Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Dwarfman:

Sofus:
I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

Is that odder or otter? Either way all praise the Great Otter. Let us all give thanks and partake in the ritual consuming of sacred muffins.

Finally, a religion that makes sense, to me!

Muffins for all!

BanicRhys:
So much ignorance in this thread.

We know as much about the universe now as we did back in the back in the bronze age (nothing). Sure, we have some pretty good ideas based on what we're able to observe and comprehend around us, but they're still just ideas.

Just ideas? Are you stoned? We have working models, verifiable, testable facts and knowledge. We understand the laws of the universe and our models are so accurate that we are able to communicate across the entire planet, put people on the moon, take pictures of the history of the universe. If you think that these things are all guesses, I challenge you to demonstrate someone dropping a ball from roof only to have it float in the air then transform into a cupcake.

We know how weather works and it isn't on the whim of magical beings. We know how many planets are in our solar system, how the sun works, how to cure illness and what actually causes them, and no, demons are NOT one of the causes. We know how our solar system formed, the process that were in effect. Need I go on?

BanicRhys:
By completely disregarding other, less popular, ideas, you're being just as closed minded as those who allow themselves to be blinded by their religious dogmas.

Less Popular? This isn't a matter of "less popular" Science is built on knowledge, verifed, testable ideas, proven through weight of evidence and explained in theories. Creationism is a bunch of people who like to think that science is wrong because a two thousand year old book says magic did it.

BanicRhys:
We know fuck all about the universe, we can perceive fuck all of the universe, we can comprehend fuck all of the universe, to think anyone is anywhere close to an actual answer on anything is the height of arrogance. Odds are, creationism is just as likely to be correct as evolution and the big bang theory, so why not give it its fair share of coverage?

Odds? What odds? Exactly what figures are you making this calculation of probability on? Are you seriously suggesting that life on earth forming it's great diversity over millions of years - through evolution, as detailed by millions of fossils, two centuries of study, experimentation and observation of living lifeforms changing over time according to selection pressures, verifed using scientific method so thoroughly that we have more evidence to support the theory which explains it, than we have for Gravity and Germ theory - is equal probability to the claim that a magic-man suddenly spoke life into being out of nothingness, for which we have precisely zero evidence? Really?

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. It's a fallacy of equivocation and it's ludicrous.

BanicRhys:
Edit: I now realise the irony of "preaching" open mindedness.

Being 'open-minded' doesn't mean accepting every idea or explanation for everything and treating it as equal. Being open minded simply means that you're able to change your position, your ideas, your beliefs. Science is the very definition of open mindedness, because it is a self-correcting mechanism in which false ideas are removed and correct ideas are refined and changed. New ideas are evaluated by the accuracy, merrit and evidence and if they disprove other ideas, those previous ideas are re-examined.

Religion on the other hand is the definition of closed-mindedness, because it requires that people abandon other ideas, don't question and ignore alternative explanations.

You claimed that there was a lot of ignorance in this thread. You're right, there is and you're the one bringing it in. That's the "irony" here, that you complain of ignorance while demonstrating and spreading it yourself.

persephone:

Nooners:
Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

Thank you! I completely agree. I'm Christian, but I have always supported a scientific approach to just about everything. I had an anthropology professor in college who I thought put it very well; he said that science is a tool, a mindset that can be used to tackle and explain things, but that it couldn't be used to explain everything. Does that mean that science or religion are wrong? No, it just means that sometimes science is the wrong tool. Now, I consider science to only seldom actually be the wrong tool. And I think that being religious doesn't give you license to throw that tool out the window, either. It's a damn useful tool!

The best interpretation of Genesis I've ever heard is simply this: it's *poetry*, not science. You have to remember that science as a tool/paradigm is, historically speaking, incredibly new. The scientific method as we understand it did not exist for most of human history. And expecting a scientifically accurate accounting of the creation of the world from a book written thousands of years ago is just ridiculous. Similarly, expecting said accounting to be inherently incorrect purely because it's not scientific is also ridiculous.

So, Genesis says God made the world in six days. But what does "day" mean, in the context of the poetry? The Bible is riddled with symbolism and allegory, and there is zero reason that can't be true for Genesis, too. Is a "day" an eon? Who knows? When you realize Genesis isn't literal, just as a poem isn't literal, then you can also see that there isn't any conflict between science and religion when it comes to where life came from.

To put it another way: Let's say that your significant other gazes deeply into your eyes, and then writes down what they see there. They'll probably write down something about the beauty of your eyes, or the depths of your soul, or if they're feeling snarky, how the flecks in your eyes resemble something weird or something like that.

Now let's say your opthamologist gazes deeply into your eyes, and writes down they see there. They'll probably record some numbers and jargon about what kind of glasses you may need, as well as anything else significant to their line of work.

So, now we have two detailed records of what your eyes look like, from two very different sources operating under two very different paradigms. But here's the thing: *both records are accurate*. Neither one is superior to the other; they're just different. They're not incompatible, and the existence of one doesn't invalidate the other. They were written for different purposes and using different approaches, but they both accurately describe your eyes in the context of those approaches.

It's the same way with Genesis and evolution and all that. They're two very different approaches constructed by very different authors that both happen to describe the same thing. Expecting one to invalidate the other makes as much sense as insisting that a metaphor-laden poem written about a cat's beauty can't be correct because it's not a scientific accounting of your cat's biology.

Except that Genesis says that the Earth came before the Moon and stars and that the plants came before the sun. Poetry is all well and good but it's hardly the equivolant of science when explaining a series of real events. One is accurate, the other is just plain wrong. The best thing that can be said about genesis is that it's story. Not even a very good one.
Your idea *would* have merit if not for the fact that we're trying to understand a series of actual events, not write a short story on magic. Genesis is entirely incompatible with science, because genesis is demonstrably wrong. It's not incompatible with other stories, sure. You can read Genesis and Harry Potter side by side, but if you want to understand some events that happened in real life, neither is very much use.

As for your cat analogy, let me put it this way, who would your rather perform a life saving operation on your cat, a Vet who understands it's biology and is trained in medicine, proven to be successful through scientific method, or Beatrix Potter who wrote some marvelous books about Peter Rabbit?

You like the idea of the bible as a story, that's fine, but that' doesn't mean it should be considered equal or equivolant to science in understanding the universe.

How about next time your pet is ill, you call me and I'll perform the operation for you? I've never studied medicine of any kind but I drew a picture of a cat once. No? Then you get why we don't want creationism to have airtime on scientific journals.

Zac Jovanovic:

Lieju:

I was always fond of the theory that the world began as a bunch of broken eggs a giant naked lady rolled on. (Kalevala)

I recall writing an essay on how this was supported by the geology and the fossil record (as much as Genesis myth, at any rate), I need to dig it up for occasions like this.

I like the one that is basically one of the early Star Trek episodes, where the maniacal creator with godlike powers turns out to be a little kid having fun and gets scolded by his energy being godlike parents.

Don't be silly. That was just a tv show.

My theory was in an old book. That makes it more valid.

wolfyrik:

Except that Genesis says that the Earth came before the Moon and stars and that the plants came before the sun. Poetry is all well and good but it's hardly the equivolant of science when explaining a series of real events. One is accurate, the other is just plain wrong. The best thing that can be said about genesis is that it's story. Not even a very good one.
Your idea *would* have merit if not for the fact that we're trying to understand a series of actual events, not write a short story on magic. Genesis is entirely incompatible with science, because genesis is demonstrably wrong. It's not incompatible with other stories, sure. You can read Genesis and Harry Potter side by side, but if you want to understand some events that happened in real life, neither is very much use.

As for your cat analogy, let me put it this way, who would your rather perform a life saving operation on your cat, a Vet who understands it's biology and is trained in medicine, proven to be successful through scientific method, or Beatrix Potter who wrote some marvelous books about Peter Rabbit?

You like the idea of the bible as a story, that's fine, but that' doesn't mean it should be considered equal or equivolant to science in understanding the universe.

How about next time your pet is ill, you call me and I'll perform the operation for you? I've never studied medicine of any kind but I drew a picture of a cat once. No? Then you get why we don't want creationism to have airtime on scientific journals.

I agree that poetry is not equivalent to science when explaining a series of real events; that was the entire point I'm trying to make. If someone wrote a poem about how your eyes were wells that led to a beautiful realm, that poem would be demonstrably wrong. But it would still reflect what the writer saw in your eyes.

I also agree that I would only want a professional to try to save my cat. And that poetry and metaphor are the wrong tools for trying to understand where the earth came from in a scientific sense. (They're useful for other things, but not for that!)

You'll note that I never said creationism should have airtime on scientific journals, either. I think creationism is bunk and that it should NOT have airtime on scientific journals. I was only expressing my opinion that science and religion don't conflict when it comes to the creation of the universe, because religion's info is poetry, not science, and you can have the two side by side (just for different purposes).

In other words, I think you're correct: Poetry is hardly the equivalent of science when explaining a series of real events. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its place, either.

Lieju:

Don't be silly. That was just a tv show.

My theory was in an old book. That makes it more valid.

I don't know, it's a pretty old TV show...

Wouldn't creationists have more luck if they looked for airtime on The History Channel? I bet there's a time slot between Monster Quest and Life Without People that would be a perfect fit.

Cerebrawl:

V8 Ninja:
Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Oh HELL NO. That statement is wronger than wrong

[Epic Snip]

Yeah, yeah, I know that there's a difference between scientific theory and common theory. I also agree that creationism is a host of garbage. I don't need literal paragraphs stating why my semantics are bad. If it makes you feel any better, I'll edit my original comment stating that there's a difference and that I'm a horrible person.

Joos:

V8 Ninja:
Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Hold your horses there partner, first we need to look up what the word Theory actually means. Most people seems to think that Theory means hypothesis. This is incorrect. Theory means "current best possible explanation". In science, a Theory starts as a hypothesis which you then try to prove and disprove by various means such as empirical study, observation etc.
Only when the hypothesis can't be disproved, does it get labelled a Theory.
From a scientific standpoint, Creationism, or intelligent design is barely even a hypothesis, i.e. an "idea based on observation".

Ref:
The word Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
The word Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Scientific Method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Edit: I suppose my little post is the TLDR version of Cerebrawls more in-depth rebuttal above.

For those who can't be bothered to read all that above.

Yeah, as you noted Cerebrawls already chewed me out on that. I'll try to do better in the future, although I will stand by the original message (that being that evolution is more a scientific theory than a scientific law).

V8 Ninja:

Cerebrawl:

V8 Ninja:
Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Oh HELL NO. That statement is wronger than wrong

[Epic Snip]

Yeah, yeah, I know that there's a difference between scientific theory and common theory. I also agree that creationism is a host of garbage. I don't need literal paragraphs stating why my semantics are bad. If it makes you feel any better, I'll edit my original comment stating that there's a difference and that I'm a horrible person.

Your original statement is "a theory just like", which is patently false. In fact it's an equivocation fallacy, where you abuse ambiguity of language to equate two different things, to imply that they are on equal footing when they are not.

But it's good that you at least agree that it's a pile of garbage, and not on equal footing with acual science.

Oh and:

V8 Ninja:
I'll try to do better in the future, although I will stand by the original message (that being that evolution is more a scientific theory than a scientific law).

Here we go again:
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

Cerebrawl:

V8 Ninja:

Cerebrawl:

Oh HELL NO. That statement is wronger than wrong

[Epic Snip]

Yeah, yeah, I know that there's a difference between scientific theory and common theory. I also agree that creationism is a host of garbage. I don't need literal paragraphs stating why my semantics are bad. If it makes you feel any better, I'll edit my original comment stating that there's a difference and that I'm a horrible person.

Your original statement is "a theory just like", which is patently false. In fact it's an equivocation fallacy, where you abuse ambiguity of language to equate two different things, to imply that they are on equal footing when they are not.

But it's good that you at least agree that it's a pile of garbage, and not on equal footing with acual science.

Okay, so I'm bad at semantics and I (un)intentionally deceive people. I can dig that. What I don't need is literal walls of text explaining all that. I agree that justice must be done, but I would also say that there doesn't need to be hour-long dialogues on why stealing a car is bad.

EDIT: My above words do not reflect on your edited (and much lengthier) comment, Cerebrawl.

wolfyrik:

DragonStorm247:

Shaidz:

You bet me to that comment!! DAM YOU!!! But yes, a total oxymoron.

Edit: By definition someone who believes in the creation theory totally disregards any scientific 'facts' regarding the creation of everything, a scientist is someone who works purely on scientific fact, so yes, by definition, this is an oxymoron.

I'll play devil's advocate here (quite ironically), and say that it's possible, if difficult. If you look at the original Hebrew text, there are hundreds of ways to interpret each sentence. It's a stretch, but you can coincide the two.

Example: "The seven days of creation are measured in God-Days (read: astronomically inverse dog years)". I am told that, if you use some calculations done by rabbinic scholars way back, the time ratio of those seven "days" is actually fairly close to NASA's current estimation of the age of the universe.

I don't know how convincing that is, but I'd say it's interesting at least.

That wouldn't change the fact that the original texts still have the order mixed up. Light before stars, Earth before the plants before the sun etc. No matter how you look at it, creationism is completely wrong.

Fair enough. I only claimed that there are interesting ways of looking at it, not whether they were factually true or not.

V8 Ninja:
kay, so I'm bad at semantics and I (un)intentionally deceive people. I can dig that. What I don't need is literal walls of text explaining all that. I agree that justice must be done, but I would also say that there doesn't need to be hour-long dialogues on why stealing a car is bad.

I've just seen the creationists spew the exact same thing too many times to count and it gets a bit tiresome seeing it over and over and over again.

Not really your fault, but you basically regurgitated creationist arguments that I've debunked hundreds of times before. It never stops and they never learn, the arguments don't change, but they shouldn't allowed to say it unopposed either.

I've learned most of the formal and informal fallacies by heart in the process of standing up to this sort of ignorance. Basically going from "wait, that's not logical" to "it's this particular logical fallacy and this is how it works and why you're wrong". Hey at least I learned something.

Rhykker:
Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to CREATIONIST THEORIES.

Well thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Creationist don't have theories, they have argumentative sentences that can be compared to a child. Examples

"How do you know, you weren't there."
"Its not true because its only a theory."
"If we did come from evolution why are there no giraffe people?"
"You just don't want to believe it because you fear God."

etc and so forth. Those are not theories those are... at the very most verbal attacks politicians would use. Real theories require formulation of a question, forming a hypothesis, predicting the results, testing, and making a thorough analysis of the results.

You know I had no problem with people who are so bent on believing in God. I don't mind, it doesn't affect me. But now we have this religion that's taking my faith and twisting it to meet their own views. I can't think of a more appalling action one can do with science.

Arrrgghhh! I don't usually rant, but this just pisses me off.

Zack Alklazaris:

Rhykker:
Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to CREATIONIST THEORIES.

Well thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Creationist don't have theories, they have argumentative sentences that can be compared to a child. Examples

"How do you know, you weren't there."
"Its not true because its only a theory."
"If we did come from evolution why are there no giraffe people?"
"You just don't want to believe it because you fear God."

etc and so forth. Those are not theories those are... at the very most verbal attacks politicians would use. Real theories require formulation of a question, forming a hypothesis, predicting the results, testing, and making a thorough analysis of the results.

You know I had no problem with people who are so bent on believing in God. I don't mind, it doesn't affect me. But now we have this religion that's taking my faith and twisting it to meet their own views. I can't think of a more appalling action one can do with science.

Arrrgghhh! I don't usually rant, but this just pisses me off.

You are dangerously close to sounding like the people who bother you. Anyone who refuses to allow other options besides the one they believe in is an asshat. And for the record while I get your point because I know the back story I have to say as a science loving believer in god i find the derision the man displays towards religion to be seriously not necessary. Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move. Let a creationist speak. I'm curious who displays more hostility.

sunthaiduc:

Zack Alklazaris:

Rhykker:
Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to CREATIONIST THEORIES.

Well thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Creationist don't have theories, they have argumentative sentences that can be compared to a child. Examples

"How do you know, you weren't there."
"Its not true because its only a theory."
"If we did come from evolution why are there no giraffe people?"
"You just don't want to believe it because you fear God."

etc and so forth. Those are not theories those are... at the very most verbal attacks politicians would use. Real theories require formulation of a question, forming a hypothesis, predicting the results, testing, and making a thorough analysis of the results.

You know I had no problem with people who are so bent on believing in God. I don't mind, it doesn't affect me. But now we have this religion that's taking my faith and twisting it to meet their own views. I can't think of a more appalling action one can do with science.

Arrrgghhh! I don't usually rant, but this just pisses me off.

You are dangerously close to sounding like the people who bother you. Anyone who refuses to allow other options besides the one they believe in is an asshat. And for the record while I get your point because I know the back story I have to say as a science loving believer in god i find the derision the man displays towards religion to be seriously not necessary. Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move. Let a creationist speak. I'm curious who displays more hostility.

I apologize you do have a point. Normally, I am very opened minded about other peoples beliefs (I'm agnostic myself). Its just, with creationists... well there's no nice way to say it, but I'll try to be respectful about it.

I am obsessed with understanding the universe around me and seeking out the truth even if it hurts me in the process. Example, It gravely saddens me that even if we became masters of the universe there is a high probability that one day the universe itself will die and us along with it. Its a terrible thought, that even at our best we will inevitably be lost to history with no signs of past existence. I don't want to believe it, however according to scientist it is a very real possibility so I accept it. The fact Creationist are teaching school children that the Earth is only 6000 years old, man walked with dinosaurs, that we... a tiny race on a tiny world are so central to the universe's creation. Yet, they lack proof (though sometimes their arguments can't be disproven too) and schools accept it as fact. As real as air. It terrifies me, I see a future generation of struggling ignorance. America already struggles with other countries I just see it getting worse. They take centuries of research and proven experiments and casually dismissed them.

God exist... fine I can see that. He created the Earth. Its possible if a world can be created by nature then it should be able to be created by "man". I will even go as far as to admit that there could be a judgement day where our creator (or son of creator) appears to save us. I can accept the possibility that this is just an over reaction. I imagine some people feel the same way about gay marriage or legalizing marijuana. I would be narrow minded not to accept that I myself could be in error. Thank you for reminding me of that.

I gue

DragonStorm247:

wolfyrik:

DragonStorm247:

I'll play devil's advocate here (quite ironically), and say that it's possible, if difficult. If you look at the original Hebrew text, there are hundreds of ways to interpret each sentence. It's a stretch, but you can coincide the two.

Example: "The seven days of creation are measured in God-Days (read: astronomically inverse dog years)". I am told that, if you use some calculations done by rabbinic scholars way back, the time ratio of those seven "days" is actually fairly close to NASA's current estimation of the age of the universe.

I don't know how convincing that is, but I'd say it's interesting at least.

That wouldn't change the fact that the original texts still have the order mixed up. Light before stars, Earth before the plants before the sun etc. No matter how you look at it, creationism is completely wrong.

Fair enough. I only claimed that there are interesting ways of looking at it, not whether they were factually true or not.

Sure it's interesting but it gets us nowhere, provides no knowledge, gives no insight, just confuses matters with redundant information, gives excuses to the pre-determined and doesn't bring us closer to truth. But then, that's religion all over.

sunthaiduc:

Zack Alklazaris:

Rhykker:
Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to CREATIONIST THEORIES.

Well thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Creationist don't have theories, they have argumentative sentences that can be compared to a child. Examples

"How do you know, you weren't there."
"Its not true because its only a theory."
"If we did come from evolution why are there no giraffe people?"
"You just don't want to believe it because you fear God."

etc and so forth. Those are not theories those are... at the very most verbal attacks politicians would use. Real theories require formulation of a question, forming a hypothesis, predicting the results, testing, and making a thorough analysis of the results.

You know I had no problem with people who are so bent on believing in God. I don't mind, it doesn't affect me. But now we have this religion that's taking my faith and twisting it to meet their own views. I can't think of a more appalling action one can do with science.

Arrrgghhh! I don't usually rant, but this just pisses me off.

You are dangerously close to sounding like the people who bother you. Anyone who refuses to allow other options besides the one they believe in is an asshat. And for the record while I get your point because I know the back story I have to say as a science loving believer in god i find the derision the man displays towards religion to be seriously not necessary. Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move. Let a creationist speak. I'm curious who displays more hostility.

I disagree with you whole heartedly. Religion absolutely deserves derison, it is entirely necessary. Religion is the fantasy explanation of how things occur, made up by people who didn't understand the universe. It is by definition, a system of close-minded rules and orders from a magical being of whose existence there is absolutely no evidence, requiring belief in that magical being, soley on faith, without, even ignoring evidence.

Sure, some religions are ok and don't really deserve any derision, for example, shinto and buddhism are pretty much negligable but then, buddhism is more a philosphy and shinto has no single god-competing for supremacy against other gods it claims don't exist. Then of course, insulting shintoists or buddhsits, might annoy some people, but none of their followers would call for your prosecution, abuse or death for doing so. Hell, if you insulted sikhism and someone tried to prosecute you for it, the Sikhs would probably fight by your side for you right. Sure they be pissed off at you, but none of their followers would want you harmed.

Christianity and Islam, particlarly however, require faith, belief without evidence and have clauses and references to killing people who don't believe. Their gods engage in violence, homophobia, sexism, slavery, torture and genocide, while claiming to be loving in a partenership with thier believers which can only be compared to an abusive relationship.
"I love you, but do as I say, cos I don't want to have to get angry, you know what happens when you make me angry."
"I hurt you because I love you, because I want what's best for you, and I know what that is, better than you do"

sunthaiduc:
Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move.

Gays, non-believers, women. Just three groups alienated from the start by books like the bible and many churches since the inception of the church, basically just all major mono-theistic religions.

No, derision is absolutely necessary. Religions need to be mocked, they need to be judged and scrutinised at every turn because they affect lives based on magic claims, ignorance and proclomations from a source which is only ever accessible by a few who invariably just happen to be the ones who aim for power or already have it. What happens when they are not kept in check? Galileo, kopernicus, Salem, creationism in science class. In other words burnings, hangings, beheadings, the stripping of peoples rights, violence, religious law instead of fair secular law, the end of knowledge, progression. All lead by rank paranoia that a magic sky-man from the bronze age might be angry.

Lets face it, religions that don't stick their neck out to cause harm or interfere with the lives of people who don't believe, will be overlooked and never have cause for derision. It's the mouthy ones who'll get the slack and they absolutely should. Religion should NEVER be allowed protection from mockery. Britain used to have blasphemy laws, and we did away with them. The country is better off for it. America has never had them and should be proud.

You only have to look at that dumbass senator Atanus to see why religion needs to be derided. This is a woman who actually thinks that storms exist because god is angry. This cretin actually has regressed to ideas that even 500 years ago would have been laughed at. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all religon should be stopped. If people want to believe in magic, that's their right and their perogative. So long as they do it in their own homes, behind closed doors and don't hurt anyone.

Captcha: rocket science
It really aint, captcha, it realy aint.

Creationism theories bear no experimentation, study, evidence or peer-reviewed theses, so are pointless as scientific discussion.

It's not science to make shit up, nor is it scientifically sound to believe in a theory with no basis or results.

I'm going to bring it up again, because apparently many here didn't read it.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

Disagree if you like, but keep it respectful. I'm seeing post after post of outright disrespect and condescension towards religious belief, and it's not conducive to any sort of reasonable discussion.

SargeSmash:
I'm going to bring it up again, because apparently many here didn't read it.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

Disagree if you like, but keep it respectful. I'm seeing post after post of outright disrespect and condescension towards religious belief, and it's not conducive to any sort of reasonable discussion.

You make a very good point, and thank you for keeping everyone civil. I will Interject to say though that what is being directed at Religions is historical fact, backed by evidence. It is not in any way disrespectful to mention things like the Crusades, the Inquisition and all the other Myriad Atrocities committed specifically by the religion that wants to be heard.

wolfyrik:

sunthaiduc:

Zack Alklazaris:

Well thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Creationist don't have theories, they have argumentative sentences that can be compared to a child. Examples

"How do you know, you weren't there."
"Its not true because its only a theory."
"If we did come from evolution why are there no giraffe people?"
"You just don't want to believe it because you fear God."

etc and so forth. Those are not theories those are... at the very most verbal attacks politicians would use. Real theories require formulation of a question, forming a hypothesis, predicting the results, testing, and making a thorough analysis of the results.

You know I had no problem with people who are so bent on believing in God. I don't mind, it doesn't affect me. But now we have this religion that's taking my faith and twisting it to meet their own views. I can't think of a more appalling action one can do with science.

Arrrgghhh! I don't usually rant, but this just pisses me off.

You are dangerously close to sounding like the people who bother you. Anyone who refuses to allow other options besides the one they believe in is an asshat. And for the record while I get your point because I know the back story I have to say as a science loving believer in god i find the derision the man displays towards religion to be seriously not necessary. Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move. Let a creationist speak. I'm curious who displays more hostility.

I disagree with you whole heartedly. Religion absolutely deserves derison, it is entirely necessary. Religion is the fantasy explanation of how things occur, made up by people who didn't understand the universe. It is by definition, a system of close-minded rules and orders from a magical being of whose existence there is absolutely no evidence, requiring belief in that magical being, soley on faith, without, even ignoring evidence.

Sure, some religions are ok and don't really deserve any derision, for example, shinto and buddhism are pretty much negligable but then, buddhism is more a philosphy and shinto has no single god-competing for supremacy against other gods it claims don't exist. Then of course, insulting shintoists or buddhsits, might annoy some people, but none of their followers would call for your prosecution, abuse or death for doing so. Hell, if you insulted sikhism and someone tried to prosecute you for it, the Sikhs would probably fight by your side for you right. Sure they be pissed off at you, but none of their followers would want you harmed.

Christianity and Islam, particlarly however, require faith, belief without evidence and have clauses and references to killing people who don't believe. Their gods engage in violence, homophobia, sexism, slavery, torture and genocide, while claiming to be loving in a partenership with thier believers which can only be compared to an abusive relationship.
"I love you, but do as I say, cos I don't want to have to get angry, you know what happens when you make me angry."
"I hurt you because I love you, because I want what's best for you, and I know what that is, better than you do"

sunthaiduc:
Alienating people who may have gained from your message before they can even hear it is a dipshit move.

Gays, non-believers, women. Just three groups alienated from the start by books like the bible and many churches since the inception of the church, basically just all major mono-theistic religions.

No, derision is absolutely necessary. Religions need to be mocked, they need to be judged and scrutinised at every turn because they affect lives based on magic claims, ignorance and proclomations from a source which is only ever accessible by a few who invariably just happen to be the ones who aim for power or already have it. What happens when they are not kept in check? Galileo, kopernicus, Salem, creationism in science class. In other words burnings, hangings, beheadings, the stripping of peoples rights, violence, religious law instead of fair secular law, the end of knowledge, progression. All lead by rank paranoia that a magic sky-man from the bronze age might be angry.

Lets face it, religions that don't stick their neck out to cause harm or interfere with the lives of people who don't believe, will be overlooked and never have cause for derision. It's the mouthy ones who'll get the slack and they absolutely should. Religion should NEVER be allowed protection from mockery. Britain used to have blasphemy laws, and we did away with them. The country is better off for it. America has never had them and should be proud.

You only have to look at that dumbass senator Atanus to see why religion needs to be derided. This is a woman who actually thinks that storms exist because god is angry. This cretin actually has regressed to ideas that even 500 years ago would have been laughed at. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all religon should be stopped. If people want to believe in magic, that's their right and their perogative. So long as they do it in their own homes, behind closed doors and don't hurt anyone.

Captcha: rocket science
It really aint, captcha, it realy aint.

See, this is perfect. Relevant, salient points, made in an intelligent manner. I honestly laughed hard at how apt your Abusive Relationship analogy was.

The best part about when Creationists get in a huff about wanting to be heard is that when most people actually HEAR what they have to say, the facepalming begins in earnest. It usually only servers to Create (wahey!) atheists.

I remember watching an Interview with Penn Jilette on a religious show and he was asked "What made you an Atheist?"

Answer: "Reading the Bible." He is on record as saying the fastest route to Atheism is to sit down, and just read the Bible.

Haven't we been through this entire song and dance in the realm of ethics, where the "traditional" view was that you cannot have morals or behave ethically without divine command?

And just like this line of thought, YE creationism is buried under paradoxes and evidence of just how wrong it is.

As an aside, divine command as the basis for human morality is ridiculous. Taken at face value it actively takes away the human ability to think about the rightness of most of their actions and can lead to the ridiculousness that is divine fatalism.

wolfyrik:

DragonStorm247:

wolfyrik:

That wouldn't change the fact that the original texts still have the order mixed up. Light before stars, Earth before the plants before the sun etc. No matter how you look at it, creationism is completely wrong.

Fair enough. I only claimed that there are interesting ways of looking at it, not whether they were factually true or not.

Sure it's interesting but it gets us nowhere, provides no knowledge, gives no insight, just confuses matters with redundant information, gives excuses to the pre-determined and doesn't bring us closer to truth. But then, that's religion all over.

I'd argue there's philosophical/mythological value to be found somewhere in there. You've no idea how useful this crap is when writing sci-fi/fantasy.

Bwahahahahaha!
So these people are trying to explain around this being which is by its very (probably non-existent) nature unexplainable.

While i welcome everything that would challenge the scientific community to prevent them from getting dogmatic i find it deliciously ironic that they are being challenged by the very dogmatism they tore apart when attemting to make sense of the world.
I'd say give the creationists some airtime.
Not in that show however, but i'd like actual scientists, probably psychologists, to explain how this "creationism" came about.
What would have to go on in a human's mind nowadays to have him turn against people who would attempt to explain things with experimentation?

If the bible is proven "wrong" as it has been plenty of times, it wouldn't diminish any worth the book might hold.
The bible has a lot of metaphors. Science merely uncovers more metaphors.

Sofus:
I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

It's the theory that, deep in our hearts, we know is true. But we can't accept it

SilverStuddedSquirre:

See, this is perfect. Relevant, salient points, made in an intelligent manner. I honestly laughed hard at how apt your Abusive Relationship analogy was.

The best part about when Creationists get in a huff about wanting to be heard is that when most people actually HEAR what they have to say, the facepalming begins in earnest. It usually only servers to Create (wahey!) atheists.

I remember watching an Interview with Penn Jilette on a religious show and he was asked "What made you an Atheist?"

Answer: "Reading the Bible." He is on record as saying the fastest route to Atheism is to sit down, and just read the Bible.

Dood, I saw that one, Penn and Teller have been heroes of mine since I was a kid. That interview was brilliant and I agree entirely.

DragonStorm247:

wolfyrik:

DragonStorm247:

Fair enough. I only claimed that there are interesting ways of looking at it, not whether they were factually true or not.

Sure it's interesting but it gets us nowhere, provides no knowledge, gives no insight, just confuses matters with redundant information, gives excuses to the pre-determined and doesn't bring us closer to truth. But then, that's religion all over.

I'd argue there's philosophical/mythological value to be found somewhere in there. You've no idea how useful this crap is when writing sci-fi/fantasy.

I agree completely, when it comes to fiction this sort of thing is great. I love shows and games like Supernatural and Diablo, angels and demons fighting etc but that's all it's useful for. If you want some inspiration for some stories, religion is great. Afterall it's all just stories, hell, half the stuff in the bible is basically plageurised from or inspired by other gods and religions.
If you want to understand the world around us however and the reality of it....not so much.

Yeah, and I want the ability to sprout wings a and a tail just so I can save money on fuel expenditures for traveling.
But you don't see me making such outlandish demands.

Science is science. It's based on observation and rational discourse.

Religion is irrational; which doesn't necessarily make it wrong or bad, but it isn't the sort of thing that belongs on a channel dedicated specifically to rational ideals.

Cerebrawl:

I've learned most of the formal and informal fallacies by heart in the process of standing up to this sort of ignorance. Basically going from "wait, that's not logical" to "it's this particular logical fallacy and this is how it works and why you're wrong". Hey at least I learned something.

Why do I get the feeling you're a regular viewer of The Atheist Experience?

SilverStuddedSquirre:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJV8mC8GYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpkjTn11DPM

Here it is.

So...

Do we consider it "divine justice" that this dick-bag not only lost another of his shows but has also become a mockery in two continents?

Vigormortis:

Cerebrawl:

I've learned most of the formal and informal fallacies by heart in the process of standing up to this sort of ignorance. Basically going from "wait, that's not logical" to "it's this particular logical fallacy and this is how it works and why you're wrong". Hey at least I learned something.

Why do I get the feeling you're a regularly viewer of The Atheist Experience?

Haha, I have been. I haven't seen an episode in a year or two though. But mostly I learned the fallacies by looking them up myself when I was engaging in comment wars on youtube(I could call them debates, but that's giving them too much credit).

I still occasionally listen to the Thinking Atheist podcast, or check if AronRa has released another video. ;)

The main reason I stoped watching The Atheist Experience was that I was fed up with the same moronic arguments again and again from christians calling the show, and in the comment sections. I basically can't even listen to them anymore because I ran out of tolerance for stupid, same with every single one of the creationist talking heads, and I'm a very patient guy. I couldn't watch the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate because the stupid it burns. Some are worse than others De Souza especially rubs me the wrong way, Kent Hovind is almost tolerable because he's so absurd that he can be unintentionally funny.

Cerebrawl:

Haha, I have been. I haven't seen an episode in a year or two though. But mostly I learned the fallacies by looking them up myself when I was engaging in comment wars on youtube(I could call them debates, but that's giving them too much credit).

I still occasionally listen to the Thinking Atheist podcast, or check if AronRa has released another video. ;)

The main reason I stoped watching The Atheist Experience was that I was fed up with the same moronic arguments again and again from christians calling the show, and in the comment sections. I basically can't even listen to them anymore because I ran out of tolerance for stupid, same with every single one of the creationist talking heads, and I'm a very patient guy. I couldn't watch the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate because the stupid it burns. Some are worse than others De Souza especially rubs me the wrong way, Kent Hovind is almost tolerable because he's so absurd that he can be unintentionally funny.

I still occasionally catch an episode or two. If only because it's still fascinating, and a bit uplifting, to hear that rare caller that, after hearing the counter-points to their arguments and thinking on them for just a moment, starts to question their long-held beliefs. You can just feel the walls of a closed-mind starting to break down. You know that they're starting to think for themselves for the first time in a long time. (even if, in the end, they decide to retain their faith it's still good to see someone thinking outside of dogma and rhetoric)

This rarely happens, sadly. But, when it does, it's nice to hear.

I too love to listen to some of Aron Ra's videos and lectures. He and Matt Dillahunty helped me gain a better understanding and appreciation of what the Bible and other religious texts contain and what religions actually stand for. (and the dangers therein)

Though, I do harbor a bit of resentment for the two of them as, because of them, I actually sat down some years ago and read the Bible from cover to cover. Both new and old testaments.

So it's because of them that I read one of the most repugnant pieces of literature in human history...

Ok so first of all let's make this clear.

"Creationist anything, does not belong on Cosmo."

Now with my opinion out of the way, I'd like to mention one extra thing. From reading through the comments here, I see a
striking lack of one of the most important components of science. Skepticism.

Quite a large majority of you are acting like all the scientific discoveries we've made in the last century are 100% full truth. You realize that kind of mindset was also common with the scientists that held onto Classical theories?

They also thought that they knew everything, but then Black Body Radiation came along, and completely turn Classical Theory on its head, and now we have Quantum. What is stopping the next 'Black Body Radiation' from flipping Quantum on its head too?

Don't get me wrong, we know way more than we had before, but we should never forget to doubt our findings, and keep an open mind.

And I'd like a threesome with Emma Watson and Jennifer Lawrence but we can't all get what we want, especially when what we want is incredibly unrealistic.
Read: if it does happen, it'll be against all odds.

mitchell271:
And I'd like a threesome with Emma Watson and Jennifer Lawrence but we can't all get what we want, especially when what we want is incredibly unrealistic.
Read: if it does happen, it'll be against all odds.

By the way, love that avatar of yours. Very nice!

And ya, definitely agree that there would be no way for the Creationists to get into Cosmos.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here