some dinosaurs can talk.

    I think this one has something he'd like to say to creationists:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGc7Wql2V2k&NR
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence, true.

    But tell me, is it philosophy or good science principles that proves there is no little green man that lives in your refrigerator, who's job it is to turn the light on and off when you open the door? When you answer that you will have your answer to the two technically separate (yet in actuality, very intertwined) doctrines:

    1) is there a god / gods
    2) is there afterlife

    You are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of others in claiming that the two have nothing to do with each other. Bullshit. There might be a very few religions that claim there is only one and not the other, but the vast majority claim the two are part of the same thing. So cool it with your crap.


    Plenty of scientist have had no trouble reconciling religion and science. Plenty of scientists do not even see a need to reconcile, since they view the two as perfectly compatible. Those are facts, but your narrow minded approach prevents you from seeing it.
    I agree - plenty of people who call themselves scientists, and are indeed payed to work in that capacity claim the above.

    But you had better damn well admit that plenty of other scientists DO say that the two are totally incompatible. For the reasons I already stated. So STOP making the misrepresentation that loads and loads of scientists say religion and science are perfectly compatible, and its only a few malcontents that want to stir up shit saying otherwise. Cut it with the bullcrap. Again.

    A discipline concerned only with facts and what is proven has nothing to do with faith and belief, both of which have no concern with facts or proof.

    This is what you and mitchianity detest - that Science is indeed incompatible with spirituality, belief, faith...religion.
    You seek to equalize them so that you can feel right about believing and having faith - antithesis to science. You can't stand it that despite my wanting the same thing as you - wanting that there be some kind of fantastic immortality; some kind of ultimate being that takes care of the universe - I still cannot deny facts, and will not subvert them with my own self-centered desires.

    It pisses you off to no end that I tip over your carefully balanced glass construction of beliefs and desires with facts. So you try to subvert replicable proofs: there is no soul nor measurement of one when a subject dies; there has never been any scientific evidence for spirits of any kind; nor of deities of any kind; nor of the actions of deities as documented in your various 'holy' texts - disproof of which adds up and is PROOF your god does NOT exist. There is, however, proof that the Earth has been here for billions of years, life has been here for billions, land dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, and they sure as shit never saw a single human being, much less the fantasy 'adam'.

    So go get your knickers in a twist, religious dolts. Rest assured reading your posts makes me ashamed for science; that it has deluded fools like you teaching it who then go on to believe in your fantasies ignoring facts. You act like you're oh-so separate from the fool above claiming that dinosaurs lived alongside adam, when in fact you're really not. It's just a question of the degree of lunacy in your fantasy that you believe in.

    You want to believe and you desire to believe.
    Want, Desire, Faith and Belief are incompatible with Science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence, true.
    It is when that evidence should be there. In the absence of the evidence of superstitious claims made by religious cults like Christianity, the lack of evidence is evidence of the absence of their gods.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Religion is simply not compatible with Science. That is not a belief, that is not what I 'want'. That is a simple fact. You can choose to ignore the fact, you can pretend it doesn't exist, but that won't change the fact from actually being so.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    What evidence and test can you offer to demonstrate this fact? What repeatable experiment have you to offer?
    Defining religion is the hard part in demonstrating the incompatibility of religion and science, and often apologists for religion in general make an effort to water down the definition such that it can be inclusive of just about any human endeavor that is done with repetition and rigor (i.e. "he religiously biked everyday").

    We can argue about the devotion of Lance Armstrong to his sport all day, but it gives us no utility in this discussion. So, the definition of religion that has the most utility is one that includes only those human endeavors that include one or more supernatural beings in their cult doctrines. Religion, therefore, can be defined as a social system whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. This is a definition I first came across by Daniel Dennett and, while it excludes the core philosophy of Buddhism, it has the most utility for this discussion.

    But regardless of whether you like it or not, this is the definition I'm while I offer evidence for the incompatibility of religion with science. This definition is inclusive of Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and many lesser, extant cults that each have "gods" within them. These "gods" are supernatural agents, in that they do not exist in reality or conform to the known laws of physics: they are assigned supernatural powers that range from creation of universes to knowing every piece of information in that universe at any time. So, religions have gods that are central to their cult beliefs and rituals, and are outside of science. But this doesn't automatically imply that the cults are incompatible with science themselves, since even though science would reject the superstitions surrounding their imagined gods, the cults may accept the tenets of science, offering some arguable compatibility.

    When we look deeper, however, those religions that have scriptures nearly always claim that the scriptures are the infallible word of their gods and not to be disputed.
    Yet, these cult doctrines offer claims about the natural world that are contrary to science and reason. So, if we were going to look at evidence for the incompatibility of religion and science, it would be in the claims each makes. Science makes its claims tentative an observationally based. Religion makes its claims with the provision that they aren't to be questioned and updated as human knowledge progresses, which is why nutty shit like biblical mythology is still taught in Sunday schools of Christian cults, indoctrinating children with falsehoods. Even when inconsistencies within the doctrine are pointed out, the religious refuse to update their texts. This is a primary incompatibility between science and religion: one begins with observations and makes tentative conclusions about the universe; the other begins with unyielding conclusions about the universe and observes only that which conforms to them.

    So, how can we test this incompatibility claim that I've made? I could try to falsify it, by showing where religion and science are compatible. Religion says that it is good to be charitable; scientists often rely on charity to fund research. There's a compatibility. Except this doesn't falsify the claim I'm making, which is that the core elements of religion are incompatible with the core elements of science. For that, we'll need to define the core elements of each, one of which is supernatural agency, which aligns with religion. For science, it is empirical observation. Another core element of religion is "revelation," that ability of scripture "holy men" to "reveal" something about the natural world.

    Interestingly enough, testing the revelation of Christian scripture tests both the validity of the Christian god and the validity of revelation. In Isaiah 17:1 one can read that Damascus is predicted to cease to be a city. Yet, today, it's one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities of the Near East.

    To repeat such a test, one would need only look for special claims about the natural world in biblical mythology (or the mythology and oral history of any other religion) and see if those claims are compatible with science. Claims of zombie messiahs, walking on water, turning people into pillars of salt who look at smote cities, 900,000 people wandering the deserts of the Sinai, yet leaving not a single trace, etc, etc.

    The core elements of religion are not compatible with the core elements of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    But tell me, is it philosophy or good science principles that proves there is no little green man that lives in your refrigerator, who's job it is to turn the light on and off when you open the door?
    Personally I used the sub-branch of philosophy called science to esablish this.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    1) is there a god / gods
    2) is there afterlife
    You are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of others in claiming that the two have nothing to do with each other. Bullshit.
    They are independent issues often associated in many relitions. They are not, as you appeared to claim, irrevocably linked so that one cannot exist without the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    But you had better damn well admit that plenty of other scientists DO say that the two are totally incompatible..
    Certainly I agree. Why would I not agree. If I were going to disagree I would have said all/almost all/the majority of scientists, rather than plenty of scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    and its only a few malcontents that want to stir up shit saying otherwise. Cut it with the bullcrap. Again.
    Stop being so pig ignorant. On what basis are you calling them malcontents? Because they disagree with your viewpoint? Give me a logical reason please.
    Nor are they trying to stir up shit. They simply see, as I do, that science and religion have two different functions which are separate. Your claim of incompatibility is like saying a soap opera is incompatible with a banana split. Those are two other things with two different functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    A discipline concerned only with facts and what is proven has nothing to do with faith and belief, both of which have no concern with facts or proof..
    Exactly. So there is no imcompatibility. The lines do not cross. In a Venn diagram there is no overlap of the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    This is what you and mitchianity detest - that Science is indeed incompatible with spirituality, belief, faith...religion..
    I am multi-talented, but even I find it impossible to detest something that is not the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    You can't stand it that despite my wanting the same thing as you - wanting that there be some kind of fantastic immortality; some kind of ultimate being that takes care of the universe
    It pisses you off to no end that I tip over your carefully balanced glass construction of beliefs and desires with facts. So you try to subvert replicable proofs: there is no soul nor measurement of one when a subject dies; there has never been any scientific evidence for spirits of any kind; nor of deities of any kind; nor of the actions of deities as documented in your various 'holy' texts - disproof of which adds up and is PROOF your god does NOT exist. There is, however, proof that the Earth has been here for billions of years, life has been here for billions, land dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, and they sure as shit never saw a single human being, much less the fantasy 'adam'.
    Wow. How amazing. Let's work through it one by one.
    1. I am unaware of any evidence for a soul and believing in one based on faith does not appeal to me.
    2. We do have evidence for spirits, but it is pretty weak evidence and I find it unconvincing.
    3. The primary evidence for a deity lies in a) the existence of the universe b) the apparent fine tuning of fundamental constants. Alternative non-theistic explanations for these exist, so though they constitute evidence, this evidence is merely suggestive.
    4. I don't have any holy texts. so I don't know what you are prattling on about.
    5. I don't have a God. I am not a theist, or a deist.
    6. Since I hold a degree in geology and have been run off more creationist websites than you have had hot dinners please don't waste your time giving me lectures in geology 101. (Although I found it useful for you to confirm that you conflate religion with extreme fundamental Christianity.)

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    You want to believe and you desire to believe.
    Want, Desire, Faith and Belief are incompatible with Science.
    Science is a useful tool for learning about certain aspects of the universe. I know of none none better. Science, however, is not everything. Science, incorrectly applied is capable of blinding people to reality. As evidence for this I submit all of your posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    you don't read fully.
    The FULL sentence is:

    So STOP making the misrepresentation that loads and loads of scientists say religion and science are perfectly compatible, and its only a few malcontents that want to stir up shit saying otherwise.
    I would be your so-called 'malcontent" who is "stirring up shit" in here.

    Your tenant that science and religion do not contact each other and are therefore compatible was refuted with alot better eloquence than I have in the post before your last, by SkinWalker.

    If you want to attempt belittling someone to make their argument look smaller, (i.e. "geology 101") you only make yourself look less capable - at least to the readers who know better. And if you like playing a belittling game, I could lower myself to that with you easily. Wimp.

    In no way am I 'pig ignorant', unless you consider my calculated lack of manners towards those I deem idiots being ignorant of basic politeness. I am aware of basic politeness and use it often; I could not study Karate otherwise, let alone teach it.

    You FAIL to disprove the facts, mentioned by myself in passing, addressed more fully by SkinWalker:
    Interestingly enough, testing the revelation of Christian scripture tests both the validity of the Christian god and the validity of revelation. In Isaiah 17:1 one can read that Damascus is predicted to cease to be a city. Yet, today, it's one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities of the Near East.

    To repeat such a test, one would need only look for special claims about the natural world in biblical mythology (or the mythology and oral history of any other religion) and see if those claims are compatible with science. Claims of zombie messiahs, walking on water, turning people into pillars of salt who look at smote cities, 900,000 people wandering the deserts of the Sinai, yet leaving not a single trace, etc, etc.

    The core elements of religion are not compatible with the core elements of science.
    You also FAIL to provide any conclusive evidence whatsoever on your superstition:
    2. We do have evidence for spirits, but it is pretty weak evidence and I find it unconvincing.
    There is NO evidence for spirits. You are showing yourself to be the one who is weak in science. (Which is no longer a sub-branch of philosophy. Get out of the Renaissance.)

    3. The primary evidence for a deity lies in a) the existence of the universe b) the apparent fine tuning of fundamental constants. Alternative non-theistic explanations for these exist, so though they constitute evidence, this evidence is merely suggestive.
    Your OPINION - based in your religion. This evidence of science (Astronomy, Geology and Physics) is, at worst, no less suggestive than your religion is, and at best, the clear logical and consistent explanation - something your religion and/OR belief of 'god' is NOT.
    FAIL.

    6. Since I have had well over ~ 7500 hot dinners in my lifetime so far, I would like your evidence for being run off of nearly this many creationist websites. FAIL

    You have an opinion of reality, using beliefs you make in the absence of evidence. I use only the facts that are shown, I invent nothing of my own. This is what pisses you and mitch off so much, that I confine myself to facts and what is proven alone.

    In conclusion, while you may be paid to do/teach a branch of science, you clearly FAIL to apply it when you turn your mind to religion, superstition, or your own personal beliefs. Still going to call yourself a scientist then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence, true.
    It is when that evidence should be there. In the absence of the evidence of superstitious claims made by religious cults like Christianity, the lack of evidence is evidence of the absence of their gods.
    Correction, the lack of evidence plus an objective proof that such evidence should exist WOULD prove something.

    It is certainly an issue of disagreement between theists and those particular kind of atheists that insist that their opinions are superior to those who disagree with them, about whether objective evidence for the existence of God should exist. And it is here where those afore-mentioned atheists fail as miserably at distinguishing their subjective opinions from objective fact in the same way as do the fundamentalist Christians.

    In my case, I have VERY good reason for believing that no such objective evidence for the existence of God could possibly exist. Things only have objective evidence because they are a part mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe and that defines what is physical. But God is not a physical entity. God is spirit. God is not a part of the mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe but the creator of that structure. Therefore it is impossible that there could be objective evidence for the existence of God unless He chose to break the laws of physics which He created in order to provide it. In my case, I have VERY good reason for believing that doing such a thing would not be in the best interest of mankind or life in general. So I have VERY good reason for believing that no such objective evidence for the existence of God is going to be found anywhere.
    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  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    The last paragraph is the first time you said anything semi intelligent.

    So your god is outside the universe and outside proof, and therefore outside science. Fine.
    How do you know your god exists, and is not in fact a fantasy you make up then?
    You have just now admitted that you cannot prove your god in any scientific way whatsoever.

    How is your saying you just "know" any different from the escaped lunatic who just "knows" the little pink elephants are hiding under your bed and he has to stab you to death to appease them? (If you look under your bed, well, they will just have run and hidden somewhere.)

    You guys are no different from the fundamental religions - because in the end you support something unprovable and in fact, proven against with contrary facts often enough. (i.e. the universe can exist and man can evolve with no input from any 'higher' being)

    Those of us saying Atheism is correct do it based solely on facts. You declare us to be "fundamentalists" because your god doesn't rest on facts therefore we refuse to see things your way! Give me a frikkin break! We're insistent on facts because that's all there is to go on! If you choose to go on feelings and "special knowledge" it hardly makes us fundamentalists!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    The last paragraph is the first time you said anything semi intelligent.
    Its too bad that you cannot even manage semi-intellegent.


    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    You have just now admitted that you cannot prove your god in any scientific way whatsoever.
    admitted it??? I have repeatedly insisted upon it. But it would take some functionally literacy for you to have noticed that. ...alas...
    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  
     

  39. #38  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    The issue we are endlessly debating is this:

    Are religion and science mutually exclusive?

    I say yes, I give the solid reasons for it that others, much better than myself, like those in your SIGNATURE have given.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    Carl Sagan gives very good reasons for religion to be rejected. (None of which are the dogma mitchianity claims them to be; they are facts.) So why don't you make a tirade against him too, hypocrites? Because he presents the same argument (which I learned from reading him) without the uncaring impatience I have?
    Maybe you forgot. I agree with them that the being theists believe in does not exist. I am an atheist. Uncaring impatience on the same level as you have been displaying you say? I don't think so. If you were to somehow prove that a god cannot exist in a manner that everyone on the planet will believe, you will cause untold mayhem. One day, if we don't kill each other, I hope humankind will be free from religion, but it is definitely not an option at the moment.

    You're being emotional and sensitive. If you were a scientist, then instead of acting like any other religious fool, you would give logical and concrete reasons why religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. Since that's impossible, you appeal to emotions, asking for *special* consideration like any slime-sucking criminal lawyer would. You think you deserve some special consideration and some special respect. You don't.
    Are you a scientist? What field exactly? Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, because they don't necessarily have to provide answers for the same things. Is the creation account in the Bible nonsense? Most definitely. Does that mean a god doesn't exist? No, it does not.


    "Blasphemy Is A Victimless Crime" - Richard Dawkins
    I'd be very surprised if anyone informed who reads these forms has any illusion at all that Richard Dawkins has basically the same attitude I do.
    So here's some advice: since I am really small-fry compared to the fame this guy has, why don't you go use your so-called unbeatable premise and show how very incredibly wrong this argument when advanced by him must be! It would be such an amazing strike of victory for your side of the argument to blow this guy out of the water with the TRUTH of your Mitchianity! Since the "religious fundamentalist club of atheists" (pppffffftHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...sorry, can't help laughing my ass off at the moron every time) already has two members he can be the THIRD!
    I don't happen to like Dawkins' approach much because IMO he does create awareness, but does little else for theists than to piss them off. You are much worse than him, because your justifications suck big time buddy. I don't know what made you such a downtalking blower of his own horn, but I just don't see any use to it at all.


    You guys are such hypocrites it makes my head swim.
    You can detest me for how I put the message across as much as you like.
    But ignoring the message and then trying to twist and pervert it simply because you hate the messenger???
    That's lunacy.
    Ok then.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    How is your saying you just "know" any different from the escaped lunatic who just "knows" the little pink elephants are hiding under your bed and he has to stab you to death to appease them? (If you look under your bed, well, they will just have run and hidden somewhere.)
    What I find so fascinating is how you don't assign the same characteristic your your unsupported beliefs. How is it that you are any less deluded? The theist or deist has evidence that you reject while you point to evidence that simply does not apply to the belief you hold no matter how strongly you want it to be so.

    You guys are no different from the fundamental religions - because in the end you support something unprovable and in fact, proven against with contrary facts often enough. (i.e. the universe can exist and man can evolve with no input from any 'higher' being)
    The fact that you don't see this characteristic in yourself (falsely labeling your beliefs as facts) while those you accuse fully admit that their beliefs are often not supported by evidence you would accept seems strange to me.

    Those of us saying Atheism is correct do it based solely on facts.
    You seem deluded. Belief that there is no creator is not supported by fact. Ophiolite even mentioned some evidence (which you either reject or refuse to consider) that indicates there could be a creator. Meanwhile there appears to be no objective evidence at all that universe self organized or organized solely from energy, matter and space.

    Give me a frikkin break! We're insistent on facts because that's all there is to go on! If you choose to go on feelings and "special knowledge" it hardly makes us fundamentalists!
    Science is not the only source of truth. As an illustration, what facts can demonstrate the accuracy of this statement: "We're insistent on facts because that's all there is to go on" ? If facts are all there is, then since you are unable to support that statement with facts, by your rules, you would have to reject your own statement. Since you don't see that, you are indeed self-deluded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I thought I'd separate this reply from any other so it can stand as a warning.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    The last paragraph is the first time you said anything semi intelligent.
    I don't see how this is appropriate for our forum or helpful. It certainly isn't welcome. Its one thing to voice your disagreement and attack the claims of others. It's quite another to stoop to this level of incivility. While I'm on it, by the time you read this, the word "mitchianity" will be removed from your signature. I noticed it before and didn't actually realize that it was an ad hominem dig on another member.

    Please consider this an official warning to play nice in the sand box. If you continue mitchianity or the sort of ad hominem in the quote above, you may find your account temporarily suspended.

    There is more than enough to attack in an argument without resorting to personal, direct insults.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Wow, I think some of the posters in this thread should take a moment to cool their heads.

    Although I struggle to see why someone who acknowledges the need for the scientific method to get anywhere near approaching some sort of objective truth can simultaneously continue to believe in a God as specified as the one from the Christian Bible. There is a difference between someone accepting the conclusions drawn from science while continuing to believe in a deity and someone who defiantly resists science and believes outright nonsense like young Earth creation. The latter is either ignorant or delusional, but the former at least still has recourse to making assumptions about the unknown. I have more respect for a more Kierkegaardian conception of religious faith that acknowledges its own illogical nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    New post 3/29/10

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Correction, the lack of evidence plus an objective proof that such evidence should exist WOULD prove something.
    This would depend upon how you define "proof." If you're using the mathematical/scientific definition, then it shouldn't be expected at all since "proofs" are only used in the purview of mathematics. If, however, you mean the more colloquial version of "proof" -that process of discovering the truth, then I certainly agree that such a process should create an objective expectation for the existence of such evidence.

    But let me get back to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    It is certainly an issue of disagreement between theists and those particular kind of atheists that insist that their opinions are superior to those who disagree with them, about whether objective evidence for the existence of God should exist. And it is here where those afore-mentioned atheists fail as miserably at distinguishing their subjective opinions from objective fact in the same way as do the fundamentalist Christians.
    Perhaps you're correct. I'm not sure what category I fall into, but I certainly think that there's a objective expectation for evidence of the sort of god claimed by christian doctrine (as well as other religions, like Islam). I think I could easily imagine the sort of god where evidence shouldn't exist for it to be, but this wouldn't be any of the gods described in biblical mythology (and there are several, distinct divine characters mentioned).

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    In my case, I have VERY good reason for believing that no such objective evidence for the existence of God could possibly exist. Things only have objective evidence because they are a part mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe and that defines what is physical. But God is not a physical entity. God is spirit. God is not a part of the mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe but the creator of that structure. Therefore it is impossible that there could be objective evidence for the existence of God unless He chose to break the laws of physics which He created in order to provide it.
    I don't see how the above could apply to the god of Christian mythology. I don't even see how the god you describe above couldn't be expected to be detected and measured by science. Aside from the observation that "is a spirit" is a meaningless statement, how could an agent that is "not a physical entity" interact with that which is physical? Clearly such a being wouldn't be omnipotent, since it couldn't move anything in the universe, which is comprised of physical material. Real stuff. In addition, it couldn't be omniscient since this would imply the necessity of having a one-to-one particle ratio for all knowledge or, at the very least, a means of physically storing information (a brain) or a means of interfacing with our brains, which *are* physical thing. But to truly consider itself "omniscient," a god would need to have the ability to store every single bit of information in the universe in a format that is a real-time representation of not just the knowledge of now but of the past and the future as well. Creating a map of the world accurate to the nearest particle of sand gives us some insight into the barest fraction of complexity that would be involved in such a device or being. Imagine would it would take to know where every grain of sand was relative to every other grain of sand as well as relative to every thing else on the planet. The resolution needed for this is, itself, relatively simple compared to the resolution needed to store every bit of information past, present and future about the universe, yet we are far, far from being able to even imagine such a thing clearly.

    But it's easy to dismiss the complexity by reaching for magical beings that exist "outside space-time" (whatever that means). Yet, when pressed for examples of other things that exist outside "space-time" or how something can be said to "exist outside of space-time," apologists for the wild claim are nearly always silent. Indeed, even if we were to grant that something could exist outside space-time, what good would this thing be? It couldn't interact with things in reality. For, if it could, then at least a part of the thing would exist in space-time, otherwise it couldn't interact with things that exist in reality. It couldn't bring down the walls of small communities of subsistence farmers/pastoralists. It couldn't move the waters of seas. It couldn't burn bushes or rape virgins. It couldn't reward fathers for offering his daughters to rapists by holding off smiting cities until his clear of the fire that couldn't be brought down from the sky.

    The god of biblical mythology is anything but a spirit or incorporeal. It speaks to some, turns others to salt, floods worlds, and stops planetary rotation. If this god isn't a part of the universe, then it's because it doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    In my case, I have VERY good reason for believing that doing such a thing would not be in the best interest of mankind or life in general. So I have VERY good reason for believing that no such objective evidence for the existence of God is going to be found anywhere.
    Like you, I don't believe objective evidence for the existence of any of the thousands of gods man has invented will come to be seen. But, obviously, for very different reasons. There may be a god in the universe, but it isn't one that man has ever known. The god of biblical mythology simply isn't there. And biblical mythology makes claims that this god has had a profound affect in the physical world -in reality. Yet no evidence to support the claims has ever been shown.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    3. The primary evidence for a deity lies in a) the existence of the universe b) the apparent fine tuning of fundamental constants. Alternative non-theistic explanations for these exist, so though they constitute evidence, this evidence is merely suggestive.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Your OPINION - based in your religion. This evidence of science (Astronomy, Geology and Physics) is, at worst, no less suggestive than your religion is, and at best, the clear logical and consistent explanation - something your religion and/OR belief of 'god' is NOT. FAIL.
    Unless something has recently changed in Ophi's life, he doesn't have a religion or a god. Which means he's probably playing devil's advocate in an attempt to provoke you to think. And looking at his quote above, you cannot logically disagree with him. Both of those points are, indeed, the primary evidence for the existence of one or more deities. They aren't good evidences, but they are frequently cited to be. The first suffers from Occam's Razor. If it were necessary and sufficient for a god to exist in order to create a universe, then the next obvious question is who/what created the god. If the answer is "the god was always there," then it stands to reason that the god doesn't exist because its simpler to believe that Cosmos already existed. In fact, there is nothing you can say about first cause that can't also be applied to the cosmos itself.

    The second point assumes that fine-tuning is more than just apparent but actual. It is apparent, but it isn't actual. For all the "fine-tuning" and "order" in the universe, there is far more chaos and environments otherwise not conducive to life. Even where there is life, there exist examples of "poor design" -where things were made badly or inefficiently. Just the sort of thing one might expect from organisms that evolve slowly over time.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If you were to somehow prove that a god cannot exist in a manner that everyone on the planet will believe, you will cause untold mayhem.
    Why? What evidence is there to support this? Even the most dominant religion in the world doesn't comprise a majority. More than 11% of the world's population gets on fine without gods (not counting China). There are no gods now, and people are still generally good. Even if they were to suddenly "know" that gods do not exist, they'd also have to know that if they try to rape the neighbor's daughter, they'll be held accountable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    In my case, I have VERY good reason for believing that no such objective evidence for the existence of God could possibly exist. Things only have objective evidence because they are a part mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe and that defines what is physical. But God is not a physical entity. God is spirit. God is not a part of the mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe but the creator of that structure. Therefore it is impossible that there could be objective evidence for the existence of God unless He chose to break the laws of physics which He created in order to provide it.
    I don't see how the above could apply to the god of Christian mythology. I don't even see how the god you describe above couldn't be expected to be detected and measured by science. Aside from the observation that "is a spirit" is a meaningless statement, how could an agent that is "not a physical entity" interact with that which is physical? Clearly such a being wouldn't be omnipotent, since it couldn't move anything in the universe, which is comprised of physical material. Real stuff. In addition, it couldn't be omniscient since this would imply the necessity of having a one-to-one particle ratio for all knowledge or, at the very least, a means of physically storing information (a brain) or a means of interfacing with our brains, which *are* physical thing. But to truly consider itself "omniscient," a god would need to have the ability to store every single bit of information in the universe in a format that is a real-time representation of not just the knowledge of now but of the past and the future as well. Creating a map of the world accurate to the nearest particle of sand gives us some insight into the barest fraction of complexity that would be involved in such a device or being. Imagine would it would take to know where every grain of sand was relative to every other grain of sand as well as relative to every thing else on the planet. The resolution needed for this is, itself, relatively simple compared to the resolution needed to store every bit of information past, present and future about the universe, yet we are far, far from being able to even imagine such a thing clearly.

    But it's easy to dismiss the complexity by reaching for magical beings that exist "outside space-time" (whatever that means). Yet, when pressed for examples of other things that exist outside "space-time" or how something can be said to "exist outside of space-time," apologists for the wild claim are nearly always silent. Indeed, even if we were to grant that something could exist outside space-time, what good would this thing be? It couldn't interact with things in reality. For, if it could, then at least a part of the thing would exist in space-time, otherwise it couldn't interact with things that exist in reality. It couldn't bring down the walls of small communities of subsistence farmers/pastoralists. It couldn't move the waters of seas. It couldn't burn bushes or rape virgins. It couldn't reward fathers for offering his daughters to rapists by holding off smiting cities until his clear of the fire that couldn't be brought down from the sky.

    The god of biblical mythology is anything but a spirit or incorporeal. It speaks to some, turns others to salt, floods worlds, and stops planetary rotation. If this god isn't a part of the universe, then it's because it doesn't exist.
    SkinWalker,

    Your post reminded me of Casper (the friendly ghost) being able to catch a ball and run through a wall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    ...the god of Christian mythology. I don't even see how the god you describe above couldn't be expected to be detected and measured by science. Aside from the observation that "is a spirit" is a meaningless statement, how could an agent that is "not a physical entity" interact with that which is physical?
    Consensus views the books and traditions as a muddle. I suggest we look to the source of what inspired the "sky daddy" or "God of the gaps". That appears to be the (Ethiopian) god Amen the hidden one or the hidden truth. This became the world's first monotheism, in Egypt, as Amen Ra the hidden god in the sky supreme above all gods, all gods mere expressions of the Amen Ra. No coincidence I think that Hebrews just then carried "their" monotheism out of Egypt, with the twist that writing or speaking their hidden god's name was taboo. So, the original idea (or, revelation) of monotheism does elude empirical detection, by very definition it does: because hidden is what it is.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    ...the god of Christian mythology. I don't even see how the god you describe above couldn't be expected to be detected and measured by science. Aside from the observation that "is a spirit" is a meaningless statement, how could an agent that is "not a physical entity" interact with that which is physical?
    Consensus views the books and traditions as a muddle. I suggest we look to the source of what inspired the "sky daddy" or "God of the gaps". That appears to be the (Ethiopian) god Amen the hidden one or the hidden truth. This became the world's first monotheism, in Egypt, as Amen Ra the hidden god in the sky supreme above all gods, all gods mere expressions of the Amen Ra. No coincidence I think that Hebrews just then carried "their" monotheism out of Egypt, with the twist that writing or speaking their hidden god's name was taboo. So, the original idea (or, revelation) of monotheism does elude empirical detection, by very definition it does: because hidden is what it is.
    Not many serious scholars give any credence to this speculation. And, at best, it is just a speculation. Archaeological and epigraphical evidence in the Near East precludes it as an hypothesis. I'm happy to go into it in more detail and explore the origins of the Israelite cults, but perhaps in another thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Correction, the lack of evidence plus an objective proof that such evidence should exist WOULD prove something.
    This would depend upon how you define "proof." If you're using the mathematical/scientific definition,
    Of course I am. I do not acknowledge anything else as legitimately objective -- everything else is just bluster and rhetoric to support opinions which must be subjective. Human perception is a product of the action of our beliefs upon the raw data of our experiences and the only means that has ever proven effective at going beyond those limitations is the methodology of science that requires written proceedures that get the same result if followed correctly no matter who does it. Thus we have to accept the fact that all of our direct access to reality is subjective and "objective reality" is an abstract construct.



    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    It is certainly an issue of disagreement between theists and those particular kind of atheists that insist that their opinions are superior to those who disagree with them, about whether objective evidence for the existence of God should exist. And it is here where those afore-mentioned atheists fail as miserably at distinguishing their subjective opinions from objective fact in the same way as do the fundamentalist Christians.
    Perhaps you're correct. I'm not sure what category I fall into, but I certainly think that there's a objective expectation for evidence of the sort of god claimed by christian doctrine (as well as other religions, like Islam). I think I could easily imagine the sort of god where evidence shouldn't exist for it to be, but this wouldn't be any of the gods described in biblical mythology (and there are several, distinct divine characters mentioned).
    The majority of people in this world do not understand science. In the vast majority of human activities the closest that people get to logic and rationality is with rhetoric by which they seek to prove the truth of their agenda. This works rather well for politicians, lawyers and used car salesmen -- and of course those in religion as well. Thus it is not all that surprising that so many try to use this same methodology in opposition to science with intellegent design theory and creationist pseudoscience.

    AND failing to understand the distinction it is also no surprise that the majority are also not very careful about the claims they make for the religious things they believe in whether it is yoga or God. They know that it works for them, and ultimately that is really all that is important to them, and they cannot understand why these things should not work for everyone and thus why anyone should not see them as perfectly objective.

    But when we take a step backward and look at religion more objectively it doesn't take much to realize that IF there is any truth to religion at all then it must be purely subjective. Now what you have to do is take another step backwards and realize that this decision of whether there is any truth to religion at all, is just as subjective.

    I can congratulate everyone that has avoided falling into the trap of responding to what I have said by saying "how convenient" -- but I suspect that those that did not say it may still have thought it. The truth is that this would have be a subjective thing to say, because it very much presupposes the truth of your opinions. It is only if you presuppose that there is nothing to this religious stuf that you would say this unavoidable subjectivity is "convenient". The religious in presupposing the truth of their point of view is just as likely to say that it is convenient for the atheists. But I think that the more objective perspective is that this unavoidable subjectivity is actually inconvenient for everyone who would like to impose their opinions about these things on other people.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    In my case, I have VERY good reason for believing that no such objective evidence for the existence of God could possibly exist. Things only have objective evidence because they are a part mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe and that defines what is physical. But God is not a physical entity. God is spirit. God is not a part of the mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe but the creator of that structure. Therefore it is impossible that there could be objective evidence for the existence of God unless He chose to break the laws of physics which He created in order to provide it.
    I don't see how the above could apply to the god of Christian mythology.
    I don't know what this "god of Christian mythology" you are talking about might be, but I know that the God of Christian belief is an omnipresent infinite spritual being. Thus I don't see how what I said could not apply to this God of Christian belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I don't even see how the god you describe above couldn't be expected to be detected and measured by science.
    The very measuring process is all a matter of determing the mathematical relationships of something to the whole. If there are no such mathematical relationships then how could you measure them?

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Aside from the observation that "is a spirit" is a meaningless statement
    There are philosophers that insist that there is no such thing as meaning and so I have absolutely no doubt that you can insist that anything is meaningless if you want to. But I have given a pretty clear definition in my statement above.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    how could an agent that is "not a physical entity" interact with that which is physical?
    Because physical causality is not closed. Regardless of how many people refuse to believe it, the verdict of quantum physics is that physical determinism is dead.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Clearly such a being wouldn't be omnipotent, since it couldn't move anything in the universe, which is comprised of physical material.
    If God created the laws of physics then they do not bind Him. The fact that God chooses to abide by rules which He Himself has created does not make Him any less omnipotent. This is another of those concepts that you can just choose to think is meaningless. But those who do think it is meaningful are obviously not going to think that omnipotence includes that which is logically inconsistent -- though there is some disagreement about what this means. I do not support the idea that omnipotence restricts God so that He cannot in anyway limit Himself - that I do not think is a logically consistent idea of omnipotence.

    I in fact believe that any genuine act of creation of something that is not simply a part of himself like a figment of His own imagination must necessarily be an act of self-limitation. But such acts are an expression of His omnipotence rather than any kind of negation of it. I in fact think that reasoning that this somehow means that God cannot be omnipotent is what is logically inconsistent.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    In addition, it couldn't be omniscient since this would imply the necessity of having a one-to-one particle ratio for all knowledge or, at the very least, a means of physically storing information (a brain) or a means of interfacing with our brains, which *are* physical thing. But to truly consider itself "omniscient," a god would need to have the ability to store every single bit of information in the universe in a format that is a real-time representation of not just the knowledge of now but of the past and the future as well.
    Huh? I would certainly agree that a physical being could not be omnipotent or omniscient. I would think that is rather obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    But it's easy to dismiss the complexity by reaching for magical beings that exist "outside space-time" (whatever that means).
    Sure, but it seems to me that you are doing the same thing when you avoid the complexity of ideas about God by simply dismissing them as meaningless. The simple fact is that one can reject the magical ideas and examine the ideas of religion with the approach a methodological naturalist as I do. And it is rather obvious that religious belief is NOT an obstacle to the pursuit of scientific inquiry either.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Yet, when pressed for examples of other things that exist outside "space-time" or how something can be said to "exist outside of space-time," apologists for the wild claim are nearly always silent.
    Now I am sorry but that is REALLY funny, because that sounds EXACTLY like the talk of theists when they say the same thing about atheists confronted by the questions about how anything could exist at all. To begin with let me ask you how any scientist can take seriously an argument that claims that unanswered questions proves a single damn thing?

    BUT I can tell you right now that I am far from silent in response to this question. I think that everything which exists is a form of energy. The physical universe is itself a form of energy. Spiritual things like the physical universe itself are what they are by the nature of the form which this energy has and not by any relationship to anything outside of itself, except the means by which they came into being in the first place which gave them the form which they have. The physical universe is a highly mathematical structure and physical things are all a part of that structure and it is by being a part of that structure which they existence. But spritual things are not a part of that structure. They are energy with their own form.

    In formal philosophical terms this "energy" is pure potentiality of being which is that by which a thing (any thing) simpy is. It is the ultimate subsance of which all things are composed. This "form" which energy has is that which makes a thing (any thing) what it is. The physical universe has a form which is multi-dimensional and one of its dimensions is that of time and with with respect to that dimension we say that the form of the universe is dynamic, according to which the energy of its parts change from one form to another according to the mathematical laws of space-time structure or form which the physical universe has. But why should we think that this structure is the totality of reality, especially when we know for a fact that it is not in any sense absolute but came into being 13.7 billion years ago?


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Indeed, even if we were to grant that something could exist outside space-time, what good would this thing be? It couldn't interact with things in reality.
    The lack of closure in phyical causality indicates to me that this assumption is not objectively warranted. It is rather a premise which you have chosen to accept in your own effort to understand things. I do not fault you for it. We cannot accomplish anything with rational approach to existence without accepting some premises. But you must understand that others are not required to accept the same premises that you have.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    For, if it could, then at least a part of the thing would exist in space-time, otherwise it couldn't interact with things that exist in reality.
    But that is not correct. This does NOT mean that something has to exist in space-time in order to affect the course of physical events. ALL that it means is that it cannot affect physical events in a way that is verifiable, controllable or subject to manipulation through the use of the laws of physics the way we do in science and technology. It also means that there can never be anything that objectively requires you to believe that such things even exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    It couldn't bring down the walls of small communities of subsistence farmers/pastoralists. It couldn't move the waters of seas.
    On the contrary, things happen in this world which have no physical explanation on the quantum level. But because of non-linearity in the physics which goven things in complex environments far from equillibrium, quantum events can alter the course of events on a macroscopic scale. It can cause people to do things which have effects which they never imagined. It can cause people take advantage of strange events which they expected. But as a methodological naturalist I do expect scientific explanations for events in the world even if science cannot ultimately explain why things happened one way and not another way.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    It couldn't burn bushes or rape virgins. It couldn't reward fathers for offering his daughters to rapists by holding off smiting cities until his clear of the fire that couldn't be brought down from the sky.
    Now you are just appealing to emotionalism. I have no objection to you having emotional reasons for the decisions and choices you make about what you believe, but you should master the ability to suspend such emotionalism and subjectivity to understand that for other people these are going to be different.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    The god of biblical mythology is anything but a spirit or incorporeal. It speaks to some, turns others to salt, floods worlds, and stops planetary rotation. If this god isn't a part of the universe, then it's because it doesn't exist.
    Correction, the God of the Bible most certainly IS spirit, BUT spiritual as Christians understand it definitely does not mean insubstantial, unable to speak to people or unable to affect the course of events in this world. Just look at 1 Cor 15 where it clearly says that the resurrected body is a spiritual body and thus that Jesus came the disciples is a spiritual body which was anything but insubstantial, unable to speak or unable to affect the physical world, but which was quite obviously not bound by the laws of physics.
    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  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    And then you went precisely where I expected you might retreat to: that unfalsifiable bastion of magical wonder called "outside space-time." A concept that really has no meaning in and, therefore, demonstrates my contention that science and religion are not compatible. At all.

    I take no issue to folks like yourself who want to believe in "spirits," "gods" and other superstitious things where it makes you comfortable. But this thread went the direction of whether or not science and religion were compatible and you and I have successfully demonstrated that it most certainly is not. Religion seeks to make claims about the physical world drawing on fantasy, superstition, and otherwise non-falsifiable "truths." Religion starts with a conclusion and only seeks to confirm that conclusion. Science starts with observations and continually revises conclusions with new observation.

    Science doesn't deal with "proofs" in the way math does. We both seem to agree on that. Absolutes in science are all provisional. Absolutes in religion are never provisional.

    You thoroughly responded to my every point in the post above, yet you said nothing of substance. You said a lot from a superstitious / spiritual point of view, but none of it has any bearing on reality. None of it relates one iota to science. You suggest "spiritual beings" that can interact with reality -the physical universe, but refuse to provide any evidence or mechanism by which this could be. To move an object in reality requires a force applied in reality. If such a force is applied, it can be measured and observed. Interestingly enough, all the silly shit biblical mythology claims to be examples of this occurred long ago in the past where no one can observe it. Where are the brimstone showers, global floods, spouses-turned-to-salt, of modern times? If such a god existed, he is surely unemployed. But you said you "know" this god exists and that you "know" that spiritual beings can interact with reality. Yet you refuse to show how you "know."

    I realize that you're equivocating "believe" and "know" in a way incompatible with a scientific definition of "know." So I won't belabor the point.

    I get many of the points you countered with: "goddidit. You can't test god, but he did it." Never mind that if you allow for a single god, you must therefore allow for many gods. If there can be one, why not many?

    But there are a couple points that I didn't get. When I gave examples of what Christian mythology claims its gods have done to interact in reality, you countered with a claim that I was "appealing to emotionalism." I'm not sure I follow. What is your working definition of "emotionalism?" And which emotions, specifically, am I alleged to be appealing to? I'm guessing that you may have misquoted me and intended the counter-point to apply to another passage, but I read through my post and cannot find one that is relevant. Please elucidate if its worth your time.

    Also, you didn't answer my query about what makes a single god more likely or parsimonious an explanation than the universe itself. That is, how can a god be without a cause but not a universe or cosmos?

    Finally, I find it dishonest of you to consider yourself a methodological naturalist when you so easily and cheaply retreat to goddidit for things you cannot explain. At best, however, I will concede that you are a part-time methodological naturalist. As long as it suits you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    But this thread went the direction of whether or not science and religion were compatible and you and I have successfully demonstrated that it most certainly is not.
    I don't think that's the case because you are not really talking about the core elements of science as you claim, you are conflating the epistemological structure of the scientific approach, which is incompatible with religion by its own definition, with science as a body of knowledge, which is unavoidably interpretative as an explanation for natural phenomenon. While the scientific approach demands that these interpretations be consistent with the scientific approach with no exceptions, they are still interpretations.

    The scientific approach and the knowledge produced by that approach must neccesarily be considered seperately because they are derived by different means; the former by making a set of assumptions to establish what can and cannot be considered an accurate representation of nature, the latter by the interpretation of appropriate evidence in a manner which is consistent with those assumptions.

    There is no need to offer evidence to show that the core elements, which is to say the presuppostions, of religion and science are incompatible because that is the case by the very definition of the scientific approach.

    So any compatibility of religion with science as a body of knowledge depends on the interpretations made by both religion and science. While the epistemology of science doesn't allow knowledge to be interpreted such that it is consitent with religion, religious knowledge can in many cases be interpreted so that it is compatible with scientific kowledge.

    Whether science as a body of knowledge is compatible with religion therefore depends on how the religious choose to interpret their own scripture.

    I would agree with you insofar as to say that it is entirely up to the religious to alter their interpretations to achieve any compatibility. Science is and absolutely should be completely inflexible on this point. But your apparent assertion that science and religion are absolutely incompatible is most definitley an appeal to emotionalism - this is simply the way you want it to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    First, let me remind you that in an earlier post, I pointed out there are loci of compatibility between science and religion. Both would agree, for instance, that food is necessary for human survival. So I'm not saying that religion and science are absolutely incompatible.

    I am, however, saying that science and religion are incompatible in general. Some religions include manna as food, for instance. No nutritional scientist would think to include such a thing in a balanced menu.

    I also disagree with you that the core elements of science and religion shouldn't be considered. These are the ways in which both of these human constructs purport to obtain knowledge. When you get far enough away from the core elements of either, the elements that get introduced are the human elements. Bias and poor critical thinking gets introduced into scientific inquiry; common sense and rational thought gets introduced into religious dogma.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I am, however, saying that science and religion are incompatible in general. Some religions include manna as food, for instance. No nutritional scientist would think to include such a thing in a balanced menu.
    But religion has little in the way of coherent epistemology, so what is to stop a believer from considering this a form of allegory from which meaning or insight may be extracted, rather than considering it to be a naturalistic claim? The generalisation you are making depends on a literal reading of religious texts and is thus an unfair generalisation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I also disagree with you that the core elements of science and religion shouldn't be considered. These are the ways in which both of these human constructs purport to obtain knowledge. When you get far enough away from the core elements of either, the elements that get introduced are the human elements. Bias and poor critical thinking gets introduced into scientific inquiry; common sense and rational thought gets introduced into religious dogma.
    This is merely a question of personal discipline. If you're saying that religious scientists are more prone to bias and poor critical thinking i'm sure there must be some studies available.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    the source of what inspired the "sky daddy" or "God of the gaps". That appears to be the (Ethiopian) god Amen the hidden one or the hidden truth...
    Not many serious scholars give any credence to this speculation.
    True.

    More off topic... have you never eaten manna? I know it as the sugary secretions of plants, when their sap is running. It beads up and hardens like amber, then you may collect the manna by brushing it off the leaves. Tasty. Not all plants and trees are edible but most manna is.

    I'd speculate the Exodus manna was sweet aphids, or combination of the sap and aphids. Why it spoiled after some time. Oh gross what nonsense people eating insects, right?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    And then you went precisely where I expected you might retreat to: that unfalsifiable bastion of magical wonder called "outside space-time." A concept that really has no meaning in and, therefore, demonstrates my contention that science and religion are not compatible. At all.
    On the contrary, it is obvious that they most certainly are compatable because religious people do science. They are as compatable as any activities that are defined by different rules. Just because a person plays chess does not mean that he cannot play monopoly. All it requires is sufficient mental ability to keep straight which rules go with which activity. To say that they are incompatable because you cannot play one with the rules of the other is just innane because same is true of any two activities. In other words, NO DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHING ELSE, they are compatable when you clearly understand difference between them.

    BUT, of COURSE, if you don't understand that difference and treat science like it some kind of religion and use no other methodology than rhetoric to support your religion of scientism, then compatability has vanished. Likewise if you treat your religion like it is some kind of science, like in the pseudo-scientific activities of creationism, again using the rhetoric and calling it science, then the compatability is gone. In both cases, science is the victim in the sense that in these people have deluded themselves and it has become a lie, because science is the one defined by specific methodology and all you have at most is people doing some form of religion. It is science which takes discipline and training, but religion never dies because that man does by his very nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    You thoroughly responded to my every point in the post above, yet you said nothing of substance.
    Which is nothing more that the usual standoff between the atheist and the religious person. The religious person sees significance in things which the atheist does not.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    None of it relates one iota to science. You suggest "spiritual beings" that can interact with reality -the physical universe, but refuse to provide any evidence or mechanism by which this could be. To move an object in reality requires a force applied in reality. If such a force is applied, it can be measured and observed.
    All of which boils down to the rather empty assertion that religion is not modern science. But most of the things that human beings do and know is not modern science.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    But you said you "know" this god exists and that you "know" that spiritual beings can interact with reality. Yet you refuse to show how you "know."
    Sure I have, but you are not interested because the answer to these are necessarily subjective and do not conform to the criterion of science. They are in conflict which what your premises dictate is only what science studies is real. But I don't accept your premises. I don't accept your view of reality. And so I certainly not going to show you how I know within the criterion dictated by your premises and view of reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    But there are a couple points that I didn't get. When I gave examples of what Christian mythology claims its gods have done to interact in reality, you countered with a claim that I was "appealing to emotionalism." I'm not sure I follow. What is your working definition of "emotionalism?" And which emotions, specifically, am I alleged to be appealing to? I'm guessing that you may have misquoted me and intended the counter-point to apply to another passage, but I read through my post and cannot find one that is relevant. Please elucidate if its worth your time.
    No there was no misquote. There is more emoitonalism in your response as well. But I can see how you are blind to it, and so I very much doubt that I can make you see something when you insist that what is right there for everyone to see does not exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Also, you didn't answer my query about what makes a single god more likely or parsimonious an explanation than the universe itself. That is, how can a god be without a cause but not a universe or cosmos?
    Why should I? If I were the one trying to claim that my worldview were superior to yours then I might see the point of such a demand. But I am not. Are you again trying to go with the argument that an unanswered question somehow proves something?
    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  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    And then you went precisely where I expected you might retreat to: that unfalsifiable bastion of magical wonder called "outside space-time." A concept that really has no meaning in and, therefore, demonstrates my contention that science and religion are not compatible. At all.
    On the contrary, it is obvious that they most certainly are compatable because religious people do science. They are as compatable as any activities that are defined by different rules. Just person plays chess does not mean that he cannot play monopoly.
    Except the one doesn't invoke the rules of monopoly during a chess match. They games are incompatible. And, like I already indicated previously, this is the main point. The people -the players in your game metaphor- can easily participate in one or the other. But, when it comes to deciding which game you want to play, you eventually must compartmentalize one set of rules over the other. There may be some similarities: both games have moving pieces, both have a game board, similar colors, etc. But the incompatibilities overshadow the similarities. You'll not be using a pewter shoe on the chess board or castling your boardwalk and park place. If you believe in zombie messiahs and that invisible agents speak to murdering, genocidal misogynists; then you can't exactly apply these tenants to biology or physical anthropology and call it science.

    Science and religion are, in general, incompatible. Those who make an attempt to embrace both as "truths" must, eventually, lie to themselves about how the universe works.

    Note: I'm referring to religion -organized, dogmatic superstition that surrounds a belief in supernatural agency. Not the deistic or pantheistic approach that many who believe that there is something "bigger" than them "out there" which could be a god. I'm talking about those superstitions that surround specific gods like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Ptah-worship, [insert volcano god]-worship, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker

    Science and religion are, in general, incompatible. Those who make an attempt to embrace both as "truths" must, eventually, lie to themselves about how the universe works.

    Note: I'm referring to religion -organized, dogmatic superstition that surrounds a belief in supernatural agency. Not the deistic or pantheistic approach that many who believe that there is something "bigger" than them "out there" which could be a god.
    In that case it would seem more correct of you to state your opinion in this way: that science and religion can in general be compatible, except in the case of certain dogmatic superstitions that you find contradictory to your particular understanding of natural processes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Were there a religion that did not necessarily include superstition, I might, indeed, state it that way. However, religion, as defined earlier in the thread, necessarily includes superstition in the form of appeals to supernatural agency. Without these appeals, it isn't religion. Furthermore, even the various cults of Christianity rely on certain specific superstitious dogma that must be believed in order for one to be considered a member of the cult. Believing in these superstitions requires a suspension of reason and acceptance of science.

    Therefore, science and religion are, in general, incompatible. Except in certain cases where those who claim to be religious are willing to compartmentalize their beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Because you have carefully defined "religion" you have a very specific case not a general case. It's a good way to save face skinwalker, nice dodge.

    No, due to your exclusions, you have shown that for specific cases, science is incompatible with the certain forms of religions that you have narrowly defined. Furthermore you have chosen to define even those religions according to your opinions of them, ascribing beliefs to them that you have also narrowly defined.

    You have not shown that in the general case, religion and sciences are incompatible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Dodge? Not at all. You're, perhaps, projecting your own debate style here.

    In any discourse, conversation or debate, its important to first provide definitions for terms, particularly those terms that might suffer from equivocation, colloquial mistake, etc.

    Understanding that "religion" and "religious" can be many things to many people, I started out by defining it. I received no objection to the definition. Perhaps you'll go back a page or two and review. Then offer criticism. I think you'll find that I've done anything but create a "narrow" definition.

    And I have shown that science and religion are incompatible. But I'm open to revise this conclusion. Simply show me how science and religion are generally compatible. Show me where someone can believe 100% that both are genuine, true, or real. Without sacrificing, compartmentalizing, or otherwise ignoring the tenants of one over the other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Simply show me how science and religion are generally compatible. Show me where someone can believe 100% that both are genuine, true, or real. Without sacrificing, compartmentalizing, or otherwise ignoring the tenants of one over the other.
    LOL

    Ah well we are talking about different things here now.

    On that level there are incompatabilities even within science as one scientist holds to a different theory about something than another scientist.

    Yes there are conflicts and yes there are beliefs in religion which are incompatable with science. But I think this is just smoke you are blowing up to hide the real question which is whether they are capable of being compatable.

    That they are capable of being compatable is undeniable. Christianity did not prevent the creation of modern science and Christian belief does not prevent people from being scientists.

    Science is NOT a life choice. That is absurd. It is a tool and a skill that is a product of training. You are confusing your personal religion of scientism with science itself. Science is a specialized activity NOT a way of life. That is an impossiblity. But YES it is an activity where you do have to leave your religion at the door to a very large degree. But so what?

    Using this argument that when playing chess you need to leave the monopoly rule book out of it, as some kind of argument that people who like to play both chess and monopoly are not honestly playing either is the first time I have heard the irrational attitudes of the fundamentalist in the context of playing board games.

    Frankly I don't think this fundamentalist attitude belongs in the work of science at all. It is just as much an invasion of science as creationism. It replaces the neutrality of the scientific method with the method of rhetoric and thereby makes it something which isn't science anymore. The atheist needs to leave his religious opinions at the door just as much as any Christian, and maybe if the environment in which Einstein did his work had that neutrality then he might not have made what he calls the biggest mistake of his career.
    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  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Dodge? Not at all. You're, perhaps, projecting your own debate style here.

    In any discourse, conversation or debate, its important to first provide definitions for terms, particularly those terms that might suffer from equivocation, colloquial mistake, etc.

    Understanding that "religion" and "religious" can be many things to many people, I started out by defining it. I received no objection to the definition. Perhaps you'll go back a page or two and review. Then offer criticism. I think you'll find that I've done anything but create a "narrow" definition.
    I have read the entire thread and I disagree. You have been narrow in your definition and opinionated in your stereotype of these religious groups.

    And I have shown that science and religion are incompatible. But I'm open to revise this conclusion. Simply show me how science and religion are generally compatible. Show me where someone can believe 100% that both are genuine, true, or real. Without sacrificing, compartmentalizing, or otherwise ignoring the tenants of one over the other.
    Others here already have at one level, though now, as Mitchel has noted, you have moved the goal post. Even then, you seem to have carefully isolated your view from these demonstrations. You are even aware of these situations as is clear from the references to exceptions you noted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch
    Ah well we are talking about different things here now.

    On that level there are incompatabilities even within science as one scientist holds to a different theory about something than another scientist.
    We're not at all. I think you'd like to make the case that we are, but the reality is we're talking the very same thing. In general, science and religion are incompatible due to their core elements. You'd like to redirect this charge by mischaracterizing science as a religion, creating two seperate logical fallacies as you go. The strawman is an obvious way to go when losing an argument, recreate a new argument that is, at least in your mind, easier to defend or defeat. In this case you've also committed the tu quoque since by acknowledging that there is something wrong with a religious perspective, at least to the degree that it includes adherence to dogmatic belief and superstition. Since the fallacious nature of this argument falls short of its ability to provide adequate rejoinder to the discussion, I'll get back to the main topic of the last few pages.

    To further demonstrate my point that religion and science are incompatible, we need only closely at the nature of religion. If we look at other human claims of "truth" that are incompatible with science we see some trends. We generally call these things pseudoscience: homeopathy, astrology, ufology, etc. I'll borrow from Alan Sokal's definition of pseudoscience (2010: 266):

    (a) It makes assertions about real or alleged phenomena and/or real or alleged causal relations that mainstgream science justifiably considers to be utterly implausible.

    (b) It attempts to support these assertions through types of argumentation or evidence that fall far short of the logical and evidentiary standards of mainstream science.

    (c) Most often (though not always), pseudoscience claims to be scientific, and even

    (c') claims to relate its assertions to genuine science, particularly cutting-edge scientific discoveries.

    (d) It involves not a single isolated belief, but rather a complex and logically coherent system that "explains" a wide variety of phenomena (or alleged phenomena).

    (e) Practitioners undergo en extensive process of training and credentialing.

    I used Sokal's own letter designations above, since later he states this (p. 349).

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Sokal
    Items (a), (b), (d) and (e) describe the traditional religions so perfectly that it hardly needs further explanation. Items (c) and (c') are less common inthe traditional religions, but are becoming increasingly frequent in recent years among the more sophisticated advocates of religious ideas.
    If relgion can so easily be characterized (and I don't see how it's a mischaracterization) as pseudoscience, how can it possibly be compatible with science?

    I get why you're defending religion. And I get the ad hominem digs where you accuse me of succombing to "emotionalism" and having a "personal religion of scientism" (a designation that appears to be invented of whole cloth, but one that certainly hasn't been defined and demonstrated and, therefore, ad hominem rhetoric from a losing argument). Religion is something you've invested a lot of time and emotion in and it must be uncomfortable seeing your superstitions so casually and deftly tossed about. But they are incompatible with science and scientific discovery. Religion is something to be studied by science, but there is no reason to embrace it as a means of discovery in itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I have read the entire thread and I disagree. You have been narrow in your definition and opinionated in your stereotype of these religious groups.
    If course you disagree. You just refuse to elucidate or contribute to the discussion. Please feel free to offer a better definition of religion than I've already cited, but let it be one of more equal utility. The definition I've used is certainly not "narrow" -it's broad enough to include all the major religious superstitions and cults from Christianity to Islam to Hinduism as well as minor cults that worship volcano gods and rain-gods. It covers nearly every major and minor cult in the history and prehistory of humanity. I fail to see how it can be considered "narrow." As far as "opinionated," that too is diffult to understand without a counter-definition.

    I said religion can be defined as a social system whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.Admittedly, I borrowed this from Daniel Dennett (2001: 9), one of the so-called "four horsemen" of the New Atheists, but I've yet to see this definition be called into question by scholars for anything other than excluding certain sects of Buddhism from being considered a "religion." If you have a better defition, please offer it rather than simply saying you disagree and calling me "narrow" and "opinionated."

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Others here already have at one level, though now, as Mitchel has noted, you have moved the goal post. Even then, you seem to have carefully isolated your view from these demonstrations. You are even aware of these situations as is clear from the references to exceptions you noted
    They haven't and no goal post has been moved. I very clearly entered the discussion with a clear, concise definition of religion and concluded with "[t]he core elements of religion are not compatible with the core elements of science." If anything, I've broadened my conclusion by later stating that "in general, religion and science are not compatible."

    Finally, where, specifically have I stereotyped a religion? This is a possibility I concede to but cannot recall doing intentionally. I'm happy to review and revise any stereotypical characterization if you'll point it out.

    References:

    Dennett, Daniel (2006). Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Penguin

    Sokal, Alan (2010). Beyond the Hoax: Science Philosophy and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Keep beating your head against the wall, Skin. People believe that dinosaurs existed alongside "adam" and nothing you say will ever teach them otherwise. The case with mitch's particular self-defined religion: mitchianity is the same thing. He will never ever admit to facts that counter his beliefs, no matter how solid they are. He will deny to his last breath.

    Waste your time if you like. It is the same case with those creationists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Keep beating your head against the wall, Skin. People believe that dinosaurs existed alongside "adam" and nothing you say will ever teach them otherwise. The case with mitch's particular self-defined religion: mitchianity is the same thing. He will never ever admit to facts that counter his beliefs, no matter how solid they are. He will deny to his last breath.

    Waste your time if you like. It is the same case with those creationists.
    Except that I don't think Mitch or even cypress *do* believe that. Nor do I think I'm "beating my head against the wall" as it were. In fact, I have a fair amount of respect for both Mitch and cypress as well as other friends who don't think as I in terms of religion and science. I readily concede that I may be wrong and I'm also ready to revise my position if demonstrated so. I might not revise fully to their position(s), but I *am* willing to look at my own beliefs. I say this knowing that, in hindsight, my beliefs have continued to change over the course of the last 10, 20, and 30 years. I once accepted without question that not only did a god exist, but that it was the Christian God of the bible. I never once questioned that in my youth and quickly put such thoughts out of my head when they entered. It wasn't until well into my adulthood that I began to question the religious indoctrinations of my culture. I didn't come from a religious family, so perhaps this was easier for me than others.

    But I've always been willing to accept new conclusions based on new data. And I've learned that it isn't what a person believes about religion that defines their humanity. It's what they believe about themselves and others. I suspect this is one of the things that separates you and I. We may both be atheists, but I still define myself as a humanist -caring about the state of my fellow human, respecting their cultural norms. Even if I disagree.

    I may refer to these norms as superstitions and their religions as cults, but for me this is neutral jargon. I don't refer to them as "idiots" or "pansies" or "jackass." If I used labels like "deluded" or "delusion," I nearly always qualify what I mean by it and precisely why -all the while ready to apply the label to myself where it fits.

    I'm not pretending my words don't insult religionists. I'm sure they do. But I don't seek to belittle the individual nor do I have personal discontent for the individual the way you seem to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Keep beating your head against the wall, Skin. People believe that dinosaurs existed alongside "adam" and nothing you say will ever teach them otherwise. The case with mitch's particular self-defined religion: mitchianity is the same thing. He will never ever admit to facts that counter his beliefs, no matter how solid they are. He will deny to his last breath.

    Waste your time if you like. It is the same case with those creationists.
    You poor guy. You think you know people? You think you know yourself? Think again. You think pointing your finger at people and yelling: "You idiots!" has ANY value or use whatsoever other than to feed your failing ego? It has none. You are simply stopping yourself from understanding those around you and yourself. Facts are NOT all that matters. We are humans, not robots. Religion is more than an invention by fools to make them feel better. It is a window into how we ALL work, if you know how to look.

    You have looked at the facts and have decided that a god does not exist. I agree fully with you on that point. But shutting yourself off from anything you might associate with religion is a mistake.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    SkinWalker,

    You don't even come close to addressing my objections. You simply ignore them. So leaving out the irrelevant bluster and getting to the crux of your new "argument":

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    To further demonstrate my point that religion and science are incompatible, we need only closely at the nature of religion. If we look at other human claims of "truth" that are incompatible with science we see some trends. We generally call these things pseudoscience: homeopathy, astrology, ufology, etc. I'll borrow from Alan Sokal's definition of pseudoscience (2010: 266):

    (a) It makes assertions about real or alleged phenomena and/or real or alleged causal relations that mainstgream science justifiably considers to be utterly implausible.

    (b) It attempts to support these assertions through types of argumentation or evidence that fall far short of the logical and evidentiary standards of mainstream science.

    (c) Most often (though not always), pseudoscience claims to be scientific, and even

    (c') claims to relate its assertions to genuine science, particularly cutting-edge scientific discoveries.

    (d) It involves not a single isolated belief, but rather a complex and logically coherent system that "explains" a wide variety of phenomena (or alleged phenomena).

    (e) Practitioners undergo en extensive process of training and credentialing.

    I used Sokal's own letter designations above, since later he states this (p. 349).

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Sokal
    Items (a), (b), (d) and (e) describe the traditional religions so perfectly that it hardly needs further explanation. Items (c) and (c') are less common inthe traditional religions, but are becoming increasingly frequent in recent years among the more sophisticated advocates of religious ideas.
    If relgion can so easily be characterized (and I don't see how it's a mischaracterization) as pseudoscience, how can it possibly be compatible with science?
    All this really says is that not of these are science in the modern sense. And if they do claim claim to be science in that sense as in your item c then this claim is false and in that sense would be "false science" or pseudo-science. But as you have even indicated above there is absolutely nothing necessary about item c in any these activities. If one understands what modern science is then one does not claim that these activites are science. And then frankly your "argument" goes up in smoke (i.e. your rhetoric is revealed to be the insubstantial smoke and strawman that it really is).

    SO I SIMPLY REPEAT

    That religion is capable of being compatable with science is undeniable. Christianity did not prevent the creation of modern science and Christian belief does not prevent people from being scientists.

    Science is NOT a life choice. That is absurd. It is a tool and a skill that is a product of training. Science is a specialized activity NOT a way of life. That is not even a possiblity. But YES it is an activity where you do have to leave your religion at the door to a very large degree. But so what?

    Using this argument that when playing chess you need to leave the monopoly rule book out of it, as some kind of argument that people who like to play both chess and monopoly are not honestly playing either one of them is the first time I have heard the irrational attitudes of the fundamentalist in the context of playing board games.

    Frankly I don't think this fundamentalist attitude belongs in the work of science at all. It is just as much an invasion of science as creationism. It replaces the neutrality of the scientific method with the method of rhetoric and thereby makes it something which isn't science anymore. The atheist needs to leave his religious opinions at the door just as much as any Christian, and maybe if the environment in which Einstein did his work had that neutrality then he might not have made what he calls the biggest mistake of his career.
    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  
     

  66. #65  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    SO I SIMPLY REPEAT

    That religion is capable of being compatable with science is undeniable. Christianity did not prevent the creation of modern science and Christian belief does not prevent people from being scientists.
    I actually DO deny this, so consequently it is NOT undeniable. Unless I'm mistaken, SW has been clear that he is talking about the core tenets of both religion and science, and in that case has made a simple and clear demonstration of the validity of his point.

    The validity of his point does not suddenly vanish due merely to you broadening the term religion and science in such a way as to render understanding of either useless.

    Further, it's a total red herring to suggest that merely because two topics are incompatible that they are mutually exclusive. That's not the case at all, and yet you've positioned your argument to suggest SkinWalker's case is without merit due to the fact that "Christianity didn't prevent people from doing science."

    Repeating an already invalid point without putting forth any new facts or points doesn't suddenly make it any more valid than when you said it the first time, mitchellmckain. I also note your continued use of slanderous label and personal comments toward your discussion partner, using them in lieu of a focus on the material or logic of the argument itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    SO I SIMPLY REPEAT

    That religion is capable of being compatable with science is undeniable. Christianity did not prevent the creation of modern science and Christian belief does not prevent people from being scientists.
    I actually DO deny this, so consequently it is NOT undeniable. Unless I'm mistaken, SW has been clear that he is talking about the core tenets of both religion and science, and in that case has made a simple and clear demonstration of the validity of his point.
    First off you are misusing the meaning of undeniable. Just because the thoroughly deluded deny something does not make it deniable. SW has been clear in his narrow definitions however he also ignores this reality and the objections raised to it.

    The validity of his point does not suddenly vanish due merely to you broadening the term religion and science in such a way as to render understanding of either useless.
    Most here accept his point in the narrow case. But he then tries to generalize the conclusion, and his general statement is simply unsupported and wrong as demonstrated by the clear objections he seems unwilling to address.

    Further, it's a total red herring to suggest that merely because two topics are incompatible that they are mutually exclusive. That's not the case at all, and yet you've positioned your argument to suggest SkinWalker's case is without merit due to the fact that "Christianity didn't prevent people from doing science."
    Actually mitchell used several corroborating points to demonstrate argument. You are being coy to bring up what is perhaps the weakest one of many and twist the argument to say something different than what Mitchell said to boot.

    Repeating an already invalid point without putting forth any new facts or points doesn't suddenly make it any more valid than when you said it the first time, mitchellmckain. I also note your continued use of slanderous label and personal comments toward your discussion partner, using them in lieu of a focus on the material or logic of the argument itself.
    Except that Mitchell's point as he described it (as contrasted from you alteration of it) it is not invalid, you simply do not wish to consider it as he positioned it.

    Finally Inow, you should be one to talk about attitudes towards people on the other end of an argument. If we were to tally up your slanders, I am quite sure they would outnumber Mitchell's 20 to one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    First off you are misusing the meaning of undeniable.
    UN-Deniable = Not able to be denied. I denied it. My meaning was just fine, thank you.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Just because the thoroughly deluded deny something does not make it deniable.
    You have here now instead of presenting an argument chosen to cast mine aside as coming from a person who is thoroughly deluded. Not only does such an approach suffer from the tu quoque fallacy, but it also shows your position is one where you merely poison the well with unsupported claims in hopes that nobody will notice.

    If you can present an argument not laden with logical fallacies and personal comments, then please do so. Until then, I request that you avoid such irrelevant personal comments as we move forward.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    SW has been clear in his narrow definitions however he also ignores this reality and the objections raised to it.
    As previously explained by SW himself, his definition was anything but narrow. Your continued desire to cast it aside as such suggests that you are either failing to comprehend his point or are intentionally misrepresenting it.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    his general statement is simply unsupported and wrong
    You have failed to demonstrate where or how. You have repeatedly simply labeled it as wrong and unsupported, as opposed to sufficiently demonstrating it as such.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Further, it's a total red herring to suggest that merely because two topics are incompatible that they are mutually exclusive. That's not the case at all, and yet you've positioned your argument to suggest SkinWalker's case is without merit due to the fact that "Christianity didn't prevent people from doing science."
    Actually mitchell used several corroborating points to demonstrate argument.
    And yet what he presented is still a red herring and irrelevant to the point.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You are being coy to bring up what is perhaps the weakest one of many and twist the argument to say something different than what Mitchell said to boot.
    I think readers can plainly see that I quoted Mitchell accurately. I shared both his quote and my own summary of it. There was no twisting or changing of his point. Again, I am left only to conclude that you are either failing at basic comprehension or intentionally misrepresenting the posts of others.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Except that Mitchell's point as he described it (as contrasted from you alteration of it) it is not invalid, you simply do not wish to consider it as he positioned it.
    Again, from my perspective, the point was not altered, and you simply saying it's "not invalid" does not make it so. I welcome an argument from you which demonstrates its validity, but ask that you stop trying to guess at my motivations and I ask that you stop making your comments personal in nature instead of focusing directly on the subject matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Finally Inow, you should be one to talk about attitudes towards people on the other end of an argument. If we were to tally up your slanders, I am quite sure they would outnumber Mitchell's 20 to one.
    Again, do you have anything beside personal comments and attempts at evasion to support your argument? I find comments and petty distractions such as these above rather a waste of time, and not to mention wholly unconvincing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    SkinWalker,

    You don't even come close to addressing my objections. You simply ignore them. So leaving out the irrelevant bluster and getting to the crux of your new "argument":
    I think I did. But, in the interest of furthering the discussion, I ask that you summarize these objections.

    All this really says is that not of these are science in the modern sense.
    What they say is that religion, as it applies to billions of people (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism) is as pseudoscientific as astrology, ufology, and homoapathy. If this is so, and, so far, it appears to be the case, then religion is incopatible with science.

    But this is but another example of that incompatibility.

    That religion is capable of being compatable with science is undeniable.
    Why is it "undeniable?" Undeniable by whom? I'm denying it. Moreover, I've adequately demonstrated it and you've failed/refused to refute it. Unless your refutation is in these mystery objections. And, if these objections are the "god is a spirit" bullshit, you might as well hold them for your own private enjoyment since these sorts of objections only strengthen my argument. Since "spirits" appear to exist only in the imaginations and speculations of those that fancy the term, and are without scientific evidence, they are not compatible with science.

    Christianity did not prevent the creation of modern science and Christian belief does not prevent people from being scientists.
    Christianity did not prevent the creation of many things. This is an empty argument.

    Science is NOT a life choice.
    I'm not sure this would be a confidence statement I'd make, but I have no investment in it one way or the other. It's the second time you've made this statement, yet I'm not making a claim that it is. So I'm not sure where you're going with it.

    That is absurd. It is a tool and a skill that is a product of training. Science is a specialized activity NOT a way of life. That is not even a possiblity. But YES it is an activity where you do have to leave your religion at the door to a very large degree. But so what?
    Again, it looks like you're arguing my point rather than yours. You do realize that I'm saying that science and religion are not compatible, right? That appears to be what you're saying above as well. Science is a way of explaining the universe and, in many ways, providing for us better ways to live (medicine, technology, etc.). Religion is a "way" of explaining the universe and, in many ways, providing for us ways (purported to be better than not) to live.

    Using this argument that when playing chess you need to leave the monopoly rule book out of it, as some kind of argument that people who like to play both chess and monopoly are not honestly playing either one of them is the first time I have heard the irrational attitudes of the fundamentalist in the context of playing board games.
    You're right, ultimately the analogy doesn't work. Board games are not human institutions constructed with a purpose of explaining the universe. I concede that one cannot compare board games to science and religion.

    Frankly I don't think this fundamentalist attitude belongs in the work of science at all.
    "Fundamentalist" implies that one is seeking to restore Christian dogmatic beliefs back to the "fundamentals" of Christian cult doctrine. Namely:
    The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
    • The virgin birth of Christ.
    • The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
    • The bodily resurrection of Christ.
    • The historical reality of Christ's miracles.


    I think you have me confused with someone else. Or, at least, you've not defined what you mean by "fundamentalist" in the context above. Is this another tu quoque?

    The atheist needs to leave his religious opinions at the door just as much as any Christian
    You'll get no disagreement with me here. Religious opinions simply have no meaning when it comes to observing and explaining the universe so there's no reason to give them a second thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    First off you are misusing the meaning of undeniable. Just because the thoroughly deluded deny something does not make it deniable. SW has been clear in his narrow definitions however he also ignores this reality and the objections raised to it.
    Please specify just who it is that is "thoroughly deluded" and demonstrate what, specifically, the delusion(s) is(are) and how they determined to be delusions.

    In addition, I'd still like clarification on how you're characterizing my definitions as "narrow" as well as how this unfairly impacts the discussion. You've made this statement more than once and its looking more and more like an ad hominem dig rather than an actual criticism. Certainly the definition I use for religion, for instance, is narrow when compared to definitions that include all human endeavors that are done obsessively, such as baseball and sex. But the definition is sufficiently broad enough to include all the major religions of the world, populated by billions of adherents. So you use of the term "narrow" for the purposes of the discussion doesn't seem to work.

    Most here accept his point in the narrow case. But he then tries to generalize the conclusion, and his general statement is simply unsupported and wrong as demonstrated by the clear objections he seems unwilling to address.
    You're saying that, but you're not backing it with any substance. The conclusion is necessarily general. And it is completely supported by the arguments and premises I've provided. And not a single valid objection has been raised. At any rate, I've asked Mitch for a summary of his objections in the even that I've overlooked something. If, however, you had something specific in mind, I don't see why you're reluctant to quote or cite it.

    Actually mitchell used several corroborating points to demonstrate argument.
    Like...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker


    The atheist needs to leave his religious opinions at the door just as much as any Christian
    You'll get no disagreement with me here. Religious opinions simply have no meaning when it comes to observing and explaining the universe so there's no reason to give them a second thought.
    Just for clarification, you would then by your own argument be happy to concede that atheism is no more compatible with science than is religion, in general?
    Science remains aloof, and no sub-culture or group has any special claim to ownership of it?
    Maybe you could go as far as to say that science needs to be protected from cultural attachment of any description.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by CMR80606
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker


    The atheist needs to leave his religious opinions at the door just as much as any Christian
    You'll get no disagreement with me here. Religious opinions simply have no meaning when it comes to observing and explaining the universe so there's no reason to give them a second thought.
    Just for clarification, you would then by your own argument be happy to concede that atheism is no more compatible with science than is religion, in general?
    Science remains aloof, and no sub-culture or group has any special claim to ownership of it?
    Maybe you could go as far as to say that science needs to be protected from cultural attachment of any description.
    Adequate education and application of science and scientific methods naturally leads to atheism if the individual is intellectually honest. So I would not state that atheism and science are necessarily incompatible. But, then, atheism isn't a method of describing the universe. It is merely a label, originally intended to be pejorative, applied to those who have a lack of belief in supernatural agency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    First off you are misusing the meaning of undeniable. Just because the thoroughly deluded deny something does not make it deniable. SW has been clear in his narrow definitions however he also ignores this reality and the objections raised to it.
    Please specify just who it is that is "thoroughly deluded" and demonstrate what, specifically, the delusion(s) is(are) and how they determined to be delusions.
    This is a general characteristic of people who are deluded, that is to deny the obvious. I didn't pin it on any particular individual.

    In addition, I'd still like clarification on how you're characterizing my definitions as "narrow" as well as how this unfairly impacts the discussion. You've made this statement more than once and its looking more and more like an ad hominem dig rather than an actual criticism.
    I would if I thought it would make a difference to the discussion. Since you have shown no proclivity to entertain the arguments put forward to date, I don't see how it would help. You have a clear pattern of rejecting anything that is offered, so please forgive me if I refrain from engaging in what I firmly believe is a waste of effort.

    Certainly the definition I use for religion, for instance, is narrow when compared to definitions that include all human endeavors that are done obsessively, such as baseball and sex. But the definition is sufficiently broad enough to include all the major religions of the world, populated by billions of adherents. So you use of the term "narrow" for the purposes of the discussion doesn't seem to work.
    Once again I disagree. Within those religions you have chosen tenants of your own description that you have stereotyped onto all those who follow them. I have made this point and you deny it. We are at an impasse.

    Most here accept his point in the narrow case. But he then tries to generalize the conclusion, and his general statement is simply unsupported and wrong as demonstrated by the clear objections he seems unwilling to address.
    You're saying that, but you're not backing it with any substance.
    That's right, these points have been made and explained and you ignore it. I see little point in attempting to describe it too.

    The conclusion is necessarily general. And it is completely supported by the arguments and premises I've provided.
    Yes, but only since you have cast away all the arguments against it.

    And not a single valid objection has been raised.
    Correction, no argument you accept.

    At any rate, I've asked Mitch for a summary of his objections in the even that I've overlooked something. If, however, you had something specific in mind, I don't see why you're reluctant to quote or cite it.
    The arguments are contained in the thread, Skinwalker. I can't for the life of me see how you are so blind to them.

    Actually mitchell used several corroborating points to demonstrate argument.
    Like...?
    Sigh..... reread the thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by CMR80606
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker


    The atheist needs to leave his religious opinions at the door just as much as any Christian
    You'll get no disagreement with me here. Religious opinions simply have no meaning when it comes to observing and explaining the universe so there's no reason to give them a second thought.
    Just for clarification, you would then by your own argument be happy to concede that atheism is no more compatible with science than is religion, in general?
    Science remains aloof, and no sub-culture or group has any special claim to ownership of it?
    Maybe you could go as far as to say that science needs to be protected from cultural attachment of any description.
    Adequate education and application of science and scientific methods naturally leads to atheism if the individual is intellectually honest. So I would not state that atheism and science are necessarily incompatible. But, then, atheism isn't a method of describing the universe. It is merely a label, originally intended to be pejorative, applied to those who have a lack of belief in supernatural agency.
    That's hilarious. Skinwalker is naturally correct about things he cannot demonstrate. Skinwalker don't you see why it is futile to get you to concede any point that does not conform to your worldview? Don't you see that you are so firmly convinced of your metaphysics that it is impossible for you to consider an alternative to what you believe to be correct? After all, how could you be wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I think I did. But, in the interest of furthering the discussion, I ask that you summarize these objections.
    Easy.

    The incompatability between science and religion is no greater than the incompatability between any two activities that operate by different rules.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    All this really says is that not of these are science in the modern sense.
    What they say is that religion, as it applies to billions of people (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism) is as pseudoscientific as astrology, ufology, and homoapathy. If this is so, and, so far, it appears to be the case, then religion is incopatible with science.
    None of these things are incompatable with science any more than chess is incompatable with monopoly. People can do astrology and still be good scientists. People can practice homeopathic medicine and still be a good scientists. People can believe there is some truth to claims about UFOs and still be a good scientist. You can do any of these things and still understand quite clearly that none of these things are science.

    Science is a skill and a methodology where your opinions, beliefs and worldview should be irrelevant because if they are not irrelevant then what you are doing isn't really science at all according to the strict definition of modern science.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Science is NOT a life choice.
    I'm not sure this would be a confidence statement I'd make, but I have no investment in it one way or the other. It's the second time you've made this statement, yet I'm not making a claim that it is. So I'm not sure where you're going with it.
    Religion is a life choice. Science is not. Therefore one can choose a religious life and still be a scientist. There is no incompatability.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    That is absurd. It is a tool and a skill that is a product of training. Science is a specialized activity NOT a way of life. That is not even a possiblity. But YES it is an activity where you do have to leave your religion at the door to a very large degree. But so what?
    Again, it looks like you're arguing my point rather than yours.
    Which demonstrates pretty conclusively that we are talking past each other, doesn't it.

    You LOVE to say that science and religion is incompatable, but all you mean is that religion is not science and that religious belief has no role to play in a scientific inquiry.

    So we can play your little game and return tit for tat and say that science and atheism are incompatable, but all I mean is that atheism is not science and that atheist assertions have no role to play in a scientific inquiry.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Science is a way of explaining the universe
    That is like saying that math is a way of writing numbers on paper. Not only does not really even begin to explain what science is but there is a great deal of ambiguity in the word "explain". To say that it a way of explaining the universe does indeed not distinguish it from religion, philosophy or many other activities -- and I think that kind of equivocation is the nub of your rhetoric. But the fact is that science does not eplain the universe in a way that is of interest to most people. It does not, for example, explain to their satisfaction why the universe exists or what is the meaning of their lives or how to make any of it worthwhile.

    Science is very good at discovering the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities. Science is better than most activities at providing a method by which people can make a determination on certain questions that everybody involved can agree on. Science is very good at discovering new and expected things about the world around us. I think that science enhances our perception of the world in a way that is as profound as eye sight if not more so.

    I love science. BUT I will not make my love for science measure of the value of other people, and I will certainly not approve of people destroying science by confusing it with their rhetoric against those who do not agree with their opinions.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    providing for us better ways to live (medicine, technology, etc.).
    and providing us endless ways for a few crazy people to kill massive amounts of other people and providing us endless ways of destroying our planet and insuring our own extinction, etc...


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Using this argument that when playing chess you need to leave the monopoly rule book out of it, as some kind of argument that people who like to play both chess and monopoly are not honestly playing either one of them is the first time I have heard the irrational attitudes of the fundamentalist in the context of playing board games.
    You're right, ultimately the analogy doesn't work. Board games are not human institutions constructed with a purpose of explaining the universe. I concede that one cannot compare board games to science and religion.
    Very funny. The analogy is PERFECT, and relgion is NOT an institution constructed with the purpose of explaining the universe.

    Religion has very little to do with explaining the universe in any way similar to what science does. Religion is far more of an exploration of one own identity than it is an exploration of the universe. The concern of religion is in the subjective participation in life rather than any objective observation of the world.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Frankly I don't think this fundamentalist attitude belongs in the work of science at all.
    "Fundamentalist" implies that one is seeking to restore Christian dogmatic beliefs back to the "fundamentals" of Christian cult doctrine. Namely:
    The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
    • The virgin birth of Christ.
    • The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
    • The bodily resurrection of Christ.
    • The historical reality of Christ's miracles.
    "Fundamentalist" has a much wider definion than that of fundamentalist Christianity and if I meant the latter then I would have said the latter, AS YOU WELL KNOW. You are just playing games here. We use the adjective "fundamentalist" with regards to many religions and even non-religious points of view, and it means with respect to these various points of view a rigid adherence to that view that is inolerant of any other way of looking at things.

    The wider usage was quite OBVIOUS because it was used in this way in the example of a fundamentalist fanatic in the player of a particular game that would insist that playing a different game meant that you could not be an honest player of their game.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    The atheist needs to leave his religious opinions at the door just as much as any Christian
    You'll get no disagreement with me here.
    But now if I were to use the same equivocation tactics that you have used above then I could say that this means you are agreeing with me that atheism is incompatable with science.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Religious opinions simply have no meaning when it comes to observing and explaining the universe so there's no reason to give them a second thought.
    Small correction: Religious opinions simply have no relevance when it comes to the observations and explanations of science.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    there's no reason to give them a second thought
    Whether you have no reason to give the religious opinions of other a second thought has no bearing on whether the rest of us might have reason to give the religious opinions of others as many thoughts as we would like.
    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  
     

  76. #75  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Small correction: Religious opinions simply have no relevance when it comes to the observations and explanations of science.
    Except when they do and this is the fundamental thing I think you guys can't agree on.

    It depends obviously on the beliefs. There are certain things that science can't speak to with any kind of definitive conviction and a religious view can fit inside those confines as Mitch demonstrates.

    Guys, I would think that it would be obvious. When the tenets of the religion conflicts with a well established and understood scientific discipline, then it is incompatible with science. When it doesn't, it isn't.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quite right Kalster. Well said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    This is a general characteristic of people who are deluded, that is to deny the obvious. I didn't pin it on any particular individual.
    Bollocks. You either meant it in regard to myself or inow. Either retract it, edit your post, substantiate the claim. Otherwise, it is clear that you're an intellectual coward without the courage to either support or revise your words.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I'd still like clarification on how you're characterizing my definitions as "narrow" as well as how this unfairly impacts the discussion. You've made this statement more than once and its looking more and more like an ad hominem dig rather than an actual criticism.
    I would if I thought it would make a difference to the discussion. Since you have shown no proclivity to entertain the arguments put forward to date, I don't see how it would help. You have a clear pattern of rejecting anything that is offered, so please forgive me if I refrain from engaging in what I firmly believe is a waste of effort.
    What would be your purpose in participating in the discussion in the first place. Either you're trolling or you're discussing. If you're discussin, surely you're willing to provide clarification of your claims. If not, they're baiting and trolling.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrpess
    Once again I disagree. Within those religions you have chosen tenants of your own description that you have stereotyped onto all those who follow them. I have made this point and you deny it. We are at an impasse.
    This is a completely fabricated claim. If not, then you'll surely be willing to cite or quote where I've stereotyped any religion. Its becoming more and more clear that your purpose on this forum is to troll and bait those with whom you have disagreement and not actually participate in intellectual discourse or debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    That's right, these points have been made and explained and you ignore it. I see little point in attempting to describe it too.
    Not a single valid point has gone unanswered.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    And not a single valid objection has been raised.
    Correction, no argument you accept.
    Not a single valid objection has gone unanswered.

    If I'm wrong on either of the above statements, list them here and I'll revise my position or, at least, address the points if I've overlooked them. It seems to me this would be the way of honest, intellectual debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The arguments are contained in the thread, Skinwalker. I can't for the life of me see how you are so blind to them.
    I see no harm in either requesting that you restate or summarize any arguments you feel are unanswered or otherwise "ignored." If you're truly interested in participating in the discussion, why then would this be too much to ask? The most parsimonious answer is that there aren't any unanswered, unaddressed, or ignored arguments that have any relevance to the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    in the interest of furthering the discussion, I ask that you summarize these objections.
    Easy.

    The incompatability between science and religion is no greater than the incompatibility between any two activities that operate by different rules.
    I would agree with this only if the religions that most of the adherents in the world believed in didn't make physical claims about the world. Claims that are contradicotry to scientific understanding of the world. The scientific claims are empirically observable and repeatable. The religious claims are unfalsifiable and designed to be taken on faith alone. These claims are part of the core tenants of the major religions of the world and are, therefore, incompatible with science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch
    None of these things are incompatable with science any more than chess is incompatable with monopoly. People can do astrology and still be good scientists. People can practice homeopathic medicine and still be a good scientists. People can believe there is some truth to claims about UFOs and still be a good scientist. You can do any of these things and still understand quite clearly that none of these things are science.

    Science is a skill and a methodology where your opinions, beliefs and worldview should be irrelevant because if they are not irrelevant then what you are doing isn't really science at all according to the strict definition of modern science.
    I think anyone would be justified in being suspicious of any "scientist" who practiced homeopathy, or astrology. These are blatantly pseudoscientific and without any basis in reality. They are incompatible with science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch
    Religion is a life choice. Science is not. Therefore one can choose a religious life and still be a scientist. There is no incompatability.
    Religion is a life choice that requires some level of suspension of reality. Again, I'm referring to the definition of religion that the vast majority of the world's religious adherents chose, which is to say not pantheism, deism, or other vaguely "spiritual" feeling of transcendence. To truly believe that one of the major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, has a dogma that is "true," one must accept that its core tenants are true and factual. These core tenants are incompatible with the core tenants of science. Therefore, religion and science are incompatible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch
    You LOVE to say that science and religion is incompatable, but all you mean is that religion is not science and that religious belief has no role to play in a scientific inquiry.
    Am I not allowed to say more than one thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch
    So we can play your little game and return tit for tat and say that science and atheism are incompatable, but all I mean is that atheism is not science and that atheist assertions have no role to play in a scientific inquiry.
    Youl could turn the conversation that way, if you wanted to subject yourself to a red herring fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch
    relgion is NOT an institution constructed with the purpose of explaining the universe.
    Perhaps not with a sole purpose, but I could give many, many examples of religion providing just that explanation in nearly every major and many minor religions both extant and extinct. In fact, this is one of the common attributes that scholars have long noted among the religious cults of history and prehistory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch
    Religion has very little to do with explaining the universe in any way similar to what science does. Religion is far more of an exploration of one own identity than it is an exploration of the universe. The concern of religion is in the subjective participation in life rather than any objective observation of the world.
    This seems more like your own personal interpretation of your own personal "spiritualism" rather than an actual scholarly and objective interpretation of the social and anthropological impact of religion on human history. How many examples of how many religions would be necessary for me to demonstrate that a large part of religion is the need to provide explanation for the universe? Of course, there are other roles that religion plays for society, such as explaining death and providing an intellectual escape from mortality, providing rules that establish in-groups and out-groups, providing history for nationalist movements (i.e. the early Judaic cults of Canaan-Israel), providing sets of rules for society, providing justifications for nationalist actions ranging from migration to genocide, etc. But nearly every single one of them provides explanations for the universe and claims about reality that are unsupported, contradictory and incompatible with science. And many of the core tenants of these religious dogmas are directly unscientific yet still believed by those that also profess a belief in science.

    To believe this, the religionist must compartmentalize his/her beliefs. Were it not for this incompatibility, such compartmentalizing would be unnecessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Religious opinions simply have no meaning when it comes to observing and explaining the universe so there's no reason to give them a second thought.
    Small correction: Religious opinions simply have no relevance when it comes to the observations and explanations of science.
    Either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Small correction: Religious opinions simply have no relevance when it comes to the observations and explanations of science.
    Except when they do
    That would be never. The conclusions of science come from a scientific methodology and religious opinions play no role in that methodology and so they are irrelevent to science. Modern science cannot listen to what a religion says and remain science because that is contrary to the methodology which defines it.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Except when they do and this is the fundamental thing I think you guys can't agree on. It depends obviously on the beliefs. There are certain things that science can't speak to with any kind of definitive conviction...

    Guys, I would think that it would be obvious. When the tenets of the religion conflicts with a well established and understood scientific discipline, then it is incompatible with science. When it doesn't, it isn't.
    The other way around is a completely different matter. The conclusions of science may be very relevant to some issue on which religion makes some pronouncement. I certainly think it is foolish when people insist on supporting religious claims in opposition to science rather than allowing religion to be informed by what science discovers.

    But then that is quite natural for someone like me who started as a scientist first and only on the basis of seeing the world through the lens of science, consider whether relgion has any value. However as I scientist I know very well that people make claims in opposition to science all time, even when religion has nothing to do with it. That is what makes this sort of anti-religious rhetoric seem a little hypocritical to me because the truth is that every non-scientific activity and group has exactly the same problem with science, where they are foolish to ignore the scientific conclusions.

    Real conflict with science comes from attacks on the methodology itself -- claims that something is science when it not. That not only includes activities such as astrology and creationism when they make the false claim to be science, but it ALSO includes anytime a claim is made that that science establishes something when it does not do anything of the kind - both of these give rhetoric the name of science, but that is a lie because rhetoric is not the methodology of science.

    The difference is quite fundamental. In rhetoric, like when you are a lawyer or a car salesmen, you look for words and evidence to prove your case. But that is not science. The method of science is that you propose an hypothesis and then you test it. Rhetoric proves claims, while compared to that science simply asks questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    There are certain things that science can't speak to with any kind of definitive conviction and a religious view can fit inside those confines as Mitch demonstrates.
    Yes.

    The real difficulty is as I have said before one of significance. Science will certainly say what is of significance to science, and the metaphysical naturalist can adopt the premise that these are the only things of real significacne, and that defines his view of what is real. But other people can and will reject that premise because they see significance in things which science does not.
    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  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker

    Religion is a life choice that requires some level of suspension of reality. Again, I'm referring to the definition of religion that the vast majority of the world's religious adherents chose, which is to say not pantheism, deism, or other vaguely "spiritual" feeling of transcendence. To truly believe that one of the major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, has a dogma that is "true," one must accept that its core tenants are true and factual. These core tenants are incompatible with the core tenants of science. Therefore, religion and science are incompatible.
    There are large groups of people who hold religious beliefs that fit into the large world religions who see much of what you interpret literally as a misunderstanding on your part. They accept the core beliefs but recognize that they do not understand how their creator accomplished those core tenants. They do not suspend reality in their beliefs of how the world functions, rather they accept that humans are ignorant and do not understand much of how the world is made and functions. They believe that their creator does understand how the created works and was able to accomplish things in ways humans don't understand. Many even believe that one day humans will discover how certain things were accomplished.

    These people do not find any incompatibility between science and their beliefs. When put in this context, I don't either. They do not have to suspend reality, they must accept the truth that they don't have a full understanding of what reality is. You seem to think you fully understand reality, I am fairly certain you are mistaken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker

    Religion is a life choice that requires some level of suspension of reality. Again, I'm referring to the definition of religion that the vast majority of the world's religious adherents chose, which is to say not pantheism, deism, or other vaguely "spiritual" feeling of transcendence. To truly believe that one of the major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, has a dogma that is "true," one must accept that its core tenants are true and factual. These core tenants are incompatible with the core tenants of science. Therefore, religion and science are incompatible.
    There are large groups of people who hold religious beliefs that fit into the large world religions who see much of what you interpret literally as a misunderstanding on your part.
    Perhaps there are. What are the data supporting this? Do these data supersede, in numbers, the percentage of those who hold true the tenets of their dogmas that are contrary to science?

    I say there are larger groups within these religions, the majority, who believe their dogmas to be literally true. It was in 2006 that a Newsweek poll published results that 60 percent of Americans surveyed (n=1,009 adults) favored the teaching of creation in public schools. Creation. Not science, but creation. That set of poems in biblical mythology that runs contrary to scientific discovery and methods.

    In that same poll, 67 percent said they believed in the virgin birth of Jesus. And 55 percent believed that every word of the bible was literal and true.

    These people most definitely suspend belief in reality in favor of superstition. And they are a majority of Christianity in America. And, while its easy to criticize media polls like this, even polls among groups that are largely apologetic (Barna and Pew) find similar results. Year after year, poll after poll, the numbers of those who follow these superstitions show similar results.

    You seem to think you fully understand reality, I am fairly certain you are mistaken.
    Actually, I think I have a rather limited understanding of reality. But nice try at an ad hominem attack. This sort of thing is getting to be your trademark.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker

    Religion is a life choice that requires some level of suspension of reality. Again, I'm referring to the definition of religion that the vast majority of the world's religious adherents chose, which is to say not pantheism, deism, or other vaguely "spiritual" feeling of transcendence. To truly believe that one of the major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, has a dogma that is "true," one must accept that its core tenants are true and factual. These core tenants are incompatible with the core tenants of science. Therefore, religion and science are incompatible.
    There are large groups of people who hold religious beliefs that fit into the large world religions who see much of what you interpret literally as a misunderstanding on your part.
    Perhaps there are. What are the data supporting this? Do these data supersede, in numbers, the percentage of those who hold true the tenets of their dogmas that are contrary to science?
    How large a group is required to disprove an argument that something applies in the general case? Polls indicate there is a sizable minority but just one contrary example would seem sufficient to disprove it.

    I say there are larger groups within these religions, the majority, who believe their dogmas to be literally true.
    Relevance?

    In that same poll, 67 percent said they believed in the virgin birth of Jesus. And 55 percent believed that every word of the bible was literal and true.

    These people most definitely suspend belief in reality in favor of superstition.
    Are you sure that virgin birth is impossible? Or is it more accurate to say we don't know how it could have occurred? Do you suppose that some day genetic engineering may be able to accomplish such a feat? It is terribly difficult to scientifically prove a negative. Likewise do we know with certainty that these people mean by the literal truth of the Bible? I am quite certain that I am not in a position to make that assessment . what makes you think you understand what they mean?

    You seem to think you fully understand reality, I am fairly certain you are mistaken.
    Actually, I think I have a rather limited understanding of reality. But nice try at an ad hominem attack. This sort of thing is getting to be your trademark.
    Then you misunderstand my point which was that your argument depends heavily on the accuracy of your understanding of these religions and your understanding of the detailed physical laws, at all levels (quantum and macro) by which this universe operates. Until we can say that a particular religious tenant is not possible to accomplish within this universe, it is not incompatible with science. Instead it is something that we currently cannot explain given our current understanding of this physical world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    it seems a mockery of my religion (both you guys and this museum)
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I just had an epiphany.

    The problem is that most people are incompatible with science.

    I shall now ponder the wonders of this revelation for a year or so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    you might just be right some people are so hard headed they could never accept things that are not touchable (these type of people slow things down in class room's of many high school and middle school classes today where stupid teachers try to take a physical approach to explaining things while those worthy of the knowledge will simply pick it up from intrest to learn and ponder things
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker

    Religion is a life choice that requires some level of suspension of reality. Again, I'm referring to the definition of religion that the vast majority of the world's religious adherents chose, which is to say not pantheism, deism, or other vaguely "spiritual" feeling of transcendence. To truly believe that one of the major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, has a dogma that is "true," one must accept that its core tenants are true and factual. These core tenants are incompatible with the core tenants of science. Therefore, religion and science are incompatible.
    There are large groups of people who hold religious beliefs that fit into the large world religions who see much of what you interpret literally as a misunderstanding on your part.
    Perhaps there are. What are the data supporting this? Do these data supersede, in numbers, the percentage of those who hold true the tenets of their dogmas that are contrary to science?
    How large a group is required to disprove an argument that something applies in the general case? Polls indicate there is a sizable minority but just one contrary example would seem sufficient to disprove it.
    Now there's a scientific term: "sizable minority." N=1 is a "sizable minority." Show us polls that indicate that people "in general" agree with your a la carte definition of religion.

    While you're at it, ponder the fool you've made yourself out to be, demanding that i answer some imaginary "objections" and attempting to criticize me for being "narrow" when all along I was attempting to be as inclusive yet utilitarian as possible. Now you've come along and created a narrow straw man you hope you can defeat. Smooth. In thread after thread, you play the role of agent provocateur, stirring shit and agreeing with various counter-science/anti-science
    claims you think your opponent is unable or unwilling to defend.

    What probably really gets your goat is that most religionists *do* hold wacky, nutbar beliefs that are as hokey as the pokey. And that these low-hanging fruit for skeptics aren't just a small minority but a very large majority.


    I say there are larger groups within these religions, the majority, who believe their dogmas to be literally true.
    Relevance?
    Your kidding, right? You're claiming that there are those that are wishy-washy in their superstitions. Biblical mythology isn't literal. The much larger majority believe otherwise. In general, most religionists are indistinguishable from each other in their level of belief about their doctrines when compared other members of their cults. The outliers who see biblical mythology as "allegory," "poetry," and "really cool stories" but little else are pathological exceptions to the rule.

    In other words, since most religious believers accept that their doctrines are "literally true" (not figuratively, metaphorically, or allegorically), then one can say that "in general, science and religion are incompatible." One is about discovering the universe through observation and experience. The other is about explaining the universe through superstition.

    The rest of your reply was largely an appeal to ignorance. Virgin births don't happen. They didn't happen in the Iron Age and they don't happen now. Women don't get raped by deities and father children who claim to be the deity. This is the stuff of imaginations and fantasy. Applying modern genetics and possibilities of the future through cloning and the like is a cop-out.

    Religion and science are incompatible. Those who hold superstitious ideas must lie to themselves at some point if they are to accept one over the other. Particularly if they are one of the very large majority in the United States who believe in batshit ideas like creation, virgin births, zombie messiahs, raising the dead, stopping the earth's rotation for 24 hours, spouses turning to stone, 900k stealthy wandering jews, walking on water, casting out demons, transubstantiation, etc., etc., etc....

    These ideas are not compatible with science. In general, most Christians believe this crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    I can't say I'm surprised by your response, skinwalker. Thank-you for confirming my prior point.
    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
  •