FinnAgain,
I agree with most (if not all) of your post. My original point is being lost. That the OP (like anyone in a debate like this—especially if he seeks a fair airing) should be specific about what is being debated. Is it the scientific method vs religion, the scientific method against YEC, Evolution vs YEC, Evolution vs a more metaphorical Creationism, etc? They are all different debates. For instance, being able to convince someone that the earth is billions of years old makes great headway if arguing against a YEC. But is pretty much a waste of time if a religionist already holds that opinion. All to often I’ve seen this debates get conflated, which helps no one.
Regardless of your opinion of other posters, do not call them names in GD.
[ /Moderating ]
That said:
kanicbird has been around long enough for everyone to know his opinion. If you choose to engage him, recognize that he only fights on his own turf. Calling on him to recognize science will only result in more witnessing that “God’s word” (as idiosyncratically interpreted by kanicbird) always trumps the “errors” of science. If you enjoy such back-and-forth, at least recognize how the discussion will proceed before you continue it.
[ /Modding ]
All religion by its nature is aggressive. But some are more aggressive than others. There’s a reason that religions require witnessing; without aggressive proselytizing, religions die out. Science has no need of that. You see, unlike religion, when you look around the world, you actually see science in action. No religion can claim this, credibly anyway. Is it accurate? More or less, yes. Is it fair? No, it isn’t fair that they do this, and try to force their particular religious beliefs on people out of some misguided notion than an omniscient, omnipotent god would require mere humans to let someone know s/he/it exists.
The certainty isn’t mine. The certainty is a byproduct of thousands of years of human advancement converging on good approximations of reality. You say certainty like it’s blindly given or something. I am certain of many things in science because in all of recorded human history these things have held true. I’m certain if I walk off of a building, I will fall towards the Earth. I am certain if I decapitate myself I’ll stop living. Certainty isn’t a bad thing when it’s grounded in reality. Certainty when it exists despite all the evidence pointing otherwise is bad.
There’s also nothing inherently wrong with having pride in one’s work, or being proud of one’s accomplishments. This is a moral fallacy used to exercise dominion over people by the church: feeling good about what you’ve done is a sin because the glory belongs to god. Bleh. It’s bullshit. God didn’t write my papers for me. God didn’t do my research for me. God didn’t pay for my schooling. God didn’t struggle learning complex mathematics and science for me. In short, god didn’t do a fucking thing. I did it. With help from fellow students, professors, friends, some family. God was nowhere to be found. So yes, I take pride in what I’ve accomplished in life. I sure as hell am not going to walk around speaking in a tone which indicates I’m any degrees less educated than I am. I worked hard, and I’m unafraid to use what I’ve learned.
But, you see, there’s a difference; I don’t require anyone to accept anything I accept as truth. That’s where religion and science are different (among other places as well). Science doesn’t depend on getting people to believe in it. Or to accept its theories. These scientists and scientific theories march along just fine without needing the general public’s approval or belief. Religion cannot; its strength, its life, its very power depends on how many people it can control.
That’s where the hubris comes in: forcing your religion on people by using appeals harm, force, death, fear, sympathy and so on. Science does none of this. It collects data and analyzes it. The data are there for everyone to see. The evidence is the same for everyone. If anyone wants access to the information, there’s no secret rites involved. There’s no faith. There’s no pledge. There’s no need to bring a friend. All one needs is some willingness to learn and it’s freely available. Religion has no such no strings attached clause. You must accept my god because he’s the creator of everything and I say so. That’s arrogant to presume your god is anymore special than anyone else’s.
After all, you can’t all be right. Assuming that one of the religions is right, and further assuming there are only 5 major religions with the addition that each is roughly believed, then you have only a 20% chance of being right. Or in other words, you have an 80% chance of winding up in someone else’s religion’s hell. Of course, the distribution isn’t even among them all, and there are many, many more religions than 5.
There are, I have no idea how many, but roughly 1/7 of the world’s population is Christian. The rest are separated up among all the other religions and atheism. So, you have a 6/7 chance of winding up in the wrong hell, or nowhere at all. It’s outright hubris to think that your religion is the right one based on its size and books when 6/7 of the world outright rejects it. Even more cogent is that within the christian community itself is no consensus on which god idea is the correct one. Catholic? Protestant? Mormon? They all pray to the same god, just with a different idea of what that god is. Essentially, each of these cults redefines god how they want.
That requires that god be a creation of man, not the other way around. Else, he wouldn’t at all malleable. And as is often levied against evolutionary biologists, it’s ridiculous to think that life came from non-life. Or, as they say, that life sprang up from a rock. No scientist argues this, but all Christians most definitely argue that it’s the case since God made Adam from the dirt. And of course, then you have to deal with talking animals, people who can live in fish, those who have the ability to walk around in fire, the dead coming back to life and so on and so forth. None these events is supported by any evidence ever found by anyone at anytime anywhere in the world.
Refuting the nonsensical claims of the superstitious isn’t at all hubris. Or is it hubris when you explain to a child that Santa isn’t real? How dare you?! That child believed it; that child knew it, and now you’ve ruined it. Of course, it’s the duty of adults to at some point let kids in on the fairytale so they don’t go around thinking the Easter Bunny exists. Unfortunately, that level of critical analysis flees the mind of adults when it comes to reading some Holy Scripture and taking all the magic found in there as some actual revelation about life. Even as a moral code, the bible sucks ass. The god of the old testament is about the least moral being I could ever imagine. Yet he’s held up as the god of love in the new testament, despite all the contrary evidence Anyway, why’d he decide to chill out? Fatherhood mellow him down? Killing his only son got him down? I think not.
I would never use (lower case) intelligent design in a discussion because it would certainly be confused with Intelligent Design, but lower case “id” is one name (infrequently) applied to theistic evolution, which is not in conflict with science at any level and is ony in conflict with some scientists at a metaphysical level.
Take this polemical hijack to a different thread, please.
[ /Modding ]
But you aren’t understanding, I think, what’s going on here. I’m the one arguing for creation. I don’t have privy information into what arguments my opponent will bring up since she’s the real creationist and has never argued for science. So, it’s not like I can read her previous arguments to get a sneak peak.
I’m sorry, what? You’re accusing me of hijacking my very own thread? That’s strange, particularly since this is a natural part of the discussion. Knowing that this would come up is the specific reason I didn’t put it in general questions . . .
Curiously enough, this entire thread is polemic, by definition.
Religion is no different then science in this respect. It is all just teachings of men with agendas. Even if the pursuit of science by a person is ‘pure’ it is in error as it is putting man’s wisdom against what God has already told us.
If science is anathema to religion, philosophy is anathema to science. Philosophy, finding out how to operate our minds for ourselves and use what God has given each one of us to figure out what reality is, instead of listening and believing what the rulers, the scientific, educational, political and religious authorities say is reality, is a way to find God, find freedom from religion, from science, from politics, from educational authorities, and find out how this world really works.
I have a issue with religion also, it is no better then the political and educational systems, they all attempt to define rules for us to live our lives, rules that God never intended us to live under, and rules that Jesus died to set us free of.
You believe this, which is just some teachings by men, though the Word of God is completely true, and God is willing to prove His Word to anyone who honestly seeks Him.
God tells us lean not on your own understanding, at the beginning you have to accept some things by faith, but after a while God will prove Himself, he will show you truths (not just ‘facts’). He will let you see with your own eyes the reality that is hidden in plane sight, He will remove the veil that we are born with - again seek Him with all your heart and He will show you these things and how man has created a incorrect view of reality that infiltrates our religious, political and educational systems and all serving to hold back man.
I’m not that familiar with the term, can you elaborate?
I thought that theistic evolution referred either to the “Watchmaker” belief that God set up the Universe and its natural laws and then backed off and/or that at key times God stepped into shape evolutionary progress like calling down an asteroid to kill off the dinosaurs.
It seems that Watchmaker beliefs are not in conflict with science to the degree that they accept scientific laws but posit a metaphysical basis for them that’s outside the realm of science… but may be if they rely on God creating the naked singularity that became the Big Bang or what have you. But again, I’m not really familiar with the concept and I’d rather not say anything definitive until I know what the heck I’m talking about. (Then again, since this is GD, I think that the rule is that even if someone doesn’t have the basic facts at hand, they should be as difficult and dogmatic as possible? :D)
Can you clear up my ignorance?
Science requires no faith. Science, unlike religion, is in the business of correcting its errors. Religion has a stake in remaining as unchanged as possible whereas science manifestly seeks to change itself.
No. A philosophy, as any introductory philosophy class will point out, is merely the love of knowledge. Science is manifestly this. God, if he exists, gave us powerful minds. So much so that we’ve devised all this wonderful technology (which you readily use I might note) to investigate the world around us. We needn’t settle on mere a priori examination of the world; we can do it a posteriori. And we do.
Says one religion of many dozens. Fully 6/7 of the world rejects outright your claim.
I’ll accept your premise. The word of God is completely true. Okay. Show me one example from the bible that is factually correct. The world is flat, is it? There’s a canopy of water floating around in the sky is there? Unicorns exist? Animals talk? People can live inside of fish days on end? Ok, all you need do now is show some evidence which supports any claim the bible makes.
This is where science is different. We don’t require faith. Every claim of science is demonstrably true; else it isn’t a claim at all. All theories in science fall or stand exclusively on their merits. Religion doesn’t. It stands on an appeal to authority.
The only two reasonable approaches I can see are the argument from incredulity (we’re so perfect, it couldn’t happen by accident) and the obscure pseudo-science probably in the Johnson book. I haven’t read it, but I spent enough time in talk.origins to probably have seen all of them - dust on the moon, salt in the ocean, etc. etc.
A third, unreasonable on kanicbird brought up - God said it and I believe it.
But it sounds like a real goal here is to educate your colleague. The best part of this operation I think is the debriefing afterward. If the students can learn the rhetorical tricks a debater uses to make a weak position look strong they will be well prepared for life. Therefore you should be prepared to refute all your own arguments, and refute her refutations of her arguments. If you can find a book on rhetorical tricks, you can use some and expose them. You making the argument, then showing the scaffolding you used to hold up your argument and how it collapses with the slightest push would be very powerful.
Any venue that gives the impression Intelligent Deisgn (Creationism Hiding Under Another Name After its First defeat) can in any way be honestly intellectually talked about is bad and counter-educational. Nobody argues for Ponzi schemes, although they are more honest and work better than Creationism. Nobody argues for the Holocaust (no one who’s intellectually worth a damn). Nobody gives rape a fair hearing in a debate vs. non-rape.
Just getting into the debate is a huge and un-earned victory for these people. Shoo them out the door and have them arrested if they come back.
.
Was Jesus Christ aggressive when he was crucified and made no attempt to stop it from happening? Was Saint Francis of Assisi aggressive? Was St. John of the Cross aggressive? If you didn’t answer yes to these questions, can you defend your claim that all religion is aggressive?
How would this statement account for the existence of Hinduism, Bahai, and numerous other religions that survive without prosletyzing?
Then what are you doing in this post?
I just looked around and did not see any science in action. Can you explain why?
Then why are you posting these things in this thread?
Religion does not require anyone to accept anything that I accept as truth, so this statement is untrue.
So you’re saying that if no person on earth believed any scientific statement, science would still be marching on? Would you care to justify that?
Religion, in this country, controls no one, yet it still has great strength. Therefore your statement is false.
Religion does none of this in America either, so science and religion are on the same ground here.
Actually this is the exact opposite of the truth. Scientific journals are hidden in dusty rooms in the basements of libraries, where it’s quite hard for most people to read them. This contrasts quite sharply with religious documents, which are generally made as widely available as possible.
So you’re admitting to being arrogrant.
Here I think we’ve found the root of the conflict. I decide what to believe by reason and logic, and believe firmly that those methods give me better odds than mere chance of finding the truth. You, on the other hand, apparently believe that all efforts to seek knowledge are as good as random guessing. As long as we’re split like that, I don’t think there’s much chance of us coming to agreement.
There are more than 2 billions Christians among fewer than 7 billion humans. How that works out to roughly 1/7 must be a result of your special science. Fortunately, most scientists don’t use your special science.
Ah, so now you’re telling me that the probability of anything existing is proportional to the number of people who believe in it. By that logic, extraterrestrials probably did exist 30-40 years ago, but now they probably don’t exist, since the percentage of people who believe in them has gone down.
This is flatly incorrect. All Christians worship Jesus Christ.
Catholicism, Protestantism, and Mormonism are not cults. you’re flatly wrong again.
Given how much certainty you exhibit towards things that are utterly wrong, does this make you bad?
As a member of the editorial board of a scientific journal, I assure you we want to get out to as many people as possible - while not sacrificing technical content. And I’ve never had to go to dusty basements to find a journal. Pretty much all are on the web now, though you usually have to be a member of a society or pay to get them.
So, you apparently don’t know what you’re talking about.
Your computer is invisible, the light bulbs in your house as powered by magic, the vaccines which kept you alive are powered by raw hope, the plastics in your home are made of love, the car you drive is powered on the tortured souls of the damned, the laser in your DVD-ROM drive uses a coherent beam of good vibes to read discs…
Jesus isn’t a religion. If this foreshadows what’s to come in the remainder of this post, I fear you’ll have done a poor attempt at arguing against something I haven’t said. Good luck though!
Hrm. Oh, you got me. Oh wait, cite? Oh yeah, baby, all religions require current members to bring in future members. The truths, after all, aren’t so universal that people just know there’s a good.
Because science, and by extension scientists, is in the business of eliminating ignorance. I share this purpose. Indeed, this message board is explicitly about doing just that. Moreover, this is my thread so I have some interest in what goes on it.
I have a reason, but I’m not allowed to mention it here.
Ok, now you’re being obtuse. This thread, as I said when I started it, is about gathering good or the best of what’s available to support creationism in a debate. So, I’m obliged to get down in the thick of it and come out probably worse for wear. You are surely showing why the ID movement has failed to produce a single plausible theory.
If you’re going to play word-games, at least try not to suck at it. Religion depends on the testimony and witnessing of its members taken in conjunction with the authority of the priest. If they say something which originally sounds odd, people go with it because they might know more.
If any scientists makes an assertion without the benefit of evidence, that’s a quick way to get blackballed by the entire community of scientists. Oftentimes, it’s even criminal for them to do so.
Science is a methodological attempt to understand the true nature of reality. While we are the users of that method, and the ones who interpret that data, we aren’t relevant to the processes. If mankind dies out, god dies. If mankind dies out, the laws of biology, chemistry, thermodynamics, physics and all that fun shit will keep doing their thing. God, unfortunately, apparently exists only to serve mankind (why are his interests so unmistakenly human?).
Well, I agree that none of the Christians actually follow the bible. So, in that sense, they aren’t strictly controlled by it since they choose to act otherwise, but they want the rest of us to. But the term control refers to more than just that. I have plenary control over the long-term behavior of my children; however, I don’t have it over their local behavior merely because they are three and I am but one. I cannot be everywhere at once and as such some of their conduct (probably a lot of it) will go unnoticed by me. So, the thrust of their behavior is how it’s judged.
This is nothing new.
They are manifestly not on equal footing. And yes, religion does as much as I’ve said. “Believe that God loves you, or burn in fire.” That’s an appeal to fear and power at the same time. Awesome. Science does no such thing. There’s the evidence. Go look at it. That’s how evil we fucking scientists are: we use reason - the antithesis of religion.
This is an outright lie.
It’s a lie of the worst possible kind because it doesn’t even pretend to be true. It won’t do in today’s day and age to claim that you lack access to the scientific data, to the peer reviewed journals. Anyone can buy a subscription and they’ll mail them right to your very home. Of course, you don’t strike me as having the power to understand what’s in those pages, but the data are there for all to see. On the internet, in libraries, open to the public at all public Universities in the country (and many private ones too), the library of congress, National Center for Science Excellence, the Jeffersonian*, college classrooms and the list goes on and on. To not find it in this day and age, you have to work hard to miss it.
No, my dear. I have no god. That was called a rhetorical device.
Religion has never advocated reason, or logic. Religion has never moved mankind forward. Religion is antithetical to knowledge.
Hrm, for some reason I was thinking of Catholics in particular. There are about 2.1 billion Christians, yes. So now you’ve cut the thrust of my argument by 1/7. So, ok, 5/7 of the world outright rejects your views. So, that’s only about 4.9 billion people who say, no. Not that group opinion resolves the truth. But you do have to wonder why christianity has such a bad conversation rate despite its attempts.
No, that’s stupid.
Which is odd, since he didn’t worship himself. But I digress. Not all Christians sects believe the same thing: the Catholics require works to get into heaven. Salvation isn’t enough. The rest of them don’t. So, you know, you can be a douchebag who says the magic words right before death and you get in. If you aren’t catholic.
Cult: a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. (taken from dictionary.com on July 12, 2009) Stop making yourself look foolish.
This is perhaps the dumbest argument possible. My morality has nothing to do with science, unlike one’s morality actually bearing on their religion. Science doesn’t advocate what should happen, and shouldn’t happen. It has no morality. Science determines how, and why, and when.
Moreover, you confuse the statement that certainty in spite of all know evidence is bad (as in the certainty itself is bad) with the quality of the person holding the certainty. Please, at least make an attempt to pretend that you’ve put some thought into this.
Well, crap. Now I have to morally get rid of my cars, while buying more plastics. Because love is good. And it makes sense that DVDs are read by a beam of good vibes since plastic is made of love. How can it be otherwise?
I think you’re a little bit wrong on what power my lightbulbs though. I think the Theory of Elephanticity (offsite link)explains that far better.
Yay. Another thread in GD that mentioned a religious topic and has thus denigrated to actually discussing the religion rather than addressing the OP. The difference seems to be that the OP actually admits to wanting to discuss tangents. None of this stuff about religion is going to help you with your mock debate, the original topic.
I don’t understand the idea of the OP being able to retroactively decide what is and is not offtopic. If you want to debate religion in general, why isn’t that in your OP?
Well, I’m sorry for the turn this thread has taken. I thought the exercise you mentioned in your post was an interesting one. One of my tenets is that the passion for which one holds a position should be commensurate with his ability to argue the other side. So, I was genuinely interested in your endeavor. But your posts have increasingly revealed that your interest is not a legitimate one. I guess I gave you too much credit. You just want to humor your friend and do the absolute minimum possible. It’s as if you’re afraid you might actually learn something to challenge your own beliefs. You can hold your contempt for religion little better than Der Trihs, and I think your ability to offer a strong argument in its defense is on par with his.
Wow. Of course you are ignoring the possibility that there is a Creator, maybe even one that hates all religions. Or one that created a universe in which we are detritus. So, if God is part of reality, then science, by your definition, should be making an attempt to understand that reality. I’m sure your memory of Logic 101 informs you that even if you disprove every religion known to man, that that does not equate to disproving God. I mean, religionists are so stupid anyway, how could one expect them to to do the deep, serious thinking necessary to discern the true God and what he wants of humans.