# Evolution VS Creationism



## funky3000 (Feb 6, 2014)

So, if you want to view the debate, if you haven't, here is the link to the debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

The debate of evolution VS creationism has been a much more recent and relevant topic because of this debate. For those who don't know or want a refresh, evolution is basically humans came from monkeys, and creationism is a higher being created us and monkeys were not involved.

Feel free to state and discuss your side of this debate, or maybe have your own (civil!) mini-debate with users of the opposite viewpoint. Feel free to vote in the poll for what side you are on, maybe we can get a furry demographic of EvC.

My side of this debate is a mixture of the two, evolution dominant. Basically what I think happened, is because of the laws of conservation of matter/energy, a God had to create all the stuff in the universe. I believe in this being the case here, because I don't think everything has existed for literally forever -- it had to start somewhere but it cannot be created or destroyed... By normal forces. I think a higher power had the ability to create matter and energy, dumped a lot in one spot, and called it good. This created the Big Bang, or one of them in case the Big Crunch and Big Bang have happened multiple times. Eventually, matter took its own course and made the cosmos, and eventually life itself. Life began to evolve without needing the force of God, and eventually, evolution took the bigger hand and made life as we know it.

That's what I think happened. Though it could be a lot of different things, I believe in this the most strongly. Feel free to discuss your views, talk about my views or another's views, just be civil.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 6, 2014)

This can not end well. Prepare for bashing on religion and anyone who believes in a higher power (jumps into a bunker to avoid the coming fight.)


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 6, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> This can not end well. Prepare for bashing on religion and anyone who believes in a higher power (jumps into a bunker to avoid the coming fight.)



Yeah pretty much. I got $20 this is going to go round and round in a circle jerk. 

Well I know better now so no one's gonna get much target practice on me )


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 6, 2014)

Evolution without question, both for its scientific merit and for creationism's tendency to treat nonhuman life as mere property.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 6, 2014)

Humans came from monkeys? What are you Mrs Garrison?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> Humans came from monkeys? What are you Mrs Garrison?



We are monkeys. Humans are a species of ape and apes are a branch of monkeys, at least from a cladistic perspective anyway. This is why birds are dinosaurs and sea urchins are bilateria despite not being bilaterally symmetrical any longer.



Also, it gives me unimaginable pain that this debate exists amongst the general public in some first world countries, more so that many of those who do recognise evolution insist on polluting it with their religious ideas. 

It's like going 'well I accept quantum physics, but only if jesus says which quantum states are allowed'.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2014)

My mother had the same debate about this and she derailed it to quantum physics and "perceptual theory", basically stating that our perception of evolution is neither true or untrue.

And scientific theory means that there's no information, so Evolution is not proven.

I drank three beers that night.


Fallowfox said:


> We are monkeys. Humans are a species of ape and apes are a branch of monkeys, at least from a cladistic perspective anyway. This is why birds are dinosaurs and sea urchins are bilateria despite not being bilaterally symmetrical any longer.



She was being sarcastic, hun.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 6, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> evolution is basically humans came from monkeys
> 
> is because of the laws of conservation of matter/energy, a God had to create all the stuff in the universe. I believe in this being the case here, because I don't think everything has existed for literally forever -- it had to start somewhere but it cannot be created or destroyed...



Did you even watch the debate? 

The words you're looking for "humans have a common ancestor with apes", not "we came from monkeys", and that is not even remotely close to what evolution actually is as a whole - that's kinda one aspect known as common descent, but there's still mutation, natural selection/adaptation, genetics, speciation, extinction - And all of those splinter off into similar topics as well.

Evolution also has little to do with the origins of the universe, other than we can't have the former without the latter, but that's an effect, not a cause(?).

Bill Nye addressed the laws of conversation of matter and energy in the debate, it has something to do with Earth being an open system and the universe being a closed system (since nothing exists outside the universe to impact it), when Creationists believe (or at least mislead others to believe) the opposite - Which could potentially defeat the Big Bang theory if it were true that Earth is a closed/isolated system, but it's an open system.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 6, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> She was being sarcastic, hun.


Are you two dating, because such statements of affection are usually reserved for lovers


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> She was being sarcastic, hun.



I know, I was just elucidating because many people who recognise evolution dismiss the 'my grandpa wasn't a monkey' argument by saying 'we evolved from apes, not monkeys', which is a part truth, because apes _are _monkeys. 

It is a shame that our monkey identity is rejected by both 'sides' in this debate very often.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 6, 2014)

100% Evolution.



funky3000 said:


> My side of this debate is a mixture of the two, evolution dominant. Basically what I think happened, is because of the laws of conservation of matter/energy, a God had to create all the stuff in the universe. I believe in this being the case here, because I don't think everything has existed for literally forever -- it had to start somewhere but it cannot be created or destroyed... By normal forces. I think a higher power had the ability to create matter and energy, dumped a lot in one spot, and called it good. This created the Big Bang, or one of them in case the Big Crunch and Big Bang have happened multiple times.


What you're talking about ~here~ has nothing to do with evolution, but rather the beginning of the universe (evolution only explains the changes in the genetics of life through generations by the process of natural selection, nothing to do with the universe as a whole). A very interesting read on the topic anyway is Professor Lawrence Krauss' "A universe from nothing".


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> Are you two dating, because such statements of affection are usually reserved for lovers



You are a credit to your kind. :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2014)

I think 90% of the comments encouraging creationism which are to come in this thread will take the structure 'I don't know how x works, therefore magical intervention is the only explanation,'

The OP, for example, is 'I don't know anything about the Big bang theory, therefore magic is responsible,'. 
These are 'appeals to ignorance,' and they are wrong for a very clear reason. Imagine you are being prosecuted in court for a murder you did not commit. The prosecution asserts 'I have no idea how the victim died, therefore it must have been you!'


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I think 90% of the comments encouraging creationism which are to come in this thread will take the structure 'I don't know how x works, therefore magical intervention is the only explanation,'
> 
> The OP, for example, is 'I don't know anything about the Big bang theory, therefore magic is responsible,'.
> These are 'appeals to ignorance,' and they are wrong for a very clear reason. Imagine you are being prosecuted in court for a murder you did not commit. The prosecution asserts 'I have no idea how the victim died, therefore it must have been you!'



Or "I did not see it, therefore the information is not true", which I consider the highest level of ignorance.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Or "I did not see it, therefore the information is not true", which I consider the highest level of ignorance.



It is a perplexing argument, because if eye witness is the standard of truth...we don't have any eye witness to claim life was created by a deity, and we have plenty of eye witnesses who think that the queen of England is a lizard in a human suit. x3


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 6, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> We are monkeys. Humans are a species of ape and apes are a branch of monkeys, at least from a cladistic perspective anyway. This is why birds are dinosaurs and sea urchins are bilateria despite not being bilaterally symmetrical any longer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Forgive me, I hate the simplistic way in which people phrase "We came from monkeys".

I actually did an edit about people needing to insert supernatural deities into science...but figured it would be better to make it it's own post:

Ahem on a more serious note, I should write a book one day about "When I realized Dragons don't exist and why". That revelation taught me important concepts about human imagination, creativity, and a deep rooted need to fill in the blanks whens deprived of understanding. Dragons exist as a concept because people for a long time had no understanding of very basic principles. The idea of extinction did not exist. In fact even up into the Victorian age to suggest that an entire species of thing can die out...was laughable. 

But extinction is very real and we've seen animals go through it in our own life times. The Dodo was not the first and it will not be the last consequence of mankind's ceaseless desire to overproduce and destroy to support that over-production/mass consumption. The point is, we didn't understand. When humans do not understand they tend to make up explanations that sound nice. As such many natural elements that we understand today were originally attributed to super natural causes. The earthquakes we know today are caused by plate tectonics and this isn't theory anymore. But back then, it was thought to be caused by things like angry deities, or monsters moving under the ground.

Plagues/epidemics are better understood today as we have the ability to trace where dangerous illnesses arise from. We understand the Black Plague as a scourge brought on the backs of vermin who carried the plague carrying biting insects. We understand that the widespread nature of this terrible event is connected to the boats that unwittingly helped spread it. Did they know what we know now? No. So the explanations people came up with to some point very supernatural. People even bloodied themselves in the streets thinking they could appease some supernatural force somehow and make it all stop.

Thunderstorms, hurricanes, land slides...etc. All of these have natural causes that at some point had devout superstitions, and or deities attributed to their existence. Of course we better understand them now. Dragons? Appear to be attempts to understand fossilize remains. Plus they made good stories, and formed the basis of various religious practices.

Is the point there yet? How many things have we as a race made up to make sense of things? With no reason, no logic, no real rational thinking. Bad things happen because bad things sometimes happen. We should be well beyond the thinking that bad things happen only to bad people, or that good deeds lead to goodness always. It is with this line of thinking that I cannot even begin to tolerate concepts of Creationism creeping into scientific class rooms, and being offered up as an alternative to actual science.

How old are some of these adults now that want to sit there and play god of the gaps? Too old to be functioning the level of "Child". When you realize why dragons don't exist, you realize why gods don't exist. Then your realize how silly it is to need to make up some grand supernatural being as the start to Evolution or the creation of this world. Of course this is my own frame of reference, I tolerate people who want to be religious as that is their choice. I do not tolerate trying to inject supernatural into science in the way that many people try to do.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 6, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> Forgive me, I hate the simplistic way in which people phrase "We came from monkeys".
> 
> I actually did an edit about people needing to insert supernatural deities into science...but figured it would be better to make it it's own post:
> 
> ...


So you believe there is no such thing as a higher power? That there is nothing greater than humanity in existance?


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Feb 6, 2014)

The view of overall creation in the OP sounds like a deist one. That happens to be pretty much exactly what I believe as well.

But having studied evolution most of the time, for a while now, I could never bring myself to dispute that. I honestly don't understand why people have such difficulty accepting [the overwhelming evidence towards] this.

I was quite shocked to learn recently that some of the older members of my family won't even believe that humans originated entirely from Africa (because it's incongruent with the way it happened in the Bible). Much debate was had.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 6, 2014)

Evolution is at least probable. 
Creationism is at best unprovable.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 6, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> So you believe there is no such thing as a higher power? That there is nothing greater than humanity in existance?



Describe what you mean by higher power? If you mean some sort supernatural being that governs us all...no I don't. Furthermore I'm not sure what you are getting at with this concept of "Nothing greater than humanity in existence". In my level of thinking I don't put humans on a pedestal. I do find this second question unnecessary and pointless.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 6, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> Bad things happen because bad things sometimes happen.



This is actually one of the most terrifying, yet exciting, yet humbling things one can learn. The universe is a cold and dark place; we exist on a beady little rock orbiting unbelievably fast around a gigantic star that is going to implode/explode within a billion or two years (if I remember right) - There's no thought, there's no logic, there's no good or bad about it, and there's nothing we can really do about it (yet?) - It just _is._


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 6, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> So you believe there is no such thing as a higher power? That there is nothing greater than humanity in existance?



There are plenty of things greater than humanity, like quantum mechanics.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2014)

edit: superfluous content



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> There are plenty of things greater than humanity, like quantum mechanics.



I'm not sure 'great' really means anything at all in the context.



AlexxxLupo said:


> The view of overall creation in the OP sounds  like a deist one. That happens to be pretty much exactly what I believe  as well.
> 
> But having studied evolution most of the time, for a while now, I could  never bring myself to dispute that. I honestly don't understand why  people have such difficulty accepting [the overwhelming evidence  towards] this.
> 
> I was quite shocked to learn recently that some of the older members of  my family won't even believe that humans originated entirely from Africa  (because it's incongruent with the way it happened in the Bible). Much  debate was had.




On the subject of 'deist' explanations, these are the appeals to ignorance I mentioned earlier. 

A long time ago people thought that God was required to explain the formation of the solar system. Laplace famously proposed a physical explanation that didn't require the hand of God. 

When Napoleon asked where God was in his theory he responded 'I've no need of that hypothesis'

Why over complicate evolution by inserting a superfluous mechanism that involves magic? ._.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 6, 2014)

Moved to off topic because it's neither a rant nor a rave. XD


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 6, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> There are plenty of things greater than humanity, like quantum mechanics.


Those are concepts and theories. I meaning a being greater than us, because if we are "it", as in the highest form of life, the future looks pretty bleak.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> This is actually one of the most terrifying, yet exciting, yet humbling things one can learn. The universe is a cold and dark place; we exist on a beady little rock orbiting unbelievably fast around a gigantic star that is going to implode/explode within a billion or two years (if I remember right) - There's no thought, there's no logic, there's no good or bad about it, and there's nothing we can really do about it (yet?) - It just _is._



Some people will believe that a higher power will end the world. Which is true, except that higher power is something more like an asteroid, extreme climate changes, or maybe the sun exploding in a few billion years.

But God ending the world? No. Not going to happen. If anything, we are more likely to end ourselves through nuclear war than a God raining down his wrath.

If anything within the universe, we are just a speck that sometimes think that we are more than that speck. If anything as humans, we'll try to stop it...or increase our chances of survival.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> Those are concepts and theories. I meaning a being greater than us, because if we are "it", as in the highest form of life, the future looks pretty bleak.



Define 'great'. On this planet we are now one of the organsims with the most immediate power to change our biosphere. This is our responsibility and if the future looks bleak it is on our shoulders to change that; we cannot appeal to divine intervention because there is nobody listening out there.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 6, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> Those are concepts and theories. I meaning a being greater than us, because if we are "it", as in the highest form of life, the future looks pretty bleak.


Well maybe there is a higher form of life, seeing how the universe is vast enough for many civilizations to develop who knows? 

But I doubt they have magical powers and can be bothered to come say hello.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 6, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Define 'great'. On this planet we are now one of the organsims with the most immediate power to change our biosphere. This is our responsibility and if the future looks bleak it is on our shoulders to change that; we cannot appeal to divine intervention because there is nobody listening out there.


So, in other words, we are in charge of the fate of our world, and if we advance further, the fate of the universe. Seeing as how we have treated our planet and all the forms of life here, I hope we cause our own extinction before we get far enough to travel the stars, because once we do, we will be ruining the universe instead of only Earth.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2014)

Mokushi said:


> Well *maybe there is a higher form of life*, seeing how the universe is vast enough for many civilizations to develop who knows?
> 
> But I doubt they have magical powers and can be bothered to come say hello.



In the year 2632 it is discovered that humans are driven by instructions from their chemosymbiotic gut bacteria, explaining why people get 'gut feelings'. ;3



thoughtmaster said:


> So, in other words, we are in charge of the  fate of our world, and if we advance further, the fate of the universe.  Seeing as how we have treated our planet and all the forms of life  here, I hope we cause our own extinction before we get far enough to  travel the stars, because once we do, we will be ruining the universe  instead of only Earth.



We are in charge of a short period of time of our biosphere's existence. 

We will likely never be responsible for any region of space that is not negligible. Even if we were to travel through the cosmos, destroying stars, seeding black holes or whatever other destructive habit we might develop the region of space we will ever have the potential to change is, in the grand scheme of things, of infinitesimal size. 

For all we know there is currently a marauding race of aliens using cryogenic starships to peruse the galaxy, destroying habitable worlds because of their bizarre religious beliefs. But even if the galaxy had 100 such civilisations we would likely never bump into them.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 6, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> So, in other words, we are in charge of the fate of our world, and if we advance further, the fate of the universe. Seeing as how we have treated our planet and all the forms of life here, I hope we cause our own extinction before we get far enough to travel the stars, because once we do, we will be ruining the universe instead of only Earth.



Let us be clear that we are not capable of anything other than bringing about the end of ourselves. Yes we may drag down a ton of life and animals with it. Once we are gone the planet can and will recover as will life itself. It is important to realize that there is a very real threat to our well being posed by religion. It is that many of the dominant religions push this end of the world philosophy. If you believe that the world's end is going to come by some higher power, it gives you no reason to want to preserve what we have. It's this kind of mentality that guides a lot of senseless destruction.

I've had many a long winded debate with many a religious person because it's not right to sit there and destroy everything around us because YOU think YOUR GOD is going to put things right at the end. You don't know that for sure, and what you are really doing is accelerating our own doom/destruction. I hate Creationism for this because it further puts people in a comfy bubble the removes them from the reality of extinction. If you believe that dinos and humans once lived together, you cannot appreciate the full horror of complete extermination. You cannot fully fathom the end of an age. Therefore you are less likely to fully appreciate the horror of what we are doing to ourselves.

It also closes off the idea that maybe there doesn't have to be an end if we play our cards right.


----------



## Kosdu (Feb 6, 2014)

The best thing?


Spend your time focusing on things that truly matter.
The origin of life will no one.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2014)

Kosdu said:


> The best thing?
> 
> 
> Spend your time focusing on things that truly matter.
> *The origin of life will no one.*



I am not certain what you mean?


----------



## Kosdu (Feb 6, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I am not certain what you mean?



Silly me, I simply meant it will help no one.

To me, there is no practical application stemming from it.


----------



## Harbinger (Feb 6, 2014)

I dont believe in any gods or anything like that, im with Evolution 100% of the way without a doubt.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2014)

Kosdu said:


> Silly me, I simply meant it will help no one.
> 
> To me, there is no practical application stemming from it.



Understanding the chemistry of the first life and early earth does have practical applications, simply put it is an informative exercise to increase understanding of organic chemistry and organic processes operating in space.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Feb 6, 2014)

OH GOD (yea irony)

Is this really necessary!? We are on 2014 for god fucking sake (yea irony again)


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 6, 2014)

Raptros said:


> 100% Evolution.
> 
> 
> What you're talking about ~here~ has nothing to do with evolution, but rather the beginning of the universe (evolution only explains the changes in the genetics of life through generations by the process of natural selection, nothing to do with the universe as a whole). A very interesting read on the topic anyway is Professor Lawrence Krauss' "A universe from nothing".



Hm, I see where you're coming from there. I guess I went too far back in time. I think the only reason I say that is to say "I think creation happened, but it had no part in life".


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 6, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> So, if you want to view the debate, if you haven't, here is the link to the debate.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
> 
> ...



Ok, first the bolded part...
I am sorry to be so blunt here, but that is a load of horseshit! Evolution does not mean that "humans came from monkeys"!
Evolution is about common decent and change over time. That is it. It is not about one species magically turning into another...

Also, you shouldn't be talking about the laws of thermodynamics if you don't know what they mean :T You made a SHITLOAD of claims in your OP and didn't prove any of them. Let's go through them one by one:

-"what I think happened, is because of the laws of conservation of matter/energy, a God had to create all the stuff in the universe".
What does god have to do with thermodynamics? Also, if everything had to be created, who or what created god?

-"I believe in this being the case here, because I don't think everything has existed for literally forever -- it had to start somewhere but it cannot be created or destroyed"
Why did it have to start somewhere? Physicists are currently debating that the universe may have existed forever, that it has no beginning. And again, if this is true then where did god come from?

-"I think a higher power had the ability to create matter and energy, dumped a lot in one spot, and called it good."
Ok, what is your evidence for that? And if you don't have evidence for it, why bother wasting your time with it?

-"This created the Big Bang, or one of them in case the Big Crunch and Big Bang have happened multiple times."
I don't think you know what the terms "big bang" and "big crunsh" mean... Because neither of them have to do with matter. Or banging and crunching for that matter.
The big band only explains how spave started to expand. Nothing else. There was no giant explosion, it just started to expand.
This expansion then could have created matter in itself, one popular theory is that the rapid expansion caused virtual matter/antimatter particle pairs to be ripped apart so they couldn't annihilate each other and became real particles. But that is just a theory and no one knows how it happened. Yet.

So all in all, I don't believe you that it happened that way. There is no logical reason to believe you because many things you said there are based on misconceptions about popular scientific theories.


Now, as for the whole creationism vs. evolution thing:
There is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence at all for creation. So why should I even bother with the latter?
100% evolution and we should get rid of creationism entirely.


----------



## Kosdu (Feb 6, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Understanding the chemistry of the first life and early earth does have practical applications, simply put it is an informative exercise to increase understanding of organic chemistry and organic processes operating in space.



I am sorry, I rather meant the creation of... Well, the universe.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2014)

Gaiz, the Mormons explain it better than Christians.
God is an Alien. :V

[yt]n3BqLZ8UoZk[/yt]


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 6, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Gaiz, the Mormons explain it better than Christians.
> God is an Alien. :V
> 
> n3BqLZ8UoZk



Surperior version:

[yt]46PXaJxzuDE[/yt]


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2014)

Magical underpants and Elohim's many wives aside, that the reason why some people believe in creationism may be due to an apparent fear of...being alone. Also  that maybe the thought of their own destiny is in their hands, not god, in a sense. Even though out technology advances and discovers new things and seals many holes, or add on new branches, people will still believe it even if you prove them otherwise.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 6, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Magical underpants and Elohim's many wives aside, that the reason why some people believe in creationism may be due to an apparent fear of...being alone. Also  that maybe the thought of their own destiny is in their hands, not god, in a sense. Even though out technology advances and discovers new things and seals many holes, or add on new branches, people will still believe it even if you prove them otherwise.



Maybe this is just part of human evolution then? That there are more and more people who don't need this kind of belief in their life?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2014)

Kosdu said:


> I am sorry, I rather meant the creation of... Well, the universe.



The physics behind that could well revolutionise technology. Discovering why objects don't glow in the UV spectrum when you heat them resulted in transistors, it's almost as if when people are trying to do practical science they labour away for years to make little progress, whilst science in totally unrelated areas provokes revolutions by accident.

edit: I see the 'humans didn't come from monkeys' argument has been raised by captain cool. If 'modern monkeys' is what is meant that's fair enough, but some confusion may be had, because the common ancestor of modern monkeys and humans was a monkey, and hence humans are a species of the monkey clade.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Maybe this is just part of human evolution then? That there are more and more people who don't need this kind of belief in their life?



No they don't. I see it as a destructive thing to live with a modern myth as a source for ALL your knowledge, even when the technology is available. I really don't care what your faith is, but keep it out of my Science. >:V


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 6, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> No they don't. I see it as a destructive thing to live with a modern myth as a source for ALL your knowledge, even when the technology is available. I really don't care what your faith is, but keep it out of my Science. >:V



Of course, that is what I've been saying in other threads as well^^
What I meant is that maybe we (or maybe just society) are slowly evolving away from the need to have these myths as part of our lives.
With pretty much all of humanity's knowledge available at your fingertips through the internet, why bother accepting BS answers like "GOD DID IT!!1 >:C" when you can find out the truth online in less than 5 minutes?^^

Oh and by the way, I am convinced that the only reason people are clinging to nonsense like creationism and religion in general is because we are so easily fooled:
[yt]J5myT93yRjs[/yt]

People today are still being fooled by the easiest card tricks. Now imagine how a more elaborate scam would have worked on people 2000 years ago... Convince them that you can walk on water and they believe everything you say.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 6, 2014)

One is based on faith and word of mouth, the other is based on discovery and a library of evidence.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 6, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The physics behind that could well revolutionise technology. Discovering why objects don't glow in the UV spectrum when you heat them resulted in transistors, it's almost as if when people are trying to do practical science they labour away for years to make little progress, whilst science in totally unrelated areas provokes revolutions by accident.
> 
> edit: I see the 'humans didn't come from monkeys' argument has been raised by captain cool. If 'modern monkeys' is what is meant that's fair enough, but some confusion may be had, because the common ancestor of modern monkeys and humans was a monkey, and hence humans are a species of the monkey clade.



Apes. Not monkeys. Apes.

Yes, they are mostly both primates, but Apes are 'higher' primates; with a much more advanced society, no tails, closer genetic match to humans, flatter faces, have greater intelligence, and are generally more capable of swinging from branches, as well as showing more comfort in walking on two legs. 

Monkeys are 'lower' primates; less organised, are genetically closer to other mammals (as well as exhibit similar features to such), have lower intelligence, have external tails, and whilst apes make up a much more significant amount of the evolutionary line leading towards humans - Monkeys are only connected to some of the earliest humans, then apes take over. 

It's not as minute a difference as people think, even if they might exist in the same clade.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 6, 2014)

I wish humans evolved from bonobos.

They use food and sex to solve all disputes.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 6, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Apes. Not monkeys. Apes.
> 
> Yes, they are mostly both primates, but Apes are 'higher' primates; with a much more advanced society, no tails, closer genetic match to humans, flatter faces, have greater intelligence, and are generally more capable of swinging from branches, as well as showing more comfort in walking on two legs.
> 
> ...



They are essentially just slightly more distant relatives to us. We are related to them in some way, but the differences are much more apparent compared to when you compare humans and great apes.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 6, 2014)

Mokushi said:


> I wish humans evolved from bonobos.
> 
> They use food and sex to solve all disputes.



I would get so fat.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> They are essentially just slightly more distant relatives to us. We are related to them in some way, but the differences are much more apparent compared to when you compare humans and great apes.



It's not slightly, but regardless, we're like 96-99% genetically similar to apes. The same cannot necessarily be said about monkeys, if I recall my classes correctly~


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 6, 2014)

I actually want to know where all these "God did it!" creationists are. 'cause like, I've never, honestly met or saw one online. 

I've seen those that don't agree with evolution sure, but I've never really seen "Unknown therefore GOD!"


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I actually want to know where all these "God did it!" creationists are. 'cause like, I've never, honestly met or saw one online.
> 
> I've seen those that don't agree with evolution sure, but I've never really seen "Unknown therefore GOD!"



Ken Ham. Look him up.


----------



## dialup (Feb 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I actually want to know where all these "God did it!" creationists are. 'cause like, I've never, honestly met or saw one online.
> 
> I've seen those that don't agree with evolution sure, but I've never really seen "Unknown therefore GOD!"


They're everywhere here in the south. All through my days in public school and college I've had to deal with them. I go to a trade school now and even my anatomy teacher (who is a fabulous teacher and really knows his shit) will go off on tangents in the middle of our lectures to talk about why he thinks evolution is bullshit despite the fact he's taught us some things like mutations and genes being bred out and whatnot in class. Some of my classmates agree with him, but luckily that's more of the older people that are in there.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I actually want to know where all these "God did it!" creationists are. 'cause like, I've never, honestly met or saw one online.
> 
> I've seen those that don't agree with evolution sure, but I've never really seen "Unknown therefore GOD!"



Then you haven't been looking hard enough :V

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/creationistfurs



And those are just some of the more extreme(ly insane) expamples from the fandom itself!


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Then you haven't been looking hard enough :V
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/user/creationistfurs
> 
> And those are just some of the more extreme(ly insane) expamples from the fandom itself!



So let me summarize what I believe your point might be. 

IF Belief in Evolution != true THEN Belief = GODDIDIT (Or in otherwords, ALL evolution deniers automatically believe "God did it")


----------



## Conker (Feb 6, 2014)

Evolution all the way. It's the year 2014 and this shouldn't even be up for debate anymore.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> So let me summarize what I believe your point might be.
> 
> IF Belief in Evolution != true THEN Belief = GODDIDIT (Or in otherwords, ALL evolution deniers automatically believe "God did it")



Naa, those are just examples of people in the fandom who actually do believe the "GOD DID EVERYTHING" part. As far as I know they are all young earth creatards.
There are people who believe in other things than creatardism or evolution. But those two are by far the most "popular" choices.

Oh also, you might wanna remove my quote because I already got a warning for a callout X3


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Naa, those are just examples of people in the fandom who actually do believe the "GOD DID EVERYTHING" part. As far as I know they are all young earth creatards.
> There are people who believe in other things than creatardism or evolution. But those two are by far the most "popular" choices.
> 
> Oh also, you might wanna remove my quote because I already got a warning for a callout X3



Er...that doesn't really answer my question.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 6, 2014)

I selected both Creation and Evolution because they don't really....have anything to do with each other. Creation more has to do with origin and evolution is pretty much after the critters have been around.
Personally I think Creation and the Big Bang Theory could be explained to be one and the same. The culture before couldn't exactly explain what was going on specifically so they did their best with what they knew (which was very little). Just like how people say that there's a scientific explanation for ghosts, I believe there's a scientific explanation for Creation which I believe the Big Bang Theory does.

Blah blah still believe in a higher power orchestrating it according to the laws here blah blah ok I'm ready for people to say I'm an idiot now for believing in a "fairy tale" :V


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Er...that doesn't really answer my question.



Your post didn't contain a question, there was no questionmark :V

Anyway, no I don't think that every person who denies that evolution is a fact automatically believes that everything got to be through MAGIC.
But on most cases those are the two most popular options. I have only seen it very rarely that someone believes in neither evolution or creationism but something else entirely.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Your post didn't contain a question, there was no questionmark :V
> 
> Anyway, no I don't think that every person who denies that evolution is a fact automatically believes that everything got to be through MAGIC.
> But on most cases those are the two most popular options. I have only seen it very rarely that someone believes in neither evolution or creationism but something else entirely.



Like Raelianism?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Like Raelianism?



Yeah. I don't think I have to explain what I think about that particular belief though XD


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Like Raelianism?


What is Raelianism? I've never heard the term before.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Feb 6, 2014)

I don't think this debate will cause many people to doubt their convictions, whether on one side or the other. But from what I've heard this debate generated more light than heat, both men were sharp and had obviously been practicing their rhetoric, tempers were generally cool. It seems more like the C.S. Lewis- Bertrand Russell debates generations ago than the numberless Internet flamewars about the topic today. The only true way to determine the answer-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBEP5c-SUEQ


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 6, 2014)

DarrylWolf said:


> I don't think this debate will cause many people to doubt their convictions, whether on one side or the other. But from what I've heard this debate generated more light than heat, both men were sharp and had obviously been practicing their rhetoric, tempers were generally cool. It seems more like the C.S. Lewis- Bertrand Russell debates generations ago than the numberless Internet flamewars about the topic today. The only true way to determine the answer-
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBEP5c-SUEQ



I've been in this game long enough when it comes to religion versus science versus the world. If there is one thing it's taught me is that you can't change minds. Not in a day. Not in a week. Sometimes not even in a year. But, you can give light where there was none. You can make people think....and sometimes that's all it takes. It's a little flicker, a little glimmer...and it goes from there. That change has to come from within.

But first you got to get them to think. This is what I enjoy about these debates that continue to happen so long as they are respectful, and civil, and properly done. They make people think.


----------



## powderhound (Feb 7, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> sea urchins are bilateria despite not being bilaterally symmetrical any longer.


 The pegans are responsible for that one. (Get it? OK, yes I suck.)


Fallowfox said:


> In the year 2632 it is discovered that humans are driven by instructions from their chemosymbiotic gut bacteria, explaining why people get 'gut feelings'.


 Wow, I can't breath  That sounds like Gary Larsen. 
--
 â€˜Bill Nye the science guyâ€™â€¦ Seriously? 

So then they establish his credibility on the matter by the number of Emmy awards heâ€™s won? Oh good. Thatâ€™s much better than degreeâ€™s, grants, academic appointments and peer reviewed scientific publications. Of which he has nothing substantive. 

Fallowfox can take both these guys with one paw tied behind his back. 

This is so painful I canâ€™t watch it anymore. Both are shamelessly promoting their agendas and neither is doing a good job might I add. Both are completely incompetent at debating the topic at hand. (Lord Nye reminds me of George Bush trying to give a speech.)

I understand completely why they got Nye. What a gift. What surprises me is how incompetent Ham is. The Evolution and Ecology grad students would regularly debate the various creation groups in the lecture halls on the weekends and those creationists actually brought forth some really good stuff. You should see the bus load of Christian scientists that heckle the introductory ecology lecture on the first day of class. The professor wipes the floor with them every time. People come from all over campus to watch and the fire marshal usually has to clear the lecture hall. Now thatâ€™s a good show.  This Nye vs. Han thing is pathetic and just silly. Frankly I feel embarrassed for both sides. 

Just like Bill Nye these â€˜debatesâ€™ are for entertainment purposes only. One of the best evolutionary biologists I know is deeply religious. The two are not mutually exclusive. I donâ€™t know why people get so worked up over this.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 7, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Then you haven't been looking hard enough :V
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/user/creationistfurs



I was about to have my jimmies rustled

but then I saw they were inactive with just eight members following and I lol'd.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 7, 2014)

Lobar said:


> I was about to have my jimmies rustled
> 
> but then I saw they were inactive with just eight members following and I lol'd.



It looks like the same person started "patriarchal_monarchy_furs" (http://www.furaffinity.net/user/patriarchalmonarchyfurs/).



> patriarchal_monarchy_furs IS:
> 
> *a group where people who believe in natural hierarchical order (patriarchy and/or monarchy) can get together and talk about their beliefs and experiences in a world that largely rejects this in favor of egalitarianism;[...]



LOL WTF?


----------



## Dreaming (Feb 7, 2014)

> It looks like the same person started "patriarchal_monarchy_furs" (http://www.furaffinity.net/user/patriarchalmonarchyfurs/).





> _This is the group for all who believe in traditional gender roles, family values, and patriarchy, and for all who support, are interested in, or live in, monarchies_


good lorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 7, 2014)

Lobar said:


> I was about to have my jimmies rustled
> 
> but then I saw they were inactive with just eight members following and I lol'd.



I linked to a bunch of other profiles but got a warning for that :V




Mayfurr said:


> It looks like the same person started "patriarchal_monarchy_furs" (http://www.furaffinity.net/user/patriarchalmonarchyfurs/).
> 
> 
> 
> LOL WTF?



He is a very special child.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 7, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Apes. Not monkeys. Apes.
> 
> Yes, they are mostly both primates, but Apes are 'higher' primates; with a much more advanced society, no tails, closer genetic match to humans, flatter faces, have greater intelligence, and are generally more capable of swinging from branches, as well as showing more comfort in walking on two legs.
> 
> ...



Apes are monkeys. Derived characters are how we describe the branching of clades, but they do not define a descendent out of a clade. 

This is why however morphologically different they are that the humming bird is a dinosaur, and that sea urchins are bilateria. Humans are apes are simians. 

The decision to divide the monkeys into higher and lower is somewhat arbitrary and, I feel, has been exacerbated by creationists loudly stating 'my grandpa was not a monkey'. Yes he was, and you are too, because humans are derived monkeys, just like both us and the platypus are mammalia even though it sweats milk and lays eggs. 

The fact our common ancestors with the monkeys is a monkey is what defines us as monkeys. This is the only non arbitrary form of classification. You can call the clade 'simians' or 'anthropoidea' if you like, but both simply mean 'we're monkeys'.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The fact our common ancestors with the monkeys is a monkey is what defines us as monkeys. This is the only non arbitrary form of classification. You can call the clade 'simians' or 'anthropoidea' if you like, but both simply mean 'we're monkeys'.



I think that the ancestory is so very clear today is the most beautiful thing about the theory of evolution. Denying common ancestory these days is like denying that you are related to your awkward cousin who no one likes


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 8, 2014)

I guess I believe in both.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I guess I believe in both.



Like it got created and then evolved? So what do you think about abiogenesis?


----------



## Tica (Feb 8, 2014)

Mayfurr said:


> It looks like the same person started "patriarchal_monarchy_furs" (http://www.furaffinity.net/user/patriarchalmonarchyfurs/).
> 
> 
> 
> LOL WTF?



Oh my gawd it's Haimric

he left the Furs for Christ forums because we repeatedly called him out for being sexist


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 8, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Like it got created and then evolved? So what do you think about abiogenesis?


 Are atoms technically part of abiogenesis since they are non-living matter, or does it go further deeper than that, in terms of matter on earth? I know I am probably sounding really stupid right now.





Tica said:


> Oh my gawd it's Haimric
> 
> he left the Furs for Christ forums because we repeatedly called him out for being sexist


 What happened?


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 8, 2014)

My standpoint is that we were created, well everything was created, by "intelligence" if you will through the process of evolution.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> My standpoint is that we were created, well everything was created, by "intelligence" if you will through the process of evolution.



What intelligence is there in evolution?


----------



## Tica (Feb 8, 2014)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> What happened?



I don't want to air dirty laundry, but the kid has some issues and left of his own free will when he discovered none of us agreed with his more reactionary theologies.

--

I did want to talk about the actual Ken/Ham debate, however... It was kinda farcical, to be honest. Ken Ham preached the whole time and spent less than 10% of his rhetoric actually addressing the DEBATE TOPIC, which was something like "is Creationism viable in mainstream science?"

Bill Nye went in not as a scientist, but as "a reasonable man"; nevertheless, sometimes he assumed knowledge on behalf of the audience that I don't think was present. Likewise he had some issues explaining his evidence at times... but I think his CSI argument against Ham's distinction between observational and historical science was spot on. There's no difference between observational and historical science, and "you weren't there" is a stupid argument to make against science because it kinda invalidates forensics and idk archaeology?

I think Nye's primary weakness is actually his unfamiliarity with Christian rhetoric. At times he was completely baffled by Ham's reasoning because he honestly does not understand the uber-conservative Christian POV. A lot of the debate was like, 

Ham: the BIBLE says so
Nye: ...but I don't... Bible?

Establishing the Bible as a credible source of information is a whole DIFFERENT debate. Taking the Bible for granted as a source of information under this debate topic is ludicrous, and shame on Ham for doing just that and passing it off as good reasoning.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Are atoms technically part of abiogenesis since they are non-living matter, or does it go further deeper than that, in terms of matter on earth? I know I am probably sounding really stupid right now.
> 
> What happened?



Abiogenesis is the theory about "life coming from non-life".
Wikipedia sums it up as "the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds".
Because when you simplify it as much as possible "life" is essentially nothing but a very very complex chemical reaction to reproduce certain compounds. Mainly DNA. And with theories like abiogenesis and modern cosmology I simply don't see why it is necessary to believe that everything was started through an all mighty creator being.
And I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but your post is a good example why people still believe in it: You don't understand the science behind these things.

What happened? He probably made a complete ass of himself with his nonsense >__>


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 8, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> What intelligence is there in evolution?



Created *by* intelligence *through* the process of evolution. I don't mean evolution has intelligence, I meant I think it was used to create things by an intelligence.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

I've gotta say I'm 100% evolution. I don't buy into the notion that 'creationism' has any part to play in the origin of life. Actually much like Dawkins I think that adding a 'creator' into the mix does nothing to solve the problem of 'how' and makes the concept even more complicated than it need be. If someone created everything than who created the creator? How did the creator come to be? How can the creator create a universe? How can the creator create life? Did the creator create himself? If so, how?

It's just too much. I won't speak to the specifics of evolution though. I'm mid-way through a course on it, and so until I finish my online class for evolution I'd prefer to keep myself withdrawn from the topic. I'll simply wait until I've got some level of a background on the field before I start spouting nonsense.

I will say this though. There are some really interesting fossils out there, especially in the area of early hominids. Our past is rather intriguing, we're currently talking about the shift in hominids to bipedality


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Created *by* intelligence *through* the process of evolution. I don't mean evolution has intelligence, I meant I think it was used to create things by an intelligence.



How did you reach that conclusion?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> My standpoint is that we were created, well everything was created, by "intelligence" if you will through the process of evolution.



Prove it.



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> How did you reach that conclusion?



That is what I would like to know as well.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 8, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> How did you reach that conclusion?



Well, how else would you create something? Whip it up with a bit of magic? You want to create something, the best way to do it would be the natural way. Stick said creation in a developed environment and poke it here and there to make sure it goes the way you want. You don't need complex science to tell you that that's generally how you'd go about things. Besides, the point of evolution is to make sure a creature can be suited to the circumstances around it, whether that be to make it the perfect predator or the prey with numerous ways of defending itself. 

Why exactly is the idea of something pushing that forward so abhorrent to science? It isn't really incompatible with the general view.



CaptainCool said:


> Prove it.



 Just to be clear, I'm not trying to change anyone to my belief. I'm just stating my opinion as the op invited. I'm not interested in proving or disproving my belief for the purposes of winning people over.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Well, how else would you create something? Whip it up with a bit of magic? You want to create something, the best way to do it would be the natural way. Stick said creation in a developed environment and poke it here and there to make sure it goes the way you want. You don't need complex science to tell you that that's generally how you'd go about things. Besides, the point of evolution is to make sure a creature can be suited to the circumstances around it, whether that be to make it the perfect predator or the prey with numerous ways of defending itself.
> 
> Why exactly is the idea of something pushing that forward so abhorrent to science? It isn't really incompatible with the general view.
> 
> ...



Two things:
First of all, this IS incompatible with science because it isn't based on any evidence. Science means to look at nature and to come to a conclusion through testing what you think may be true.
Second of all, evolution doesn't have a purpose... Evolution is a blind natural process that favors every change the same way. There is no point to it, it just happens.

When I said "prove it" I wanted to hear why you think this is the truth. My point is that if you can't even prove it to yourself it is pointless to believe in it, you are just actively fooling yourself just for the sake of having an answer that is satisfying for you. And that is both unscientific and incredibly unhealthy.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Well, how else would you create something?



Why do you assume something was created?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Why do you assume something was created?



Yeah, I think that is also part of the problem. The idea that there _had_ to be a creator that at least nudged everything to get things going.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 8, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I selected both Creation and Evolution because they don't really....have anything to do with each other. Creation more has to do with origin and evolution is pretty much after the critters have been around.
> Personally I think Creation and the Big Bang Theory could be explained to be one and the same. The culture before couldn't exactly explain what was going on specifically so they did their best with what they knew (which was very little). Just like how people say that there's a scientific explanation for ghosts, I believe there's a scientific explanation for Creation which I believe the Big Bang Theory does.
> 
> Blah blah still believe in a higher power orchestrating it according to the laws here blah blah ok I'm ready for people to say I'm an idiot now for believing in a "fairy tale" :V



Jus' saying, people used to think it was necessary to imply a higher power to 'orchestrate' the orbits of the Planets. Then Newtonian physics emerged. 

Until a higher power is specifically and categorically proven adding them in to any description of event or process in this universe is an unmerited hypothesis which over complicates reality.




Ahzek M'kar said:


> My standpoint is that we were created, well  everything was created, by "intelligence" if you will through the  process of evolution.



Creatures actually evolve 'blindly' with no foresight. We should appreciate that the reason we are here is because of fragile and improbable stochastic events, such as the YucatÃ¡n impact because this provides a very useful message. 

The universe wasn't created for us and we are of no importance to it, it could wipe us out just like it wiped out the dinosaurs long before us, so we have to watch out; we cannot live under the impression that this space is our promised land.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 8, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Two things:
> First of all, this IS incompatible with science because it isn't based on any evidence. Science means to look at nature and to come to a conclusion through testing what you think may be true.
> Second of all, evolution doesn't have a purpose... Evolution is a blind natural process that favors every change the same way. There is no point to it, it just happens.
> 
> When I said "prove it" I wanted to hear why you think this is the truth. My point is that if you can't even prove it to yourself it is pointless to believe in it, you are just actively fooling yourself just for the sake of having an answer that is satisfying for you. And that is both unscientific and incredibly unhealthy.



What happened to the time when a fair part of science was seeing whether or not the impossible was possible? A few hundred years ago people came to the conclusion that the sun revolved around the earth, because for all intents and purposes, to them it did. Now we see that that idea had no evidence backing it up other than a literal personal viewpoint. I'm not saying that everything we know is wrong, but assuming that our evidence, based on what we have the ability to see at this moment, is all there is to an explanation is... "Unhealthy".
 My belief is a theory, it is not unhealthy because I'm not going around preaching about some end-of-world bollocks or trying to "save your soul", it doesn't require me to wear a headdress or observe the correct amount of prayers. I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm just keeping in mind that humanity's understanding of the universe is still very young, so I base my opinion around that. If it's wrong, then eventually I'm going to die so there's not really any lasting consequences is there?
 I could explain why I think of a creator as being compatible with science, but it would take up a good deal of paragraphs and I don't think anyone wants to read that.

 Where exactly did I say I believed there was a purpose to evolution? I said I thought something drove it, not that it had a purpose.




Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Why do you assume something was created?



Because it doesn't seem possible to me that the universe can exist without some lynchpin.



Fallowfox said:


> Creatures actually evolve 'blindly' with no foresight. We should  appreciate that the reason we are here is because of fragile and  improbable stochastic events, such as the YucatÃ¡n impact because this  provides a very useful message.
> 
> The universe wasn't created for us and we are of no importance to it, it  could wipe us out just like it wiped out the dinosaurs long before us,  so we have to watch out; we cannot live under the impression that this  space is our promised land.



Again, where did I say I thought it was driven with a purpose in mind? Creatures do not evolve blindly, why do you think humans have different skin colours? Because they adapted to suit their environment. Evolution has no other purpose than to improve creatures, but it certainly isn't blind.

Your assuming a lot aren't you? You sound like you're talking to a Christian.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> is an unmerited hypothesis which over complicates reality.



And that is what most people don't see. That their argument that "there has to be a creator that didn't need to be created" is nothing but special pleading. It's not an answer, it is a cheap cop out and they are cheating their own system. It just males no sense.
They want a simple answer but don't see that adding something to reality that supposedly operates outside of reality just makes things infinitely more complicated. Especially since this "thing" can't be proven by it's very nature.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> What happened to the time when a fair part of science was seeing whether or not the impossible was possible? A few hundred years ago people came to the conclusion that the sun revolved around the earth, because for all intents and purposes, to them it did. Now we see that that idea had no evidence backing it up other than a literal personal viewpoint. I'm not saying that everything we know is wrong, but assuming that our evidence, based on what we have the ability to see at this moment, is all there is to an explanation is... "Unhealthy".
> My belief is a theory, it is not unhealthy because I'm not going around preaching about some end-of-world bollocks or trying to "save your soul", it doesn't require me to wear a headdress or observe the correct amount of prayers. I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm just keeping in mind that humanity's understanding of the universe is still very young, so I base my opinion around that. If it's wrong, then eventually I'm going to die so there's not really any lasting consequences is there?
> I could explain why I think of a creator as being compatible with science, but it would take up a good deal of paragraphs and I don't think anyone wants to read that.
> 
> Where exactly did I say I believed there was a purpose to evolution? I said I thought something drove it, not that it had a purpose.



Yes, but we do know these things now.
If we go by that logic then this creator "thing" is nothing but a pocket of ignorance that gets smaller with time.
Also, what you have there is not a theory. A theory is something that is backed by solid evidence, and evidence is something that you don't have. What you have there is a hypothesis. Heck, it is so outlandish it barely even qualifies as that.

"Besides, the point of evolution is"
You said it right there.




Ahzek M'kar said:


> Because it doesn't seem possible to me that the universe can exist without some lynchpin.



Just because it doesn't seem possible to YOU that doesn't mean it actually is impossible or that there are no people who actually do understand it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> What happened to the time when a fair part of science was seeing whether or not the impossible was possible? A few hundred years ago people came to the conclusion that the sun revolved around the earth, because for all intents and purposes, to them it did. Now we see that that idea had no evidence backing it up other than a literal personal viewpoint. I'm not saying that everything we know is wrong, but assuming that our evidence, based on what we have the ability to see at this moment, is all there is to an explanation is... "Unhealthy".
> My belief is a theory, it is not unhealthy because I'm not going around preaching about some end-of-world bollocks or trying to "save your soul", it doesn't require me to wear a headdress or observe the correct amount of prayers. I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm just keeping in mind that humanity's understanding of the universe is still very young, so I base my opinion around that. If it's wrong, then eventually I'm going to die so there's not really any lasting consequences is there?
> I could explain why I think of a creator as being compatible with science, but it would take up a good deal of paragraphs and I don't think anyone wants to read that.
> 
> ...



In order to change from the Geo to Helio centric model a lot of concrete proof was provided, namely that a heliocentric model explains the retrograde motion of the planets with fewer assumptions than the geocentric model. 

You would need to do something comparable to that level of evidence to show organisms evolve with intent of a divine origin. All the available evidence thus far shows [not suggests, but shows] that organsism evolve without any foresight or 'plan', which is why some creatures end up becoming over derived*, to the point that they are unable to survive when stochastic events change conditions too considerably. 

Implying a creator who guides this process here is not only an unnecessary assumption, but it is an assumption we know is incorrect, because there is no 'march of progress' in evolution. The branching of species is actually usually allopatric, which is a coincidence of geography instead of the hand of divinity, for example. 

You specifically defined evolution's 'point' to make an organism suitable to its environment. This is not a point, it is an effect.

*To employ an example which will be popular with furries, the old world monkeys lost their tails because the conditions did not favour tails at the time, despite the possibility that tails may be useful in the future. This demonstrates a lack of foresight. Creatures which are able to generalise because they posses more primitive traits, like having a tail, do better in geological time because they are more able to adapt to stochastic change, so if there were foresight in evolution you might expect the old world monkeys to say 'hey, we might need these tails in the future, let's not lose them!'


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Again, where did I say I thought it was driven with a purpose in mind? Creatures do not evolve blindly, why do you think humans have different skin colours? Because they adapted to suit their environment. Evolution has no other purpose than to improve creatures, but it certainly isn't blind.
> 
> Your assuming a lot aren't you? You sound like you're talking to a Christian.



Random genetic mutation. Creatures do in fact blindly evolve. Natural selection plays a bigger role in the process I believe, but many changes in a species are the result of genetic mutations and even desirable traits in a species can get lost through chance alone. As our evolution teacher explained if a creature developed a new trait which was beneficial that doesn't guarantee the trait will live on. Reproduction is a gamble, not every trait of a creature gets passed on during reproduction so it's entirely possible and maybe even common for a desirable trait to be lost simply because it wasn't passed on to offspring. Evolution is a weird mix of adaptability and random chance.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 8, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> Random genetic mutation. Creatures do in fact blindly evolve. Natural selection plays a bigger role in the process I believe, but many changes in a species are the result of genetic mutations and even desirable traits in a species can get lost through chance alone. As our evolution teacher explained if a creature developed a new trait which was beneficial that doesn't guarantee the trait will live on. Reproduction is a gamble, not every trait of a creature gets passed on during reproduction so it's entirely possible and maybe even common for a desirable trait to be lost simply because it wasn't passed on to offspring. Evolution is a weird mix of adaptability and random chance.



A horrifying example is the evolution of genes that perturb meiosis in mice. The gene disturbs the meiotic process so that it is guaranteed to be passed onto the offspring, but it also makes any male that inherits it sterile. 

The gene, when it emerges in any mice population by mutation, spreads rapidly through the subsequent generations until it has killed off the population by removing all male mice.


----------



## Calemeyr (Feb 8, 2014)

Creationism is not even wrong. Like string theory, it's conveniently unfalsifiable, and people believe it from a document that has been edited numerous times, and has been taken from other sources, like Sumerian mythology.

The universe came from a nothingness. But perhaps that nothingness is also part of the universe (ground state vacuum with no fields?). Maybe the big bang only created the observable universe, and there were other big bags in other places. I think this idea was called eternal inflation from Alan Guth. No strings needed. Each observable universe would be holographic, if I recall correctly. More study of the Planck data is needed, and the Extreme Light Infrastructure may help with the vacuum part. I just don't think that the universe popped out of nowhere. Sounds too hand wavy to me. 

As for evolution: we've seen it happen with moths. My question to creationists: if God is omnipotent, why can't he destroy the devil himself, _or have prevented the fall in the first place? _What does God need with a starshi...I mean universe? If evil is the absence of good, why didn't God fill up all the holes? Sounds sloppy to me. And don't say "it's in the bibble" or "it's all right, he moves in mysterious ways." And what of other cultures that have existed before 4000 BC? What about thr fact that God came from an older Canaanite god "El", and there's a place in Lebanon (Byblos) that has been occupied for over 10000 years? Again, above all else, how can you trust the bible as a completely literal document rather than a metaphorical and spiritual text when it has been edited many times by politicians (popes, kings, etc)?


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> A horrifying example is the evolution of genes that perturb meiosis in mice. The gene disturbs the meiotic process so that it is guaranteed to be passed onto the offspring, but it also makes any male that inherits it sterile.
> 
> The gene, when it emerges in any mice population by mutation, spreads rapidly through the subsequent generations until it has killed off the population by removing all male mice.



Oh wow that definitely sounds like a sucky trait to get stuck with.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 8, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Yes, but we do know these things now.
> If we go by that logic then this creator "thing" is nothing but a pocket of ignorance that gets smaller with time.
> Also, what you have there is not a theory. A theory is something that is backed by solid evidence, and evidence is something that you don't have. What you have there is a hypothesis. Heck, it is so outlandish it barely even qualifies as that.
> 
> ...


 
You are right there. That was a miss-phrasing on my part, it is my hypothesis. Like I said, I could make it sound less outlandish and more scientific, but it'd take up far more space than I'm willing to type. It's not outlandish, I'm just not very good at explaining it. There are less believable hypothesis's.

Or alternatively, it is a force that gets larger as we discover more. Or less, we will just have to wait a see.

I meant that there's no divine purpose to evolution. Biologically evolution has a purpose, adapt a species so it can survive.



CaptainCool said:


> Just because it doesn't seem possible to YOU that doesn't mean it actually is impossible or that there are no people who actually do understand it.



And right back at you, just because you don't think there's a creator doesn't mean there isn't one. We never know what we may find in the future, and the evidence that built our past assumptions has been overturned before. Black Holes for example.


----------



## Conker (Feb 8, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> Random genetic mutation. Creatures do in fact blindly evolve. Natural selection plays a bigger role in the process I believe, but many changes in a species are the result of genetic mutations and even desirable traits in a species can get lost through chance alone. As our evolution teacher explained if a creature developed a new trait which was beneficial that doesn't guarantee the trait will live on. Reproduction is a gamble, not every trait of a creature gets passed on during reproduction so it's entirely possible and maybe even common for a desirable trait to be lost simply because it wasn't passed on to offspring. Evolution is a weird mix of adaptability and random chance.


To add to that, if you look at the before and the after of an animal, you can think "that wasn't a set of blind improvements. Look how much more complex/better suited this current animal is." However, the actual development from before to after doesn't work that way. Evolution has no foresight. In that sense, it is blind. Improvements happen, but they aren't consciously created. Luck of mutation and an animal's ability to reproduce are what it boils down to, and both of those things rely very much on chance.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 8, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> And that is what most people don't see. That their argument that "there has to be a creator that didn't need to be created" is nothing but special pleading. It's not an answer, it is a cheap cop out and they are cheating their own system. It just males no sense.
> They want a simple answer but don't see that adding something to reality that supposedly operates outside of reality just makes things infinitely more complicated. Especially since this "thing" can't be proven by it's very nature.



You almost forgot about the _Grand _Creator who created the Creator who created the universe. *Duh.* It's easy!


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Where exactly did I say I believed there was a purpose to evolution? I said I thought something drove it, not that it had a purpose.



Here?:



Ahzek M'kar said:


> Besides, the point of evolution is to make sure a creature can be suited to the circumstances around it, whether that be to make it the perfect predator or the prey with numerous ways of defending itself.






Ahzek M'kar said:


> Because it doesn't seem possible to me that the universe can exist without some lynchpin.



Sorry to keep asking these blunt questions, but why not?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> You are right there. That was a miss-phrasing on my part, it is my hypothesis. Like I said, I could make it sound less outlandish and more scientific, but it'd take up far more space than I'm willing to type. It's not outlandish, I'm just not very good at explaining it. There are less believable hypothesis's.
> 
> Or alternatively, it is a force that gets larger as we discover more. Or less, we will just have to wait a see.
> 
> ...



This is not technically correct. This is just the [frequent] result, there is no purpose. Furthermore there is a very big mistake 'species', natural selection does not necessarily operate at a species level, and there is good reason to believe it is gene centric.


I would be prepared to think there is a creator if sufficient evidence is presented. Until then it is an unnecessary addition to any hypothesis, which is a bad thing.


----------



## Calemeyr (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> And right back at you, just because you don't think there's a creator doesn't mean there isn't one. We never know what we may find in the future, and the evidence that built our past assumptions has been overturned before. *Black holes *for example.


You're an idiot. Hawking never said black holes don't exist, he said that the idea about what happens within them may be different. The media misrepresented his words because the media is also a bunch of idiots. Just because you googled it does not make it true.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

Conker said:


> To add to that, if you look at the before and the after of an animal, you can think "that wasn't a set of blind improvements. Look how much more complex/better suited this current animal is." However, the actual development from before to after doesn't work that way. Evolution has no foresight. In that sense, it is blind. Improvements happen, but they aren't consciously created. Luck of mutation and an animal's ability to reproduce are what it boils down to, and both of those things rely very much on chance.



I have to agree. I'm personally a little disappointed that we humans didn't get to keep the tail  

Haha it all comes down to genetics, sex, and good fortune.


----------



## Namba (Feb 8, 2014)

As far as I'm concerned, neither side presents a good enough argument (although I do find intelligent design to be a more credible explanation; honestly I thought Bill Nye was all over the place with his side).


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 8, 2014)

Namba said:


> As far as I'm concerned, neither side presents a good enough argument (although I do find intelligent design to be a more credible explanation; honestly I thought Bill Nye was all over the place with his side).


Bill Nye, nor this debate, represents the issue. 


The actual debate for the explanation of biodiversity was settled over a hundred years ago, [even then all geologists and most religious people acknowledged the world was many millions of years old, if not more, and that genesis was not literal]. Since then developments have been exploring the mechanisms and caveats by which biological change and diversity trends are exactly derived. 

The people on this thread who think religion or a higher power is in any way implied as a suitable explanation for  biodiversity are quite literally centuries behind the rest of us. 

Will any of them read the scientific literature to catch up? 

Probably not.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

Namba said:


> As far as I'm concerned, neither side presents a good enough argument (although I do find intelligent design to be a more credible explanation; honestly I thought Bill Nye was all over the place with his side).



Are you talking about the Billy Nye/Ken Ham debate? 0.o

I feel like we weren't watching the same one if that's the case 

Also, Intelligent design is just science with a 'God did it' post-it note stuck to it.


----------



## Fernin (Feb 8, 2014)

I created the universe and everything in it. There, end of story. (also, I sorely apologize about Bronies. They sorta just happened. I'll work on fixing it...)

/thread


----------



## Tica (Feb 8, 2014)

Namba said:


> As far as I'm concerned, neither side presents a good enough argument (although I do find intelligent design to be a more credible explanation; honestly I thought Bill Nye was all over the place with his side).



Bill Nye wasn't all over the place so much as flummoxed by Ham's utter lack of actual argumentation other than BIBLE SEZ


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 8, 2014)

God forbid people actually derive their views from scientists working in the evolutionary biology field, rather than an engineer and a creationist having a debate.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

Tica said:


> Bill Nye wasn't all over the place so much as flummoxed by Ham's utter lack of actual argumentation other than BIBLE SEZ



Hey that's not true. He also said some nonsense about 'historical' and 'observable' science.



Fallowfox said:


> God forbid people actually derive their views from scientists working in the evolutionary biology field, rather than an engineer and a creationist having a debate.



Hey Bill Nye knows what he's talking about when it comes to this stuff. He's not just spouting nonsense he knew what the subject was, knew what he was talking about, and had all the evidence to support it.

I agree though. One debate shouldn't do more than get a person asking some questions they hadn't thought of before which would hopefully lead them down the path to research of their own


----------



## Gryphoneer (Feb 8, 2014)

Is it just me, or is creationism one of those problems that would go away in, like, two attoseconds if the US stopped imposing it on the world?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> You are right there. That was a miss-phrasing on my part, it is my hypothesis. Like I said, I could make it sound less outlandish and more scientific, but it'd take up far more space than I'm willing to type. *It's not outlandish*, I'm just not very good at explaining it. There are less believable hypothesis's.
> 
> Or alternatively, it is a force that gets larger as we discover more. Or less, we will just have to wait a see.
> 
> ...



You are proposing that there might be an infinitely difficult to explain creator being without providing any kind of evidence for it. If that isn't outlandish I don't know what is.

No, it doesn't have a purpose. NOTHING that wasn't specifically made to fulfill a purpose has a purpose! And evolution is nothing but a blind natural process, it wasn't made by someone so it doesn't have a purpose! Mountains don't have a purpose either for example!

The reason why I don't believe in a creator being is twofold:
First of all, there is no evidence that is immediately apparent to me. So far everything I have witnessed can be explained or at least attempted to be explained through logic and reason without resorting to a magical creator.
And second of all, I don't believe _you_. Believers have yet to fulfill their burden of proof that there is a creator.



Gryphoneer said:


> Is it just me, or is creationism one of those problems that would go away in, like, two attoseconds if the US stopped imposing it on the world?



That is very doubtful considering that there are many other religions that have their own version of creationism that aren't being imposed on the world by the US.


----------



## Conker (Feb 8, 2014)

Tica said:


> Bill Nye wasn't all over the place so much as flummoxed by Ham's utter lack of actual argumentation other than BIBLE SEZ


Which is shocking in its own right since that's all Ham has to work with. It's either, "We don't understand so it must be God" "I don't understand so it must be God" or "BIBLE SAYS"

None of those statements are credible so they shouldn't show up in schools.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 8, 2014)

Conker said:


> None of those statements are credible so they shouldn't show up in schools.



Yes they are, God said so. :V

So is this thread a 'circle-jerk' yet?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> So is this thread a 'circle-jerk' yet?



Look at the poll. I think FAF's opinion on the matter is pretty obvious  But that doesn't mean that it's a circle jerk. It's more like most people here agree that things that aren't based on facts are pretty much irrelevant.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

Hey while my mind is on the topic of evolution...

Do any of you think that given enough time anthropomorphic races could arise through evolution?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 8, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> Hey while my mind is on the topic of evolution...
> 
> Do any of you think that given enough time anthropomorphic races could arise through evolution?



Well yeah, humans happened.
Doesn't get more anthropomorphic than us.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> Hey while my mind is on the topic of evolution...
> 
> Do any of you think that given enough time anthropomorphic races could arise through evolution?



Well, we happened through evolution. And we happened within 4.5 billion years through evolving from micro organisms. So given enough time... sure, I guess it would be possible. But keep in mind that they don't have an infinite amout of time for it  The sun is about half way through it's lifecycle and the universe will "end". So even if it does happen they probably won't exist that long because the sun is gonna blow up XD


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Well, we happened through evolution. And we happened within 4.5 billion years through evolving from micro organisms. So given enough time... sure, I guess it would be possible. But keep in mind that they don't have an infinite amout of time for it  The sun is about half way through it's lifecycle and the universe will "end". So even if it does happen they probably won't exist that long because the sun is gonna blow up XD



Fair enough. I figured it was possible, but I was wondering if anyone else had put any thought into it. XD

I disagree about the whole 'not enough time' thing though. Well it's more of a maybe sort of disagreement. If humans continue to pursue science and don't kill each other off I'd like to imagine in the span of billions of years we'd have a solution to the universe ending problem.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 8, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Well, we happened through evolution. And we happened within 4.5 billion years through evolving from micro organisms. So given enough time... sure, I guess it would be possible. But keep in mind that they don't have an infinite amout of time for it  The sun is about half way through it's lifecycle and the universe will "end". So even if it does happen they probably won't exist that long because the sun is gonna blow up XD



They probably wouldn't look like anthros either. Well, not the generally agreed versions anyway.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> They probably wouldn't look like anthros either. Well, not the generally agreed versions anyway.



Probably. But that is the nice thing about fiction, it can be what ever you want 
Also, as long as they would be walking upright and have some kind of civilized society I guess we could call them anthros.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Feb 8, 2014)

Creationism only, I want children and grown adults thinking I'm some god damn genius for explaining basic scientific phenomena.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 8, 2014)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Creationism only, I want children and grown adults thinking I'm some god damn genius for explaining basic scientific phenomena.



Too bad! The loonies are gonna think _you_ are the loonie for using logic and reason :V


----------



## Namba (Feb 8, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> God forbid people actually derive their views from scientists working in the evolutionary biology field, rather than an engineer and a creationist having a debate.


It really wasn't fair. Ken Ham should have called up Dawkins if he wanted a true challenge, since it is Dawkins who happens to be the ringleader of atheism... at least one of them. Disappointment.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

Namba said:


> It really wasn't fair. Ken Ham should have called up Dawkins if he wanted a true challenge, since it is Dawkins who happens to be the ringleader of atheism... at least one of them. Disappointment.



Richard Dawkins is a voice for atheism, but I don't think atheism has ring leaders. Plus I think him being an Evolutionary biologist would probably have made him a better choice. I think he was looking for more attention though, and Bill Nye is well Bill Nye.


----------



## Tica (Feb 8, 2014)

Namba said:


> It really wasn't fair. Ken Ham should have called up Dawkins if he wanted a true challenge, since it is Dawkins who happens to be the ringleader of atheism... at least one of them. Disappointment.



Except Dawkins is an asshole.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 8, 2014)

Tica said:


> Except Dawkins is an asshole.



Thank fuck I'm not the only one who thinks that. He's little better than an evangelical priest.

They should have got Stephen Hawkings, he's the one with the best reason for not believing in god.


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 8, 2014)

where life itself came from is still a bit of a mystery...it's believed all life on earth may have come from single celled organisms that landed here on an asteroid, but where did they come from? The current state of life on this planet is the end result of evolution IMHO, but where the organism that set the whole evolutionary chain reaction into motion came from is still unknown, so I would have to cast a bit of rationality towards the possibility of creation, but just like my thoughts on the existence of a higher power in general,I don't see enough information to conclude that creationism is a possibility, but at the same time I don't see enough proof to the contrary to outright deny it.

So, in short, I went with both, but evolution dominant.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 8, 2014)

sniperfreak223 said:


> where life itself came from is still a bit of a mystery...it's believed all life on earth may have come from single celled organisms that landed here on an asteroid, but where did they come from? The current state of life on this planet is the end result of evolution IMHO, but where the organism that set the whole evolutionary chain reaction into motion came from is still unknown, so I would have to cast a bit of rationality towards the possibility of creation, but just like my thoughts on the existence of a higher power in general,I don't see enough information to conclude that creationism is a possibility, but at the same time I don't see enough proof to the contrary to outright deny it.
> 
> So, in short, I went with both, but evolution dominant.



What in the fuck are you talking about? "All life on earth came from single celled organisms that landed on earth via asteroid"? This isn't Pokemon. 

http://i48.tinypic.com/fz2i2v.jpg


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 8, 2014)

Flame away. it's a legitimate scientific theory, and there re several single celled organisms that are capable of surviving a trip through space and the intensity of entering Earth's atmosphere. Note that I said it is believed that this MAY be the origin of life on Earth, but the true "species zero" so to speak is still unknown, as is it's exact source of origin.


----------



## Conker (Feb 8, 2014)

Tica said:


> Except Dawkins is an asshole.


He is, but damn is his writing style easy to follow and he explains his scientific topics well. 

Recommend _The Blind Watchmaker_ for those wanting to learn a bit more about evolution. It's a good book.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 8, 2014)

Tica said:


> Except Dawkins is an asshole.



Really? Considering all the crap he's had to deal with from ill-informed and maliciously ignorant creationist god-botherers over the years, I honestly can't blame him for getting somewhat cranky when he has to explain the same stuff about evolution over and over AND OVER again... 

Frank and forthright? Yes. Not tolerating fools much? Yes. An arsehole? Not really from where I'm sitting.



Ahzek M'kar said:


> They should have got Stephen Hawkings, he's the one with the best reason for not believing in god.



Besides the basic fact that due to his motor neuron disease Stephen Hawking takes a not-insignificant amount of time to compose his replies to conversation (which isn't conducive to a real-time debate), Hawking's speciality is astrophysics - not biology. Asking Stephen Hawking to debate biological evolution would be like asking Richard Dawkins to debate black holes and cosmic string theory.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 8, 2014)

Mayfurr said:


> Really? Considering all the crap he's had to deal with from ill-informed and maliciously ignorant creationist god-botherers over the years, I honestly can't blame him for getting somewhat cranky when he has to explain the same stuff about evolution over and over AND OVER again...



Thank fuck I'm not the only one who thinks those religious pretentious assholes deserve any respect when it comes to their beliefs and opinions.


----------



## Tica (Feb 8, 2014)

Mayfurr said:


> Really? Considering all the crap he's had to deal with from ill-informed and maliciously ignorant creationist god-botherers over the years, I honestly can't blame him for getting somewhat cranky when he has to explain the same stuff about evolution over and over AND OVER again...
> 
> Frank and forthright? Yes. Not tolerating fools much? Yes. An arsehole? Not really from where I'm sitting.



He's not only an asshole to the religious. He's also particularly dickish to atheist feminists.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 8, 2014)

Tica said:


> He's not only an asshole to the religious. *He's also particularly dickish to atheist feminists.*



[citation needed]


----------



## powderhound (Feb 8, 2014)

My brother is reading over my shoulder and says:  "The problem with this debate in a creation museum is that it is a bunch of like minded people jerking each other off. No ones mind is being changed by the facts." Lol.


----------



## Tica (Feb 8, 2014)

Mayfurr said:


> [citation needed]



sorry I was looking up the citations but didn't actually post the links

I'm thinking primarily of his interactions with Skepchick (but the skepchick site seems to be down right now? so have this)

http://www.thewire.com/national/201...-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

also twitter conversations with a feminist blogger I follow

http://www.anamardoll.com/2013/04/feminism-conversation-with-richard.html

http://www.anamardoll.com/2013/04/feminism-rhetorical-power-of-pig-pain.html


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

Tica said:


> Except Dawkins is an asshole.



If you think Dawkins is an asshole I can't imagine what you must think of Christopher Hitchens. 0.o


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 8, 2014)

Tica said:


> sorry I was looking up the citations but didn't actually post the links
> 
> I'm thinking primarily of his interactions with Skepchick (but the skepchick site seems to be down right now? so have this)
> 
> ...



The first link was unclear to me. I'm not sure what exactly they were discussing. Was some guy saying he was gonna rape a girl on an elevator, or was it a guy hit on a girl in an elevator and she didn't like it? Or some other third thing. It never once really took the time to say exactly what was going on, it only focused on the exchange between Dawkins and Watson afterwards.

The third length I think people mis-interpreted Dawkin's meaning, or something. I'm honestly not sure, that one was confusing.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 8, 2014)

sniperfreak223 said:


> Flame away. it's a legitimate scientific theory, and there re several single celled organisms that are capable of surviving a trip through space and the intensity of entering Earth's atmosphere. Note that I said it is believed that this MAY be the origin of life on Earth, but the true "species zero" so to speak is still unknown, as is it's exact source of origin.



By all means, I love to learn about new (to me) theories of how life came to this universe and/or planet. Please go on, since it's a _legitimate _scientifi_c _theory - That means there are plenty of peer-reviewed scientific works published in a multitude of mediums, and I'd love to read damn near any of them. 

I hold no doubt that it's a possibility, and I have no conclusive proof of the contrary, nor that you are wrong by any stretch, but I want to see this legitimate claim substantiated. Indulge me, indulge us with the plethora of articles that make it plausible from credible sources~


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 8, 2014)

It's a theory known in scientific circles as the "Panspermia Theory". Many rocks from the surface of Mars,as well as several meteorites, have been observed with traces of what appear to be ancient bacterium, which seems to lend some credence to the theory. I have attached a few links explaining this theory.

http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

http://helix.northwestern.edu/article/origin-life-panspermia-theory


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 9, 2014)

sniperfreak223 said:


> It's a theory known in scientific circles as the "Panspermia Theory". Many rocks from the surface of Mars,as well as several meteorites, have been observed with traces of what appear to be ancient bacterium, which seems to lend some credence to the theory. I have attached a few links explaining this theory.



Now, I AM a stickler for details, and this doesn't appear to be a legitimate scientific _theory_, but rather, a _hypothesis _- Which is different. The first article doesn't call it either, but rather, a "_notion_". Wiki calls it a _hypothesis_, and the final article is strangely confused on what to call it; calling it "Paspermia Theory" throughout the whole article, up until the last paragraph, where it says:

"An important thing to note about the panspermia *hypothesis *is that it  gives no explanation for how life that arrived on Earth came to be"
(which kinda implies life came to an already existent Earth? Weird.)



sniperfreak223 said:


> it's believed all life on earth may have  come from single celled organisms that landed here on an  asteroid



...And what you said. *Shrug* I was hoping for something more substantiated, but I simply don't know what to think. 

It's interesting, given its oddity, and I don't want to outright dismiss it despite how ludicrous I think it is, but semantics played a role here.


----------



## Fernin (Feb 9, 2014)

This thread has remained surprisingly civil so far. I'm impressed.


----------



## Namba (Feb 9, 2014)

Fernin said:


> This thread has remained surprisingly civil so far. I'm impressed.


Hell, I wouldn't even consider this a religion thread.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 9, 2014)

The panspermia theory is really popular with the Ancient Aliens people, if i recall correctly.

On topic, when faced with this question I usually use both sides for my personal philosophy, ie. God uses evolution to create things.


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 9, 2014)

it's just one of many theories/hypotheses of how "species zero" came into existence on our planet. I'm not really willing to declare the Panspermia idea as truth, simply because, like any theory of the origin of life, there is relatively little evidence to substantiate any claims. Will we ever know the true starting point of life on earth? Who really knows, I just brought it up because it's one of the more interesting ideas of the origin of life on this planet. I just like to keep an open mind and gather as much as I can on anything. That one little variable, the spark that brought first life and set everything into motion, is the only reason my brain will not allow me to completely dismiss the idea of creation.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

sniperfreak223 said:


> It's a theory known in scientific circles as the "Panspermia Theory". Many rocks from the surface of Mars,as well as several meteorites, have been observed with traces of what appear to be ancient bacterium, which seems to lend some credence to the theory. I have attached a few links explaining this theory.
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html
> 
> ...



Panspermia doesn't explain how life started though. It explains how life came to earth but it just puts the problem of _how_ it started at another place.
In general the evidence for abiogenesis is a lot stronger and better researched. To prove panspermia you would have to find something on an asteroid that could count as a "seed" for life.
If anything, it could be a combination of panspermia and abiogenesis. Asteroids could have brought exotic organic compounds to earth that were cooked up while they were passing through the atmosphere.


----------



## Inpw (Feb 9, 2014)

sniperfreak223 said:


> it's just one of many theories/hypotheses of how "species zero" came into existence on our planet.



Heat, carbon, oxygen, water (in all 3 phases). Basically the environmental circumstances needed. Given the possibilities of this somehow getting structured in the form of molecules that can duplicate itself is indeed mind boggling if looking under a microscope. The problem here is that this process needs to be looked at from a larger point of view. Billions of planets and much more of these reactions repeating over and over. Given the enormous amount of time added, 1 reaction will win the lotto so to speak. On another note, given infinite time then there will be infinite possibilities...


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Tica said:


> Except Dawkins is an asshole.



I disagree. He is a little harsh at times but he is doing a LOTto fight for the proper education of kids. And that includes getting rid of creationism in schools.

Also:


Tica said:


> sorry I was looking up the citations but didn't actually post the links
> 
> I'm thinking primarily of his interactions with Skepchick (but the skepchick site seems to be down right now? so have this)
> 
> ...



(The first link I can't say anythign about because I don't know the context)
Everything you linked here doesn't make him look like an asshole in my opinion.
For example, his question about choosing the "most intelligent embryos" to be implanted. It is a hypothetical question that might become reality in the near future. It is a moral question that then has to be asked when it comes to artificial pregnancies.

As for the second link, can a fetus feel pain? While I do think that women need to have the right to fully choose what happens to their bodies, I do think this is a question that a woman has to ask herself when she considers a late abortion.

Asking hard hitting questions doesn't make someone an asshole.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Panspermia doesn't explain how life started though. It explains how life came to earth but it just puts the problem of _how_ it started at another place.
> In general the evidence for abiogenesis is a lot stronger and better researched. To prove panspermia you would have to find something on an asteroid that could count as a "seed" for life.
> If anything, it could be a combination of panspermia and abiogenesis. Asteroids could have brought exotic organic compounds to earth that were cooked up while they were passing through the atmosphere.



One current hypothesis is that early martian conditions were actually, according to the analysis so far, more conducive to life's hypothesised route of formation than Earth's conditions. Therefore there is a suggestion that life formed on mars first and was then proliferated by impactors.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> One current hypothesis is that early martian conditions were actually, according to the analysis so far, more conducive to life's hypothesised route of formation than Earth's conditions. Therefore there is a suggestion that life formed on mars first and was then proliferated by impactors.



Sure, why not^^ I mean, considering that all the water that we have on earth originally came from impactors as well that does seem like a possibility. Or that they have at least brought the right organic compounds to earth.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Thank fuck I'm not the only one who thinks that. He's little better than an evangelical priest.
> 
> They should have got Stephen Hawkings, he's the one with the best reason for not believing in god.



He's not an evolutionary biologist. If you want someone to explain the processes of evolution to you and the evidence that they occur, you want evobio. You do not want a theoretical physicist. 

Of course there is literally nothing from stopping anybody here reading books on evolutionary biology; the books in my room at the moment on this subject: "the extended phenotype, the encyclopaedia of palaeontology, the cambridge encylcopaedia of life sciences,"



Blake_Foxx said:


> The first link was unclear to me. I'm not sure  what exactly they were discussing. Was some guy saying he was gonna  rape a girl on an elevator, or was it a guy hit on a girl in an elevator  and she didn't like it? Or some other third thing. It never once really  took the time to say exactly what was going on, it only focused on the  exchange between Dawkins and Watson afterwards.
> 
> The third length I think people mis-interpreted Dawkin's meaning, or  something. I'm honestly not sure, that one was confusing.




A man asked a woman about a potentially romantic situation late at night and they were in a lift at the time. The internet went absolutely bull-shazzing bonkers over it, when the response probably should have been 'well that's a bit creepy!' 

You could say Dawkins was right to point out that our obsession with the trivialities of the moral implications in an inconsequential event in a western nation are a pointless distraction from the considerable brutalisations that we still permit to take place. 
Specifically FGM is banned in the UK since 1985 but we have never prosecuted anybody for it, ever. 

That's the sort of thing we should be bull-shazzing about. 

But all of this aside, if Tica thinks that views expressed on an unrelated subject render Dawkins a poor choice to explain evolutionary biology, then she is missing the point. Properly representing the epistemological truth is the point and the only point. 

This is why in the ken ham debate the creation scientists he brought forward made me say 'so what?'. His objective was to show that there was no moral imperative to accept the theory of evolution because creation scientists still do science, but even if we thought this definitely was the case it would not have any impact on the epistemology of the situation. 

This is why it's damned important to read and listen to epistemological arguments in the scientific community even if you don't see any current application or even if you really don't like the personality of the scientists involved.



CaptainCool said:


> Sure, why not^^ I mean, considering that all  the water that we have on earth originally came from impactors as well  that does seem like a possibility. Or that they have at least brought  the right organic compounds to earth.



That's a bit iffy, actually. I listened to some argument put forward by an American Physicist last year; she argued that all the planets initially had enough water in their bodies to make oceans because chondrites are full of water. Even today the rocks of Mars, Venus and Mercury actually have comparatively high concentrations of water in them [about the same as the sahara]. She thinks the problem is explaining how other planets lost their surface oceans rather than how earth attained one.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 9, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> The first link was unclear to me. I'm not sure what exactly they were discussing. Was some guy saying he was gonna rape a girl on an elevator, or was it a guy hit on a girl in an elevator and she didn't like it? Or some other third thing. It never once really took the time to say exactly what was going on, it only focused on the exchange between Dawkins and Watson afterwards.
> 
> The third length I think people mis-interpreted Dawkin's meaning, or something. I'm honestly not sure, that one was confusing.



The Rebecca Watson thing as best as I remember it off the top of my head:

So Rebecca was socializing in the hotel bar at an atheist con with some other attendees.  It's about 3AM, so she decides to call it a night and heads to the elevator.  She gets on, and one of the male attendees from the bar also gets on before the doors close.

This is legit scary because:
a) Rebecca doesn't know how much the guy has had to drink or what his intentions are,
b) This is a small, enclosed space he could easily trap her in if he wanted, and
c) it's 3AM and it's unlikely that help will show up if something does happen here.

Fortunately, the guy had no ill intentions and was also just heading back to his room.  The next day, at the Skepchick panel, Rebecca uses the encounter as an example (without naming names) of guys lacking awareness about women's safety concerns, and says, "Guys, don't do that."

This turns into a huge kerfuffle (this is right when backlash against feminism starts to become a thing) and Dawkins made some dismissive comments about Watson's concerns that he wouldn't retract.

So yeah, there is legit criticism of Dawkins.  He's also jumped on the UK islamophobia bandwagon.

His social lapses of judgment aside, though, Dawkins would absolutely destroy Ken Ham.  More pertinent than his fame as an atheist are his decades of work as a reknowned evolutionary biologist and multiple books on the subject.  He's stopped debating creationists, though, just because it lends his opponents far more credibility than they deserve simply by sharing a stage with him.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Fortunately, the guy had no ill intentions and was also just heading back to his room.  The next day, at the Skepchick panel, Rebecca uses the encounter as an example (without naming names) of guys lacking awareness about women's safety concerns, and says, "Guys, don't do that."



He just wanted to catch the elevator... It's like feminists are expecting to get raped at any second by the disgusting man pigs >__>
I'm not saying that all men are angels. I just don't like being seen as a potential rapist just because I want to catch the elevator! XP

As for Dawkin's "islamophobia", when I look at what's going on in islamic countries and how much it is spreading to europe... Yeah, I am concerned about that as well.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 9, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> He just wanted to catch the elevator... It's like feminists are expecting to get raped at any second by the disgusting man pigs >__>
> I'm not saying that all men are angels. I just don't like being seen as a potential rapist just because I want to catch the elevator! XP



Just wait for the next one.  A twenty seconds' wait isn't much to ask.



CaptainCool said:


> As for Dawkin's "islamophobia", when I look at what's going on in islamic countries and how much it is spreading to europe... Yeah, I am concerned about that as well.



There's plenty of legitimate criticism of Islam.  There's also plenty of unsubstantiated, thinly veiled racism.  Dawkins has not always stayed on the proper side of that line.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Just wait for the next one.  A twenty seconds' wait isn't much to ask.



Why? Because he has a penis? Are men second-class citizens now?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Just wait for the next one.  A twenty seconds' wait isn't much to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty of legitimate criticism of Islam.  There's also plenty of unsubstantiated, thinly veiled racism.  Dawkins has not always stayed on the proper side of that line.



Why should I wait just because she is paranoid about getting raped? I am not a rapist, so what is the problem of me getting onto that elevator?
If there was a guy in there or if I was a woman, would it be ok then? Or how about we turn it around, I am on the elevator and she rushes into it. Should I freak out in that situation as well?

You can't be racist towards islam... Muslims are not a race.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 9, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Why should I wait just because she is paranoid about getting raped? I am not a rapist, so what is the problem of me getting onto that elevator?
> If there was a guy in there or if I was a woman, would it be ok then? Or how about we turn it around, I am on the elevator and she rushes into it. Should I freak out in that situation as well?



Because deliberately putting women in a position where they are completely vulnerable if you were to assault them just to score some kind of point makes you a dick.



CaptainCool said:


> You can't be racist towards islam... Muslims are not a race.



Rather than get into a semantic pissing match, just consider my statement amended to "xenophobia".


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Because deliberately putting women in a position where they are completely vulnerable if you were to assault them just to score some kind of point makes you a dick.
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than get into a semantic pissing match, just consider my statement amended to "xenophobia".



What does that have to do with anything? If I rush into the elevator, say I'm sorry for barging in like that with the only intention that I don't want to wait how does that make me a dick?

Xenophobia is more fitting I suppose. Although I don't think that is an issue with Dawkins. He is an extremely vocal anti-theist. And while he does take it a little too far at times (although I think that is because he has a habit of wording things poorly) I generally agree with him that islam spreading to europe the way it is right now is a problem.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> The Rebecca Watson thing as best as I remember it off the top of my head:
> 
> So Rebecca was socializing in the hotel bar at an atheist con with some other attendees.  It's about 3AM, so she decides to call it a night and heads to the elevator.  She gets on, and one of the male attendees from the bar also gets on before the doors close.
> 
> ...



Criticising FGM in muslim communities isn't islamophobia. This is the bizarre contradiction our society holds; that making western women feel scared is deplorable, but that the total lack of any prosecution of the thousands of women mutilated for religious reasons is acceptable and that calling this out constitutes intolerance. 

Seriously, universities here in the UK have even segregated men from women in lectures to please visiting muslim organisations, before people called this out and put a stop to this; we wouldn't separate white from black because nick griffin were visiting to speak. Despite this obvious fact, students themselves protested when they were told they did not have to be segregated, screaming 'intolerant' at the visiting scientists who had refused to speak unless the segregation was stopped. [obviously the scientists' arrogant refusal to do everything the visiting muslim organisation wanted constitutes islamophobia!]

This is our reality in the UK; it is very frustrating because any criticism of any people within a religious group doing bonkers crazy shit for religious reasons is treated as if it is active oppression of that religion. We would never stand for it if a christian lobby asked the government to segregate women from men in universities, so we should make no less of a fuss over any other group's plea for segregation and we should start prosecuting the thousands of individuals who, for religious reasons or not, have scarred their daughters' genitals.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> This is our reality in the UK; it is very frustrating because any criticism of any people within a religious group doing bonkers crazy shit for religious reasons is treated as if it is active oppression of that religion. We would never stand for it if a christian lobby asked the government to segregate women from men in universities, so we should make no less of a fuss over any other group's plea for segregation and we should start prosecuting the thousands of individuals who, for religious reasons or not, have scarred their daughters' genitals.



This SO hard. This really needs to stop. Just because a group that wants something is a religious group that doesn't make it ok, and that also doesn't mean that you can't critisize them for it.

Here in Germany a freaking court ruled that jews and muslims should be allowed to mutilate their kids after birth (as long as it is done by a professional in a safe environment)! What the shit?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

I know we're straying off topic now, but I find that very concerning too; the human rights of a child are put second to the religious rights of adults in our countries. :\

Literally this is the situation going on in the UK: "We're going to ban everyone from viewing naughty websites, including sex education or websites that promote a 'gay or lesbian' lifestyle in order to protect little jimmy from seeing a boob on the internet when his mum is letting him browse unsupervised; it's vital to protect him from sexual harm...oh and here is a nice man to take you to the hospital to permanently scar your sex organs, Jimmy."


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I know we're straying off topic now, but I find that very concerning too; the human rights of a child are put second to the religious rights of adults in our countries. :\
> 
> Literally this is the situation going on in the UK: "We're going to ban everyone from viewing naughty websites, including sex education or websites that promote a 'gay or lesbian' lifestyle in order to protect little jimmy from seeing a boob on the internet when his mum is letting him browse unsupervised; it's vital to protect him from sexual harm...oh and here is a nice man to take you to the hospital to permanently scar your sex organs, Jimmy."



Right. It just makes no damn sense at all.
On the one hand we censor ourselves to protect kids and on the other hand we allow them to mutilate kids for the sake of "religious freedom". It's fucked up, there is just no way around it.


----------



## Hooky (Feb 9, 2014)

In my opinion, the argument for creationism is superfluous. The evidence against it is right there and can be relied upon again and again to back up the concept of evolution. The universe is far too strange and detailed to have been created - let alone life. As I've said, that's my opinion, you will probably disagree with my reasoning.


----------



## DrDingo (Feb 9, 2014)

Hooky said:


> In my opinion, the argument for creationism is superfluous. The evidence against it is right there and can be relied upon again and again to back up the concept of evolution. The universe is far too strange and detailed to have been created - let alone life. As I've said, that's my opinion, you will probably disagree with my reasoning.


Ah, but here's the other side- some believe it is too complicated to come into existence by chance. After all, the only explanation we have for our own existence is a freak combination of atoms which happened to make plants and animals. Either that or we evolved over billions of years from tiny little cells. We don't have any solid proof yet, and since nobody was around to record it at the time, even the best theories we come up with will face opposition.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

DrDingo said:


> Ah, but here's the other side- some believe it is too complicated to come into existence by chance. After all, the only explanation we have for our own existence is a freak combination of atoms which happened to make plants and animals. Either that or we evolved over billions of years from tiny little cells. We don't have any solid proof yet, and since nobody was around to record it at the time, even the best theories we come up with will face opposition.



I think as soon as the notion of complexity is properly understood it becomes apparent why life and the universe are not designed. 
Man-made Machinery is complicated but elegant, there is no place for the superfluous in design. Life, by contrast, is often missing useful pieces of engineering or contains lots of machinery that it does not require. 

For example the Giraffe's nerves that travel up its neck do not take the shortest route to the brain; they coil intricately around its bones. An engineer would say 'this is a crap design, there is all this excess intricacy which only makes the functionality worse,'. It is the giraffe's misfortune that it was not designed- it evolved from a previous creature whose body plan had such coiling nerves. As the giraffe's necks grew longer the coiling became completely un necessary and down right problematic, but they are too far down that path in order to change it now: there is no likely progression of workable giraffe bodies from coiled to non coiled nerves in order for this trait to be corrected. 

This kind of thing abounds in organisms, it documents their evolution from previous body plans and cements the view of evolution as a blind tinkerer, not an engineer. 

Here's the clincher, though. It's a cladogram of genetic distance showing that creatures really are derived from one another, instead of being created separately and purposefully- and it happens to match the known fossil record.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Feb 9, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> That is very doubtful considering that there are many other religions that have their own version of creationism that aren't being imposed on the world by the US.


I haven't seen a CDUler or Muslim propose to give equal time to the fairy tales found in the Babble or the Quran in biology classes.

Face it, this crass demolition of the separation between church and state is just another of the plentitude of things forced on us by the New Evil British Empire called US. Creationism is a predominantly evangelical fundamentalist thing and "Intelligent Design" a purely American invention that attempts to whitewash/sanewash this nonsense and foster the erosion of the separation in the civilized world.

If America lost its hegemonic status, you can be sure creationism would be dead in the water after three femtoseconds.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

DrDingo said:


> too complicated to come into existence by chance.



Here is the thing though, those who say it happened through chance don't know what they are talking about.

Chance was only involved once: During the formation of the earth itself. If it had formed in a difference place of the solar system, or if the composition had been different life may not have come to be, or at least not the way we know it today.
However, once that was all settled blind natural processes took over and there was no chance involved anymore. Physics, chemistry and natural selection, that is how it happened.



Fallowfox said:


> I think as soon as the notion of complexity is properly understood it becomes apparent why life and the universe are not designed.
> Man-made Machinery is complicated but elegant, there is no place for the superfluous in design. Life, by contrast, is often missing useful pieces of engineering or contains lots of machinery that it does not require.
> 
> For example the Giraffe's nerves that travel up its neck do not take the shortest route to the brain; they coil intricately around its bones. An engineer would say 'this is a crap design, there is all this excess intricacy which only makes the functionality worse,'. It is the giraffe's misfortune that it was not designed- it evolved from a previous creature whose body plan had such coiling nerves. As the giraffe's necks grew longer the coiling became completely un necessary and down right problematic, but they are too far down that path in order to change it now: there is no likely progression of workable giraffe bodies from coiled to non coiled nerves in order for this trait to be corrected.
> ...



Absolutely. If you assume that life was created you also have to assume that the designer was bloody stupid.



Gryphoneer said:


> I haven't seen a CDUler or Muslim propose to give equal time to the fairy tales found in the Babble or the Quran in biology classes.
> 
> Face it, this crass demolition of the separation between church and state is just another of the plentitude of things forced on us by the New Evil British Empire called US. Creationism is a predominantly evangelical fundamentalist thing and "Intelligent Design" a purely American invention that attempts to whitewash/sanewash this nonsense and foster the erosion of the separation in the civilized world.
> 
> If America lost its hegemonic status, you can be sure creationism would be dead in the water after three femtoseconds.



Certain movements would stop, as you mention "intelligent design" is an american invention made to shoehorn creationism into schools, but then there are also institutions like the catholic church which has it's lair in europe and islam is spreading to us from the east.
It would definitely have an impact but others would be taking it's place.


----------



## Blackberry Polecat (Feb 9, 2014)

Off topic, but I have to say that this thread is an example of why I keep coming back to the forums: actual _discussion_. With citation and everything!


----------



## DrDingo (Feb 9, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Here is the thing though, those who say it happened through chance don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Chance was only involved once: During the formation of the earth itself. If it had formed in a difference place of the solar system, or if the composition had been different life may not have come to be, or at least not the way we know it today.
> However, once that was all settled blind natural processes took over and there was no chance involved anymore. Physics, chemistry and natural selection, that is how it happened.


That's the thing I'm talking about- the single thing that set everything in motion! The fact that we have not found any other planets with intelligent life means- in the very least- that animals and plants on a planet are a rare occurrence. There's still the possibility that planets like ours, that inhabit more life than exclusively microorganisms, are so incredibly uncommon that we will never even find somewhere else with such things!
I often get the impression that even if we do ever find animal life on another planet, it'd be too far away to realistically visit them and easily communicate with them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

The mystery of whether intelligent life is rare or astoundingly rare in the universe does not imply intelligence to design it, that only puts the problem back a notch: 'Intelligence exists here because intelligence operates here, and only here, for some reason'

The evolution of intelligence throughout geological time is recorded, however. For ease let's assume that vision scales with intelligence because it takes a lot of brain power to resolve images. Not only is the development of several different forms of eyes documented in the fossil record, but there are creatures in all these stages alive today, which suggests that metazoans develop intelligence as they develop keen sense organs which aid their survival, we might expect that any creatures living in an environment with a very high redox gradient [like our oxygenating atmosphere] should develop costly organs like intelligence to aid their darwinian fitness. 

There are some subtle stochastic influences as well, but I don't think it's worth going into them too much here.


----------



## Tica (Feb 9, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> The first link was unclear to me. I'm not sure what exactly they were discussing. Was some guy saying he was gonna rape a girl on an elevator, or was it a guy hit on a girl in an elevator and she didn't like it? Or some other third thing. It never once really took the time to say exactly what was going on, it only focused on the exchange between Dawkins and Watson afterwards.
> 
> The third length I think people mis-interpreted Dawkin's meaning, or something. I'm honestly not sure, that one was confusing.



The first link didn't contain the whole "dear Muslima" letter. Basically Dawkins claimed that unless you're getting your clitoris cut off you have no right to complain about feminist issues.

LOBAR YOU FORGOT TO SAY HE HIT ON HER that is a really important point in the story!!!

The woman was being hit on in an elevator alone at like 4 a.m. to where she was genuinely creeped out and potentially scared for her safety. she wrote a piece saying, men, don't do that, that's gross and received the typical misogynist internet backlash.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/2011/07/obligatory-richard-dawkins-post/


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

Tica said:


> The first link didn't contain the whole "dear Muslima" letter. Basically *Dawkins claimed that unless you're getting your clitoris cut off you have no right to complain about feminist issues.
> *
> LOBAER YOU FORGOT TO SAY HE HIT ON HER that is a really important point in the story!!!
> 
> ...



This is an oversimplifcation and you know it. 

The point was that the internet got up in arms over an inconsequential and trivial occurrence, what a fantastic world it would be if we were actually motivated to challenge endemic and consequential brutality like that. 

Unfortunately, we currently care an awful lot about the former and apparently not at all about the latter in the UK; nobody has ever been prosecuted for FGM despite there being thousands of British victims.

I guess some backlash from other sources may have occurred because people feel that all men are being viewed as potential sources of molestation instead of regular people, but I don't consider those really valid concerns, because posing romantic questions in elevators late at night is pretty creepy.


----------



## Tica (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> This is an oversimplifcation and you know it.
> 
> The point was that the internet got up in arms over an inconsequential and trivial occurrence, what a fantastic world it would be if we were actually motivated to challenge endemic and consequential brutality like that.
> 
> Unfortunately, we currently care an awful lot about the former and apparently not at all about the latter in the UK; nobody has ever been prosecuted for FGM despite there being thousands of British victims.



Can't we care about BOTH? Geeze louise, it doesn't have to be one or the other. FGM is fucking terrible but it's also bullshit for a woman to suffer sexist backlash for daring to say, "men, don't be creepy, don't hit on me in the middle of the night when I'm trapped and can't walk away from you"

unless you're out working in Africa with the peace corps how dare you do nice things for your neighbors

geeze don't you know we can ONLY care about the WORST things happening in the world before we turn our attention to our own daily personal realities

gawd


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

Tica said:


> Can't we care about BOTH? Geeze louise, it doesn't have to be one or the other. FGM is fucking terrible but it's also bullshit for a woman to suffer sexist backlash for daring to say, "men, don't be creepy, don't hit on me in the middle of the night when I'm trapped and can't walk away from you"
> 
> unless you're out working in Africa with the peace corps how dare you do nice things for your neighbors
> 
> ...



I do care about both...who said I didn't? I just care about the latter about 10^12 times more than the former. Unfortunately most of the time the former gets most of the attention whilst really important stuff just gets public apathy 'yeah, we have a law about fgm- it doesn't matter that nobody's enforcing it- I need to go on the internet to talk about a creepy date request,'


----------



## Tica (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I do care about both...who said I didn't? I just care about the latter about 10^12 times more than the former. Unfortunately most of the time the former gets most of the attention whilst really important stuff just gets public apathy 'yeah, we have a law about fgm- it doesn't matter that nobody's enforcing it- I need to go on the internet to talk about a creepy date request,'



people are naturally more likely to talk about their daily reality... it's pretty human. your argument sounds a lot like me saying I'm hungry and you saying but there are kids starving in Africa! your hunger is not worth talking about right now!

anyway my whole point was to say that Dawkins is abrasive, harsh, and potentially dickish, and that's NOT who you want on a debate, because debates are public spectacle meant (theoretically) to change hearts and minds not to ossify both sides. YECs can look at Nye and go, I love that guy, I watched his stuff growing up! and maybe be more likely to listen than if they see Dawkins and go "what a prick"

/tangent


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

DrDingo said:


> That's the thing I'm talking about- the single thing that set everything in motion! The fact that we have not found any other planets with intelligent life means- in the very least- that animals and plants on a planet are a rare occurrence. There's still the possibility that planets like ours, that inhabit more life than exclusively microorganisms, are so incredibly uncommon that we will never even find somewhere else with such things!
> I often get the impression that even if we do ever find animal life on another planet, it'd be too far away to realistically visit them and easily communicate with them.



Do you have any idea how hard that would be? Finding planets in general is tough.
Have you seen the images of other planets that we have? They are white dots that consist of like 10 pixels... Good luck finding life on something like that! The only thing we can determine right now is the consistency of these planets by analyzing the light that is being reflected from them. That's it.
And as Fallow said, rarity does not mean that the chance of an intelligent agent setting things in motion is bigger.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Because deliberately putting women in a position where they are completely vulnerable if you were to assault them just to score some kind of point makes you a dick.



And standing next to a big gold-clad black fella in a lift puts me at risk of getting beaten/stabbed/robbed, according to what I see on the news, infographics, and stereotypes portrayed by the media all the time. (I don't actually believe this) And it must be a hell of a dick move for those nasty blackies to stand next to me in an enclosed space at 3am, knowingly making me feel vulnerable if they were to assault me just to score some kind of street cred and my wallet.

If I acted on that I would be called racist, and righteously so, because I'm looking at someone as a lesser person simply because of their genes. People would explode over it.
But why is it that if this scenario is repeated and it's a male-female case, it's _suddenly_ perfectly okay, acceptable, and an example of someone just looking after themselves?

If women are allowed to distance themselves from and ostracise the disgusting rapist man-pig herd and their heat-seeking penises, I should be allowed to do the same for the gangbangin' nig-nogs and their buckets of glocks.

If y'all want "equality" so much I'll mistreat whatever group I feel like, while you do the same. That way we'll be equal.

Or, you know, we can just not treat people like shit simply because of their genetic makeup, that'd be wonderful.

Ed:

I realise that _in general_ it's quite reasonable to avoid people late at night on public ground no matter what because there are indeed so many reasons as to why you'd want to avoid another human being, but there's no reason why _any_ of it should be a social group thing.

Ed2:



Tica said:


> LOBAR YOU FORGOT TO SAY HE HIT ON HER that is a really important point in the story!!!
> 
> The woman was being hit on in an elevator alone at like 4 a.m. to where  she was genuinely creeped out and potentially scared for her safety. she  wrote a piece saying, men, don't do that, that's gross and received the  typical misogynist internet backlash.



O

Well that changes a lot of things in this particular case

yeah

previously it sounded like it was all done because "man" not because "man who was getting all freaky with me despite my massive disinterest and he won't go away"


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Tica said:


> The first link didn't contain the whole "dear Muslima" letter. Basically Dawkins claimed that unless you're getting your clitoris cut off you have no right to complain about feminist issues.
> 
> LOBAR YOU FORGOT TO SAY HE HIT ON HER that is a really important point in the story!!!
> 
> ...



Yeah see, THAT changes things. Being hit on by a drunk dude in an elevator at 4am? That is fucking creepy.
However, many feminists still like to confuse guys who just want to be nice and have a friendly little chat with creepers.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

Tica said:


> people are naturally more likely to talk about their daily reality... it's pretty human. your argument sounds a lot like me saying I'm hungry and you saying but there are kids starving in Africa! your hunger is not worth talking about right now!
> 
> anyway my whole point was to say that Dawkins is abrasive, harsh, and potentially dickish, and that's NOT who you want on a debate, because debates are public spectacle meant (theoretically) to change hearts and minds not to ossify both sides. YECs can look at Nye and go, I love that guy, I watched his stuff growing up! and maybe be more likely to listen than if they see Dawkins and go "what a prick"
> 
> /tangent



It would be a truly pointless debate if this was the standard by which the victor is decided, but I suppose with the audience considered that it actually was. 

Essentially this debate shouldn't have happened, if anything it implies to these people that there even is a current debate on this subject and that there is only a binary choice to be had, in which creationism and evolution are in a zero sum game, when in reality evolution is a non zero sum game of several competing teams and creationism is a streaker running across the pitch.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The internet got up in arms over an inconsequential and trivial occurrence, what a fantastic world it would be if we were actually motivated to challenge endemic and consequential brutality like that.



This is exactly what I hate about sites like Tumblr and huge circles of bloggers talking about mostly petty things like the latest Disney princess not being fat.

Those sites have a really loud voice, but they use it for nothing but these little things rather than actual atrocities that are committed on a day-to-day basis that result in suffering.

They want change sooo badly, but they don't voice themselves or act upon the things that they actually CAN work to change.


----------



## Tica (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> It would be a truly pointless debate if this was the standard by which the victor is decided, but I suppose with the audience considered that it actually was.
> 
> Essentially this debate shouldn't have happened, if anything it implies to these people that there even is a current debate on this subject and that there is only a binary choice to be had, in which creationism and evolution are in a zero sum game, when in reality evolution is a non zero sum game of several competing teams and creationism is a streaker running across the pitch.



Speaking as someone who bought YEC hook, line, and sinker, then later transitioned into "old-earth" creationism, and then to theistic evolution (and from there, agnosticism), things like this actually do and can win people over.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

Gibby said:


> This is exactly what I hate about sites like Tumblr and huge circles of bloggers talking about mostly petty things like the latest Disney princess not being fat.
> 
> Those sites have a really loud voice, but they use it for nothing but these little things rather than actual atrocities that are committed on a day-to-day basis that result in suffering.
> 
> They want change sooo badly, but they don't voice themselves or act upon the things that they actually CAN work to change.



I came across a tumbler yesterday accusing a white girl of being racist for being amazed at how unusual tropical African fruits were. I was just like 'so finding biology interesting is racist now, okay,'

Frankly I think the owner was on a crusade to make themselves a victim of everything. If a white woman thinks african fruit is cool this person is obviously shriveling up in pain. 



Tica said:


> Speaking as someone who bought YEC hook, line, and  sinker, then later transitioned into "old-earth" creationism, and then  to theistic evolution (and from there, agnosticism), things like this  actually do and can win people over.



I used to be an oec too, but shed that belief much like growing out of santa clause. Having an 'official' debate about 'santa clause' provides the false impression to many that it is a credible position.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Criticising FGM in muslim communities isn't islamophobia. This is the bizarre contradiction our society holds; that making western women feel scared is deplorable, but that the total lack of any prosecution of the thousands of women mutilated for religious reasons is acceptable and that calling this out constitutes intolerance.
> 
> Seriously, universities here in the UK have even segregated men from women in lectures to please visiting muslim organisations, before people called this out and put a stop to this; we wouldn't separate white from black because nick griffin were visiting to speak. Despite this obvious fact, students themselves protested when they were told they did not have to be segregated, screaming 'intolerant' at the visiting scientists who had refused to speak unless the segregation was stopped. [obviously the scientists' arrogant refusal to do everything the visiting muslim organisation wanted constitutes islamophobia!]
> 
> This is our reality in the UK; it is very frustrating because any criticism of any people within a religious group doing bonkers crazy shit for religious reasons is treated as if it is active oppression of that religion. We would never stand for it if a christian lobby asked the government to segregate women from men in universities, so we should make no less of a fuss over any other group's plea for segregation and we should start prosecuting the thousands of individuals who, for religious reasons or not, have scarred their daughters' genitals.



I'm decidedly not defending FGM or segregation of the sexes.  I said there were legitimate criticisms of Islam, and those qualify.  But these comments are not okay:

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/316101862199791616
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/365473573768400896
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/304962230959624193
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/325957740835004416
http://old.richarddawkins.net/artic...ttle-manifesto/comments?page=1#comment_845164
http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but (!)

And with his enthusiastic support of Pat Condell, Richard is only one degree of seperation from Pamela Geller of all people.



Tica said:


> LOBAR YOU FORGOT TO SAY HE HIT ON HER that is a really important point in the story!!!



I was going off memory because phoneposting and had forgotten that bit. :x  That makes Dawkins' comments far worse for sure, though I still stand by saying that it's best to not even follow a woman on her own into the elevator at 4AM, let alone proposition her there.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> But these comments are not okay:
> 
> https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/316101862199791616
> https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/365473573768400896
> ...



The most terrifying thing about his comments is that he is right.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

Some of those comments are significant, it is true that the entire Arabic speaking world, submits less scientific papers a year than Harvard, for example. There's obviously no reason that muslims can't be involved in scientific projects, so there need to be more scientific opportunities in these countries- including mandatory education for women because that would literally double the number of scientists being produced. 

I can see people would be critical of comparing the Qur'an to Mein Kampf, of course, these comments imply that all Muslims believe the extreme content scattered in the Qur'an, which most of them don't.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Some of those comments are significant, it is true that the entire Arabic speaking world, submits less scientific papers a year than Harvard, for example. There's obviously no reason that muslims can't be involved in scientific projects, so there need to be more scientific opportunities in these countries- including mandatory education for women because that would literally double the number of scientists being produced.



That is not his point though. His point is that the arabic world played a significant role in science back in the day but ever since islam took over that essentially stopped.
They used to be THE hotspot of human civilization and development, today they are the hotspot for kicking human rights in the teeth...

This point has been made by Neil deGrasse Tyson as well by the way, so Richard is not alone with that point of view.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Some of those comments are significant, it is true that the entire Arabic speaking world, submits less scientific papers a year than Harvard, for example. There's obviously no reason that muslims can't be involved in scientific projects, so there need to be more scientific opportunities in these countries- including mandatory education for women because that would literally double the number of scientists being produced.



The implication is that it's due to Islam itself being an obstacle to research itself rather than economic imbalances that keep Middle Eastern scientists from developing laboratories capable of cutting edge work.  Also pretending that the Nobel committee is a truly impartial, apolitical, objective measure of scientific merit.



CaptainCool said:


> That is not his point though. His point is that the arabic world played a significant role in science back in the day but ever since islam took over that essentially stopped.



The golden age of Arabic science comes _after_ Islam was founded...


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> The golden age of Arabic science comes _after_ Islam was founded...



And even then the Arabs had much greater advances in medicine as opposed to medieval Europeans at the time.

I read something about an Arabian man recommending a perfectly reasonable treatment for a stab/slash wound intended to disinfect and cover it, and a Norman chose to simply resort to hasty amputation.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> The golden age of Arabic science comes _after_ Islam was founded...



That is correct, but I was not referring to the time when islam was founded. I am talking about the time when it _took over_.
The great advances in science in the arabic territory happened between 800 and 1100 AD. But then al-Ghazali, an islamic scholar who lived from 1058 to 1111 AD who postulated that mathematics are the work of the devil, changed everything and all advances in that region came to a stop.
From that time on the region was not open to travelers from all over the world anymore and scientific advances did not occur anymore. THAT time is what Dawkins and Tyson are referring to.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 9, 2014)

Tica said:


> The first link didn't contain the whole "dear Muslima" letter. Basically Dawkins claimed that unless you're getting your clitoris cut off you have no right to complain about feminist issues.
> 
> LOBAR YOU FORGOT TO SAY HE HIT ON HER that is a really important point in the story!!!
> 
> ...



So basically some guy hit on a girl in an elevator and she didn't like it? Did he threaten her? hit her? anything else her? 

I agree with Dawkins honestly. I'm way more worried about the evil crap going on in the Muslim world than I am afraid someone's going to talk to a woman in an elevator. 0.o


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 9, 2014)

Honestly, I'd blame the Crusades more than the Islamic religion for bringing an end to the Golden Age of Arabic Science...but once again,that's just a personal opinion.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> I'm decidedly not defending FGM or segregation of the sexes.  I said there were legitimate criticisms of Islam, and those qualify.  But these comments are not okay:
> 
> https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/316101862199791616
> https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/365473573768400896
> ...



Two things here.

1.) I don't see anything wrong in Dawkin's statements. You can look most of them up and find out quickly that he is telling the truth. He didn't lie, so if anything you're mad that he has the audacity to remind you of what they are currently doing/up to.

2.) So I have to delay myself an extra 10 minutes at 4am so that some random woman I don't know can have an elevator all to herself? And if I dare not delay myself I shouldn't dare talk to her even though an elevator ride is kind of boring and a nice conversation might make it less so? 0.o


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> 2.) So I have to delay myself an extra 10 minutes at 4am so that some random woman I don't know can have an elevator all to herself? And if I dare not delay myself I shouldn't dare talk to her even though an elevator ride is kind of boring and a nice conversation might make it less so? 0.o



It does become a problem if you are drunk and start flirting with her in a creepy way  So in that regard the situation did serve as a good example.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 9, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> It does become a problem if you are drunk and start flirting with her in a creepy way  So in that regard the situation did serve as a good example.



None of the articles explain that part. They all just say 'hit on her in an elevator' what does that mean? 
Was he a jerk about it? Was he gentleman? Was he sounding like a serial killer? Was he agressive? Was he passive? I honestly don't know and I have no plans to make assumptions.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> That is not his point though. His point is that the arabic world played a significant role in science back in the day but ever since islam took over that essentially stopped.
> They used to be THE hotspot of human civilization and development, today they are the hotspot for kicking human rights in the teeth...
> 
> This point has been made by Neil deGrasse Tyson as well by the way, so Richard is not alone with that point of view.




If that's the idea he's wrong. Many of the most significant discoveries were based on the work of muslim scholars. Copernicus was inspired by arab diagrams drawn by muslims of the solar system.

edit: just read your other post, fair beans.


----------



## Tica (Feb 9, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> None of the articles explain that part. They all just say 'hit on her in an elevator' what does that mean?
> Was he a jerk about it? Was he gentleman? Was he sounding like a serial killer? Was he agressive? Was he passive? I honestly don't know and I have no plans to make assumptions.



there's nothing gentlemanly about hitting on someone at 4 am in an elevator.

none of it fucking matters because 1 in 4 women is a victim of sexual assault and things like this can be genuinely terrifying to surviors. so seriously, nothing about it matters other than the fact that this woman was literally cornered and had no escape because she was in a big metal box with the doors closed??

I'm sorry I even brought it up, geez. Even if you agree with him, most people agreed that Dawkins can be "harsh" or "abrasive" which are really just nice ways of saying "sometimes an asshole"

edit 

I really am done with this tangent now; I'd rather talk about the actual thread topic


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 9, 2014)

Tica said:


> there's nothing gentlemanly about hitting on someone at 4 am in an elevator.
> 
> none of it fucking matters because 1 in 4 women is a victim of sexual assault and things like this can be genuinely terrifying to surviors. so seriously, nothing about it matters other than the fact that this woman was literally cornered and had no escape because she was in a big metal box with the doors closed??
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter what he said? 0.o 

Now that doesn't make sense at all. How do we even know he was hitting on her then? Maybe he just hates silence and there was actually someone to talk to in the elevator? 

Also, there can be a gentlemanly way to go about it. It really all comes down to the atmosphere you create with your words. 

1 in 4 women huh? I'm not sure what role that has to play unless you're suggesting that I assume every woman I ever meet has been raped which seems silly since I'd have a 75% inaccuracy rate.


----------



## Tica (Feb 9, 2014)

DrDingo said:


> That's the thing I'm talking about- the single thing that set everything in motion! The fact that we have not found any other planets with intelligent life means- in the very least- that animals and plants on a planet are a rare occurrence. There's still the possibility that planets like ours, that inhabit more life than exclusively microorganisms, are so incredibly uncommon that we will never even find somewhere else with such things!
> I often get the impression that even if we do ever find animal life on another planet, it'd be too far away to realistically visit them and easily communicate with them.




whoa whoa whoa

"animals and plants" and "intelligent life" aren't the same thing? there's probably billions of planets out there with some form of life, even if only microbial.

besides, the fact we haven't discovered any yet speaks more to the vast distances involved in the universe and our limited technology than it does to those things' existence


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2014)

To be specific animals and plants are two clades of earth, and whilst there might be analogues on alien worlds they wouldn't technically be classed as animalia or plants. 

On alien worlds perhaps there would be analogous groups, or perhaps their world might be dominated by some sort of in between more like the corals, which are animals with symbiotic plants living inside of them.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Criticising FGM in muslim communities isn't islamophobia. This is the bizarre contradiction our society holds; that making western women feel scared is deplorable, but that the total lack of any prosecution of the thousands of women mutilated for religious reasons is acceptable and that calling this out constitutes intolerance.
> 
> Seriously, universities here in the UK have even segregated men from women in lectures to please visiting muslim organisations, before people called this out and put a stop to this; we wouldn't separate white from black because nick griffin were visiting to speak. Despite this obvious fact, students themselves protested when they were told they did not have to be segregated, screaming 'intolerant' at the visiting scientists who had refused to speak unless the segregation was stopped. [obviously the scientists' arrogant refusal to do everything the visiting muslim organisation wanted constitutes islamophobia!]
> 
> This is our reality in the UK; it is very frustrating because any criticism of any people within a religious group doing bonkers crazy shit for religious reasons is treated as if it is active oppression of that religion. We would never stand for it if a christian lobby asked the government to segregate women from men in universities, so we should make no less of a fuss over any other group's plea for segregation and we should start prosecuting the thousands of individuals who, for religious reasons or not, have scarred their daughters' genitals.


Your country sickens me on a regular basis, submitting to the most evil and savage force on the planet. 
Such policies are a disgrace to the civilized man.
Dawkins is absolutely right, until the offenders take it upon themselves to demonstrate otherwise on a large scale.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Such policies are a disgrace to the civilized man.



I have to say, when they ruled that muslims and jews are allowed to mutilate their kids here in Germany it left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth... You know, after I threw up in a fit of rage.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 9, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I have to say, when they ruled that muslims and jews are allowed to mutilate their kids here in Germany it left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth... You know, after I threw up in a fit of rage.


 There is no such thing as equality, and there never will be as long as such special privileges exist.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 9, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Your country sickens me on a regular basis, submitting to the most evil and savage force on the planet.
> Such policies are a disgrace to the civilized man.
> Dawkins is absolutely right, until the offenders take it upon themselves to demonstrate otherwise on a large scale.



Never had any of those problems here. Much less anyone afraid of criticizing others, they're too happy about it if anything. Your country ain't in any position to talk about "sickening" mate.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 9, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> There is no such thing as equality, and there never will be as long as such special privileges exist.


There is no such thing as equality, period. As long as there are differences between people, intellectually, economicly, socially, culturally, or geneticly, there will be those who claim that they should be separation between different people. National borders and race riots are examples of this factionalism.


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 9, 2014)

We will only have equality when forced conformity is on a global scale. But then again, it won't really be equality, a more powerful governing figure would be overruling a small  army of computer workers, technically overpowering us by watching our every move. If any break in conformity is made the ruling figure sends out military units to authorize conformity and exterminate those who resist the flow.

As a species that would not be equality but for the general public, they are all equal. We can't have full equality without it turning into a horror movie.

Either I'm really pessimistic about the future of our leaders, or I'm an evil genius with the perfect plan when I become the global ruler. Not sure which.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 9, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> We will only have equality when forced conformity is on a global scale. But then again, it won't really be equality, a more powerful governing figure would be overruling a small  army of computer workers, technically overpowering us by watching our every move. If any break in conformity is made the ruling figure sends out military units to authorize conformity and exterminate those who resist the flow.
> 
> As a species that would not be equality but for the general public, they are all equal. We can't have full equality without it turning into a horror movie.
> 
> Either I'm really pessimistic about the future of our leaders, or I'm an evil genius with the perfect plan when I become the global ruler. Not sure which.



This is why I prefer Wasps to humans. No prejudices, at least not against their own hives.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Feb 10, 2014)

I watched that debate live, and I think Ken Ham was the better debater overall. He was really persuasive, and had well thought-out arguments and 'evidence' for young earth creationism. That being said, it was all shit tier evidence that anyone familiar with the phrase 'confirmation bias', or even the concept of it, can readily dismiss. All in all, he did the best he could with what he had. Meaning his shit was polished to a pretty high shine, but it was still shit.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 10, 2014)

With respect to the whole basis for the "creationist", the quoted comment on an Ars Technica forum sums up the whole Bible-based ludicrousness of using a religious text as a basis for "science" (emphasis added):



			
				Ars Technica respondent said:
			
		

> *Just reading Genesis makes it clear: It reads like "Clifford the Big Red Dog" or something.*
> 
> "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good"
> 
> ...


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 10, 2014)

I love how this poll lists who voted what. It gives me a good index to aid me in figuring out who's opinions I should disregard before reading.


----------



## Tica (Feb 10, 2014)

Llamapotamus said:


> I watched that debate live, and I think Ken Ham was the better debater overall. He was really persuasive, and had well thought-out arguments and 'evidence' for young earth creationism. That being said, it was all shit tier evidence that anyone familiar with the phrase 'confirmation bias', or even the concept of it, can readily dismiss. All in all, he did the best he could with what he had. Meaning his shit was polished to a pretty high shine, but it was still shit.



the only "evidence" I remember was the "new" wood being incased in the "old" rock, which is pretty easily explained by the fact that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate for things that are older than a certain number of years and this is pretty well known iirc. (that is, the rock and wood would've been dated with two different methods, with the rock's age pretty accurate and the wood not so much)

everything else he said assumed the Bible was true which is a terrible debate tactic for anything other than a theological debate internal to Christians.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2014)

Tica said:


> the only "evidence" I remember was the "new" wood being incased in the "old" rock, which is pretty easily explained by the fact that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate for things that are older than a certain number of years and this is pretty well known iirc. (that is, the rock and wood would've been dated with two different methods, with the rock's age pretty accurate and the wood not so much)
> 
> everything else he said assumed the Bible was true which is a terrible debate tactic for anything other than a theological debate internal to Christians.



The problem with carbon dating is that it only works with plants and only up to a certain age as you said.
One rather vocal christian (I don't remember who it was, I think either Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort but don't quote me on that!) once cited a paper that said that living penguins were once analyzed through carbon dating and the result was that they are supposedly thousands of years old!
The thing is that he actually turned around what the paper was about! It was about warning people of the potential missuses of carbon dating, that if you use it in the wrong situation you get grossly false results. If you use it on things that are currently adding carbon to their body from an outside source (like living plants, animals or mussles) you get false results. Use it on dead plant matter (like old wood or natural fabrics) and you get results that are pretty accurate but need to be confirmed through other dating methods.
One other little thing you need to look out for is that the thing you want to analyze actually has carbon in it... Which is why fossils can't be analyzed with it and why many creatards claim that fossils are much younger than they really are.
Another "vocal christian" (don't remember that name either... Probably Hovind or Comfort again?) once brought fossils to a museum and wanted to have them analyzed through carbon dating. They told him that it wouldn't work and that the protective resin that is covering the fossils will give them false results. He insisted that they shall be analyzed anyway and the result was that the fossil is supposedly just a couple thousand years old. They dated the resin, not the fossil. He then went on to use these false results as an argument in favor of creationism....

This is why I always say that religion is anti-scientific nonsense :T Because the most vocal people who are spreading it have no idea about science but try to use science as an argument for their nonsense.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2014)

Ok, woa. I just realized that the Flintstones are spreading young earth creationism after watching the latest ADHD cartoon XD They do show humans together with dinosaurs afterall. That show never really sat well with me... now I know why XD


----------



## Rassah (Feb 10, 2014)

Mayfurr said:


> With respect to the whole basis for the "creationist", the quoted comment on an Ars Technica forum sums up the whole Bible-based ludicrousness of using a religious text as a basis for "science" (emphasis added):



"... it was so."... Captain Jean-Luc Picard is god! O.O


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 10, 2014)

It's a little bit of both - plain and simple.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> It's a little bit of both - plain and simple.



As in how it happened or what do you mean? Your "plain and simple" remark sounds like you would be able to prove that some sort of creation happened. Care to elaborate on that?


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 10, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> As in how it happened or what do you mean? Your "plain and simple" remark sounds like you would be able to prove that some sort of creation happened. Care to elaborate on that?



Some of us believe in a higher power - and truly believe in God's gift of creating humanity - but at the same time don't necessarily discard, or automatically discredit - scientific research or theories when it comes to human development.

We walk and chew gum at the same time, in other words.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Some of us believe in a higher power - and truly believe in God's gift of creating humanity - but at the same time don't necessarily discard, or automatically discredit - scientific research or theories when it comes to human development.
> 
> We walk and chew gum at the same time, in other words.



Yeah, but what is your evidence for creationism? Why is it something for you that makes sense to believe in?
And what if I told you that life is not a mystery, that abiogenesis is pretty much a fact?
Introducing this "higher power" is not an answer. It just raises further questions that make the initial questions infinitely more difficult. Because now you have not only to explain how life on earth happened, you now have to explain a being that supposedly works outside of reality and that is impossible to explain by it's very nature...

Also, where did that creator come from?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 10, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Yeah, but what is your evidence for creationism? Why is it something for you that makes sense to believe in?
> And what if I told you that life is not a mystery, that abiogenesis is pretty much a fact?
> Introducing this "higher power" is not an answer. It just raises further questions that make the initial questions infinitely more difficult. Because now you have not only to explain how life on earth happened, you now have to explain a being that supposedly works outside of reality and that is impossible to explain by it's very nature...
> 
> Also, where did that creator come from?



To some people they don't *need* to know where the creator is from, or what they are exactly. They just figure that's the way things are, and it's most likely beyond their comprehension anyways. That's like asking the question "Where did God come from?" and parading around in victory when someone can't answer the question.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> To some people they don't *need* to know where the creator is from, or what they are exactly. They just figure that's the way things are, and it's most likely beyond their comprehension anyways. That's like asking the question "Where did God come from?" and parading around in victory when someone can't answer the question.



The problem is that you SHOULD be able to answer that if god is the answer to the question you were asked.
"They just figure that's the way things are, and it's most likely beyond their comprehension anyways."
So you are saying that blindly believing something is better than trying to figure out the truth? I heavily disagree with that.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 10, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Yeah, but what is your evidence for creationism? Why is it something for you that makes sense to believe in?



The evidence for believers is in their religious teachings, upbringings, and religious books (such as the Bible). It's either one believes it or they don't. There's no hard core evidence - it's a belief system.



CaptainCool said:


> Also, where did that creator come from?



That's one of the biggest mysteries of mankind. Who knows.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> The evidence for believers is in their religious teachings, upbringings, and religious books (such as the Bible)



No evidence, no reason to believe in it.
The truth is always supported by facts and evidence. When it comes to religious believes you don't have any of that so it's not the truth. Why anyone would want to believe in something that is not the truth is beyond me...




Connor J. Coyote said:


> That's one of the biggest mysteries of mankind. Who knows.



So you admit that your answer does nothing but make the original question more difficult?


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 10, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> No evidence, no reason to believe in it.
> The truth is always supported by facts and evidence. When it comes to religious believes you don't have any of that so it's not the truth. Why anyone would want to believe in something that is not the truth is beyond me...



Well, that's your personal belief system. For believers - it's different.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 10, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> To some people they don't *need* to know where the creator is from, or what they are exactly. They just figure that's the way things are, and it's most likely beyond their comprehension anyways. That's like asking the question "Where did God come from?" and parading around in victory when someone can't answer the question.



Thank you. I agree with you, 100 %.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, that's your personal belief system. For believers - it's different.



So for you a personal belief has an influence on reality? How does that work?

And since I shoehorned in the last part of my post with an edit I'll ask you here again:
Since where the creator came from is such a big mystery, do you agree that introducing the creator in the first place does nothing but make the original question more complicated?



Connor J. Coyote said:


> Thank you. I agree with you, 100 %.



You agree, and yet that post from Nikolinni makes no rational sense at all.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, that's your personal belief system. For believers - it's different.



Unfortunately it isn't. Reality doesn't care about people's personal convictions.

RE: creators. 

The creator is presupposed because people are not satisfied with 'it just is that way, okay'. 
It is therefore ironic that when pressed on the origins of the creator the response is precisely 'it just is that way, okay'. 

As CC points out, if we were going to have to be satisfied with 'it's just the way it is' then we should at least elect the variant with the least unnecessary assumptions. 

This is illustrated with a 'turtles' example. An ancient culture believes the earth is supported on the back of a turtle, but what does that turtle stand on? A turtle, and what does that turtle stand on? A turtle. What does the last turtle stand on? "it just does okay,"

...well what's the point in presupposing infinite turtles, or beings of infinite power then?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Unfortunately it isn't. Reality doesn't care about people's personal convictions.



We just this'd each other at the same time :3


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 10, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Unfortunately it isn't. Reality doesn't care about people's personal convictions.



Well, maybe in your world. But not everybody's. 

Be careful. Over-generalizing can be dangerous.




CaptainCool said:


> So for you a personal belief has an influence on reality? How does that work?
> 
> And since I shoehorned in the last part of my post with an edit I'll ask you here again:
> Since where the creator came from is such a big mystery, do you agree that introducing the creator in the first place does nothing but make the original question more complicated?



It makes it more complicated for non-believers, sure. But for believers, it's all part of the same thing. They believe we have a creator, and the creator created us. 

That's all they need.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, maybe in your world. But not everybody's.
> 
> Be careful. Over-generalizing can be dangerous.
> 
> ...



"Maybe in your world"? We all live in the same reality, dude. What happens in your head has no implication on what is actually happening.

It makes it more complicated for non-believers because we actually bother thinking about these things instead of just blindly believing in them.
You believe in a creator. I believe in facts.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 10, 2014)

The sheer awesomness of crazy beliefs adding expressions such as "It's turtles all the way down!" to our lexicon aside...

Why do some people feel like they have to believe that there is a king, or some other powerful figure, hovering above them that they must submit to? Haven't most countries decides that subjugating yourself to a monarch or some other all-powerful ruler is not a good thing?

And speaking of which, how is a belief in government authority different from a belief in religious authority? Aren't both just made up fantasies with no factual "stuff" to support it? (submit to men in funny hats, or submit to men with funny badges)


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, maybe in your world. But not everybody's.
> 
> Be careful. Over-generalizing can be dangerous.
> 
> ...



No, in the real world. This is not an over generalisation. The dinosaurs roamed the earth in the Mesozoic whether or not one believes the earth popped into existance 6000 years ago or not. 

Cyanide *will* kill you even if you are told it is a sugar pill. 

Reality does not care. This does not preclude the mind as a function of reality; people develop symptoms of illness when they're told they have been infected even if they have not come into contact with a pathogen, but suggestion that this means belief transcends reality is approaching the problem arse-first. 

I don't think being satisfied with over simplified explanations that provide no mechanistic explanation at all, rather than demanding further examination is a good thing. I'm sure many of our ancestors would have been content to sit in Caves believing that sexually transmitted diseases were caused by evil spirits, would this really be a good outcome?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 10, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> The problem is that you SHOULD be able to answer that if god is the answer to the question you were asked.
> "They just figure that's the way things are, and it's most likely beyond their comprehension anyways."
> So you are saying that blindly believing something is better than trying to figure out the truth? I heavily disagree with that.



No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying /they/ figure that it's probably beyond their comprehension. That doesn't exactly entail blind belief. Blind belief is believing in something without proof or evidence; if you've evidence of a God (or at least evidence that works for you) but you don't know where it comes from or why, and that's not of importance to you, then it's not important. Believe it or not, not every single person is interested in the never ending hunt for "The Truth". Some just want to live life and will cross the bridge when they get to it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying /they/ figure that it's probably beyond their comprehension. That doesn't exactly entail blind belief. Blind belief is believing in something without proof or evidence; if you've evidence of a God (or at least evidence that works for you) but you don't know where it comes from or why, and that's not of importance to you, then it's not important. Believe it or not, not every single person is interested in the never ending hunt for "The Truth". Some just want to live life and will cross the bridge when they get to it.



Evidence whose nature is uncertain, whose provenance is unknown and is incommunicable is not evidence. It's a 'feely' 

" I have a reallly good feely that God exists. "

That's about it. 

Pursuing the exact nature of reality is a minority pursuit, but it is one that is responsible for every single advancement in human technology and understanding on the history of the planet. Being content living in dream worlds is a privilege that only some people are aware they should deny themselves, for there really is no bliss in ignorance.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying /they/ figure that it's probably beyond their comprehension. That doesn't exactly entail blind belief. Blind belief is believing in something without proof or evidence; if you've evidence of a God (or at least evidence that works for you) but you don't know where it comes from or why, and that's not of importance to you, then it's not important. Believe it or not, not every single person is interested in the never ending hunt for "The Truth". Some just want to live life and will cross the bridge when they get to it.



But what you said is also one of the most insulting and disgusting parts about religion in my opinion.
"There is that higher power that is completely beyond our comprehension but since our puny minds can't comprehend it we have to believe in it anyway".
Screw that. The human mind is an amazing tool and the things we have found out about the universe already prove that.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 10, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying /they/ figure that it's probably beyond their comprehension. That doesn't exactly entail blind belief. Blind belief is believing in something without proof or evidence; if you've evidence of a God (or at least evidence that works for you) but you don't know where it comes from or why, and that's not of importance to you, then it's not important. Believe it or not, not every single person is interested in the never ending hunt for "The Truth". Some just want to live life and will cross the bridge when they get to it.



I don't think lowering the standards of evidence really qualifies for anything positive. 

For all a baby knows when you hide behind your hands, you are gone from _its _reality, but in (actual) reality, you've gone nowhere. Sure, to the baby it doesn't matter, but are you going to pretend to the rest of the world you're invisible and/or _gone_ from reality? The evidence proves otherwise, and to a select people, they may believe you are truly missing from this reality, but what about those who are just standing there looking at you hiding behind your hands?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2014)

Rassah said:


> "... it was so."... Captain Jean-Luc Picard is god! O.O


*That* I could live with. Morgan Freeman as God I could also tolerate.
This still doesn't make the belief that humanity is created in the image of the supreme being any less arrogant.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 10, 2014)

I don't think I get the concept of just accepting a God because...well there isn't really a because. From that point on it's a bunch of excuses, personal feelings, and random gibberish. 

I don't mean to be rude, and I mean no offense. For me I'd need more than just a feeling, more than just faith, I'd need something concrete. I don't want to have my head in the sand when it comes to life's biggest mysteries. I'm not satisfied with "God created everything because he did and we humans have no business in trying to find out how" it's not only an unsatisfying answer, but it takes away the drive to expand one's knowledge. The one thing humans have that sets them apart from animals is our capacity to learn, without that we might as well just be animals. So why in the world would anyone be content with tossing our one unique trait into the garbage can in favor of some half-assed attempt to explain the origin of things, which relies on the idea that we're all fundamentally flawed at birth and need some benevolent being from the skies to reign over us because we're incapable of caring for ourselves. It's sad to me that people would think in such a negative way.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 10, 2014)

.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 10, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Evolution happens.  There's no doubt about that.  Things adapt to their environment over time.  There is, however, some question as to how far something can evolve.  Just to use one example, can something like man evolve from something like apes without outside intervention?  There is no actual evidence to prove this is possible.  It's just a theory.  And though some people don't think so because it's a widely accepted theory, it is, in fact, a pretty far out and implausible theory with no logical reasoning behind it what so ever.
> 
> Yes, you can say man is part of the ape family.  No problem there.  But, man is a radical departure, not only from apes, but all other animal life on the planet as well.  There is a network on top of the human brain that no other animal has anything even remotely resembling.  If we used the theory of evolution to explain this, we would be seeing some other creatures that are midway in developing this special network that enables human reasoning.  We do not.  Therefore, we know evolution exists, but we also know it doesn't explain everything.



I won't speak to the rest of your arguments because I really have zero qualification to, but I would love to speak on this in particular.

I have to disagree. You're suggesting that the human brain is somehow significantly different than any other creature? How so? 

Dogs were recently put under and MRI machine and when their brains were scanned a rather surprising correlation was found to the design of a human brain. They experienced and registered emotions in an almost identical method to humans. Suggesting that at least emotionally dogs were very human life.

Moving further there is plenty of proof that humans have a common ancestor that would link them closely to apes. Actually a whole variety of them. I think the earliest would be Homo Habilis ( at least of the ones I know ). I won't try to speak too much on this though because again it's hardly my area of expertise. I think a few others on this forum will do a much better job when they get around to it 

If you're talking human intellect. I also have to disagree. Dolphins have been determined to be nearly on a human level of intelligence, and certainly qualify for the term 'sentient'. Beyond that several Chimp groups have been known to use tools to aid in hunting suggesting they too share some level of intelligence similar to humans. 

Evolution is a fascinating field, and while I'm hardly an expert I know enough to confidently say that we most likely do in fact share a common ancestor with Apes.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> I won't speak to the rest of your arguments because I really have zero qualification to, but I would love to speak on this in particular.
> 
> I have to disagree. You're suggesting that the human brain is somehow significantly different than any other creature? How so?


 This is where the creationist part comes in


----------



## Lobar (Feb 10, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> So, I ask myself certain questions, like, regardless of how much seemingly very intelligent people swear by the notion that everything resulted from nothing, is nothing even conceivable, let alone a logical conclusion to jump to?  Can highly sophisticated computer code exist without a mind, or at least a machine, to calculate it?  And how likely is it that even evolving DNA codes can change themselves in very specific ways without some kind of intervention, or at least a mechanism to do the calculating?



DNA doesn't change "in very specific ways".  It's a random process, no calculations required.  Most mutations aren't beneficial, and the mutated organism dies without passing it on.  The number of failures doesn't matter, though, only successes do.  Even if a beneficial adaptation were as rare as 1 in a million, that is still more than enough to occur on a regular basis, given all the organisms across the entire planet over billions of years.  It's the Law of Large Numbers in action.  As an individual, you might look at the odds of winning the lottery and say it's essentially impossible to win, but the fact is that with the number of people that play, someone _does_ win every couple of weeks or so.  Organisms that develop a beneficial mutation are the genetic lottery winners, and the prize is they get to propagate their new gene throughout the population.

I'm aware this explanation is oversimplistic, but it gets the point across.


----------



## FriendlyFurryFox (Feb 10, 2014)

This is a fallacious premise. Creationism cannot be compared with evolution because evolution only explains why species are they way they are today, it doesn't explain the origin of life. Creationism deals with the origin of life, not the changes of life.

Basically evolution is a theory that all life evolved from something else, creationism is a theory all life was created by a creator, the two theories are not incompatible at all.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Feb 10, 2014)

WHY IS THIS STILL BEING DEBATED


----------



## Rassah (Feb 10, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> I don't mean to be rude, and I mean no offense.



Stating that "I don't believe that X is true, because there is no evidence to support it, and I believe you are wrong in your claim that X is true because your evidence is faulty" should never be offensive, and if someone is offended, the problem is with them, not you.


----------



## Conker (Feb 10, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Evolution happens.  There's no doubt about that.  Things adapt to their environment over time.  There is, however, some question as to how far something can evolve.  Just to use one example, can something like man evolve from something like apes without outside intervention?  There is no actual evidence to prove this is possible.  It's just a theory.  And though some people don't think so because it's a widely accepted theory, it is, in fact, a pretty far out and implausible theory with no logical reasoning behind it what so ever.


There are things wrong with this and it makes me sad. First off, let's just talk terminology. The word "theory" as applied to science does not mean "I have a wild guess" as it is most commonly used in normal speech. A theory is something tested again and again and again and found to hold up. It's something that has undergone intense scruitienty from all angles. To say that "evolution is just a theory" as an insult is to completely misunderstand scientific vocabulary. 

Second, we did not evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor with them.

Third, there's plenty of evidence to support evolution. it's more than just fossils. If we lost all of the fossils we'd still have plenty of evidence to support it. Most of it is found within DNA itself and how similar DNA can be from one species to another, but there's also just looking at specific pieces of anatomy from varying creatures and finding a logical incline. Take the human eye. It's stupidly complex. Yet if you look at the eyes of other creatures, you can see how something this complex formed over time. A worm has nothing more than a "is it bright or is it dark?" sensory spot, and that's the lowest of low eyes. As you go up through the animal kingdom, you find more and more complex eyes until you land at humans. Then you can go even further to something like eagles or mantis shrimp. 

If there were no logic to evolution it would be faith and not science.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 10, 2014)

.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 10, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Stating that "I don't believe that X is true, because there is no evidence to support it, and I believe you are wrong in your claim that X is true because your evidence is faulty" should never be offensive, and if someone is offended, the problem is with them, not you.



Fair enough. I just try to avoid stirring up trouble. Some people are really touchy on this subject.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 10, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> The human brain differs from an animal brain in that there is literally a network of connections on the top which is responsible for the comparative thinking that we call intellect.  Dogs don't have that.  They do have emotions as you say.  Emotions are part of the basic brain.  So most animals have them.  I don't care who denies it or how highly regarded they may be, all animals have feelings.  But they don't have what I would call the augmentation of the human brain.  It's like somebody deliberately added something extraterrestrial to the human brain, and perhaps to the dolphin brain as well.  But I see very little hope of establishing an evolution path between dolphins and man.  Unless you go with the extraterrestrial tampering theory, whereby you might suggest that the aliens tampered with the dolphins first, but eventually decided that an anthropoid would probably make better use of this biological enhancement.
> 
> 
> 
> I did say there was no problem with seeing man as part of the ape family.  The question is, can any member of the ape family become furless and intellectual without some outside tampering.  Even if we consider the one outside tampering to be nature, this suggests that nature has intelligence and purpose, making nature something that can and has been considered a god in many cultures.



No not really. The study with dogs I'm talking about was in specific reference to those neural pathways you're now referencing. Specifically the ones that guide emotion. Still the concept is very much the same that Dogs have a similar mechanism for thought as humans just on a slightly less grand scale. Though dogs have been proven capable of understanding English to some extent, and can even logic out new words. One test in particular they taught a dog a series of words for each of its toys. Then they placed in a completely unfamiliar toy into the lot. They asked the dog to get the new toy 'referencing it only by name with no other gestures of any sort' and the dog went back to the toy lot sifted through all of them and ultimately it found one toy it was unfamiliar with and wound up figuring out using logic that it must be what they wanted him to grab. Dogs are fascinating creatures, borderline sentient possibly even sentient. Also I don't think there is any need for Dolphins to share a link to humans they could easily have developed an intelligent mind on their own through natural selection and genetic mutation over time.

Yes, yes a member of the ape family, given enough time, could very well shed it's fur grow it's brain and basically become something very similar to humans. This of course would take an extraordinary amount of time, but is entirely conceivable within the framework of evolution. I doubt it'll happen, but it is certainly possible.

Oh and no one deliberately anything'd the human brain. If you really take a moment and examine a human being you can see if someone designed us they did a terrible job. We have an appendix for no apparent reason that just bursts on occasion killing you. Though with modern medicine this is treatable through surgery, but in the past it was a death sentence. We also have wisdom teeth which serve basically no purpose whatsoever and are painful. If someone designed us they really need to go back to school.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 11, 2014)

.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 11, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> The human brain differs from an animal brain in that there is literally a network of connections on the top which is responsible for the comparative thinking that we call intellect.



Actually, all brains have the same basic structure. They're all just a network of neurons. Human brains just happen to have a vastly larger clump of that network than other species. That is pretty much the only thing that differentiates us from "dumb" animals.




Perri_Rhoades said:


> Yes, I've heard this theory, and if you take it at face value it sounds solid. But if I try to put it through it's logical paces, it raises a lot of questions. For example, even if these mutations _are_ random, they prove quite useful. They are generally something that the creature would have wished for. If they were truly random, everything in the animal kingdom would end up looking like a duck billed platypus. But even a duckbilled platypus has a use for everything its got.



The mutations are random, but evolution is absolutely not. Evolution is a change in species *that best fits the changes in its environment.* So, lots of mutations will simply screw up the offspring and kill it (birth defects). Others will kill it because it would make it less able to survive (a bald ape in a very cold climate for example). Once in a while, the mutation will give it benefits over others of the same species. For example, a mutation with a longer neck in an area with little grass and lots of trees will help it survive over it's siblings. Over time, both short necked and long necked animals will live together, but the long necked ones will eat all the food before sort necked ones get to it. Eventually, the short necked ones will starve and die off, and the loner necked ones will continue on. And we'll have giraffes. Sure, the initial genetic change to start this off was random, but the choice in which genes survive is not random at all.




Perri_Rhoades said:


> So, if the mutations are random, we should see creatures that have evolved things which are totally useless to them. Let's say, just to be totally random, an equine that grows a 5th leg out of it's back. That wouldn't be any kind of hindrance to its survival. It would just look weird. But it would be totally useless.



There are a few vestigial evolutionary parts that used to be useful, but aren't any more. Like appendix, coccyx, goose bumps (which used to make us look all larger and poofy when we had fur, but don't do anything now), or even vestigial hind legs in whales (the bones are under the skin). As for examples of new evolutionary traits that don't do anything, I'm sure there are lots, but since they give no survival benefit, they would have to be minor, so as not to hinder survival, either. So they're things we don't really notice. Maybe earlobes? As I said, evolution is guided by the environment, so useless evolutions don't really give any benefit, and thus either just spread through the species, or die out, without having any impact. 

In short, evolution is absolutely NOT totally random, and whoever told you that either didn't know what they were talking about, or was trying to deceive you.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 11, 2014)

Kitsune Cross said:


> WHY IS THIS STILL BEING DEBATED



Because some/too many people are still too stupid to grasp even the simplest concepts of evolution.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 11, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> One rather vocal christian (I don't remember who it was, I think either Kent Hovind or *Ray Comfort* [...]



Erf. I would like to apologise on behalf of my country for Ray Comfort, especially for joining Kirk Cameron in claiming that the existence of bananas disproves evolution:



> Now if you study a well-made banana, you'll find, on the far side, there are three ridges. On the close side, two ridges. If you get your hand ready to grip a banana, you'll find on the far side there are three grooves, on the close side, two grooves. The banana and the hand are perfectly made, one for the other. You'll find the maker of the banana, Almighty God, has made it with a non-slip surface. It has outward indicators of inward contents â€” green: too early; yellow: just right; black: too late. Now if you go to the top of the banana, you'll find, as with the soda can makers have placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top. When you pull the tab, the contents don't squirt in your face. You'll find a wrapper which is biodegradable, has perforations. Notice how gracefully it sits over the human hand. Notice it has a point at the top for ease of entry. It's just the right shape for the human mouth. It's chewy, easy to digest and its even curved toward the face to make the whole process so much easier.



"... not only that, it's perfectly shaped for use as a sex toy." ;-)

The banana thing may be funny, but this is positively scary:


> Therefore you should never take medicine to relieve pain. *You should never consult a doctor or go to a hospital for treatment, because you would be interfering with the work of God in your life.* If Cancer is the chastening tool of God, then doctors who are fighting cancer are fighting against the work of God.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 11, 2014)

.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 11, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Yes, I've heard this theory, and if you take it at face value it sounds solid.  But if I try to put it through it's logical paces, it raises a lot of questions.  For example, even if these mutations _are_ random, they prove quite useful.  They are generally something that the creature would have wished for.  If they were truly random, everything in the animal kingdom would end up looking like a duck billed platypus.  But even a duckbilled platypus has a use for everything its got.
> 
> So, if the mutations are random, we should see creatures that have evolved things which are totally useless to them.  Let's say, just to be totally random, an equine that grows a 5th leg out of it's back.  That wouldn't be any kind of hindrance to its survival.  It would just look weird.  But it would be totally useless.
> 
> ...



I think you're in need of an actual book on the subject, as there is a whole lot of wrong here.

_Mutation_ is random.  _Evolution_ is not, as the process of natural selection culls non-beneficial traits from the population.  Take fifty dice and roll them all on a table.  Take the ten lowest dice and roll them again.  Repeat through multiple "generations", and you will find that you're generating a very non-random population result through the process of _selecting_ the randomly-generated individual results.  "Usefulness" determines what is selected - random mutations happen, and if any happen to be useful and provide a greater chance of survival until reproduction, they tend to get passed on, while the rest do not.

A fifth leg growing out of something's back would be far from harmless.  It would cost energy to grow and develop, complicate the birthing process, be prone to injury, and would likely impair other functions due to however it manages to articulate with the rest of the skeleton.  

There's nothing at all to suggest that "wishing" to get in a tree is going to have any impact at all on anything.

Darwin isn't worshiped as infallible by scientists, either.  There are a lot of finer details he got wrong (pangenesis, for example), though that is rather expected of a revolutionary discovery.  The theory of evolution by natural selection as it exists today, however, is extremely well-supported by a mountain of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 11, 2014)

.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Oh dear... Perrri, I highly recommend that you watch this video about the E. coli long-term evolution experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUhYGgtwNkE

It highlights how natural selection actually works. I highly recommend that you watch it because you really did make some pretty gross mistakes while talking about evolution.
What you explianed there is pretty much what creationists want you to believe what evolution is, because what you said there simply makes no sense at all.
For example, yes mutations are random. When UV light hits DNA the changes that occur are random. But mutations aren't the driving force of evolution! Natural selection is.
For example, imagine the ancestors of the modern giraffes. They had short necks. Now if there was a part of the population that had slightly longer necks and that gave them the advantage of being able to reach higher leaves then they had a higer chance to survive and with that a higher chance to pass on their genes to the next generation. Over millions of years this shifts the population away from short necks and the average neck length increases. And at that point you then have two different species. This process is called speciation.
Lenski's experiment highlights all of these things which is why it's such a great example as solid proof for evolution.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> The appendix was probably very useful back in the time when man was a herbivore.  Should we ever revert in the future, it may become useful again.
> 
> Actually, I rather like the idea that the Earth was once a sandbox (Second Life terminology) for a school of students studying an advanced genetic science, and that all life on Earth evolved from their failed experiments.  Maybe some poor student got a failing grade for man because he forgot to take the appendix out.



I'm rather sure it did serve a purpose at one point. This was quite a long time ago, and these days it doesn't serve any purpose. In fact it's a hindrance if anything. I doubt humans will go back to herbivore days given that we seem to be fairing extraordinarily well with our omnivore diet. My point still remains in that there are plenty of things in evolution which are completely non-beneficial. Some things even to the point of being down right harmful. I'm fairly certain a lot of different species have traits that are just there and serve no purpose.

It's an interesting concept, but I don't believe some extra-terrestrial or superior beings were playing 'science fair' when earth was created. The best answer so far to the development of life seem to be evolution. I can't speak to the origin of the first living organism on earth, but I hear there are quite a few interesting theories on it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Lots of stuff.



To address every single fallacy in this comment.

-There have been many human species in the past. We appear unique today because all our relatives are extinct, just like the platypus appears special because many of its close relatives have now died. The evolution of various human species is recorded in the fossil record and matches allopatric and allometric theories of morphological change. [species change when they are divided into new gene pools, species often change by taking paedomorphic forms]. The human face is a paedomorph of a typical ape face, for example. 

-Quantum definitions of information are different to biological metaphors of information in the DNA code. DNA is a molecule that probably took a long long time to evolve, and there are other forms of genetic information which are more primitive that still survive, like RNA. Life uses a digital code because digital codes have a higher fidelity, which means they are easier to reproduce and therefore confer a survival advantage. If you think there is a deeper reason you are reading too much into the word 'digital'. 

-DNA codes, unfortunately, do not 'calculate' their next move when they evolve. Evolution of genetic material is, in the orthodox view, blind. 'The selfish Gene' explains this mechanism in a digestible and frank format. If DNA 'planned' its evolution we would not expect to see harmful vestiges, as has already been elucidated in this thread.

-Your 'an idea hits a black hole' argument is poorly worded in broken logic and has absolutely nothing to do with the question 'does evolution require guidance from extraterrestrials'?

-There is no source of intelligence that calculates DNA expression and there is no 'evolution in order to better the species'. Survival of the fittest. 

-There is no 'unified field of creative ideas'. This is woo-woo magic la la talk. 


You are failing to understand what words like 'information' mean and then extrapolating arguments based on these mistakes to the point of absurdity. :\
Also please do not mistake 'confer a survival advantage' for 'life decided it would evolve like this, because it's better'. Using the digital dna example, we can imagine that life may have originally been analogue [although since chemistry lends itself to being digital and discreet this is a silly idea, but I'll press on]. Our hypothetical analogue life forms cannot reproduce as accurately as life forms that exploit digital storage, therefore the analogue life forms become a smaller and smaller percentage of the gene pool until they die out, and no conscious entity is ever implied by this process.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

^What that guy said 
As I said above, qhat you said is dangerously close to what hardcore creationists/ID supporters want you to believe about evolution. You are essentially using ALL of their deranged arguments, like "DNA being a language and languages need a creator" and so on.

Evolution is an entirely blind process. Nothing works through planning, it's just "better" genes that have a higher chance to be passed on to the next generation and nothing else. That is the most important thing to understand about evolution, it is a natural process that doesn't require guidance or a creator because in essence it is nothing but the logical consequence of variations in the gene pool. Good genes are passed on, bad stuff stays behind and dies.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 11, 2014)

.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 11, 2014)

In essence, "intelligent Design" is basically the result of a modern myth concept; that humans still rely on mythos to explain how the universe was created. I am sure that if the majority were worshiping Greek or Egyptian gods, we'd still be arguing the same concept on how the universe was created and how life came to be. Instead of just a God, you'd have an explanation to how a group of gods created the universe.

The problem with it is that people are trying to take the bible into literal context by using religious philosophy to state it as fact. The bible in itself is allegory.

Also "Scientific Theory" is not the same as just the plain ol' word "Theory". The difference between the former and the latter is that the former is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The latter is more of "guessing". Scientific theories are always changing based on our technology and how much we delve further into the subject under experimentation and further observation.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 11, 2014)

.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 11, 2014)

.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> The best answer anyone can give is that they don't believe anything.  Theories are always fun to speculate about.  But to believe in one is to close the mind.  Once you say you believe something, somebody's got you, and your thoughts are no longer free.
> 
> So, yeah, I don't believe in the extra-terrestrials either.  Actually, I don't believe any of the theories I've mentioned in this thread.  I'm just aware of them, and I think they're fun to kick around.  But I'm not going to tell anybody that I have anything to offer that they should believe.  I just have lots of fun things for them to think about, because thinking is a healthy thing to do.  Believing is not.



Well the extra-terrestrial super being suggestion is more a hypothesis than a theory. If it were a theory I'd be inclined to take it to at least some extent more seriously, depending on the nature of why it's referenced as 'theory'. Also the whole thing is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so I can't really disprove that aliens created life, but I can easily point out that it fails to meet any standards of proof, and has no evidence to support it.

Oh and about your Giraffe thing you said in a previous post.

I'm pretty sure what happened there is that one species neck stretched just a bit and thus it survived a little better than the others of it's kind. This allowed it to pass on its genes. Sometime later I'm almost sure it didn't happen immediately the new species with a slightly stretched neck again experienced a slight neck stretch making it just a little bit better able to survive. Repeat this process over and over an extraordinary time span and BAM! giraffe. There's nothing unimaginable about it really. It's just plain and simple little changes stacking up over time.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Perri, I won't quote you so I won't overstretch the page. Instead I just go through everything you said:

-Why would it make a difference whether he was talking about E. Coli or insects or mammals? No matter which critter you look at, evolution always happens the same way. Bacteria are just nice to work with and they give you more new generations than any other kind of critter. You can also freeze them without killing them for future reference. That makes them ideal for this experiment.

-Mutations don't matter. Sunlight don't matter because mutations can happen without the influence of UV light through errors during the replication of DNA.
Mutations CAN be a factor in evolution. It can cause "fast evolution", but in this case "fast" means 1 million years instead of 10 million years. So still pretty damn slow.

-They are NOT preprogrammed! Or can you factually PROVE that they are? As the video said, they got the ability to use a new food source through three seperate genetic variations. That happened twice throughout all these lines of generations. *If your assumption that they are preprogrammed to use citrate would be true THEY ALL should be able to use it and NOT just two lines! That is because all 12 lineages of E. Coli originate from the same batch. They were genetically identical* at first so they all shoÃºld have the same pre-programming. So your assumption falls flat on it's face right there, *that is direct evidence that evolution has nothing to do with pre-programming.*

-You are not a skeptic. A skeptic doesn't come up with his own assumptions about how things work. A skeptic looks at the evidence and goes from there.

-Evolution is STILL not a "method". It is a blind. Process.

-You did not understand my example about the giraffes... I didn't say that they went straight to long necks. I said that it happened over time through multiple generations over millions of years through genetic variations. *I never even TOUCHED the word "mutation" during that example! * So can you PLEASE just forget about he word "mutation"? No biologist who wants to be taken seriously would EVER regularly use that word when it comes to evolution...

-About mutations: High energy photos ramming into your DNA at random is a guided process? I don't think so.

-It doesn't boggle my mind and it could make sense. HOWEVER! There is no evidence for that and it hasn't been observed in nature. What you can observe is females picking high performance males with advantageous traits and that results in better offspring.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 11, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Interesting video, if hard to follow due to the smart assed dialogue.  But, you know, I didn't need anybody to go to all that trouble to convince me that germs evolve, or that they adapt to whatever food source is available.  Bacteria have been known to evolve to eating nylon.  That's why I started out by saying evolution exists.  It's quite observable.  Nobody's denying that.  But, a citrus eating E. coli is still an E. coli.  I was waiting through the whole video for it to turn into a fruit fly or a mosquito or something - anything but an E. coli.  That would be news.  That would provide support for some of the unsupported notions of evolution.  But, alas, much ado about nothing.
> 
> Likewise, nobody is disputing that DNA evolves.  But the question of how the DNA evolved is not addressed.  It's further complicated by my assumption that this experiment took place in a laboratory where there was no direct sunlight to cause a mutation.  If that is correct, it throws the whole theory of mutation into question.
> 
> ...



Let me be frank here: your understanding of the material at this point is below high school level.  There's actually nothing stopping you from visiting the academic journal section of your local library and reading the data from the primary source, but its implications would be beyond your grasp given the fundamental errors you keep repeating here.

The Lenski experiment took place in a single laboratory over the course of 40 years.  That's an area about 1 billionth of the total surface area on Earth, in a time period about 1 hundred millionth that of the history of life itself, which is the scale at which evolution has taken place to arrive at the diversity of life today.  It is not at all expected that on such a small scale, that any multicellular organism would evolve from prokaryotic bacteria, much less something that is already an extant eukaryotic animal species.  Such a discovery would actually challenge pretty much everything we know about biology.  Evolution is a _slow_ process.

You continue to conflate natural selection with directed mutation.  DNA does not "know" anything to willfully "trigger a specific response" (nor is direct sunlight required, errors in replication can and will happen on their own without external stimulus).  Again, mutation is _random_, a mere ticket in a genetic lottery.  Once in a great while, something "wins" by hitting upon a beneficial mutation (this is why evolution is so slow).  An entire generation doesn't then have to hit upon that same mutation all at once.  Once there's a single organism with a mutation that gives it a slight edge at successfully reproducing over the rest of the population, that gene will slowly but surely increase its distribution throughout the population over successive generations.  It's the Law of Large Numbers in action, akin to the way that even though a casino may only hold a slight house edge over the players, play long enough and it's a certainty that they will end up with all of your money.

The only "mechanism" by which DNA "calculates" changes in a population is through trial and error, with a _lot_ of error.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 11, 2014)

On the word "mutation"

isn't there technically genetic mutations such as eye color or something of that nature? Or is that outdated/incorrect information?


----------



## Lobar (Feb 11, 2014)

Aleu said:


> On the word "mutation"
> 
> isn't there technically genetic mutations such as eye color or something of that nature? Or is that outdated/incorrect information?



A mutation is any actual change in a gene, resulting in a new allele.  I'm not sure where CC got the idea that the word "mutation" isn't used (maybe the language barrier at play here), because it does have a scientific meaning and is how completely new genetic material actually comes about.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Aleu said:


> On the word "mutation"
> 
> isn't there technically genetic mutations such as eye color or something of that nature? Or is that outdated/incorrect information?



Mutations usually only happen in individuals and range from absolutely awful, to neutral (no benefit or disadvantage) to beneficial.
Eye color would be neutral, the inability to burn body fat on your own would be awful, being able to use a new source of food would be very beneficial.
Neutral and awful mutations usually get weeded out, beneficial mutations are passed on the the law of large numbers.



Lobar said:


> A mutation is any actual change in a gene, resulting in a new allele.  I'm not sure where CC got the idea that the word "mutation" isn't used (maybe the language barrier at play here), because it does have a scientific meaning and is how completely new genetic material actually comes about.



No language barrier, I just biffed it and you are right :V Or you give me the benefit of he doubt and we just agree that I woreded it wrong ;D
What I meant is that mutations are not the main driving force behind evolution, genetic variations are. Mutations just have the ability to completely mix things up through radically different genetic material.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 11, 2014)

Mayfurr said:


> Erf. I would like to apologise on behalf of my country for Ray Comfort, especially for joining Kirk Cameron in claiming that the existence of bananas disproves evolution:



Hillarious irony: bananas are inedible in nature, and only exist in current yellow sweet form thanks to human guided evolution.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> Evolution, as a method by which creatures adapt to their living conditions makes 100% sense. Evolution as an explanation for the origin of the universe makes 100% non-sense.



Oh dear... Evolution has absoluteely nothing to to with the origin of the universe. It only descries how things came to be after life already formed. The actual forming of life is abiogenesis, and the forming of the universe is big bang. Not evolution. I'll explain the later down below



Perri_Rhoades said:


> The Book Of Genesis, taken literally as it is in the debate video, is ridiculous non-sense. But, The Book Of Genesis, read allegorically up to a certain point is 100% in agreement with science.



Except the Book of Genesis talks about firmaments in the sky, creating of light before the sun and moon, and creating the sun before the stars, all of which we know to be absolutely wrong. Genesis wasn't even remotely right about how things came to be.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> Science can do the same thing. They don't just show you the data. Whoever you learn these things from assumes you're too dumb to read the data, probably because they too dumb to read the data themselves.
> ...
> But you can not get there without extreme leaps of faith. I've tried.



I don't know if you are too dumb to understand the data, but it's fairly easy to just ask a scientist to explain it to you. When you learn about stuff, you're not supposed to take leaps of faith. Instead, just assume "I don't know," and ask until you understand it. That's all. Thinking that Genesis confirms anything in any way IS taking a leap of faith, the first one being a presupposition about how you believe things work, and then trying to fit any new data into your presupposition.




Perri_Rhoades said:


> It boggles my mind how no one sees how easily this logic gap could be bridged simply by the suggestion that the animal, through the power of its own longing to reach the food, could influence the mutating DNA of its offspring, resulting in a longer neck.



But there is no evidence for this, either. Yes, it has been "tested" in the sense that we understand very well what DNA is, and how it works, and it just doesn't work that way. There is simply no method of communication to tell DNA what to do based on outside environment.

And by the way, the other things that are just scientific "theories" and not "facts" are:
 Theory of Gravity (Do you believe in gravity, even though it's just a theory?)
Germ theory of Disease (Do you believe we get sick from bacteria and viruses, even though it's just a theory?)
Theory of Electricity (do you believe electricity exists?)

What throws people off with the scientific word "theory" is that it's not a colloquial word about what some believe may or may not exist or be true ("My theory is that this is so and so). Theory is a word that is used with something we already know to be absolutely true, and is a word that means to describe the process by which that true thing operates. We know gravity, germs, and electricity exist. The theory in their case is only by which process they work exactly. Likewise, we know evolution exists, and the theory is only about how the evolutionary process works. So evolutionis not even in dispute. Just some of the fringe parts of its processes are.

As for the origin of the universe, that has nothing at all to do with evolution, and was actually recently proven with the help of the Large Hadron colider. The common question is, "How can something come from nothing?" Out in the universe, we see equal parts of matter and antimatter (see, as in watch how things move around each other with gravity influencing it). Matter and antimatter are exact opposites, and if brought together, would cancel each other out. Likewise, if we were to bring the entirety of the universe together and sum it all up, we would have lots of positives plus lots of negatives, all add up to zero. So, the answer to the question is actually that we do have a sum total of nothing out of nothing. We just happen to be on one side of that nothing. Then, the follow-up question would be, "but what caused all this matter and anti-matter to form?" The guess used to be "it just happened spontaneously. Quantum mechanics, random occurance, or it just happened." That specific theory was confirmed during the Large Hadron experiment, when we saw a whole bunch of these mini-big bang quantum events happening, with random little pops of matter and anti-matter happening all over, completely at random, and completely spontaneously. None of them resulted in a big bang, since they were small, and forming within an already existing universe, which made them quickly fizzle out, but nevertheless, the theory is confirmed: the universe is a whole lot of nothing, that popped into existance all on it's own, because that's just how physics apparently work.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 11, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> No language barrier, I just biffed it and you are right :V Or you give me the benefit of he doubt and we just agree that I woreded it wrong ;D
> What I meant is that mutations are not the main driving force behind evolution, genetic variations are. Mutations just have the ability to completely mix things up through radically different genetic material.



I figured it was worded wrong after rereading it.

So...does this mean I won't get super regenerative powers or epic shape-shifting abilities? ;~;


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

Rassah said:


> the universe is a whole lot of nothing, that popped into existance all on it's own, because that's just how physics apparently work.



Yeah physics gets a little weird the further into it you get. Especially in Quantum Physics. Things are in multiple places at once, stuff can levitate, and a whole bunch of other weird stuff.


----------



## Azure (Feb 11, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> The Book Of Genesis, taken literally as it is in the debate video, is ridiculous non-sense.  But, The Book Of Genesis, read allegorically up to a certain point is 100% in agreement with science.  But to get to that agreement, you have to read every passage with the same test.  You have to constantly ask "How can I read this so that it makes sense?"  But people don't do that.  They depend on other people to tell them how they should read it, and that is how they come up with ridiculous conclusions like the world is only 6000 years old.


allegory has zero place in anything scientific ever. the bible is just a big giant mishmash of thefted pagan themes, and people who actually believe that the world is 6000 or so years old are the kind of people who star in creationist videos that feature bananas disproving evolition. but yeah the bible has literally ZERO science in it, and the moral messages can truly be gotten elsewhere, i mean hey, there are 7 billion people on this planet, and there are people vain enough to think that nobody has anything to teach them


----------



## Rassah (Feb 11, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I figured it was worded wrong after rereading it.
> 
> So...does this mean I won't get super regenerative powers or epic shape-shifting abilities? ;~;



You can if you reproduce lots through cloning, and guiding each genetic slightly modified copy in that direction over millions of years. Or just want about 30 until we can print custom DNA, and do genetic therapy/DNA replacement with viral injection. The future is FUN!


----------



## Crystal_the_Vixen (Feb 11, 2014)

Bill Nye always.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

Rassah said:


> You can if you reproduce lots through cloning, and guiding each genetic slightly modified copy in that direction over millions of years. Or just want about 30 until we can print custom DNA, and do genetic therapy/DNA replacement with viral injection. The future is FUN!



That's what I'm counting on. What I'm hoping will happen.

1.) With advancing medical technology my lifespan will increase significantly 

2.) Whilst this is going on, they figure out how to stop/reverse aging before I die

3.) With new found biological immortality I avoid any other means of death still existent long enough for genetic manipulation and alteration to be possible.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Aleu said:


> So...does this mean I won't get super regenerative powers or epic shape-shifting abilities? ;~;



With enough gamma radiation... Maybe! But I suppose the line between super powers and the most disgusting death EVER is a little too blurred to try it XD
We could try it through the classic "teleportation accident". Just hold a starfish instead of a fly and maybe you get the ability to grow your limbs back after having them cut off...?


----------



## Aleu (Feb 11, 2014)

Rassah said:


> You can if you reproduce lots through cloning, and guiding each genetic slightly modified copy in that direction *over millions of years*. Or just want about 30 until we can print custom DNA, and do genetic therapy/DNA replacement with viral injection. The future is FUN!


:C
Well, I suppose with constant clones of myself, my superior punning abilities will live on



Blake_Foxx said:


> That's what I'm counting on. What I'm hoping will happen.
> 
> 1.) With advancing medical technology my lifespan will increase significantly
> 
> ...



I can't find any reason why I'd want to live longer than I'm scheduled to.

I want to die yesterday.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I can't find any reason why I'd want to live longer than I'm scheduled to.
> 
> I want to die yesterday.



All kinds of reasons really. The potential of an extended life to vastly expand knowledge in ways that time has always prevented from happening, the thrill of watching societies rise and fall ( potentially), Find out what wonderful things science will bring in the future first hand instead of dying before the next breakthroughs, The change in societal behaviors over time creating more and more openness ( or potentially less I suppose ), and then if humans achieve the ability to manipulate genes among other sorts of things I can't help but imagine you could literally design a body for yourself if you so chose which might be interesting...Please note this is all random speculation. Lots of this stuff could very well turn out to be impossible. I really don't know. I'm just saying that if you lived long enough amazing things could happen.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 11, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> Yeah physics gets a little weird the further into it you get. Especially in Quantum Physics. Things are in multiple places at once, stuff can levitate, and a whole bunch of other weird stuff.


So, um, how is it quantum physics and religion are different? They both spout nonsense, do they not?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> So, um, how is it quantum physics and religion are different? They both spout nonsense, do they not?



Quantum physics correctly explains emission spectra, which was its primary job. Every experiment ever carried out on it has turned up a positive result. The theory has essentially been tested to destruction. What we regard as nonsense in our macroscopic world is actually the reality of the quantum scale world- a place in which the position of a particle can be described as a probabilistic function of a wave equation, a world in which a particle can be in several locations at once and none at all at the same time. 

Religion by contrast actually is just nonsense.



Aleu said:


> On the word "mutation"
> 
> isn't there technically genetic mutations such as eye color or something  of that nature? Or is that outdated/incorrect information?



To be specific all Human eyes were originally dark brown. Many of the other mutant colours originated in Western Eurasia. 

Blue is a typical mutant variant that Northern Europeans have in which the gene 'for' the brown pigment has been deactivated, Grey is an even more extreme mutant that North East Europeans have in which the genes for brown and blue pigments have been deactivated. 

The date and location of these mutations' occurrences can be accurately determined and the build up of endemic mutations in a population is used to judge the amount of time they have been isolated.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 11, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> So, um, how is it quantum physics and religion are different? They both spout nonsense, do they not?


Look at the large Hydron Collider and tell me it spouts nonsense.

These exotic events you hear about in quantum mechanics (multiple postitions at once, ect) are almost impossible at the macroscopic scale. That doesn't mean they don't exist on the atomic/subatomic level.

Ed: Ninja'd by Fallow. XD


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Quantum physics correctly explains emission spectra, which was its primary job. Every experiment ever carried out on it has turned up a positive result. The theory has essentially been tested to destruction. What we regard as nonsense in our macroscopic world is actually the reality of the quantum scale world- a place in which the position of a particle can be described as a probabilistic function of a wave equation, a world in which a particle can be in several locations at once and none at all at the same time.
> 
> Religion by contrast actually is just nonsense.
> 
> ...


So could someone teach me how to use it to be in multiple places at the exact same time. I would very much like to know how to do that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> So could someone teach me how to use it to be in multiple places at the exact same time. I would very much like to know how to do that.



If you were an electron, sure. To make things clear, quantum mechanics states that even a body the size of Jupiter has a very remote chance of hopping out of the solar system.

However the probability of this occurring is vanishingly small, so small we may assume it is zero for our every day purposes. At the quantum scale, things really do behave in that fashion though, and the transistors which make your computer work would not function if this was not true.

[as it happens, nor would MRI scanners and a bunch of other stuff, and it would be very difficult to explain why metals do not glow blue when you heat them up, instead of orange]


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> If you were an electron, sure. To make things clear, quantum mechanics states that even a body the size of Jupiter has a very remote chance of hopping out of the solar system.
> 
> However the probability of this occurring is vanishingly small, so small we may assume it is zero for our every day purposes. At the quantum scale, things really do behave in that fashion though, and the transistors which make your computer work would not function if this was not true.
> 
> [as it happens, nor would MRI scanners and a bunch of other stuff, and it would be very difficult to explain why metals do not glow blue when you heat them up, instead of orange]



I think this jives with what my old philosophy teacher had explained. That if you were capable of running at a wall a damn-near-infinite amount of times, one of those times, some part of you (if not all of you) will successfully pass through it. It's an infinitesimal chance, but it's possible <.<


----------



## Gator Joe (Feb 11, 2014)

As a Catholic, I believe in both creationism and evolution equally. Many people think we hate science, but we actually love it because in a way, it helps prove the existence of God. It's even taught in Catholic schools. I can't vouch for other religious beliefs. I'm not posting this to start a debate. I've been discriminated by the furry community before just for being Catholic, and that's kept me away from the furry fandom for a very long time. I'm just simply stating my own personal belief.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I think this jives with what my old philosophy teacher had explained. That if you were capable of running at a wall a damn-near-infinite amount of times, one of those times, some part of you (if not all of you) will successfully pass through it. It's an infinitesimal chance, but it's possible <.<



I suppose it is similar to that thought experiment often used in themodynamics, that a diamond will turn into graphite if you leave it on your desk for an infinite number of years. 

Whilst thermodynamics is derived from macroscopic observations and arguments it reaches down to the quantum world in this example, because the diamond crystal is made of lots of minute jiggling quantum particles, which have a very small chance of spontaneously rearranging themselves into the graphite crystal matrix, instead of the diamond variant as a function of time. 

It's a shame that physicists often use weird macroscale thought experiments to give people an idea of how odd quantum mechanics is, because this gives people the wrong impression- that quantum physics is wrong and scientists are all doofs who believe in messy magical ideas- because it's no good appreciating how weird quantum mechanics implies the cosmos is until you at least have a inkling of the body of knowledge which shows that it is a useful and accurate theory.



Gator Joe said:


> As  a Catholic, I believe in both creationism and evolution equally. Many  people think we hate science, but we actually love it because in a way, * it helps prove the existence of God.* It's even taught in Catholic  schools. I can't vouch for other religious beliefs. I'm not posting this  to start a debate. I've been discriminated by the furry community  before just for being Catholic, and that's kept me away from the furry  fandom for a very long time. I'm just simply stating my own personal  belief.



Science proves nobody's personal magic beliefs. Whether you believe in reincarnation, gods, phantoms, djinns or anything else. Science's position on all of these is the same, that they are all unfalsifiable dead-end descriptions of the cosmos invented by groups of people who knew almost nothing about the universe they lived in.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 11, 2014)

.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

'Latent information'. If you mean things such as chickens containing deactivated genes for teeth this is because the distant ancestors of chickens had teeth. Certain events can reactivate these genes. 
The epigenome can also reactivate dormant genetic information, but this should not be confused to mean that DNA was preprogramed by some agency for the benefit of the animals. 

There is no such thing as a 'perfect' creature. 

Giraffes do not use their long necks for want of food, they are actually instruments of war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60SZ7Hk0wdQ

Females selecting which mates they breed with IS natural selection. They are not required to understand the process of natural selection for their choice of mate to have an influence, just as no tree understands why it is growing buttresses even though they stop it falling over. 

There is no such thing as 'for the benefit of the species' selection- or at least if there is it is not significant. Genes act in the interest of copies of themselves and do not care whether this means a species divides in two. 


You seriously need to understand the following terms. 
-gene
-selection pressure
-reproduction

You keep implying 'God' because you don't understand how the former three terms interact. In any case your ignorance about them would not be an argument in favour of divinity- because this is an 'appeal to ignorance fallacy'. 

Lamarckian evolution would not suddenly be correct because you find a species of creature you don't know hot to explain with darwinian terms, so why should 'divine evolution' be treated in such a fashion? You gotta find your own specific supporting evidence.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Gator Joe said:


> it helps prove the existence of God.



Ok, I'll bite... HOW?! How does it do that? Because if it did we wouldn't have this discussion! XD


As for you, Perri... I am sorry but you are either too dense to understand it or too stubborn to see how little sense it makes what you say from a scientific point of view. What you say here essentially works against _everything_ evolutionary biologists have found out during the last couple of decades.
You have absolutely NO IDEA how evolution works. None. You also don't seem to know much about biology in general.
Go talk to a biology professor if you have a university or college near by. I think you have to hear this from someone directly to understand how grossly mistaken you are about the things you are talking about in this thread.

To say it a little more directly, I think you are completely delusional about this. The fact that you constantly turn around what everyone says here and that you constantly deny it even though we present you the best evidence available to mankind at this moment you still deny it. You are in denial.


----------



## BigwiggingAround (Feb 11, 2014)

I'm a devout Catholic, and I thought I'd contribute the following thoughts:

The Bible has absolutely nothing scientific in it.
The existence of God is [almost] definitely never going to be proven scientifically.
"Watchmaker theory" is a lame explanation.

I believe in God for a lot of reasons, but the bottom line is because it gives me security and peace of mind, not because I have any concrete logic to support His existence. The Catholic Church makes the most sense to me of all the religions or belief systems I could pick, and the way I see it, I could die and be received by my God, or die and not feel anything and not care that I was wrong because I'll be dead. I know it's horribly anti-intellectual, but so long as I don't impose my beliefs on anyone else against their will, I don't see any obligation to change my mind about these things.

I just wanted to get that out; sorry for not advancing the debate here.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 11, 2014)

BigwiggingAround said:


> I just wanted to get that out; sorry for not advancing the debate here.



Meh, not like it's advancing anyway with how pathetic some of the arguments are.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

BigwiggingAround said:


> I'm a devout Catholic, and I thought I'd contribute the following thoughts:
> 
> The Bible has absolutely nothing scientific in it.
> The existence of God is [almost] definitely never going to be proven.
> ...



Looking at some bible passages I have absolutely no clue at all how something like that can give you a sense of security or peace of mind but hey, what ever floats your boat XD


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 11, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Looking at some bible passages I have absolutely no clue at all how something like that can give you a sense of security or peace of mind but hey, what ever floats your boat XD



Er...because we live in a world that, let's admit, is pretty messed up. So the idea that God actually cares about the humans and will give them a paradise if they follow his way would sort of give relief. 

Also you've got this powerful God on your side who, if we go off the bible, seems to give some degree of care.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 11, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> The best answer anyone can give is that they don't believe anything.  Theories are always fun to speculate about.  But to believe in one is to close the mind.  Once you say you believe something, somebody's got you, and your thoughts are no longer free.
> 
> So, yeah, I don't believe in the extra-terrestrials either.  Actually, I don't believe any of the theories I've mentioned in this thread.  I'm just aware of them, and I think they're fun to kick around.  But I'm not going to tell anybody that I have anything to offer that they should believe.  I just have lots of fun things for them to think about, because thinking is a healthy thing to do.  Believing is not.



No self-respecting scientist uses "belief" in the same context as what you'd use in religion. With any scientific theory, the information evolves and/or gets added on. Scientific theories aren't static like theology.

People debate theories even though they are tested and proven, but it doesn't mean it is on par with religious based assumptions. If you think that God created the universe by sneezing a giant booger, fine. But do not expect people in the field of science to take you seriously if you are trying to promote it as fact. And it doesn't belong in a public school curriculum either.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

The notions of comfort and 'hedgings one's bets' for an afterlife that were recently mentioned is a form of pascal's wager. This wager is defunct because there is more than one religion offering equivalent rewards and threats to the mutual exclusion of all other religions. Therefore the wager preys on human greed and fear in equal measure at the expense of our integrity. 

More directly, though, the way we feel reality _ought _to be does not change the way it really is. If we must seek comfort, let it be in the arms of other humans instead of the consolation of imaginary friends.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Er...because we live in a world that, let's admit, is pretty messed up. So the idea that God actually cares about the humans and will give them a paradise if they follow his way would sort of give relief.
> 
> Also you've got this powerful God on your side who, if we go off the bible, seems to give some degree of care.



I want you to take a look at these bible verses and then tell me again that that book is a good source for comfort:
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
2 Kings 2:23-24
Isaiah 13:15-18
Jeremiah 48:10
:3


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 11, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I want you to take a look at these bible verses and then tell me again that that book is a good source for comfort:
> Deuteronomy 22:23-24
> Deuteronomy 22:28-29
> Leviticus 20:13
> ...



The way I see it, we're all in a SIMS game and God is the one removing the ladders to the pool and not letting us go to the bathroom. :V


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> The way I see it, we're all in a SIMS game and God is the one removing the ladders to the pool and not letting us go to the bathroom. :V



I think that is actually a very good comparison! XD
If the bible is true then god is the one making the rules. *BUT!* by creating everything *AND* knowing everything that will ever happen in the universe it is _directly_ responsible for _everything_ that happens in it. And in my opinion that is exactly like building a pool in Sims 3 and removing the ladders.

By the way, building a big room, throwing a party, then removing the doors and windows and placing flowers in front of the fireplace is also a ton of fun ;V Bonus points for adding fire detectors to the room so that the fire brigade arrives but they can't do anything because the doors are missing XD


----------



## BigwiggingAround (Feb 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The notions of comfort and 'hedgings one's  bets' for an afterlife that were recently mentioned is a form of  pascal's wager. This wager is defunct because there is more than one  religion offering equivalent rewards and threats to the mutual exclusion  of all other religions. Therefore the wager preys on human greed and  fear in equal measure at the expense of our integrity.
> 
> More directly, though, the way we feel reality _ought _to be does  not change the way it really is. If we must seek comfort, let it be in  the arms of other humans instead of the consolation of imaginary  friends.


I'm well aware every other religion has the same "Do what our God says; get do-gooder points to be happy after you die!" system. When I said the Catholic Church makes the most sense to me, that includes my belief it is the "right" and "original" one, for an assortment of reasons.

And how is it at the expense of our integrity? What integrity? Is there a moral obligation to only accept what we know is absolutely, positively true? In the event that whatever it is could affect people negatively or in a "big way", then I can accept that. But my beliefs don't affect me or anyone I interact with negatively (as far as I know). So I don't have any reason to not believe in God simply because I can't prove He exists.

I'm not changing reality to fit my desires. I know I said "the bottom line" for continuing to believe was because it gives me comfort; that doesn't mean it's the only reason, or even the main one. Perhaps I should've reworded that post...


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Feb 11, 2014)

I dunno. God always sorta came off as this really strange dom in a BDSM dungeon. 

Always hurting and punishing people "for their own good".


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

BigwiggingAround said:


> I'm well aware every other religion has the same "Do what our God says; get do-gooder points to be happy after you die!" system. When I said the Catholic Church makes the most sense to me, that includes my beliefs it is the "right" and "original" one, for an assortment of reasons.
> 
> And how is it at the expense of our integrity? What integrity? Is there a moral obligation to only accept what we know is absolutely, positively true? In the event that whatever it is could affect people negatively or in a "big way", then I can accept that. But my beliefs don't affect me or anyone I interact with negatively (as far as I know). So I don't have any reason to not believe in God simply because I can't prove He exists.
> 
> I'm not changing reality to fit my desires. I know I said "the bottom line" for continuing to believe was because it gives me comfort; that doesn't mean it's the only reason, or even the main one. Perhaps I should've reworded that post...




Being gullible or easily manipulated into believing exotic things is a threat to your integrity, yes. If I trick someone into thinking gnomes are real, and leaving food out for them in order to please them in the hope of receiving gnomish gold, we would say that person's integrity has been damaged- even if the promise of gnomish gold brings them great pleasure.




Butters Shikkon said:


> I dunno. God always sorta came off as this really strange dom in a* BDSM *dungeon.
> 
> Always hurting and punishing people "for their own good".



On this subject, a hand-out by my palaeobiology lecturer today has the big bold word 'sub-discipline' printed at the top. Apparently I was the only one who found that funny.


----------



## BigwiggingAround (Feb 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Being gullible or easily manipulated into believing exotic things is a threat to your integrity, yes. If I trick someone into thinking gnomes are real, and leaving food out for them in order to please them in the hope of receiving gnomish gold, we would say that person's integrity has been damaged- even if the promise of gnomish gold brings them great pleasure.


So by believing in God I am less likely to do the right things in life? That's what "damaged integrity" means to me. And right, in this case, could mean both "morally correct" or just plain correct.

[paragraphs redacted: i'm jumping ahead]


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

BigwiggingAround said:


> So by believing in God I am less likely to do the right things in life? That's what "damaged integrity" means to me. And right, in this case, could mean both "morally correct" or just plain correct.



We're using different definitions of integrity. I view being gullible as damaging to your integrity, even if someone takes advantage of your gullibility to make you do a good thing, or something that benefits you in the end. 

Integrity is a function of honestry, truth and accuracy. If you honestly believed in Crystal magic this would represent a threat to your integrity, for example.


The point is that believing in a whole religion because of the off-chance that its god will reward you when you die, rather than because there is any justification, would be an example of poor integrity.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 11, 2014)

Fallow, just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they'll believe everything fantastical like gnomes or unicorns for example and it does nothing for a person's integrity.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Fallow, just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they'll believe everything fantastical like gnomes or unicorns for example and it does nothing for a person's integrity.



But it does beg the question why so many people dismiss the existance of literally thousands of other gods (or unicorns) but when someone disagrees with _their_ beliefs they are all like "Yeah but you can't disprove that god exists!". That makes no sense in my opinion, it is a massive double standard.
Not specifically talking about anyone in this thread by the way, this is just a general observation.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Fallow, just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they'll believe everything fantastical like gnomes or unicorns for example and it does nothing for a person's integrity.



Just because someone believes in Gnomes doesn't mean they'll believe in God. 

Belief in God because you are hedging your bets on an afterlife does damage one's integrity, and I thought I would illustrate this with an alternative example that you would view as just as silly as I view deities.

We are endeered to children's sweet and gullible nature when they put a mince pie out for father xmas in the hope of securing the present they really want, it's the same with adults pledging their allegiance to gods in the hope of swinging the odds in their favour.



CaptainCool said:


> But it does beg the question why so many  people dismiss the existance of literally thousands of other gods (or  unicorns) but when someone disagrees with _their_ beliefs they  are all like "Yeah but you can't disprove that god exists!". That makes  no sense in my opinion, it is a massive double standard.
> Not specifically talking about anyone in this thread by the way, this is just a general observation.



Indeed, nor is it good enough to say 'well I won't attack your beliefs if you don't attack mine,' for we then find ourselves in a complete rubbish tip of ideas. 

People who say 'I will attack beliefs that are morally compromising,' are slightly better, but they still miss the point- which is that beliefs are models of reality, which is not a function of our morality...and the more subtle point that morality is a function of reality, so deliberately ignoring reality is a moral conundrum.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 11, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I want you to take a look at these bible verses and then tell me again that that book is a good source for comfort:
> Deuteronomy 22:23-24
> Deuteronomy 22:28-29
> Leviticus 20:13
> ...



Another list? Let's get this over with....

1. If you're being raped, chances are you're gonna make a fuss. They really didn't have cameras back then, so this was really all they had to go off of. At least they don't require witnesses. If the man is caught in the act, then that would either mean he stoned, or it leads to....

2. Yes they would get married, but he'd have to pay a hefty fine for it (One comment I found calculated what 50 shekles would be in today's money; roughly $435 or so USD). Not only that, but he has to be under all other martial obligations to her, and isn't even allowed to divorce her, no matter what she does. 

Or, are you okay with rape? Cause y'know these are laws that punish rape. They may sound absurd in our day and age, but that's because we're looking at it from our perspective/age, rather then trying to see things from how they were back then. 

3. Pointing this out ignores the fact that other sexual sins are treated the same way. 

4. Yes, because summoning ghosts and demons and other spiritual beings is SUCH a good idea. Go search around for what people think of a Ouija board. I mean, didn't you watch the Exorcist? Also keep in mind to most Christians, when you're dead you're dead. No "lost soul wandering the earth" type thing, so to them, Ghosts and spirits are actually deceptive demons. Again, failing to see things from another perspective. 

5. Are you complaining about how unfair it is to have not been mauled to death by a bear for doing more harsh things? Also, these people were harassing Elisha. And this is also a good time to play Translations with the bible, because the KJV says they're children; NIV uses boys; some other translations use Youths. With boys and youths, no definitive age is set, unlike with Children. 

6. If you actually, oh I dunno _read the friggin bible_ you'd find out that this, now get this -- this is really good, *NOT AN ACT OF GOD* but describing what the Medes will be doing to Babylon. So what, God's evil for not lobotmizing us and enslaving us against our will or making our "coding" (so to speak) unable to cope with doing wrong? And if you'd think such a thing was good, didn't you ever watch "A Clockwork Orange"? 

7. You ever hear of the phrase "for evil men to succeed it takes good men to do nothing"? Well I guess you're okay with good people doing nothing, since this is obviously a cry against doing good against evil. Spoiler alert, but the people the Isrealites were fighting against weren't just people they saw and went "Godless heathens! Let's kill 'em!" But of course, you don't read the bible, so you don't know that.



CaptainCool said:


> But it does beg the question why so many people dismiss the existance of literally thousands of other gods (or unicorns) but when someone disagrees with





CaptainCool said:


> _their_ beliefs they are all like "Yeah but you can't disprove that god exists!". That makes no sense in my opinion, it is a massive double standard.
> Not specifically talking about anyone in this thread by the way, this is just a general observation.




Actually if you also take another peek in the bible, you'll see that alot of the other Gods are seen either as False Idols, or as demons pretending to be gods. 

Ah, but only those who actually read and study theology would know that.


----------



## BigwiggingAround (Feb 11, 2014)

I agree with your points, Fallowfox. 

I  do firmly believe in my religion and in God. I'm realizing now I  exagerated in my original post; I _am_  comforted by my  religion, and that sense of security is a strong  motivator to continue  defending it when the odds are against me in an argument. However,  beneath that, I do believe in the  Church's teachings because I think  they've been justified for reasons I  don't want to spend forever  explaining and debating right now, not  because I'm betting on them in  the hopes reality isn't as bleak as it seems to be.

My question to you is even if I do have poor integrity because I believe in something you find silly, why do you care?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

People actually were forced to 'marry thy rapist' until surprisingly modern times in Scotland. :\ 

Forcing victims to marry their abusers may be laws you view as suitable to a primitive society...but building a primitive barbaric society is a rather low precedent for a deity, hell it's a low precedent to aspire to for* us*. 

It horrifies me that people would actually defend this stuff- such as having infinite compassion at your disposal to settle people's difference, but sending a mother-fucking grizzly bear to sort things out.



BigwiggingAround said:


> I agree with your points, Fallowfox.
> 
> I  do firmly believe in my religion and in God. I'm realizing now I  exagerated in my original post; I _am_   comforted by my  religion, and that sense of security is a strong   motivator to continue  defending it when the odds are against me in an  argument. However,  beneath that, I do believe in the  Church's  teachings because I think  they've been justified for reasons I  don't  want to spend forever  explaining and debating right now, not  because  I'm betting on them in  the hopes reality isn't as bleak as it seems to  be.
> 
> My question to you is even if I do have poor integrity because I believe in something you find silly, *why do you care*?




This should be apparent. I am not fussed about emotive reasons for beliefs, it bothers me whether beliefs are correct or not. Of course, the truth would persist whether or not I cared to evaluate it.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> People actually were forced to 'marry thy rapist' until surprisingly modern times in Scotland. :\
> 
> Forcing victims to marry their abusers may be laws you view as suitable to a primitive society...but building a primitive barbaric society is a rather low precedent for a deity, hell it's a low precedent to aspire to for* us*.
> 
> ...



Actually God didn't send the bears. Nowhere in that passage did it say "And God sent two motherfucking Grizzlies to sort things out"; the bears were due to the curse Elisha placed on the harassers.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Actually God didn't send the bears. Nowhere in that passage did it say "And God sent two motherfucking Grizzlies to sort things out"; the bears were due to the curse Elisha placed on the harassers.



Well Elisha sure sounds like a dick.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Well Elisha sure sounds like a dick.



Yeah, the guy who works wonders and brings people back from the dead, cures people of leprosy, and multiples oil so one has enough for their family, to provide hospitality for Elisha, and also to pay of their debts, is a pretty dick person. 

Also you have to think, this must've been a large crowd of boys. The bears tore up 42. Not all, 42.


To me that's just kinda like pointing out Jesus was a bad person because he had a temper tantrum over how they were using the temple.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Yeah, the guy who works wonders and brings people back from the dead, cures people of leprosy, and multiples *oil *so one has enough for their family, to provide hospitality for Elisha, and also to pay of their debts, is a pretty dick person.
> 
> Also you have to think, this must've been a large crowd of boys. The bears tore up 42. Not all, 42.



Oh God...I just realised why all major world religions come from the alpine-himalayan belt. 

There are hydrocarbons leaking out of the belt because of accreted oceanic terranes from the closure of the tethys ocean...they literally spew out of the ground in the faults in these places, like here: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




These hydrocarbons are hallucinogenic and most towns and temples are built across these faults because rivers tend to exploit them...

Oh my god this seriously is the reason that people see angels and people walking on water in these places...


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Feb 11, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> 4. *Yes, because summoning ghosts and demons and other spiritual beings is SUCH a good idea.* Go search around for what people think of a Ouija board. I mean, didn't you watch the Exorcist? Also keep in mind to most Christians, when you're dead you're dead. No "lost soul wandering the earth" type thing, so to them, Ghosts and spirits are actually deceptive demons. Again, failing to see things from another perspective.



Well, I mean...if its their religion, we should be tolerant. ;3

Also, are you just joking about the Ouija board thing or what? Because it really makes your point seem silly. I mean...damn. It's a toy.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

For those not aware the Ouija board was originally invented as a psychology toy with no supernatural connotations attached. That is a mythology which has evolved over time because people in general were too thick to conclude 'wow, psychology is curious!' and instead came the conclusion 'I don't understand how this works and it creeps me out, therefore an evil dead dude lives inside it,'.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Oh God...I just realised why all major world religions come from the alpine-himalayan belt.
> 
> There are hydrocarbons leaking out of the belt because of accreted oceanic terranes from the closure of the tethys ocean...they literally spew out of the ground in the faults in these places, like here:
> 
> ...



Or they just took the oil home and burned it there.
Also drugs


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 11, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Well, I mean...if its their religion, we should be tolerant. ;3
> 
> Also, are you just joking about the Ouija board thing or what? Because it really makes your point seem silly. I mean...damn. It's a toy.



Kinda sorta. It's just that people have a lot of horror stories about some coincidentally freaky things that happen due to them screwing around with one. A friend made one out of paper and got nightmares after using it D: So people often attribute that to demons. 

But toys aside, there are a lot of people who are into spiritual ideas (even non-Christians) that say that just summoning up ghosts and demons isn't too good of an idea. Because an evil spirit or demon could be acting nice, like he wants to be your friend, only to be doing something like working towards possessing you or some other malicious purpose.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

Ghosts and daemons don't exist. It's the nocebo effect. You can create 'possession' of inanimate objects in controlled conditions. It's even possible to convince test subjects that erroneous pieces of mannequins are parts of their own bodies; they 'possess' them. 

Bottom line is people's brains are prone to see humanity where there is none.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Feb 11, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Kinda sorta. It's just that people have a lot of horror stories about some coincidentally freaky things that happen due to them screwing around with one. A friend made one out of paper and got nightmares after using it D: So people often attribute that to demons.
> 
> But toys aside, there are a lot of people who are into spiritual ideas (even non-Christians) that say that just summoning up ghosts and demons isn't too good of an idea. Because an evil spirit or demon could be acting nice, like he wants to be your friend, only to be doing something like working towards possessing you or some other malicious purpose.



I'm an atheist, so you can imagine what my thoughts are towards the existence of ghosts and demons and things of that nature, but I must point this out. What's to say the god Christians worship isn't some mega-demon pretending to be a sweetheart and manipulating others into starting wars and killing witches and marrying rapists and such? 

I really got away from religion in my mid-teens for this reason. Nothing about organized religions makes much sense. Everything seems to be "take my word for it". I really dislike that. It seems like it encourages people not to think.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 11, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> I'm an atheist, so you can imagine what my thoughts are towards the existence of ghosts and demons and things of that nature, but I must point this out. What's to say the god Christians worship isn't some mega-demon pretending to be a sweetheart and manipulating others into starting wars and killing witches and marrying rapists and such?
> 
> I really got away from religion in my mid-teens for this reason. Nothing about organized religions makes much sense. Everything seems to be "take my word for it". I really dislike that. It seems like it encourages people not to think.



That's kinda why I ended up splintering off into "My Own Thing" (as I often call it) religiously/spiritually. Except my problem was trying to find out what "The Right Way" was to follow God. So many people pointing in different directions it was about as useful as if they weren't pointing at all. Add some documentaries a friend showed me and there you go. 

Though I oftentimes find myself playing apologist for Christians still.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Feb 11, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Actually if you also take another peek in the bible, you'll see that alot of the other Gods are seen either as False Idols, or as demons pretending to be gods.



So? Doesn't really answer CC's question, as i'm sure he wants more then just an old printed opinion. What is the argument against Christian God being just another Demon/Idol?


Nikolinni said:


> Ah, but only those who actually read and study theology would know that.


You know, reading it *without* the bias of "i was raised on this, this must be true" helps when it comes to knowing stuff.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> So? Doesn't really answer CC's question, as i'm sure he wants more then just an old printed opinion. What is the argument against Christian God being just another Demon/Idol?



Pretty much this. No matter how you look at it, you are then still favoring one god over countless others for no apparent reason.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> So, um, how is it quantum physics and religion are different? They both spout nonsense, do they not?



Well we have verified proof of one actually happening...the other is just religion.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 11, 2014)

I am just going to leave this here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

It should be noted before people associate the word 'quantum' with 'true' that anybody claiming to sell a 'quantum' product on the internet is a massive liar exploiting the sciencey name. These people are everywhere.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 11, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> I am just going to leave this here.



God: Trolling the Jews since forever


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 11, 2014)

Aleu said:


> God: Trolling the Jews since forever



I have to admit. That was a pretty epic link.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Or they just took the oil home and burned it there.
> Also drugs



Moses spoke to god through burning bush...so why not?


Well that took me a minute, but now I'm all caught up on what I've missed while away


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 11, 2014)

Now that I think about it, I should have said other. Because you know that we are all the decendants of the survivors of the UFO crash that wiped out the dinosours!


----------



## Aleu (Feb 11, 2014)

Gnarl said:


> Now that I think about it, I should have said other. Because you know that we are all the decendants of the survivors of the UFO crash that wiped out the dinosours!



If dinos were wiped out, how are you still here? :V


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

Gnarl said:


> Now that I think about it, I should have said other. Because you know that we are all the decendants of the survivors of the UFO crash that wiped out the dinosours!



You just totally made me think of this show on the 'History Channel' I was watching where they were talking about aliens flying around in space craft zapping Dinosaurs with lazer guns. I'm not really sure how it got there either. It started off as a normal documentary...then things just kind of went south.


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 11, 2014)

Aleu said:


> If dinos were wiped out, how are you still here? :V


I am arcane.. not Paleolithic!


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 11, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Er...because we live in a world that, let's admit, is pretty messed up. So the idea that God actually cares about the humans and will give them a paradise if they follow his way would sort of give relief.


..while every other species can fuck itself.
Not sufficient!


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> ..while every other species can fuck itself.
> Not sufficient!



Well d'uh! Of course they can go fuck themselves. We were made to rule over all creation afterall, remember ;D


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2014)

The distribution of poll results is very interesting; there is a tiny Gaussian distribution around 'equal'.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The distribution of poll results is very interesting; there is a tiny Gaussian distribution around 'equal'.



I think that is mostly a coincidence^^ If the poll options would be in a different order it would look differently. But technically I guess it might be one since the options in the poll go from purely creationism to purely evolution with mixed options in the middle... I dunno.
Much more important is that "purely evolution" has about 3.4 times the votes as all the other options _combined_. That is why I love FAF, most people here actually are pretty reasonable when it comes to their worldview.
But that is also common on the internet in general. When humanity's entire knowledge is just one Google search away, why would you be satisfied with the answer "god did it"?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 11, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> Moses spoke to god through burning bush...so why not?
> 
> 
> Well that took me a minute, but now I'm all caught up on what I've missed while away



Snoop Lion is Moses. of course he smoked a lot of "bush"!



Aleu said:


> God: Trolling the Jews since forever



I want to know 4chan's take on Sodom and Gommorah.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 11, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Snoop Lion is Moses. of course he smoked a lot of "bush"!
> 
> 
> 
> I want to know 4chan's take on Sodom and Gommorah.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kRAKXFrYQ4

Now I had to.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 11, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> You just totally made me think of this show on the 'History Channel' I was watching where they were talking about aliens flying around in space craft zapping Dinosaurs with lazer guns. I'm not really sure how it got there either. It started off as a normal documentary...then things just kind of went south.



Was it Ancient Aliens? It sounds like Ancient Aliens.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 11, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Was it Ancient Aliens? It sounds like Ancient Aliens.



No in Ancient Aliens it pretty much replaces Goddidit with Aliensdidit.


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 11, 2014)

Aliens did it!  Aliens did it!  uh...what was it they did?


----------



## Aleu (Feb 11, 2014)

Gnarl said:


> Aliens did it!  Aliens did it!  uh...what was it they did?



DEY TERK ER JERBS


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Snoop Lion is Moses. of course he smoked a lot of "bush"!



Someone watches Epic Rap Battles 



Ahzek M'kar said:


> Was it Ancient Aliens? It sounds like Ancient Aliens.



I really don't know what the heck it was. I was watching something and I know it came from the history channel. Then aliens were zapping dinosaurs with lazers and I was like 'I'm done" and walked away.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 11, 2014)

Hate to break it to y'all, but Cthulhu did it. He killed all of the dinosaurs after sodomizing them in a Japanese hentai fur porn fashion.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Hate to break it to y'all, but Cthulhu did it. He killed all of the dinosaurs after sodomizing them in a Japanese hentai fur porn fashion.



Darn, if only mint berry crunch had been around.


----------



## Conker (Feb 11, 2014)

I know that Dawkins might be a bit obtuse and very anti theistic, but _The Blind Watchmaker_ really is a wonderful book about Evolution and the process of it.

For those wanting to learn more, it's worth a read. 

Because damn, it saddens me to see people still using the word "theory" incorrectly here on like page 12. Thought we went over that shit.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 11, 2014)

Conker said:


> I know that Dawkins might be a bit obtuse and very anti theistic, but _The Blind Watchmaker_ really is a wonderful book about Evolution and the process of it.
> 
> For those wanting to learn more, it's worth a read.
> 
> Because damn, it saddens me to see people still using the word "theory" incorrectly here on like page 12. Thought we went over that shit.



I'm pretty sure it's been gone over like 100 times already, and I started in the middle of this thread. So I'm sure it's been like 200+ times total xD


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 11, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> I'm pretty sure it's been gone over like 100 times already, and I started in the middle of this thread. So I'm sure it's been like 200+ times total xD



About 60 times, but whose counting? :V

Anyways, people forget that "scientific theory" differs a lot from the word "theory".


----------



## Sar (Feb 11, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Hate to break it to y'all, but Cthulhu did it. He killed all of the dinosaurs after sodomizing them in a Japanese hentai fur porn fashion.


What rustles my jimmies the most about this thread is that wasn't an option in the poll. This was clearly biased in design. >:c


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 11, 2014)

Sarukai said:


> What rustles my jimmies the most about this thread is that wasn't an option in the poll. This was clearly biased in design. >:c



"Other" <3 ilu


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 11, 2014)

Sarukai said:


> What rustles my jimmies the most about this thread is that wasn't an option in the poll. This was clearly biased in design. >:c



Clearly. Apparently my faith in the old gods isn't worthy enough to have a poll! I am calling the ACLU to get this fixed!



funky3000 said:


> "Other" <3 ilu



"Other" is clearly discriminating against my faith in the old ones! You'll hear from the ACLU soon enough! >:V


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 11, 2014)

You mean the ones I blew to shreds 10,000 years ago? =3 I can gladly do so again. <3

Your gods are so cuuuute. <3


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 11, 2014)

Conker said:


> Because damn, it saddens me to see people still using the word "theory" incorrectly here on like page 12. Thought we went over that shit.



It's only page 8 if you bump up your page count to 50 posts per page. It may not help in the overall, but in-the-moment, it might make it seem...like...less...


----------



## Rassah (Feb 11, 2014)

Raptros said:


> Look at the large Hydron Collider and tell me it spouts nonsense.



*PLEASE* do not look into the Large Hadron Collider while it's spouting things. You will melt your face >.<



BigwiggingAround said:


> So by believing in God I am less likely to do the right things in life?



Yes. I used to be catholic, too. Eventually I got over it, and much later I learned that ethics is a way more complex thing than what religion teaches, and in fact religious morals don't even come close to fundamental ethics. Yes, I'm saying atheists can be more moral than god. For one, I don't understand why people would willingly subjugate themselves to a malevolent (benevolent?) dictator. That alone can lead people to some very morally questionable choices.


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 11, 2014)

Rassah said:


> *PLEASE* do not look into the Large Hadron Collider while it's spouting things. You will melt your face >.<


"Do not look directly into the operational end of the device"


----------



## Conker (Feb 11, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> It's only page 8 if you bump up your page count to 50 posts per page. It may not help in the overall, but in-the-moment, it might make it seem...like...less...


It's more the sheer repetition of people talking past each other that gets me. You can't have a debate or an argument or any real discourse if you won't pay attention to what everyone is saying and agree on a set of terms.


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 11, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> "Do not look directly into the operational end of the device"


But I always wanted to become a quantum singularity! And what if the idea of the collision is wrong and all it does is open and inter dimensional electromagnetic window, how we gonna know if no one looks? And if they are causing Hadrons to collide, who is their insurance company, and who do they write the ticket to? Poor hadrons! I vote we save the Hadrons and shut down the collider!


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 12, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> I want to know 4chan's take on Sodom and Gommorah.



I've always been rather fond of this one.

Anyway, nice to see this has turned into another religions debate.
Sheppard knows we didn't have enough of those.


----------



## dialup (Feb 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Yes. I used to be catholic, too. Eventually I got over it, and much later I learned that ethics is a way more complex thing than what religion teaches, and in fact religious morals don't even come close to fundamental ethics. Yes, I'm saying atheists can be more moral than god. For one, I don't understand why people would willingly subjugate themselves to a malevolent (benevolent?) dictator. That alone can lead people to some very morally questionable choices.



Look, I'm not religious in any way, shape, or form but if someone finds comfort in religion and isn't using it to deny other people rights, what's the harm? Yeah, some atheists can be more moral than Christians, but there's plenty of Christians who are more moral than atheists. Religion isn't the cause of immoral behavior, it's the person themselves that causes it, and lack of religion doesn't automatically make somebody have good morals.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

This is the weird thing about our world. Beliefs are judged on the merits of their influence, rather than whether they are right or not, despite the fact that the latter is really rather important and that what we can know, or believe we can know, about reality determines what influences we are willing to accept. 

anyway, in response to 'sticking your head in the lhc' there actually have been examples, a soviet scientist who was 19 stuck his head into a particle accelerator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski

He survived, because the highly ionising beam passed through at close to light speed, thus having little to know time to interact with him, bar fizzling a hole through his brain.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 12, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> He survived, because the highly ionising beam passed through at close to light speed, thus having little to know time to interact with him, bar fizzling a hole through his brain.


  Well that sets back particle weapon development a fair bit, now doesn't it?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2014)

dialup said:


> but if someone finds comfort in religion and isn't using it to deny other people rights, what's the harm?



In my opinion you don't look at the bigger picture. Sure, one individual believing in some ancient myth is nothing to worry about. But you forget that (as of 2010) about *85%* of the entire human population holds some kind of religious view! That's more than 5 billion people who believe in some ancient myth instead of looking at the world from a factual point of view.
And while most of them may be harmless and don't discriminate against non-believers or minorities or kick human rights in the teeth, those who ARE bigots are still a majority compared to non-believers.
That is what makes religion a problem as well. Not just that it is anti-scientific nonsense, the fact that it is still so very common is what worries me as well.



Fallowfox said:


> This is the weird thing about our world. Beliefs are judged on the merits of their influence, rather than whether they are right or not, despite the fact that the latter is really rather important and that what we can know, or believe we can know, about reality determines what influences we are willing to accept.
> 
> anyway, in response to 'sticking your head in the lhc' there actually have been examples, a soviet scientist who was 19 stuck his head into a particle accelerator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski
> 
> He survived, because the highly ionising beam passed through at close to light speed, thus having little to know time to interact with him, bar fizzling a hole through his brain.



That sounds absolutely terrifying 
It makes sense why he wasn't obliterated but still, that must have been a terrifying experience. Especially because he knew what happened but didn't feel anything.


----------



## Wakboth (Feb 12, 2014)

Evolution is a fact. Therefore, as I believe in God, I also believe that the process of evolution is His chosen method of creation; also, that the universe is vast, ancient and complex, beyond the human scale and comprehensible only through diligent use of the intelligence and tools we have.

Creationists, unsurprisingly, hate the idea of Christian people who accept evolution a lot more than they do atheists who do the same, because it undermines their claim that you can't be a believer unless you buy into their lies about young Earth, nonexistent evolution, etc.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2014)

Wakboth said:


> I also believe that the process of evolution is His chosen *method of creation*



Two things:
First, evolution is not about the _origin _of life. It just describes how life changes and that it all comes from a common ancestor that all living things share.
So if you say you believe that evolution is a fact that still doesn't tell me what you think where life originally came from. Just sayin'.

Second, evolution is not a method. It is not something that you "do". It is a blind and extremely slow natural process that "just happens".


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

Evolution would proceed even, in the event that there is a God, that he or she dies.

I find the joke SMBC proposed, that our universe is a take-away meal which has been left rotting for so long 'that it has brains growing in it'  pretty funny.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Evolution would proceed even, in the event that there is a God, that he or she dies.
> 
> I find the joke SMBC proposed, that our universe is a take-away meal which has been left rotting for so long 'that it has brains growing in it'  pretty funny.



Yeah, SMBC is making 7000 bucks a month through Patreon for a reason XD


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 12, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Two things:
> First, evolution is not about the _origin _of life. It just describes how life changes and that it all comes from a common ancestor that all living things share.
> So if you say you believe that evolution is a fact that still doesn't tell me what you think where life originally came from. Just sayin'.
> 
> Second, evolution is not a method. It is not something that you "do". It is a blind and extremely slow natural process that "just happens".


It all started on the planet Trellon about 100 x10 50M eons ago. But when their sun was dying they fled in generational star ships in search of a new home. They found the earth to be able to support life but unfortunatley over the generations they had forgotten how to fly the large saucer shaped ship. That was why they crashed into the earth and destroyed the dino's.


----------



## Crystal_the_Vixen (Feb 12, 2014)

I hate how Ken thinks all animal are veggie eaters.
The reason why some animals have sharp teeth and eat veggies are because they're omnivores.
Herbivores are like spoons.
Omnivores are like sporks.
Carnivores are like forks.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> I hate how Ken thinks all animal are veggie eaters.
> The reason why some animals have sharp teeth and eat veggies are because they're omnivores.
> Herbivores are like spoons.
> Omnivores are like sporks.
> Carnivores are like forks.



Let's not forget the autotrophic animals that can actually photosynthesise.  Like the corals.

I guess they're like chopsticks.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 12, 2014)

dialup said:


> Yeah, some atheists can be more moral than Christians, but there's plenty of Christians who are more moral than atheists. Religion isn't the cause of immoral behavior, it's the person themselves that causes it, and lack of religion doesn't automatically make somebody have good morals.




This is true, of course, but the core of, or the axiom, of ethics is that we own our own bodies, our "selves," and the product of our work. From this extends things like "Respect others," "Treat others as you would treat yourself," and "don't kill, don't steal" and other such stuff. Theists ignore that axiom by their very belief in a higher power, and that they "belong to" or should submit to that higher power. This, in turn, makes them think it's ok to force others to also submit to a higher power or authority, and as a result we have things ranging from "Government should decide whom you can and can't marry" to "It's ok to cage people for years if they don't follow the rules, even if breaking that rule did not hurt anyone else." Things people brainwashed by the idea of submission to a higher power or authority believe is actually moral and ethical.

Centuries from now, we will probably look back on today, and be aghast as how barbaric we were, designating some groups of people to have more rights than others, and tasking them with going around the country, rounding up people they thought were undesirable, and locking them in cages for decades, while everyone else simply went along with that, because "authority is absolute and must be respected, praise gebus"


----------



## dialup (Feb 12, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> In my opinion you don't look at the bigger picture. Sure, one individual believing in some ancient myth is nothing to worry about. But you forget that (as of 2010) about *85%* of the entire human population holds some kind of religious view! That's more than 5 billion people who believe in some ancient myth instead of looking at the world from a factual point of view.
> And while most of them may be harmless and don't discriminate against non-believers or minorities or kick human rights in the teeth, those who ARE bigots are still a majority compared to non-believers.
> That is what makes religion a problem as well. Not just that it is anti-scientific nonsense, the fact that it is still so very common is what worries me as well.


If it wasn't religion people would of made up something else to justify their bigotry and be hateful towards each other. It isn't because of their religion, it's because they're just hateful jackasses. I honestly tend to avoid a lot of atheists because they're just as hateful when it comes to human rights, as well as being extremely misguided about different issues. Not to mention a lot of unwarranted self importance. 

And there are plenty of religious people who see things at a factual point of view alongside their religion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as they aren't hurting anyone. I get what you're saying, and I used to think the same thing in my younger days. But as I said earlier, there are plenty of things people would of, and have already, come up with that influence others negatively that don't have to do with religion.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 12, 2014)

dialup said:


> If it wasn't religion people would of made up something else to justify their bigotry and be hateful towards each other. It isn't because of their religion, it's because they're just hateful jackasses. I honestly tend to avoid a lot of atheists because they're just as hateful when it comes to human rights, as well as being extremely misguided about different issues. Not to mention a lot of unwarranted self importance.
> 
> And there are plenty of religious people who see things at a factual point of view alongside their religion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as they aren't hurting anyone. I get what you're saying, and I used to think the same thing in my younger days. But as I said earlier, there are plenty of things people would of, and have already, come up with that influence others negatively that don't have to do with religion.



It seems like there's always this double standard presented about what religion does and does not affect.  When it comes to bringing people "comfort", or motivating people to do good works, religion is held up as a driving force behind such things, and without religion that motivation would be lost.  When it comes to all the hate being pushed by religious groups, though, they're suddenly given the benefit of the doubt that such hate exists independently from religion and it will magically pull justification from whatever source available to support itself.  Such generous assumptions are unwarranted.

It's also worth noting here that atheism, as a _lack_ of belief, does not inherently come with its own moral philosophy (though there is much secular philosophy to draw upon).  If someone leaves the church and becomes an Objectivist, they're obviously still going to be an awful person.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 12, 2014)

dialup said:


> And there are plenty of religious people who see things at a factual point of view alongside their religion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as they aren't hurting anyone.




To use an extreme example, there were many people living in slave owning south who were pro-slavery, but did not own any slaves themselves. They weren't hurting anyone, but their belief that slavery was ok, combined with everyone else who believed that, still created an overall culture of accepting something that was not ok. Even if those specific people were not hurting anyone. That's my argument about religion, submission to authority, and belief in fantasies. Even if it doesn't do any harm on an individual level, it still creates an overall culture of harm.



Lobar said:


> If someone leaves the church and becomes an Objectivist, they're obviously still going to be an awful person.



And I should mention my statement applies to statists, socialists, and people who don't understand what objectivism is about, too.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

The thrust is still being missed, which is that even if religious beliefs were uniformly positive in effect, they would still be false.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 12, 2014)

.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 12, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Actually, one of the first questions Genesis challenges you to ask is what is God?  In scientific terms, it lays out what God is by what God does.  in Genesis, God creates things.  Scientifically, what creates things?  Nature, of course.  Therefore Genesis projects God to be an allegorical representation of the force of nature and evolution itself.



The allegoric representation of the force of nature and evolution itself then later instructs people in excruciating detail how an animal sacrifice should be performed to keep him happy.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> Sure there is.  DNA gets it's input through the senses of the animal.  And yes, we know what DNA is.  DNA is something you can store computer files in for thousands of years.  It's something that is expected to render computer chips obsolete.



wut



Perri_Rhoades said:


> But if I believed everything that came out of the scientific community, right know I would be believing I don't exist, because right now science is saying none of this is real - that we're all part of some digital virtual reality.



_wut_



Perri_Rhoades said:


> And I hope you realize that, if you actually could prove the theory of nothing, your entire existence would promptly disappear in a puff of logic.



_wut_


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

I do not think 'firmament means 'outer space'; the people who wrote it did not have any idea that space existed in the current sense we appreciate. When you say 'read poetically' you are saying 'exercise a confirmation bias,'. 

The experiences of your life are not recorded in your DNA's genes which are passed on to your progeny. There may be some influence related to the epigenome, but you are stretching the truth by several orders of magnitude. DNA does not employ animal brains to 'calculate' the best way for it to mutate for the benefit of future animal brains. 

You are abusing the word 'theory' by confusing the scientific and colloquial definitions. If you think that tagging 'theory' onto the end of 'quantum' makes it less believable you don't understand the scientific language being employed. The quantum theory is actually the most successful theory to perform under experiments in the history of physics. So a physicist would say 'I know the universe is quantum, but I do not necessarily know how all quantum physics works,'. 

Mainstream science does not state that our existence isn't real. I don't think you understand what the current scientific orthodox of the sciences is, if you think this. :\ You have read mis-quotes out of context and then assumed all scientists believe in whatever 'theory' you have read on a web page somewhere- instead of actually reading the scientific literature. 


This is a big strawman argument; the science we accept and the science you think we accept are two totally different things.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 12, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> No, actually I don't believe in them.  I respect scientists.  If they say they're not sure enough about gravity and electricity to think of them as anything more then theories, who am I to dispute them by believing in such things.  As I've said, I reserve the effort of forcefully believing for things that are called facts.  And a theory is not a fact.
> 
> I may think of theories as interesting ideas, ideas that I test every day.  I think electricity is a wonderful idea.  Theoretically, I'm using electricity to talk to you right now.  Do I know that for a fact?  No I don't.  Do I have any idea how to prove how this amazing computer works?  No I don't.  I don't even think about it.  I just use it, like I use gravity.  But what good is it for me to believe in things if I don't know how or why they work?  What would I be believing in if I did that?  My own interpretation of how electricity works?  How real or factual would that be?



Wow, just wow.

So you acknowledge you use electricity in you day to day life despite not believing in electricity? How in the world does that make sense.

"I don't believe that cell phones really exist, now hold on while I use a cell phone to make a call" <--- about what I got from what you just said.

No believing in gravity....come on, seriously? seriously? 0.0

I'm starting to wonder if you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. There is no way that you can be serious right now. I believe you've actually gone like two or three steps further than a creationist at this point ( which I didn't even know was possible. I should inform you ) I really don't understand your mentality at all. 

So far the best answer I can come up with is that you assume nothing actually exists at all because you don't seem to believe in anything despite interacting with things constantly. 0.o 

I don't get it. You're explanations border on insanity, and your reasoning fails to meet any kind of burden of proof. Still you seem compelled to carry on with this nonsense. 

Oh and I apologize I don't mean to be rude or belittle you in anyway, I'm just at this point having a hard time understanding exactly what point it is you're even trying to make because it's just sounding like a lot of gibberish.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

Thus is the exotic terrane we find ourselves traversing when people form views about science whilst being too lazy to read anything about science.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

Lobar said:


> The allegoric representation of the force of nature and evolution itself then later instructs people in excruciating detail how an animal sacrifice should be performed to keep him happy.



Well it is just an allegory, after all. I mean if you're gonna go that route you might as well ask what the "represenation of the force of nature" is doing asking if Adam and Eve are naked, or asking why would it create a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place. It might be an allegory in one part, but it's still a character. 

On top of that, I believe Perri is referring mainly to what God's doing and what happens as an allegory to nature; that is, the creation account. 

Also if I believe correctly, the instructions on how to properly prepare sacrifices didn't come until Deuteronomy, which is a completely different part of the story. And if you follow the Documentary Hypothesis (That is, multiple writers were behind the 5 Books of Moses, not just one) then it would make sense why the God in Genesis might seem different than the God in Deuteronomy.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2014)

Wow, Perri your post just made my head _and_ balls hurt >__>

You have no idea about science. At all. Literally nothing you said up there makes any sense at all.

"DNA gets it's input through the senses of the animal."
NO IT DOESN'T! How often do we have to tell you that?!
DNA doesn't "get" anything!
I now challenge you to link me to at least one source, just one published paper, that describes how DNA _actively_ changes! I am aware that DNA does change, what I mean is an _active_ change, that it does it on it's own.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 12, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Look, I love science, I love philosophy, conjecture, theories - any idea anybody has about the possible or potential nature of life is fascinating.  But don't expend your belief on everything somebody tells you they've got proof for.  If you do, you're acting just like the people who read Genesis literally and believe it.



So, I guess that you are just an eternal skeptic, who doesn't believe in anything at all. Which I guess is fine in its own way, though I can't fathom how someone can continue to move through like without anything to believe in. Do you basically just sit back, do nothing, and watch the fake life go past you, as if was some grand TV show or soap opera?

And by the way, this is an example of what I mean when I say that religion causes harm, even if the person practicing it isn't hurting anyone.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> So, I guess that you are just an eternal skeptic, who doesn't believe in anything at all.



No, he is not a skeptic. Skeptics don't make up their own nonsense.


----------



## Inpw (Feb 12, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> _...Snip..._



I have a website for you to join:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

An unfortunate double standard is applied, that all religious text is poetic and therefore can be batardised to make it true, but that scientific descriptions are all literally written in every-day language, rather than being written in highly specific jargon.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

Accretion said:


> I have a website for you to join:
> 
> http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/



Er...when did she ever say she supported the idea of a flat earth...?


----------



## Inpw (Feb 12, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Er...when did she ever say she supported the idea of a flat earth...?



Those are the only people I know that debates against the theory of gravity, and every scientific discovery related to our existence.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> An unfortunate double standard is applied, that all religious text is poetic and therefore can be batardised to make it true, but that scientific descriptions are all literally written in every-day language, rather than being written in highly specific jargon.



It's because religious people are desperately grasping for straws these days to convince people that their dogmatic texts are still relevant. And since these texts can be interpreted to death so they can say pretty much anything you want the whole thing does get a little silly...




Nikolinni said:


> Er...when did she ever say she supported the idea of a flat earth...?



Never. But the logic in her posts is almost on the same level.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 12, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Never. But the logic in her posts is almost on the same level.



I actually think the flat-earth people make more sense.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> It's because religious people are desperately grasping for straws these days to convince people that their dogmatic texts are still relevant. And since these texts can be interpreted to death so they can say pretty much anything you want the whole thing does get a little silly...



Problem: Perri's a skeptic, and I'm in my own field as far as religion's concerned (it ain't the christian faith though). So...saying that this is proof that religious people are desperate to have their texts still be relevant is a little illogical. Reading the bible as a piece of fiction/literature, like you SO militantly claim it is, isn't even reading it as if it's a holy text. It's just reading it as a story. And thus, people are prone to take things and try to find deeper meanings in them rather than just reading a story as a sequence of events, regardless of one's intentions when writing it originally. 

Also keep in mind that there ARE still plenty of fundamentalists who say that the bible is meant to be taken literally, word for word and that taking a poetic approach like what Perri did would be quite blasphemous.

Besides that, you can still read the bible, even in this day and age, and still draw up meaning and ideas from it. Even if you're reading it as a skeptic or an atheist, you can still find things good in it. 

And even though the following quote is talking about the Q'uran, I think it can apply to the bible as well: "I don't have to be muslim to find the images beautiful or its poetry moving."


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> I actually think the flat-earth people make more sense.



They argue that gravity is bullshit and that things don't fall down. The earth just constantly flies upwards in space which causes things to stay on earth.
You can't top that level of retardedness, so I think Perri's posts do make slightly more sense XD


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Problem: Perri's a skeptic



Again, I disagree with that. Skeptics don't make up their own stuff. Skeptics look at the evidence and pretty much only believe in stuff that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

And of course I don't read the bible as a holy text. It is just a book so I treat it as such. Except for the few historical facts that it gets right I don't see any reason at all to put it on the same level as Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 12, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> They argue that gravity is bullshit and that things don't fall down. The earth just constantly flies upwards in space which causes things to stay on earth.
> You can't top that level of retardedness, so I think Perri's posts do make slightly more sense XD



Fair enough. I was more or less just poking fun


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> Fair enough. I was more or less just poking fun



I'm just amazed by their arguments XD They have a flat earth wiki as well, you should go read it. I guarantee that it will make your brain melt XD


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 12, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I'm just amazed by their arguments XD They have a flat earth wiki as well, you should go read it. I guarantee that it will make your brain melt XD



I'm sure it would. 

I'm really baffled by the things people are willing to believe. It reminds me of what the Governor on 'The Walking Dead' said in one of the episodes.

"People believe what they want to believe."


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 12, 2014)

wow you guys are way to serious! Cogito ergo sum! I always say. If it really mattered then it would not be arguable.
Religious beliefs are more to comfort the soul not the mind. To establish morality and hold communities together. 
Over the course of our human history, beliefs come and they go! They save lives they take lives and almost always one side thinks the other is wrong. Without them we would still find things to fight over like land, or water, or babes! 
most religions are good in that they give us hope for something more and better way to treat each other. 
Most are bad as they isolate us from each other! Science is no different in that if you believe you will be opposed to some and drawn to others. That said we continue to evolve and one day we all be furry hybrids!


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 12, 2014)

Gnarl said:


> wow you guys are way to serious! Cogito ergo sum! I always say. If it really mattered then it would not be arguable.
> Religious beliefs are more to comfort the soul not the mind. To establish morality and hold communities together.
> Over the course of our human history, beliefs come and they go! They save lives they take lives and almost always one side thinks the other is wrong. Without them we would still find things to fight over like land, or water, or babes!
> most religions are good in that they give us hope for something more and better way to treat each other.
> Most are bad as they isolate us from each other! Science is no different in that if you believe you will be opposed to some and drawn to others. That said we continue to evolve and one day we all be furry hybrids!



To establish morality? I think it is doing a really bad job at that :T In the middle east they are chopping off hands of thieves and stoning women and in the west they don't let gays get married or women decide what happens to their body. Sure, there are commandments like "don't kill" or "don't steal", but if you need an ancient book to figure that basic stuff out... That makes me uncomfortable.
Also, I think the whole hope thing is irrelevant. If society would finally grow up everyone could draw hope from things that actually exist.

I think I do take this too seriously from time to time. But here is the thing, I care about the truth. And when people are actively spreading lies, like in this whole evolution vs. creationism thing, that makes me mad.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

Gnarl said:


> wow you guys are way to serious! Cogito ergo sum! I always say. If it really mattered then it would not be arguable.
> Religious beliefs are more to comfort the soul not the mind. To establish morality and hold communities together.
> Over the course of our human history, beliefs come and they go! They save lives they take lives and almost always one side thinks the other is wrong. Without them we would still find things to fight over like land, or water, or babes!
> most religions are good in that they give us hope for something more and better way to treat each other.
> Most are bad as they isolate us from each other!* Science is no different* in that if you believe you will be opposed to some and drawn to others. That said we continue to evolve and one day we all be furry hybrids!



Mother fucking space ships.


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 12, 2014)

ah, my friend you hit it right on the head!!! We have evolved beyond the arcane systems that were once needed.
The problem is that those systems have not evolved! They are stuck in a time long gone! 
The world is no longer flat! There really is a 3 thousand mile long wall in China. It got inflated and is now a ball! But it is also not so small as to require years for our words to get to the other side. Now we can talk and discover each other, if only we could get rid of the dead baggage. Morality should be just common sense but alas there are still and may be for some time, those who think themselves better than anyone else.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 12, 2014)

Gnarl said:


> wow you guys are way to serious! Cogito ergo sum!



Hey, take your religiour preaching elsewhere XD



Gnarl said:


> Religious beliefs are more to comfort the soul not the mind. To establish morality and hold communities together.



They come from a time when humans were owned by other humans, and communities were ruled by opressive hegemonns, who were at times worshiped like gods. Religion was a way of destroying those rulers by spreading an idea that there is an even higher ruler, and that these rulers shouldn't be followed, and especially not worshiped. But now we are transitioning to a society where the idea of kings and dictators is viewd as a bad thing, and people prefer to establish rules through democracies or personal choice. We also have a vastly greated knowledge of philosophy, ethics, and morals that stem from nature and logic, instead of by a godly decree. So, religion is really just standing in the way and holding us back, trying to keep us in the last vestiges of a world of kings and subjugation, while we are trying to move into a world of personal freedom and discovery.

Plus morality that comes from religion is vastly inferior compared to morality you get from secular philosophy. After all, it wasn't religion that convinced us that things like human sacrafice, slavery, racisim, or homophobia were a bad thing.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 12, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> I'm sure it would.
> 
> I'm really baffled by the things people are willing to believe. It reminds me of what the Governor on 'The Walking Dead' said in one of the episodes.
> 
> "People believe what they want to believe."



It's better to poke one's eyes out and plug your ears than seeking the truth. To stay within familiarity is a comforting thing, but journeying beyond frightening. Therefore it is easier to stay willful of the information you lack than to broaden one's horizon.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 12, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> It's better to poke one's eyes out and plug your ears than seeking the truth. To stay within familiarity is a comforting thing, but journeying beyond frightening. Therefore it is easier to stay willful of the information you lack than to broaden one's horizon.



I think too many people live in that mindset. 

I personally don't mind it too much, but it does have a nasty habit of causing problems in the long run.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 12, 2014)

.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Again, I disagree with that. Skeptics don't make up their own stuff. Skeptics look at the evidence and pretty much only believe in stuff that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
> And of course I don't read the bible as a holy text. It is just a book so I treat it as such. Except for the few historical facts that it gets right I don't see any reason at all to put it on the same level as Lord of the Rings.



Well at the very least, she isn't in league with any mainstream religion, especially anything Christian, so even by saying that no, she's not a skeptic you still can't use her and I as an example of "Desperate religious people". 



> To establish morality? I think it is doing a really bad job at that :T In the middle east they are chopping off hands of thieves and stoning women and in the west they don't let gays get married or women decide what happens to their body. Sure, there are commandments like "don't kill" or "don't steal", but if you need an ancient book to figure that basic stuff out... That makes me uncomfortable.
> Also, I think the whole hope thing is irrelevant. If society would finally grow up everyone could draw hope from things that actually exist.



Y'know, there's more in the bible as far as morality and how one should act than "Don't kill and don't steal". It's also considered a book that can detail Christian ethics and other things. So saying that "oh if you need a book to figure that out..." makes you scared, you might as well knock everyone who uses books to get their ethics and moralities from as well. 

And what's wrong with drawing hope from things that "Don't exist"? Some of the things that've given me the greatest hope and the greatest inspiration don't "Exist". I guess I'm just a childish prat who won't grow up eh?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

Whether or not you derive positive feelies has no implications for whether or not the material's claims happen to be correct.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> Really?  I've seen *very few scientific  videos that weren't loaded with allegorical presentations designed to  simplify scientific concepts for the masses.  *
> 
> So, if literary devices used to stimulate thought and understanding have  no place in science, what's next?  Free thought has no place in  science?
> 
> ...




Read the scientific literature. Do not be dooped into thinking that the national geographic channel is what science actually is. 

Television programs appeal to the lowest common intellectual denominator. 

This is the problem; you seem to think science is the bullshit you've seen misrepresented and dumbed-down on television. Scientific papers do not rely on poetry to justify their points. There are table of data, graphs, interpretations. Any poetry is ornamentation not justification. 

By contrast the bible's 'science' is only the most bastardised and contorted of poetry, which you and your ilk read with teleological eyes.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Whether or not you derive positive feelies has no implications for whether or not the material's claims happen to be correct.



But what if you're not focusing on the claims being correct, just the meanings that can be derived from the stories?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> But what if you're not focusing on the claims being correct, just the meanings that can be derived from the stories?



Then the thread topic is resolved: there is no divine hand in evolution, there is no god and the abrahamic texts of the middle-eastern bronze age are interesting in the same fashion as greek mythology


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 12, 2014)

.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Then the thread topic is resolved: there is no divine hand in evolution, there is no god and the abrahamic texts of the middle-eastern bronze age are interesting in the same fashion as greek mythology



No divine hand as far as the Arabhamic God is concerned, yes. But who's to say there isn't something else out there? All that you would've done is come to terms that Yahweh doesn't exist. 

See that's the problem with you non-religious atheist types. You focus only on ONE idea of God and when that's disproven, game point match, no divine, no Gods, no nothing. Kinda like when I went to the book store and checked out the philosophy section; almost ALL the books arguing against religion pretty much just focused on Yahweh, tossing aside the other religions and spiritual ideas as if they weren't even worth their time.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Oh, I quite disagree with you there.  Back in the 70's I made up a completely fictitious religion for my science fiction series.  30 odd years on science is attempting to prove every premise I made up.  Also, *apparently quantum physics does tend to suggest potential substantiation for gods, ghosts and reincarnation*.



NO IT DOES NOT. 

Quantum mechanics implies the existance of a spectral realm like x-ray diffraction implies you can heal people by waving crystals around singing 'wooo wooo!' 

You do not know what quantum mechanics is if you think it implies ghosts exist. Like, we are seriously in loopy-la-la territory at this point. 

Quantum mechanics explains this kind of spectral: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Not this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






Nikolinni said:


> No divine hand as far as the Arabhamic God is  concerned, yes. But who's to say there isn't something else out there?  All that you would've done is come to terms that Yahweh doesn't exist.
> 
> See that's the problem with you non-religious atheist types. You focus  only on ONE idea of God and when that's disproven, game point match, no  divine, no Gods, no nothing. Kinda like when I went to the book store  and checked out the philosophy section; almost ALL the books arguing  against religion pretty much just focused on Yahweh, tossing aside the  other religions and spiritual ideas as if they weren't even worth their  time.




If there are 'higher beings' out there then there is absolutely no reason to believe they are preoccupied with meddling in our biology or giving us personalised afterlives based on our moral choices. 

There is no super-nature of any sort, but the reason that people focus on christianity is because the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In this case the squeaking is the endless whaling of intellectually inert creationist tards.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 12, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> No divine hand as far as the Arabhamic God is concerned, yes. But who's to say there isn't something else out there? All that you would've done is come to terms that Yahweh doesn't exist.
> 
> See that's the problem with you non-religious atheist types. You focus only on ONE idea of God and when that's disproven, game point match, no divine, no Gods, no nothing. Kinda like when I went to the book store and checked out the philosophy section; almost ALL the books arguing against religion pretty much just focused on Yahweh, tossing aside the other religions and spiritual ideas as if they weren't even worth their time.



Well the three major world religions all follow the Abrahamic god. So of course atheists use this god as their point of reference. We'd use Shiva or Zeus or Krishna, but then our arguments would lose the effectiveness of getting the point across to the largest number possible. Oh and please do feel free to try and argue for the existence of any of the thousands of gods out there. I may not be familiar with every religion, but I'm sure I can give it a go


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 12, 2014)

Since when is "I think therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum) religious?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> Well the three major world religions all follow the Abrahamic god. So of course atheists use this god as their point of reference. We'd use Shiva or Zeus or Krishna, but then our arguments would lose the effectiveness of getting the point across to the largest number possible. Oh and please do feel free to try and argue for the existence of any of the thousands of gods out there. I may not be familiar with every religion, but I'm sure I can give it a go



I don't think Judaism can be called 'main' they number only 14million. I suspect Hinduism, with its ~0.7bn is the 'bronze position'.



Gnarl said:


> Since when is "I think therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum) religious?




Since bundle theory exposed it as a presupposition, rather than a coherent argument. :V


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> Well the three major world religions all follow the Abrahamic god. So of course atheists use this god as their point of reference. We'd use Shiva or Zeus or Krishna, but then our arguments would lose the effectiveness of getting the point across to the largest number possible. Oh and please do feel free to try and argue for the existence of any of the thousands of gods out there. I may not be familiar with every religion, but I'm sure I can give it a go



I'm not saying that I'm willing to argue the other gods. I'm just saying, the focus exclusively on Christianity is almost to Joy of Satan levels (They focused almost only on Christianity/Judaism, despite their God "Father Enki" being against anything other than worship of him).


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm not saying that I'm willing to argue the other gods. I'm just saying, the focus exclusively on Christianity is almost to Joy of Satan levels (They focused almost only on Christianity/Judaism, despite their God "Father Enki" being against anything other than worship of him).



When was the last time a Hindu lobbied the government to modify biology textbooks to be more sympathetic to Ganesh?
[it may interest people to know that in India skeptics perform 'miracles' outside hindu temples to discredit them by exposing the miraculous as simple magic tricks]


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> When was the last time a Hindu lobbied the government to modify biology textbooks to be more sympathetic to Ganesh?
> [it may interest people to know that in India skeptics perform 'miracles' outside hindu temples to discredit them by exposing the miraculous as simple magic tricks]



Yes I get the idea. I understand that Christianity or other such religions are the "major threat" of the moment, therefore a lot choose to focus their efforts on that.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 12, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> Well the three major world religions all follow the Abrahamic god. So of course atheists use this god as their point of reference. We'd use Shiva or Zeus or Krishna, but then our arguments would lose the effectiveness of getting the point across to the largest number possible. Oh and please do feel free to try and argue for the existence of any of the thousands of gods out there. I may not be familiar with every religion, but I'm sure I can give it a go



In Buddhism, the Buddhists put stock on knowledge as one of the major keys in enlightenment than blind faith.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 12, 2014)

I'm pretty sure Fallow is being trolled at this point. Perri is going for the long game, and it is epic.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 12, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't think Judaism can be called 'main' they number only 14million. I suspect Hinduism, with its ~0.7bn is the 'bronze position'.



Oh you know what I meant xD


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 12, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> In Buddhism, the Buddhists put stock on knowledge as one of the major keys in enlightenment than blind faith.



I actually kind of like the Buddhist faith. It's fascinating in it's own way, though just like with any other religion or spiritual belief if buddhists attempted to force their belief system on anyone I would oppose that.



Nikolinni said:


> I'm not saying that I'm willing to argue the other gods. I'm just saying, the focus exclusively on Christianity is almost to Joy of Satan levels (They focused almost only on Christianity/Judaism, despite their God "Father Enki" being against anything other than worship of him).



I know. I know. I'm just saying there is a reason for why we choose the god we choose. It's not because of any kind of grudge or any kind of 'one hit kill' idealism. We just go for the big dog in the game because that will reach the highest number of people


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> In Buddhism, the Buddhists put stock on knowledge as one of the major keys in enlightenment than blind faith.



Most sources I've read about Buddhism also claim that even The Buddha himself said to not even accept /his/ own teachings off blind faith. 

And he was the original enlightened one!


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 12, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm pretty sure Fallow is being trolled at this point. Perri is going for the long game, and it is epic.



unfortunately you may be right, it is getting to be too heated a discussion! Tempers will flair and feelings will be frayed. Such is the flaw in this subject! 
Now is the hour of our discontent so let us seek noble solice in silence!


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 12, 2014)

.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 12, 2014)

Gnarl said:


> Since when is "I think therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum) religious?



I was feigning ignorance and joking about you quoting Latin at us



Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm pretty sure Fallow is being trolled at this point. Perri is going for the long game, and it is epic.



Han, its a pretty serious affliction http://symphonic-rp.livejournal.com


----------



## Rassah (Feb 12, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> There is not a great deal of unquestionable evidence presented here. What there is here is a lot of hearsay evidence which none of us are really in a position to prove for ourselves. There do seem to be a lot of people here who are willing to take second hand evidence at face value without question, and then actively believe in it with such fanaticism that I can't even get a fun exchange of ideas going here.



Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on consensus? Let's say someone rolled a ball down the hill, and told you about it. Then someone completely different also rolled a ball down the hill and told you about it. And then 200 other people did the same. Would you believe that balls roll down hills, or would you be skeptical about it? Reason I ask is because some people do one type of test, others do another, and then all those people come together and put their knowledge of those tests to do stuff like, say, make computers, or design drugs and medicines. Not one of those people knows everything or has tested everything, but they can trust other's conclusions, add their own, and create things by trusting other's conclusions. Don't the sum of people conclusions, adding up to a single working thing, prove that each individual scientific discovery is valid?




Perri_Rhoades said:


> Last I heard, science was still trying to get to the bottom of things, and what they were finding was challenging everything science had previously believed about the nature of the universe.



That's what science does. It keeps discovering new things, and expanding our understanding of the universe. What knowledge do you have that is final and complete?




Perri_Rhoades said:


> I'm here for discussion, the exchange of ideas, the opportunity to expand my horizons by mixing any interesting ideas you might have with mine.



What good are your ideas if they have no evidence to support them? Is your point to just share neat fairy tales that have no actual bearing on realty, other than being entertaining notions?



Perri_Rhoades said:


> And being rude to others is no way to encourage respect for your ideas or your IQ.



Aaaaaactually, some of the world's highest IQs were rude assholes who couldn't deal with the simpletons life surrounded them with, so...


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 12, 2014)

.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 12, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Theology is not static.  Theology evolves just like everything else.



Congratulations! I agree with you on something 

Though I'm assuming for much different reasons. Theology does evolve. It evolves with societies, it sheds whatever it has to continue existing within whatever society it's in. This I think is clearly defined in the way that Slavery and (for the most part ) misogyny are conveniently ignored anymore these days while not too long ago people would have adamantly defended those sections of the bible.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> I didn't think they were until I started coming on to forum threads like this one.  I find the internet to have an epidemic of scientific fanaticism that is most disturbing.  The same people who would otherwise be clinging to some religion now cling to science with the same religious tenacity.  Still knowing nothing but how to repeat mantras that have been passed on to them, living in absolute denial of any idea to the contrary.  In this way science becomes a religion, and all scientific theories become religious based assumptions - not on the part of the scientists, but on the part of the fanatics who make prophets out of them.



Or as I like to call them, "The Gods of Logic, Science, and Reason". 

Christ these people talk so much about logic and reason 'round here and in threads like this I feel like I'm readin' a Goddamn Ayn Rand book.



Blake_Foxx said:


> Congratulations! I agree with you on something
> 
> Though I'm assuming for much different reasons. Theology does evolve. It evolves with societies, it sheds whatever it has to continue existing within whatever society it's in. This I think is clearly defined in the way that Slavery and (for the most part ) misogyny are conveniently ignored anymore these days while not too long ago people would have adamantly defended those sections of the bible.



Well I guess it also depends on the person. Like, take me for instance. I'd very much say my beliefs were "living" and "evolving" because they change, grow, and adapt as I discover, discuss, and research things. I mean even back in my all for god, die hard Christian days I wasn't content to just listen to the pastor, or the bible study booklet; I was reading questions and challenges online, actually studying the bible, revising my understanding of passages and scripture. It wasn't that I just picked a flavor of Christianity and stuck with it. I was my own flavor, I guess.


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 12, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Or as I like to call them, "The Gods of Logic, Science, and Reason".
> 
> Christ these people talk so much about logic and reason 'round here and in threads like this I feel like I'm readin' a Goddamn Ayn Rand book.



Don't bring the glass box to the council, we think it is a bad idea.

Or however the fuck that story went.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> Don't bring the glass box to the council, we think it is a bad idea.
> 
> Or however the fuck that story went.



It was a lightbulb. He found out how to generate and use electricity again. 

(Story in question is Anthem)


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 12, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> It was a lightbulb. He found out how to generate and use electricity again.
> 
> (Story in question is Anthem)


Ahh thank you. We were wondering what that story was. We read if in our English class last year. It was ok, but we thought it was a pessimistic view of the future, but is probably what will happen if the world is ever to achieve full equality among the general public.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> Ahh thank you. We were wondering what that story was. We read if in our English class last year. It was ok, but we thought it was a pessimistic view of the future, but is probably what will happen if the world is ever to achieve full equality among the general public.



That's kinda yeah what it's supposed to be. Though it's not saying we're going in that exact direction, but it is Rand's glimpse into what life would be like if it was extremely collectivist/socialist/what have you. 

For those who are unfamliar, it got to the point where people no longer had real names, just stuff like "Equality-1235" and "Liberty-4613", and any sense of individualism is banned and punishable by death. So much so that people don't even use I or me, but instead We and Us.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 12, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> No truly reputable scientist uses the term "Belief" at all.  Science has nothing to do with beliefs.  Science has to do with theories, which if proven evolve into facts.



There's no such thing as scientific facts. A science theory is the highest level of confirmation available.



Nikolinni said:


> I mean even back in my all for god, die hard Christian days I wasn't content to just listen to the pastor, or the bible study booklet; I was reading questions and challenges online, actually studying the bible, revising my understanding of passages and scripture. It wasn't that I just picked a flavor of Christianity and stuck with it. I was my own flavor, I guess.



Doesn't this suggest that your "wisdom" doesn't come from the bible, or theology, but from you? You learn and figure out what is right and what is moral, and fit biblical passages into your own personal beliefs.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> There's no such thing as scientific facts. A science theory is the highest level of confirmation available.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't this suggest that your "wisdom" doesn't come from the bible, or theology, but from you? You learn and figure out what is right and what is moral, and fit biblical passages into your own personal beliefs.



Er...not really. I mean if I'm trying to find out how best to follow God, that info's gonna come either from my own findings, prayer with God, study, or discussion with others.


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 12, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I was feigning ignorance and joking about you quoting Latin at us
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh sorry with you all being so serious I didn't catch that part.


----------



## Fernin (Feb 13, 2014)

On the strictly theological side of this debate, I offer the following nugget of quote. Off topic of the original discussion, sure. But we've been off topic for a while now.

â€œI contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.â€ â€”Stephen F Roberts


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## BasketballShorts (Feb 13, 2014)

Just thought I'd register to sayude, evolution is true because natural selection gave me a bigger dick than you, and I am very rich, and you are a poor bitch that makes money by sucking my naturally selected big dick. Bitch


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 13, 2014)

^this guy

The bible is a collection of books from many different people. The bible is never taken literally, but is greatly important to millions of people who use it as guidance for life. It was never intended to be completely factual, but that doesn't mean God cannot exist. Although the book is written by many, it shares the word of God and the teachings of Jesus that the authors have experienced.

[ends sunday school lesson]


----------



## Blackberry Polecat (Feb 13, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> (the Bible) was never intended to be completely factual



It sure seems to think it is.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Fernin (Feb 13, 2014)

It may be worth noting electricity is not a "theory", it's a fact, and how it works is well documented... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity for the short versions.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Tamara of Tammyland (Feb 13, 2014)

thoughtmaster said:


> This can not end well. Prepare for bashing on religion and anyone who believes in a higher power (jumps into a bunker to avoid the coming fight.)



I was thinking exactly the same thing. *hides with you*


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 13, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> I disagree.  I think The Lord Of The Rings is interminably long, unbearably boring, one of the most over-rated tomes in history, and any time I'm forced to read it, I wish longingly that I could be reading something else.  I would absolutely put The Bible on the same level as Lord Of The Rings.  Preferably the bottom shelf where neither of them would be easily reached.



I actually just noticed that I completely biffed that post. I meant to say that I don't see a reason why I _shouldn't_ put the bible on the same level as a fantasy novel like Lord of the Rings.
This happens when you post at work...


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 13, 2014)

And since we are talking about the bible: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html

According to Genesis they had camels in the bible. Now they have found out that at that time there were no camels in the region, they were domesticated there literally hundreds of years later.
It is amazing how an almighty being influences us to write a book that is so full of mistakes :V


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 13, 2014)

Blake_Foxx said:


> I know. I know. I'm just saying there is a reason for why we choose the god we choose. It's not because of any kind of grudge or any kind of 'one hit kill' idealism. We just go for the big dog in the game because that will reach the highest number of people


You forgot Islam, the religion that combines the social constraints and mafia mentality of Judaism with the militant expansionism of Christianity.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 13, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You forgot Islam, the religion that combines the social constraints and mafia mentality of Judaism with the militant expansionism of Christianity.



Indeed.
Blake also forgot that we can't choose what we believe in.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 13, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> That's very perceptive of you.  Except that I don't sit back and watch a soap opera.  I write one for The Furry Community.  I am the one and only god of my own created universe.  My very word is law there.  When I write that it rains there, it rains.  When I write that my creations die, they die.  And if I'm feeling generous, I write that they live forever, and then they live forever, even if I don't.
> 
> It's quite interesting being a Furry soap opera god.  Though you're quite right, it is a dreadfully sedentary occupation.  I sometimes think I might like to go back to that world that exists outside the internet.  But every time I give into the temptation I find there is really nothing there for me.
> 
> ...



Now I just feel like you need a hug


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 13, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You forgot Islam, the religion that combines the social constraints and mafia mentality of Judaism with the militant expansionism of Christianity.



I didn't forget Islam. Islam also worships the God of Abraham it's just pt. 3 of the series.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 13, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Theology is not static.  Theology evolves just like everything else.



Theology is always static because the scripture always remains the same, if not the wording changes slighty to fit the times. The only thing that does not remain static is the interpitation of said scripture. One person would think that the line in Leviticus 18:22 means gays, another can interpet it as "no anal, period. Interpetation is subjective at this point.





> I didn't think they were until I started coming on to forum threads like this one.  I find the internet to have an epidemic of scientific fanaticism that is most disturbing.  The same people who would otherwise be clinging to some religion now cling to science with the same religious tenacity.  Still knowing nothing but how to repeat mantras that have been passed on to them, living in absolute denial of any idea to the contrary.  In this way science becomes a religion, and all scientific theories become religious based assumptions - not on the part of the scientists, but on the part of the fanatics who make prophets out of them.



It is no different than when you are in high school and regugitating information, and to say it is religious based assumption is to say that the bible is the #1 offender of human rights in the 21st century. You are better off debatinf dianetics with Scientology than compare such. :V

Because of our current technologies, we can actively test those theories that we were limited to research before, and a lot of our information that we have today is based on our technological advancements. Scentific theories are tested.



Nikolinni said:


> Most sources I've read about Buddhism also claim that even The Buddha himself said to not even accept /his/ own teachings off blind faith.
> 
> And he was the original enlightened one!




He doubted them a lot, and told his follwers to always walk their own path to enlightenment, and don't follow his.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 13, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You forgot Islam, the religion that combines the social constraints and mafia mentality of Judaism with the militant expansionism of Christianity.



I can tell that you've only ever read one side of the argument just from that post. Islam emphasizes peace even more than Christianity does.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 13, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> I can tell that you've only ever read one side of the argument just from that post. Islam emphasizes peace even more than Christianity does.



How does it do that? Because all I see muslims do right now is chopping off hands of thieves, stoning women, killing apostates, trying to spread all over the world and demanding to be tolerated without offering ANY tolerance in return.
Oh and homophobia. The vast majority of all immigrants from islamic countries here in Germany is _incredibly_ homophobic. This is especially true in cities that have problems with a lot of homophobia to begin with. If you are a guy and you dress in a slightly flamboyant way you essentially can't use the subway in Berlin at night.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 13, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Theology evolves because the church is forced to adapt to the times, and also because of splinter groups who want to do things differently.  But, especially with the Catholic church, theology can be caused to evolve simply by a whim of The Pope.


I have to disagree on this when it comes to the catholic church! They never evolve, the scriptures stqate it one way and one way only!  How many female preists do see? In an age of equality it still thinks they are too dumb to think! 
How many times will it cover up its sins, ie: priests and alter boys? How many alters of pure gold does it have while it says it needs money to try and feed the poor?  Nope! Dont even get into the catholic thing... I quit those idiots!


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 13, 2014)

Gnarl said:


> I have to disagree on this when it comes to the catholic church! They never evolve, the scriptures stqate it one way and one way only!  How many female preists do see? In an age of equality it still thinks they are too dumb to think!
> How many times will it cover up its sins, ie: priests and alter boys? How many alters of pure gold does it have while it says it needs money to try and feed the poor?  Nope! Dont even get into the catholic thing... I quit those idiots!





Same with islam. There is still segregation in the Mosques, no female Imams, and the scripture still belives that females should be covered and segregated, even within the United states. Though, the interpetation and picking and choosing still exists, that's a given..

However, there is some improvement now that people are beginning to question and critizie religion and the culture surrounding it. Not all imams believe that the infidels should be punished, and there are Imams in  my area that formed a religious collective in the colleges to help better teach theology from an objective standpoint.

It's getting better.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 13, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Oh dear, then there is apparently no scientific reality.  But I don't have a problem with that.  I don't mind living in a theoretical world.


What? No that's not how science works. Scientific theory is not the same as "theory". Scientific theory is backed with evidence. Theory is just a guess that is not backed with evidence.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 13, 2014)

Aleu said:


> What? No that's not how science works. Scientific theory is not the same as "theory". Scientific theory is backed with evidence. Theory is just a guess that is not backed with evidence.



Piggybacking with an example:
Sceintific Theory: Adding excess nitrogen into this lake can cause a spike in Algae blooms, which is one of the main causes of eutrophication. (Abstract); Or
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has caused an increase of the eutrophication rate as well as increasing the size of the Dead zone.

Theory: I haven't watched the news, but I think it is a good idea to bring my umbrella just in case.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 13, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Theology evolves because the church is forced to adapt to the times, and also because of splinter groups who want to do things differently.  But, especially with the Catholic church, theology can be caused to evolve simply by a whim of The Pope.



Well I'm glad we can agree on at least one thing 


Perri_Rhoades said:


> Thank you.  I much appreciate it.



*Gives you a hug* Don't mention it.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 13, 2014)

FYI, please refrain frm double posting. Trying to organize three sets of tl;Dr posts from a singe user is taxing. If you are quoting multiple posts, use the multiquote button for future reference on the lower right hand  of a post.


----------



## Blake_Foxx (Feb 13, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> FYI, please refrain frm double posting. Trying to organize three sets of tl;Dr posts from a singe user is taxing. If you are quoting multiple posts, use the multiquote button for future reference on the lower right hand  of a post.



Sorry about that xD

I'm still adjusting to the forum


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 13, 2014)

...did someone really compare scientific consensus to 'the yiff club' ? ._.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 13, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> ...did someone really compare scientific consensus to 'the yiff club' ? ._.



Well, like she said in her post, you can easily manufacture a consensus. That was kinda the point of what she said .-. 
And there's also issues with consensus, such as group think, and people conforming or forcing themselves to see things like others so that they aren't "That Guy" who goes against the grain.



Aleu said:


> What? No that's not how science works. Scientific theory is not the same as "theory". Scientific theory is backed with evidence. Theory is just a guess that is not backed with evidence.



Yes but you see, if there's no "Facts" only "Theories", then pretty much we are living in a theoretical world, it would seem, if "Theory" is the highest level of confirmation that we've got available. 

Also people can form theories that are backed with evidence :V 
For example, if everytime the computer CPU gets to 88c there's lag, then I can form a theory that high temperature causes the computer to lag. Not everyone just looks at the situation once and goes "Theory!" and makes some wild uneducated guess.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 13, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well, like she said in her post, you can easily manufacture a consensus. That was kinda the point of what she said .-.
> And there's also issues with consensus, such as group think, and people conforming or forcing themselves to see things like others so that they aren't "That Guy" who goes against the grain.
> 
> 
> ...




Being 'that guy' gets you a noble prize if you're correct. To us mere mortals scientific consensus represents the most trust worthy representation of the world, because empirical testing is employed. 

There are subtle tides of consensus in the scientific community that are possible products of manufacture- such as subjective issues about whether we should incorporate group selection into darwinian models [consensus on this varies between disciplines and function, but is mostly 'no']

Implying that scientific conensus is all group-think, however is massive misrepresentation and shows practically zero appreciation of the material employed to reach consensus, what the criteria are etc. 


Also, your computer lag example is incorrect, because it lacks a mechanism. Actual scientists would not accept this as a theory without the appreciation of how the resistance etc of the materials that make the cpu change with temperature.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 13, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Also people can form theories that are backed with evidence :V
> For example, if everytime the computer CPU gets to 88c there's lag, then I can form a theory that high temperature causes the computer to lag. Not everyone just looks at the situation once and goes "Theory!" and makes some wild uneducated guess.


Make a theory about the computer's CPU and correlate that to temperature if applicable.
Ask a question and create an abstract to the reasons why.
Formulate a hypothesis...(Not the same as a scientific theory.)
Test your hypothesis...
Analyze the data and draw a conclusion.
Communicate the results to see if it confirms your theory or not.
If it doesn't, test again.

Technically speaking, you are doing science and applying the scientific method to cement your theory to why. The difference between guessing and the science form is that you are testing your theory.


----------



## Azure (Feb 13, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> ...did someone really compare scientific consensus to 'the yiff club' ? ._.


no more disheartening than all the other psuedoscience, russells teapotting, and semantic bullshit ive perused here.




Perri_Rhoades said:


> Theology evolves because the church is forced to adapt to the times, and also because of splinter groups who want to do things differently. But, especially with the Catholic church, theology can be caused to evolve simply by a whim of The Pope.


theology evolves because people will no longer swallow its more bogus and insane shit, but still need that  sense of comfort or that thing that is bigger than them to believe in. nobody is down with slavery, the murder of homosexuals, the domination and disrespect of women, the killing of children by bears for what amounts to some verbal jabbing, ect, ect. theyre lucky they have a big fancy crimeboss fella at the head of the church with "divine" authority so he can magic wand away the unpleasant parts of the KJV


----------



## Aleu (Feb 13, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> *Yes but you see, if there's no "Facts" only "Theories", then pretty much we are living in a theoretical world, it would seem, if "Theory" is the highest level of confirmation that we've got available. *
> 
> .


TWO 
DIFFERENT
DEFINITIONS


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 13, 2014)

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the  everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation  of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 13, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Being 'that guy' gets you a noble prize if you're correct. To us mere mortals scientific consensus represents the most trust worthy representation of the world, because empirical testing is employed.
> 
> There are subtle tides of consensus in the scientific community that are possible products of manufacture- such as subjective issues about whether we should incorporate group selection into darwinian models [consensus on this varies between disciplines and function, but is mostly 'no']
> 
> ...



When did I ever say that /all/ scientific consensus were the result of group think? I can't find it in my post. I may have brought it up as a possible wrench in a consensus but I never meant that /all/ consensus that agreed came from group think.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 13, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> When did I ever say that /all/ scientific consensus were the result of group think? I can't find it in my post. I may have brought it up as a possible wrench in a consensus but I never meant that /all/ consensus that agreed came from group think.



I think Perri unfairly implied it, not you. Perri's statement went along the lines of 'we can't trust consensus because consensus can be false'. 
On this topic, the news is always full of 'mainstream science challenged by revolutionary discovery' stories. It is depressing how many of these stories are out right lies which would be more accurate if they read 'mainstream theory gathers further supporting evidence,'


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 13, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> No, in the real world. This is not an over generalisation. The dinosaurs roamed the earth in the Mesozoic whether or not one believes the earth popped into existance 6000 years ago or not.
> 
> Cyanide *will* kill you even if you are told it is a sugar pill.
> 
> ...



Belief does transcend reality for some - (rightly or wrongly), and believers want that respected, regardless if anybody personally agrees with it or not.

If I believe that giving my teenage son a condom will encourage him to engage in promiscuity and irresponsibility - than I'm not going to give him one - even though it may (in "reality") prevent him from getting gonorrhea. 

Personal values *matter* to people.



CaptainCool said:


> "Maybe in your world"? We all live in the  same reality, dude. What happens in your head has no implication on what  is actually happening.



We do live in the same physical world - I meant one's upbringing, belief system, family/friends/life kind of "world". 

A  person's reality is not always the same either - my reality in San  Francisco is different than someone's reality, in say Texas. Our world  is one big reality - sure, but there are "micro" realities as well (that revolve around the individual) - that also exist.



CaptainCool said:


> It makes it more complicated for  non-believers because we actually bother thinking about these things  instead of just blindly believing in them.



You assume that believers don't think about these things, as well. They do. Many believers think about this frequently.


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 13, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> How long do you think Catholics have been permitted to worship The Virgin Mary?  She wasn't always there, you know.  The early church fathers did not like women.  And there is nothing in The Bible to support the folk tale which is the basis of her presence.  So, one day, The Pope went into is little room, meditated a little bit, came out on his little balcony and said, "Good news, folks.  God says the folk tale must be true.  Mary has been canonized."  Thus Mary is now the second most recognizable icon of Catholicism, technically evolving Catholicism into a whole different animal.


nope, sorry after what they did at the tennis courts, and then king James hah! "Render unto Cezar!" 
Sorry I am going to bail on this...


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 13, 2014)

There is no imperative to respect people who will believe in things even if they are very likely wrong. This is literally a plea to respect gullibility or, to be more frank, stupidity.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 13, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> There is no imperative to respect people who will believe in things even if they are very likely wrong. This is literally a plea to respect gullibility or, to be more frank, stupidity.



Well ladies and gentlemen, you heard it from the fox's mouth: religious or spiritual beliefs mean that you're gullible, stupid, and not deserving of one iota of respect. 

Way to paint EVERYONE who's ever had an inkling of spirituality with the most broadest damn brush I have ever seen. So you mean to tell me everyone who doesn't side with you as far as religion is concerned are just gullible, stupid people? That don't even deserve respect? You've essentially boiled this down to: My Way or the Highway (Or in this case: My Way or Else You're Gullible/Stupid).
What, do people who don't agree with you not deserve human rights or something? That they don't even deserve respect? What if it's not religion but another topic? Do they still qualify for receiving human decency?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 13, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well ladies and gentlemen, you heard it from the fox's mouth: religious or spiritual beliefs mean that you're gullible, and stupid.
> 
> Way to paint EVERYONE who's ever had an inkling of spirituality with the most broadest damn brush I have ever seen. So you mean to tell me everyone who doesn't side with you as far as religion is concerned are just gullible, stupid people? That don't even deserve respect? You've essentially boiled this down to: My Way or the Highway (Or in this case: My Way or Else You're Gullible/Stupid).
> What, do people who don't agree with you not deserve human rights or something?



You literally used the example of a parent trying to prevent teenagers using contraception, which is gullible and stupid behaviour. 

Beliefs have no intrinsic right to be respected. Their only merits are the epistemological- and if people must appeal to external justifications that's usually a good indicator that the belief in question is a stupid one. 

Now, just because someone is gullible or holds a belief that is stupid doesn't mean they are stupid people; that's your assertion. Newton believed in many stupid things, including an exotic religious perspective and alchemy. It did not detract from the veracity of calculus or his superb contributions to other fields. 

We are under no onus to respect newton for believing he could turn poo into gold. We respect him for his contributions to physics.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 13, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well ladies and gentlemen, you heard it from the fox's mouth: religious or spiritual beliefs mean that you're gullible, stupid, and not deserving of one iota of respect.
> 
> Way to paint EVERYONE who's ever had an inkling of spirituality with the most broadest damn brush I have ever seen. So you mean to tell me everyone who doesn't side with you as far as religion is concerned are just gullible, stupid people? That don't even deserve respect? You've essentially boiled this down to: My Way or the Highway (Or in this case: My Way or Else You're Gullible/Stupid).
> What, do people who don't agree with you not deserve human rights or something? That they don't even deserve respect? What if it's not religion but another topic? Do they still qualify for receiving human decency?



I do believe that you have to be pretty gullible to believe in some form of higher power, yes. If you were not gullible you would not believe in things that aren't supported by evidence. Sorry I guess?

Anyway, this again makes it important to look at the difference between respect and tolerance. Do I respect religious people? No. They didn't do anything to earn my respect. People who did something great for humanity are the ones I respect! And in that regard I don't care whether they are religious or not. Great deeds for humanity deserve respect.
But I do tolerate religious people. Well, at least I do as long as they leave me alone.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 13, 2014)

There is a difference between respecting claims and people. There is also a difference between tolerating claims and people. 

Respect is reserved for the admirable. Tolerance is reserved for people. 

Claims, which are distinct from people, are neither respected nor tolerated. They are dissected.

Being a person is not about having a collection of claims that are inseparable from you and come to define you to such a degree that any attack on the claims is perceived as an attack on the person.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 13, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well ladies and gentlemen, you heard it from the fox's mouth: religious or spiritual beliefs mean that you're gullible, stupid, and not deserving of one iota of respect.
> 
> Way to paint EVERYONE who's ever had an inkling of spirituality with the most broadest damn brush I have ever seen. So you mean to tell me everyone who doesn't side with you as far as religion is concerned are just gullible, stupid people? That don't even deserve respect? You've essentially boiled this down to: My Way or the Highway (Or in this case: My Way or Else You're Gullible/Stupid).
> What, do people who don't agree with you not deserve human rights or something? That they don't even deserve respect? What if it's not religion but another topic? Do they still qualify for receiving human decency?



There's a difference between gullibility (i.e. "Theories are guessing and goddidit because the book says"), and rationality (I believe in God, but knowledge comes before faith).


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 13, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> There is a difference between respecting claims and people. There is also a difference between tolerating claims and people.
> 
> Respect is reserved for the admirable. Tolerance is reserved for people.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Which is why I always make it clear that I tolerate religious _people_, not their beliefsystems. Why should I tolerate a beliefsystem that isn't supported by evidence? I don't tolerate it, I dismiss it.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 13, 2014)

The NERVE of spiritual people wanted to be treated like humans. They're not important like atheists are.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 13, 2014)

Aleu said:


> The NERVE of spiritual people wanted to be treated like humans. They're not important like atheists are.



Human rights are awarded to people by virtue of being human, not whether their claims are correct. Humans do not have a right to have all their claims, however ludicrous they are, respected. 

I used to be religious, do you really think I am forwarding an argument that 10 year old me shouldn't have been entitled to human rights? I am stating that nobody was obligated in any way to pander to 10 year old me's Old Earth Creationist views.

But, you know, it's impossible that any atheist could ever empathise with spiritual people, or that any criticism of their special pleading should ever amount to anything less than human rights abuses.


----------



## Machine (Feb 13, 2014)

I'll never understand why people would want to grovel at the invisible feet of a self-important sociopathic manchild instead of living and enjoying life.

Then again, people bother listening to politicians, so I guess it's nothing new or surprising.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 13, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Human rights are awarded to people by virtue of being human, not whether their claims are correct. Humans do not have a right to have all their claims, however ludicrous they are, respected.
> 
> I used to be religious, do you really think I am forwarding an argument that 10 year old me shouldn't have been entitled to human rights? I am stating that nobody was obligated in any way to pander to 10 year old me's Old Earth Creationist views.



You don't need to "pander" to someone's views to respect them.
Telling religious/spiritual people that they're wrong and beating them in the head with a science book isn't going to help any. It's just going to make you just as much of an asshole if it was them beating someone else with a bible.

If they're trying to push for an agenda, fine, fire away. But there are people that DO put rationale over religion and saying "You don't deserve my respect" simply because they hold a different viewpoint is  basically the same as people saying "You don't deserve my respect because you don't think like I do" which causes everyone to be an asshole to everyone.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 13, 2014)

Machine said:


> I'll never understand why people would want to grovel at the invisible feet of a self-important sociopathic manchild instead of living and enjoying life.
> 
> Then again, people bother listening to politicians, so I guess it's nothing new or surprising.



A psychological need for the impression of safety cultivated from the parent-child relationship, I figure.  God is 'the father', earth is 'the mother', prophets are 'sons', nuns are 'sisters'. Many religions are hierarchically structured to imitate the emotional roles of familial relationships.



Aleu said:


> You don't need to "pander" to someone's views to respect them.
> Telling religious/spiritual people that they're wrong and beating them  in the head with a science book isn't going to help any. It's just going  to make you just as much of an asshole if it was them beating someone  else with a bible.
> 
> If they're trying to push for an agenda, fine, fire away. But there are  people that DO put rationale over religion and saying "You don't deserve  my respect" simply because they hold a different viewpoint is   basically the same as people saying "You don't deserve my respect  because you don't think like I do" which causes everyone to be an  asshole to everyone.



People are not their claims. I tolerate people. I dissect claims. 

You're falling into the old 'harmless beliefs should be left alone' argument. Their perceived level of harm does not determine whether they are correct and the mere acquisition of exotic but incorrect 'harmless' beliefs may distort our ability to properly determine whether they do cause harm. 

It is possible, as exotic as this may sound to you, to respect people without thinking that everything they believe is respectable. I'm friends with Muslims, Christians, Mormons and people who think that banning smoking in front of other people constitutes 'the bridging step to despotic regime'. I think all these beliefs are ridiculous and I respect none of them. 
I still respect the people, though. I am friends with them for their characters, not because of any epistemological resemblance we may have.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 13, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> People are not their claims. I tolerate people. I dissect claims.
> 
> You're falling into the old 'harmless beliefs should be left alone' argument. Their perceived level of harm does not determine whether they are correct and the mere acquisition of exotic but incorrect 'harmless' beliefs may distort our ability to properly determine whether they do cause harm.
> 
> ...



*raises eyebrow*
So now it's "Oh no you had it wrong; I respect the /people/ (despite saying "There is no imperative to respect people who will believe in things even if they are very likely wrong. This is literally a plea to respect gullibility or, to be more frank, stupidity."), just not the arguments," instead of religious people just straight not deserving respect. 

So given that, do you respect people you get to know, or are atheists held in the same notion of not getting respect until they do something "admirable"?


----------



## Conker (Feb 13, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> I disagree.  I think The Lord Of The Rings is interminably long, unbearably boring, one of the most over-rated tomes in history, and any time I'm forced to read it, I wish longingly that I could be reading something else.  I would absolutely put The Bible on the same level as Lord Of The Rings.  Preferably the bottom shelf where neither of them would be easily reached.


OH man, now this is the biggest devilry spoken in this entire thread.

You heathen.

Without the Lord of the Rings modern fantasy as we know it today would not exist. Also it's charming as fuck and the middle book is epic.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 13, 2014)

Conker said:


> OH man, now this is the biggest devilry spoken in this entire thread.
> 
> You heathen.
> 
> Without the Lord of the Rings modern fantasy as we know it today would not exist. Also it's charming as fuck and the middle book is epic.


This thread is more of an adventure than Bilbo had asked for.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> *raises eyebrow*
> So now it's "Oh no you had it wrong; I respect the /people/ (despite saying "There is no imperative to respect people who will believe in things even if they are very likely wrong. This is literally a plea to respect gullibility or, to be more frank, stupidity."), just not the arguments," instead of religious people just straight not deserving respect.
> 
> So given that, do you respect people you get to know, or are atheists held in the same notion of not getting respect until they do something "admirable"?



Almost everybody in this country are atheists. I do not reserve any special level of respect for them. Especially those who believe in woo and pseudoscience. 

Claims are for dissection. Claims do not merit respect and hence people do not deserve extra respect for the mere possession of exotic claims. 

I think we're likely using different versions of the word 'respect' though. To me respect is admiration, and tolerance is accepting that people hold these views and treating them like one would anybody else regardless. 

I think you are defining respect as 'a promise to be courteous to and not interfere with,' and hence seem to think that not respecting people just because they hold claims means practicing intolerance, which is not the case. 

In any case this is a vulgar derailment, for whether or not Perri is absolutely and completely utterly wrong everyone else must be subdued and made to say 'I admire your claims, perri!' or else be viewed as human rights abusers.


Perri_Rhoades said:


> Oh I quite agree.  There is no imperative  to respect people who "Believe" in things, even those who "Believe" in  science or scientific consensus.  Any kind of belief is a form of  irrationality that restricts practical thinking and range of  observation.  Anyone who insists something can't be wrong due to belief  is automatically wrong on some level.
> 
> Not that everyone isn't due a modicum of respect.  People may still be  very intelligent on other subjects.  Just make sure to keep the salt  shaker handy when entering their sphere of belief.



Actually if beliefs are derived from a sound logical argument of  known premises, then that derivation merits respect. This is why we  respect einstein, dirac, Feynman etc
They ushered in an entirely new scientific consensus, such was the weight behind their claims. 

On  the subject of scientific consensus, you seem to think that the quantum  theory implies ghosts exist. I am training as a scientist, surrounded  by actual scientists. Perhaps it will cross your mind that I happen to  be much more familiar with the processes by which scientific consensus  is constructed and modified than you are; it is nothing like a  government. 

The 'global warming' and 'gmo!' contoversies exist  amongst the general populace and their politicians, who are not  scientists and are too lazy to read the scientific literature. These  subjects are not massively controversial in science, there exists a  consensus based upon evidential analysis and, if it were shown  otherwise, the scientific community would be welcome to overturn the  consensus- after all whoever overturns a consensus is guaranteed to have  a fantastic career.

Saying 'I trust experts who've dedicated their lives to the study of this problem' is nothing like saying 'I watched a video on youtube, so now I know' or 'My friend once saw an angel,'. 

Beliefs are not all held on an equal playing field.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 14, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> *raises eyebrow*
> So now it's "Oh no you had it wrong; I respect the /people/ (despite saying "There is no imperative to respect people who will believe in things even if they are very likely wrong. This is literally a plea to respect gullibility or, to be more frank, stupidity."), just not the arguments," instead of religious people just straight not deserving respect.
> 
> So given that, do you respect people you get to know, or are atheists held in the same notion of not getting respect until they do something "admirable"?



You didn't get what he said at all...
He said that he sees people and their beliefs seperately! That he can respect a muslim who did something great for humanity for example but not respect h is beliefs.

It is pretty much the same with me. I tolerate pretty much everyone but I do not tolerate beliefs that failed to fulfill their burden of proof. I dissect them. And if someone goes too far with their beliefs and tries to spread it forcefully I don't even have any tolerance for them. For example, the german salafists, the most radical islamic sect, is having a demonstration where I live tomorrow. Those people want to pretty much exterminate those who don't follow their beliefs. I have no tolerance for fucktards like that.

Naturally the same is true for atheists when it comes to tolerance and respect. I don't tolerate or even respect atheists just because they are atheists.


----------



## Fernin (Feb 14, 2014)

The circular logic at play in this thread makes me dizzy.  Further more the sheer number of strawmen is going to pose a fire hazard soon.


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 14, 2014)

I'm out. I already contributed enough to my ideas on the subject, and getting into any argument regarding religious beliefs is never a winnable battle.In short, in ruling with logic, evolution is definitely the answer, but there's still the mystery of where the first living organism that began the whole process came from, and until that can be firmly established, we need to give creation at least a little bit of the benefit of the doubt. I must emphasize that I'm not religious by any stretch of the imagination, I try to live as a "good and righteous" person, but that's just because I believe in the human race...not because I need a reward in the next life.

I also cannot fully commit to being atheist, as though there's little to know evidence supporting the existence of a higher being,there's also no 100% verifiable evidence to completely dismiss such a being, so until difinitive evidence surfaces in one direction or the other, I still have to give it the benefit of the doubt. If you must tear me apartfor this, so be it, but I worship at the altar of logic and this is what my mind has come down to.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 14, 2014)

sniperfreak223 said:


> but there's still the mystery of where the first living organism that began the whole process came from, and until that can be firmly established, we need to give creation at least a little bit of the benefit of the doubt.



I heavily disagree. While we still don't know for sure how it happened, we do know that abiogenesis can happen. There is evidence to demonstrate that. But there is no evidence _AT ALL_ for creation. And that is enough to disqualify it from the debate. From a logical point of view it just doesn't make sense. You can _only_ prove creation through proving the existence of the higher power that caused it.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 14, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Yes but you see, if there's no "Facts" only "Theories", then pretty much we are living in a theoretical world, it would seem, if "Theory" is the highest level of confirmation that we've got available.
> 
> Also people can form theories that are backed with evidence :V
> For example, if everytime the computer CPU gets to 88c there's lag, then I can form a theory that high temperature causes the computer to lag. Not everyone just looks at the situation once and goes "Theory!" and makes some wild uneducated guess.



Since there still seems to be some confusion on the terms, let me reiterate/explain.

"Every time the computer CPU gets to 88c, there's lag" is a fact. It's easily observable, and self evident.
"High temperatures cause the computer to lag" is a hypothesis. It could be true, or it could be just colleration without causation (like how increase in ice cream sales is linked to increase in car thefts, but in fact it's warm temperatures that cause both).
Opening up your computer, taking apart your CPU, and studying the microscopic circuitry to see how it actually reacts to heat, and seeing that some of the logic gates on the CPU start leaking electricity to neighboring areas, or stop working due to expanding to much, thus 100% confirming that high temperatures cause issues in the CPU, *and by what method, *creates a theory. The "theory" in the case of science is literally "the process by which..." 

The reason this is still a theory, despite you knowing for a fact that high temperatures screw with CPUs, is because someone else can do further testing, and find out *why* electricity leaks from logic gates, why CPU parts expand the way they do, etc. So, in short, when you hear things like Theory of Gravity, Theory of Electricity, or Theory of Evolution, read it as "The *fact* of gravity is explained as..." or "The *fact* of electricity is explained as..." or "The *fact* of evolution is explained as..."
For something to be a scientific theory means that that something is 100% fact, and thee "theory" is just an explanation of why it is. Heck, there is even such a thing as a Heliocentric Theory, which is the theory that the sun is the center of our solar system, and the earth revolves around the sun (as opposed to the Earth being the center of the universe, and the sun rotating around the earth). We know for a fact that this theory is true, since we have satelites up there, and even use the sun's gravity at the center of the solar system to slingshot satelites to other planets. But it's still a theory. Not because "we are not sure whether the sun is at the center" but because we know for a fact that the sun is at the center, and the "theory" describes the why and how that whole orbiting around the sun thing works.

And regarding that whole respect and religious thing, I'm not as shy about it. If you believe in fantasies as if they are facts, and especially adamantly defend your fantasies, because "they are true in your world," I lose a little respect for the person with such beliefs. Even if they do great things, I still think of them as somewhat gullible and stupid. The reason is simply because it's not that difficult to read things about how stuff works, figure it out logically (2+2=4, which leads to this, which leads to that, etc. building up on things), and just understand parts of the world that confuse you, instead of believing goddunit. Also, and this is likely even more important, I can't respect people who can hold two logically conflicting beliefs in their head. It's not a high skill, it's you deluding yourself.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 14, 2014)

Rassah said:


> And regarding that whole respect and religious thing, I'm not as shy about it. If you believe in fantasies as if they are facts, and especially adamantly defend your fantasies, because "they are true in your world," I lose a little respect for the person with such beliefs. Even if they do great things, I still think of them as somewhat gullible and stupid. The reason is simply because it's not that difficult to read things about how stuff works, figure it out logically (2+2=4, which leads to this, which leads to that, etc. building up on things), and just understand parts of the world that confuse you, instead of believing goddunit. Also, and this is likely even more important, I can't respect people who can hold two logically conflicting beliefs in their head. It's not a high skill, it's you deluding yourself.



I'm still trying to figure out WHY you people think they're gullible -- stupid sure I get that -- but gullible just seems to be painting people with a bush. Also there ARE people who believe in God(s) or Supernatural Forces that do try to figure things out instead of just saying "Goddidit".

Anyways, as far as "respect" goes...yeah Fallow I kinda realized I might be using a different definition than you when Perri made her post regarding it. I think that's why I abreacted so much to it. Perhaps I should change it to "Being courteous" instead of "Being respectful" because I think courtesy might fit what I'm wondering about, rather than a word like respect. That being said, yeah I can see why you would wait for someone to do something admirable in order to respect them.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 14, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm still trying to figure out WHY you people think they're gullible -- stupid sure I get that -- but gullible just seems to be painting people with a bush.



It's the same as I figure yout opinion may be of a 20 year old who still believes in Santa and Easter Bunny, and is all excited on Christmas eve to receive presents in the morning. He believes it's Santa, the rest of us know the truth, and all we can do is sort of smile sheepishly at the gullible fool. It's kinda like that.



Nikolinni said:


> Also there ARE people who believe in God(s) or Supernatural Forces that do try to figure things out instead of just saying "Goddidit".



Sure, but they don't try to figure out the parts that they are attributing to God(s) or Supernatural Forces, because they believe they already have the answers. People who believe in creation or inteligent design aren't the people testing the physics around the time of the Big Bang over at CERN.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 14, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm still trying to figure out WHY you people think they're gullible -- stupid sure I get that -- but gullible just seems to be painting people with a bush.


If you believe without evidence you are gullible. And there simply is not evidence for the validity of any religion.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> If you believe without evidence you are gullible. And there simply is not evidence for the validity of any religion.



You do realize that not all religions involve deities, right?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> You do realize that not all religions involve deities, right?



The statement 'all supernatural claims of any religion are categorically false' does not preclude religions with no deity.

For example we can consider a hypothetical religion which believes that humans are reincarnated as animals when they die. 

The problem is not the presupposition of a deity, for no deity is presupposed; it is the presupposition of the supernatural. 

Religions which do not presuppose a super nature are not religions, they are philosophies and may or may not be false, or may be subjective.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> You do realize that not all religions involve deities, right?



Well I would say this would even extend to non-deity religions such as Buddhism, since that religion has it's own fair share of spiritual ideas that don't have any hard evidence to back their more spiritual ideas. 

So I suppose even following The Buddha's idea of "Testing Everything", you're still gullible for believing in the supernatural aspect of it without any definitive proof that the supernatural stuff it talks about does exist or not.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> You do realize that not all religions involve deities, right?



A religion is something that involves some sort of dogma. Something that you should follow or incorporate into your life. You still have to believe in that to be true. Like if your religion involves that you are gonna go to happy town after you die _without_ the necessity for a deity? That is still a belief that isn't based on any evidence.
Because otherwise it wouldn't be a religion. It would be a philosophy.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The statement 'all supernatural claims of any religion are categorically false' does not preclude religions with no deity.
> 
> For example we can consider a hypothetical religion which believes that humans are reincarnated as animals when they die.
> 
> ...



Except that wasn't CC's statement, now was it?

It was "any religion" and not all religion has a belief in the supernatural either.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well I would say this would even extend to non-deity religions such as Buddhism, since that religion has it's own fair share of spiritual ideas that don't have any hard evidence to back their more spiritual ideas.
> 
> So I suppose even following The Buddha's idea of "Testing Everything", you're still gullible for believing in the supernatural aspect of it without any definitive proof that the supernatural stuff it talks about does exist or not.



If one did follow the buddhist mantra of testing everyone you'd soon find yourself abandoning buddhism. x3



Aleu said:


> Except that wasn't CC's statement, now was it?
> 
> It was "any religion" and not all religion has a belief in the supernatural either.



Any religion is false because any religion presupposes a supernature. it doesn't matter whether they have gods or not. 

Can you think of a religion which does not have a super nature? There isn't one. If they don't have supernatures they are not religions, they are philosophies.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> If they don't have supernatures they are not religions, they are philosophies.



Right, see my post above. Religions are always beliefsystems that have a certain supernatural or unexplainable aspect to them. Which is why I think what I said was right.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

I suppose we might consider a cult devoted to all numbers being rational, would that could as a religion despite its claim being natural but false, rather than supernatural?

In any case, we may simply substite 'religion' for 'supernature' and that pretty much covers 99.9% recurring religions that people actually follow on the planet, if we wanted to be hopelessly pedantic.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I suppose we might consider a cult devoted to all numbers being rational, would that could as a religion despite its claim being natural but false, rather than supernatural?
> 
> In any case, we may simply substite 'religion' for 'supernature' and that pretty much covers 99.9% recurring religions that people actually follow on the planet, if we wanted to be hopelessly pedantic.



That is a good one^^ I wouldn't call it a religion because it isn't connected to anything supernatural and since it would be quite easy to prove them wrong.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> That is a good one^^ I wouldn't call it a religion because it isn't connected to anything supernatural and since it would be quite easy to prove them wrong.



They would qualify as a faith group, and what if they worshipped the rational numbers and wore fancy clothes and sang in mile-high temples?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> They would qualify as a faith group, and what if they worshipped the rational numbers and wore fancy clothes and sang in mile-high temples?



Now it's getting weird XD I think technically they would be a religion, only that they would be worshipping something that actually exists, even if just as a mathematical concept.

But mathematics in general is more like a philosophy anyway (you actually get a Ph. D. in math and not a Sc. D.) so you have to factor that in as well. It would be like a weird blend between religion and philosophy.


----------



## Tica (Feb 14, 2014)

the existence of the supernatural is by default non-falsifiable. So calling belief in it "false" is a little disingenuous, no?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

Tica said:


> the existence of the supernatural is by default non-falsifiable. So calling belief in it "false" is a little disingenuous, no?



From a philosopher's point of view, but the practical reality is that we are entitled to dismiss pixies, gnomes and the like as false on this premise and that, in this regard we should dismiss all supernature.

Why? Because if we dismiss supernature and then something supernatural turns up, we can always correct ourselves. 
If we accept supernature, and there is only nature, you would never be able to find out it was false. 

The most useful process is therefore to say 'I'm skeptical, I'm gonna call bullshit and I look forward to being proven wrong,'


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 14, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Now it's getting weird XD I think technically they would be a religion, only that they would be worshipping something that actually exists, even if just as a mathematical concept.
> 
> But mathematics in general is more like a philosophy anyway (you actually get a Ph. D. in math and not a Sc. D.) so you have to factor that in as well. It would be like a weird blend between religion and philosophy.



Go read Serial 11 of Perri's story sometime. It takes place on a planet inhabited by half animal-half human creatures that made religions out of pure humans' ideas and philosophies. No religions though, since they decided all those ideas are bunk. So you (really) end up with various towns that base their religions on various things, from ideas of a Nuclear Family from the 1950's (and suburban living) to an odd blend of Communism and Fascism to towns based on holidays like Christmas and Halloween, to even things like Superheroes and Film Noire. 

Though how much a town believes in ideas like magic varies. Suburbia for instance, not really. Noire, the town based off of Film Noire, nope. None of them believe in magic, and any magical happenings can actually cause some Noirians to go into a panic attack. Halloween and the town based of Christmas? Of course. 

But then again, in Perri's story magic is something that's real and exists, though going off of some of the rules the story set, it isn't as easy as waving a wand and saying a magic word. And then of course, since the story takes place through time and space, there's multiple societies with varying degrees of a belief in magic.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2014)

I was wondering when Niko was going to start promoting Perri again.

You know, there are other better authors out there. Just sayin'


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I was wondering when Niko was going to start promoting Perri again.
> 
> You know, there are other better authors out there. Just sayin'



Hey I bring up Brian Jacques from time to time. And on occasion CS Lewis. And on the rare occasion Ayn Rand (though I read more of her straight philosophical books rather than her fiction, of which I've heard...various things about).


----------



## Fernin (Feb 14, 2014)

I believe in fish. Does this make me religious?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

In the real world the number of religions we could find that do not presuppose a super-nature approaches the vanishing point. Almost everybody who follows a religion follows one with a clear super nature- because almost every religion invariably lures in followers with promises of ever lasting life, in some form or another. 

I cannot think of any religion which does not, for even buddhism tantalises followers with the notion of reincarnation or higher planes of existence.

Religion may well be best defined as the various convoluted means by which humans try to convince themselves they will live forever.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I was wondering when Niko was going to start promoting Perri again.
> 
> You know, there are other better authors out there. Just sayin'



Besides have you even read her material? >____>


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Besides have you even read her material? >____>



Yes.
Which is why I say there are far better authors out there.



Fallowfox said:


> In the real world the number of religions we  could find that do not presuppose a super-nature approaches the  vanishing point. Almost everybody who follows a religion follows one  with a clear super nature- because almost every religion invariably  lures in followers with promises of ever lasting life, in some form or  another.
> 
> I cannot think of any religion which does not, for even buddhism  tantalises followers with the notion of reincarnation or higher planes  of existence.
> 
> Religion may well be best defined as the various convoluted means by  which humans try to convince themselves they will live forever.



Laveyan Satanism as far as I know doesn't preach living forever and is a religion.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Besides have you even read her material? >____>



Try using examples that people have actually read or can quickly catch up on.  Nobody is going to read a novel so that they get your point.
[I haven't read these fictions, for example, so know little of what you're talking about]


----------



## Phyllostachys (Feb 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> In the real world the number of religions we could find that do not presuppose a super-nature approaches the vanishing point. Almost everybody who follows a religion follows one with a clear super nature- because almost every religion invariably lures in followers with promises of ever lasting life, in some form or another.
> 
> I cannot think of any religion which does not, for even buddhism tantalises followers with the notion of reincarnation or higher planes of existence.
> 
> Religion may well be best defined as the various convoluted means by which humans try to convince themselves they will live forever.




How about Confucianism?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I was wondering when Niko was going to start promoting Perri again.
> 
> You know, there are other better authors out there. Just sayin'



There are a few...I need to pull up my author's list again.



Nikolinni said:


> Hey I bring up Brian Jacques from time to time. And on occasion CS Lewis. And on the rare occasion Ayn Rand (though I read more of her straight philosophical books rather than her fiction, of which I've heard...various things about).




CS LEwis: Dogma in disguise (And I like CS Lewis). It really hit south in the last book.
Jaques: WW2 Anthro edition
Ayn Rand: Cult of Free Market and Captialism.

Dune would be a more apt thing to read since it is a decent example.
Also, if you want your dogma, Xenosaga is another example. And most of that is from the Aryan Christianity sect.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

Phyllostachys said:


> How about Confucianism?



Who even knows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Is_Confucianism_a_religion.3F


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 14, 2014)

Rassah said:


> It's the same as I figure yout opinion may be of a 20 year old who still believes in Santa and Easter Bunny, and is all excited on Christmas eve to receive presents in the morning. He believes it's Santa, the rest of us know the truth, and all we can do is sort of smile sheepishly at the gullible fool. It's kinda like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but they don't try to figure out the parts that they are attributing to God(s) or Supernatural Forces, because they believe they already have the answers. People who believe in creation or inteligent design aren't the people testing the physics around the time of the Big Bang over at CERN.


But with such people, they still have magic and wonder in their life. Santa, the Easter bunny, deities, and all such are reasons that preserve and increase the awe, wonder, astonishment and some would say magic, when it comes to observing the world in which they live. When someone knows the mechanics of the item in question, it reduces the splendor remarkably. Considering living things merely "a product of chemical reaction, something we can easily reproduce like items in factories." It would be depressing, living in a world where things like miracles are written off with some explanation. No mysteries in the world would make the world quite dull.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

How does this [beautiful, unfathomable natural world] so fail to hold our attention that we must diminish it with the invention of cheap man made myths and monsters?

There are those of us who find that understanding things makes them _more_ beautiful.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Laveyan Satanism as far as I know doesn't preach living forever and is a religion.



Laveyan Satanism is just Objectivism with ritual and ceremony added, though.



Fallowfox said:


> How does this [beautiful, unfathomable natural world] so fail to hold our attention that we must diminish it with the invention of cheap man made myths and monsters?
> 
> There are those of us who find that understanding things makes them _more_ beautiful.



"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams


----------



## Phyllostachys (Feb 14, 2014)

Hmmm, since Confucianism(or at least, Neo-confucianism) relied on supernatural concept such as ki to explain the world, and maintained that human morality was part of laws of nature(and thus the concept of 'Mandate of Heaven'), I thought it could be considered as a religion....

But I suppose this is not important regarding topic of this thread.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 14, 2014)

.


----------



## powderhound (Feb 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> How does this [beautiful, unfathomable natural world] so fail to hold our attention that we must diminish it with the invention of cheap man made myths and monsters


(Better than Minchin put it.)

Wow, that's really profound. Yet the words are cheapened somewhat when coming from an anthropomorphic fox man.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I suppose we might consider a cult devoted to all numbers being rational, would that could as a religion despite its claim being natural but false, rather than supernatural?



Much simpler modern example: Satoshi Nakamoto. He existed, he created something, and he disapeared without anyone knowing who he/she/they are. Now he's almost like a diety, worshiped for his creation, and no one can possibly prove who he is. There's plenty of beliefs without proof, and the "desciples" believe he will usher in a better world.



thoughtmaster said:


> But with such people, they still have magic and wonder in their life. Santa, the Easter bunny, deities, and all such are reasons that preserve and increase the awe, wonder, astonishment and some would say magic, when it comes to observing the world in which they live.



But there is plenty of awe and wonder in the real world. These people are basically eschewing the wonders of the real world for wonders of a fantasy. And even though I like to say "I like to live vicariously!" (instead of "dangerously") as I emerse myself in stories and manga, I still realize that that's fantasy, and still know what worldly wonders I can still pursue. Perhaps there is even the danger that people who get too content in their fantasies die without bothering to pursue things in the real world, and thus pass through without any meaningful contributions, wasting their entire lives (which I think happens often with very religious)



Fallowfox said:


> It seems that even Einstein could be shown scientific evidence that had been peer reviewed and accepted, and still have the balls to say, "I believe your conclusions about this information to be entirely irrational."
> 
> The problem with our modern scientific consensus that very few people seem to realize is that, if Einstein were alive today and he said something like that, the keepers of our modern scientific consensus would blacklist him as a scientific heretic, and you would never hear from him again.



But he did exactly that, when he dismissed the then-new quantum physics ideas as bolox, stating "God doesn't play dice with the universe." And that's why science it great: He was still greatly respected for his scientific contributions, but no matter how smart and respected he was, science still respects actual evidence more, and proved out the facts of quantum physics regarldess of what some of the most respected scientists believed.




Fallowfox said:


> That's the main reason that I remain skeptical about the conclusions of modern science. Modern science can show you an equation on a blackboard that most people are not capable of even reading. They can tell you. "This equation proves that all the aspects of physics add up to a zero, and therefore nothing exists. That's just how it is. It's been tested, peer reviewed and adopted by the consensus. Get used to it." And no modern scientist will ever dare to stand up and suggest, "The universe is still here. So your conclusions just might be wrong."



Actually, that's not how it would happen. Instead of a formula, "modern science" would sit you down and teach you about atoms, and how they are composed of protons and electrons, each having a charge. It would physically demonstrate this existance with chemistry and chemical bonding, and with magnets and inducing electrical flow in a wire. It would demonstrate that there are two type of magnetic forces in every atom (positive and negative, but names are arbitrary), and that they attract each other. It would then go to explain gravity, and how this matter attracts other matter over long distances, and demonstrate it by showing how things orbit around planets and the sun, and in closeup by bringing two massive lead spheres close together without touching. They will pull towards each other. Then, once we know about electrons and protons with their charges and gravity (along with all demonstrations), it would demonstrate how particle colliders can create matter where electrons and protos are reversed, with negatively charged particles in the center, and positively sharged ones floating freely around it. Basically antimater. Then, it would take you to a telescope, and show you how everything in the universe is slowly moving and spinning around each other, being affected by gravitational fields, but that there seems to be "too much" gravity out there, as if we are only able to see one half of the universe, and the other half is "dark" and invisible. And we can see, based on observable orbits, that there is exactly half of the universe missing. Then, we can also see how parts of the universe are exploding and poping out of existence when it gets too close to the other invisible half, and observe the same thing happening to matter and antimatter in our particle coliders, and conclude that the same thing is happening: there is antimatter out there, taking up half of the universe, and sometimes colliding with the normal matter, annihalating each other in the process. Now, recently, with the Large Hadron Colider, science can also show you how there are spontaneous bursts of equal part matter and antimatter poping into existance for no reason. And after you combine it all, the conclusion is fairly straightforward: a spontaneous burse of matter and antimater is possible, and our universe is filled with that exact matter and antimatter. All physically observed with telescopes and instruments, and none of which relies on just plain formulas on chalkboards.

By the way, nothing ruins a scifi story (or a cyberpunk story) faster than a writer who doesn't understand how science (or computers) work


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 14, 2014)

.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 14, 2014)

.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 14, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> In both science and philosophy there are schools of thought that indicate a certain amount of control over individual reality, or at least how we perceive it.  Something that may have all the properties of reality in Niko's perception may be complete fantasy to everyone else.  But that doesn't matter, because those things are of benefit only to Niko.  And if he can find ways to use them to better himself without causing harm to anyone else, he is deserving of respect.




That doesn't deserve respect. Or disrespect. Because it has no effect on the real world, and is thus irrelevant. There is no respect gained or lost from someone's personal imaginations. The respect goes out the window when Niko, or anyone else, tries to apply their own personal reality to the real world populated with everyone else's reality, especially when their reality conflicts with it. It's great when people are individualistic and have active imaginations, and its even great if they express their imaginations through stories, art, music, and whatever else. But it's pretty not great when someone takes their personal reality and claims that it's actually real, such as claiming that they are actually a werewolf, or that Santa, ghosts, and leprichauns are real, or that their reality of the world being created by a supreme being is how the actual world came to exist, despite evidence to the contrary. 

TLR 
"I imagine unicorns, love unicorns, and think unicorns are awesome" - OK
"I know unicorns are real, because I had one as a kid, and even if you have never seen then, it doesn't mean unicorns don't exist in your world too" - Not OK.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> I've never actually met anyone like that.



Whether you met someone in their 20's who believes in Santa is not the point. The point is that some of us look at religious people as if they are old people who still believe in Santa.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> Um, do we actually have documentation that scientists with religions are banned from CERN?



Nope. But we do have documentation that most scientists at CERN are atheists, or are not very religious. Missed my point again, which is that it isn't a policy, but that people who ARE very religious are self-limiting, and would not want to go challenge their own beliefs by going to work at CERN. Or, in other words, deeply religious people do not like to question things, especially if those things may contradict their religious beliefs.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 14, 2014)

.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 14, 2014)

.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 14, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> That's the problem with Buddhism and this discussion.  If Buddhism insists that you not accept anything you can't prove for yourself, then Buddhism is entirely provable, and not a faith.  It throws a monkey wrench into all blanket assumptions about religion.
> 
> Worse than that, it has the same premise as science, which also says accept nothing you can not prove, which means science is potentially a religion.
> 
> As far as I know, Buddhism doesn't really offer anything supernatural.  Buddhism attempts to encourage awareness of the natural.  It has no gods, no heaven, no eternal life.  Of course, I'm sure people ignore the teachings and give Buddhism things it shouldn't have.  But then, I'm becoming increasingly suspicious that they do that with science as well.



Somehow I feel you understand little about Buddhism, and even less about what constitutes a religion. You're understanding of science (well lack of understanding) makes me grimace. If several pages of people try to explain things to you doesn't get through, than nothing I say is going to change that.

That said Buddhism came around in a time where people lived in a very fixed caste system, which was rigid in it's nature. People were believed to be reborn back into a specific position. There was no movement up or down. This had long reaching consequences that can be seen today in what fake spiritual leaders such the Dali Lama seek to perpetuate where the religious system justifies a terrible disparity regarding wealth and quality of life.

Buddhism changed that, by suggestion that based on your actions you can move up or down on the totem pole so to speak. It rejected the concepts of untouchables, and questioned this terrible system at the time. If you do not understand the history of it, or know much about it you should simply not speak of it in the way you do. Keep in mind modern sects have deviated from the original. Point is with what little knowledge you seem to have you are doing little for yourself in this discussion.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 14, 2014)

.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 14, 2014)

.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> I must have a fox say that to a rabbit sometime, just before he kills it.  I don't think it will do much to help the rabbit feel better about his situation.  And when the dogs come for the fox, I think that philosophy will be the last thing on his mind.



The point-->

Your head.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 14, 2014)

.


----------



## Phyllostachys (Feb 14, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> As far as I know, Buddhism doesn't really offer anything supernatural.  Buddhism attempts to encourage awareness of the natural.  It has no gods, no heaven, no eternal life.  Of course, I'm sure people ignore the teachings and give Buddhism things it shouldn't have.  But then, I'm becoming increasingly suspicious that they do that with science as well.



Buddhist ideas have existence of soul, karma, and reincarnation as its premises. It is my opinion that they are supernatural enough. And while Buddhist teachings include valuing life, the reason behind it is not simply encouraging awareness for nature; it is because they believe that every life form has soul and possibility to become a Buddha eventually, and harming life would cause one to accumulate karma, hampering his progress to enlightenment.




Trpdwarf said:


> That said Buddhism came around in a time where people lived in a very fixed caste system, which was rigid in it's nature. People were believed to be reborn back into a specific position. There was no movement up or down. This had long reaching consequences that can be seen today in what fake spiritual leaders such the Dali Lama seek to perpetuate where the religious system justifies a terrible disparity regarding wealth and quality of life.
> 
> Buddhism changed that, by suggestion that based on your actions you can move up or down on the totem pole so to speak. It rejected the concepts of untouchables, and questioned this terrible system at the time.



Well, it was Hinduism(which was and is the most dominant religion in India) that preached one can be reborn into higher caste through virtuous life. Buddism denied caste system itself, considering it to be man-made convention.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 14, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Hey I bring up Brian Jacques from time to time. And on occasion CS Lewis. And on the rare occasion Ayn Rand (though I read more of her straight philosophical books rather than her fiction, of which I've heard...various things about).


 There's plenty of Jewish fiction to debate in this thread already.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 14, 2014)

.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 14, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> CS LEwis: Dogma in disguise (And I like CS Lewis). It really hit south in the last book.



If you're referring to Lewis's "Space" trilogy, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Out of the Silent Planet - good
Perelandra - so-so
That Hideous Strength - "needlessly messianic" and pretty dire



Ozriel said:


> Jaques: WW2 Anthro edition



"Redwall - when you've read one, you've read 'em all!"


----------



## Conker (Feb 14, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Hey I bring up Brian Jacques from time to time. And on occasion CS Lewis. And on the rare occasion Ayn Rand (though I read more of her straight philosophical books rather than her fiction, of which I've heard...various things about).


Now there's some false equivalency!



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> If you're referring to Lewis's "Space" trilogy, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
> Out of the Silent Planet - good
> Perelandra - so-so
> That Hideous Strength - "needlessly messianic" and pretty dire


I think _Perelandra_ was a bit worse than "so-so." That book was HARD to get through. Never did make it to the last one.

Also, the Redwall books are at least charming if nothing else. Wish my adult mind liked them as much as my childish one did.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Yes.
> Which is why I say there are far better authors out there.



Well y'know what? Not everyone likes prog rock, I suppose.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Oh, I see.  You're trying to tell me you have a prejudice.



It's a fair comparison.  Santa Claus is an omniscient being that watches over everyone and passes judgment on their actions.  He then rewards those that follow his standards and punishes those that do not.  Failing to believe in his existence is also grounds for punishment.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2014)

Lobar said:


> It's a fair comparison.  Santa Claus is an omniscient being that watches over everyone and passes judgment on their actions.  He then rewards those that follow his standards and punishes those that do not.  *Failing to believe in his existence is also grounds for punishment.*


Wait, srsly?


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Wait, srsly?



What, you never were told that if you stopped believing in Santa then you wouldn't get anything for Christmas?


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2014)

Lobar said:


> What, you never were told that if you stopped believing in Santa then you wouldn't get anything for Christmas?



No


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> No



Well, I'm pretty sure it's part of the established Santa mythos that he only brings presents to children that believe in him. :\


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Well, I'm pretty sure it's part of the established Santa mythos that he only brings presents to children that believe in him. :\



Given that there's several, it's quite possible that it's just not mentioned in some families. For mine, you were good, you got gifts. If you were bad, you get nothing.


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Given that there's several, it's quite possible that it's just not mentioned in some families. For mine, you were good, you got gifts. If you were bad, you get nothing.



Or enough coal to start your own mini industrial revolution.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> Or enough coal to start your own mini industrial revolution.



I said for mine.
My family.


----------



## Picea (Feb 14, 2014)

Here is how I see it.  

Nothing was happening, and really a lot of it was going on.  It might of been considered embarrassing to all the other possibly non existent impossibilities out there, or it may not of been.   For better or for worse, a new something happened, and who was to argue over that? 
 And now we are all on edge,  trying to justify a bunch of uncontrollable to-who-it-may-concerns with the empirical data present in online polls.  
No mostly self-controlled conglomerate of mass and energy can fundamental prove any creation from a providing being, while at least there is provenance to the evolution theory.  
 Shit, I just voted in an online survey.  I really beat around the bush with my explanation too.  I'm not undoing any of it.


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I said for mine.
> My family.



Oh heh, sorry about that.

One of the downsides of being a skimmer. >_<


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 15, 2014)

.


----------



## TrishaCat (Feb 15, 2014)

*loads forums for the first time in over a month*
"Evolution VS Creationism"
NOPE.jpg

Futile and pointless arguing is futile and pointless.

Seriously, why are people so concerned with how the world formed, and even moreso, why are people so affixed on finding out the truth and telling the other they are wrong?


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 15, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> *loads forums for the first time in over a month*
> "Evolution VS Creationism"
> NOPE.jpg
> 
> ...


Because religion addicts are still preaching their "superior knowledge" and some people are sick of the bullshit like "believe in creation or you is devil" or "follow god or you be in hell".


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 15, 2014)

Rassah said:


> But he did exactly that, when he dismissed the then-new quantum physics ideas as bolox, stating "God doesn't play dice with the universe." And that's why science it great: He was still greatly respected for his scientific contributions, but no matter how smart and respected he was, science still respects actual evidence more, and proved out the facts of quantum physics regarldess of what some of the most respected scientists believed.



"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
---Arthur C. Clarke


----------



## TrishaCat (Feb 15, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> Because religion addicts are still preaching their "superior knowledge" and some people are sick of the bullshit like "believe in creation or you is devil" or "follow god or you be in hell".


Atheists nowadays sometimes do the same or similar things you know. Just as well, there are religious people and atheists who aren't nearly so pushy or aren't nearly so rude as you describe.

Arguing about religion, evolution, creationism, atheism, etc. creates an endless cycle of arguing that often escalates into many a rude remark, hurting relationships.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 15, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> Because religion addicts are still preaching their "superior knowledge" and some people are sick of the bullshit like "believe in creation or you is devil" or "follow god or you be in hell".



Oh come now, you act like Atheists never act like they have "Superior Knowledge/Intellect"


----------



## funky3000 (Feb 15, 2014)

Heh, I never even hear about atheists. It's like the media doesn't let them have their voice. I'm sure they do act this way, but I'm not a witness of it. Also, being a Christian myself (but I haven't gone to church in like 8 years), I was constantly exposed to that kind of bigotry. I guess I just have less tolerance for the religious side of things.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 15, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Oh come now, you act like Atheists never act like they have "Superior Knowledge/Intellect"



So how do we find out who's right?


----------



## TrishaCat (Feb 15, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> Heh, I never even hear about atheists. It's like the media doesn't let them have their voice. I'm sure they do act this way, but I'm not a witness of it. Also, being a Christian myself (but I haven't gone to church in like 8 years), I was constantly exposed to that kind of bigotry. I guess I just have less tolerance for the religious side of things.


Take far travels across the internet visiting sites for atheists or visiting forum sites where someone, somewhere has created a thread about religion.
That's all you need to do to find the atheists doing the same.

People in general can be really....err...rude at times, especially in things they believe strongly in.
Its best to not bother arguing about things like this imo.


Hakar Kerarmor said:


> So how do we find out who's right?


It doesn't matter who's right. And even if it did, finding an answer isn't worth the trouble. People couldn't find an answer due to the neverending debate, and during this many a people will have said unkind things to another. I feel like it isn't worth it.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 15, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Oh, I see.  You're trying to tell me you have a prejudice.



Yes. If someone tells me that they believe in something silly and stupid, I will prejudge them as the type of person who believes in something silly or stupid. You know, like, if someone drank too much and got drunk too often, I would prejudge them to be an alcoholic.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 15, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Santa doesn't punish.  He's just relieved of the obligation to be generous.  Which actually sounds kind of silly, since no one is ever obligated to be generous.
> 
> Santa doesn't have a book of rules you have to follow.  He has no church.  He makes no threats.  He inspires no fear.  And he is not treated as a social obligation.  You run no risk of having your family disown you if you don't believe in Santa.
> 
> You guys are so fond of talking about consensus.  The consensus on Santa is that he is a beloved holiday icon invented by a soda company, nothing more.  But, if one is growing up in a fanatical Christian household, in a fanatical Christian community, the consensus on Jesus that one experiences is believe in him or burn.  And they don't just mean burn after you die.  They mean burn right now in our scorn and withdrawn love.  Is that really a fair comparison?



You...really? The general consensus by educated people who understand history and culture is that Santa Clause was derived from a Christian saint, who was known for secret gift giving.

To some point it is a fair enough comparison because the idea of it is taught from the beginning when children are first capable of holding onto thoughts that are transferred to them. So children will not only believe in Santa Claus, (Sinterklass, or Saint Nicholas depending upon where you are) because they are told to, but they also will believe in religious figures and ideologies also because they are told thus. This kind of indoctrination from early on is...fairly indifferent. It's just that it's more acceptable to turn your back on accepted myths which is interesting to me. Santa claus? Obviously he's not real right...but the miracle son of god, born from raping a virgin, and that came to life after being killed....yeah that you have to believe in depending upon the family. I don't get it.

EDIT: Also in some families if you don't get into the "Holiday spirit" or send gifts even as adults...you end up the black sheep of the family for a few months afterwards.


----------



## TrishaCat (Feb 15, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Yes. If someone tells me that they believe in something silly and stupid, I will prejudge them as the type of person who believes in something silly or stupid. You know, like, if someone drank too much and got drunk too often, I would prejudge them to be an alcoholic.


But isn't that...kind of rude? You're judging them based on your own idea of what is silly or stupid. How can you be sure that what you think is silly or stupid is actually objectively silly or stupid? And if that doesn't matter, then how about this: What's wrong with keeping your feelings about someone to yourself? Why think of someone as silly or stupid for saying such a thing. The same person who says and truly believes "Punching a plastic bag will make a unicorn appear" may also be the type of person who's a critically acclaimed rocket scientist. You can't know what a person is like just from some of the things they say.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 15, 2014)

.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 15, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> But isn't that...kind of rude? You're judging them based on your own idea of what is silly or stupid. How can you be sure that what you think is silly or stupid is actually objectively silly or stupid? And if that doesn't matter, then how about this: What's wrong with keeping your feelings about someone to yourself? Why think of someone as silly or stupid for saying such a thing. The same person who says and truly believes "Punching a plastic bag will make a unicorn appear" may also be the type of person who's a critically acclaimed rocket scientist. You can't know what a person is like just from some of the things they say.



Well, to put it in the words of the Yardbirds: "Could you condemn a man/If your faith he doesn't hold?.  .  .Then mister you're a better man than I."


----------



## Rassah (Feb 15, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> But isn't that...kind of rude? You're judging them based on your own idea of what is silly or stupid. How can you be sure that what you think is silly or stupid is actually objectively silly or stupid?



It's fairly easy to discern scientific hypotheses and ideas from fantasies and illusions. 



Battlechili1 said:


> And if that doesn't matter, then how about this: What's wrong with keeping your feelings about someone to yourself? Why think of someone as silly or stupid for saying such a thing.



Oh, I won't tell that to them directly (unless they really really ask for it). But I'll still think it.



Battlechili1 said:


> The same person who says and truly believes "Punching a plastic bag will make a unicorn appear" may also be the type of person who's a critically acclaimed rocket scientist.



I, uh, seriously doubt that, as being a high level specialized engineer requires you to be grounded in reality.



Picea said:


> Here is how I see it.
> Nothing was happening, and really a lot of it was going on.



"Happening" presupposes a passage of time. There was no time before the big bang, as time is a function of energy and matter. There is no such thing as "before" the big bang, since time itself started with it.



Nikolinni said:


> Oh come now, you act like Atheists never act like they have "Superior Knowledge/Intellect"



Oh sure they do. They publish their atheistic articles all the time, in places like Wired, Scientific American, IEEE, and other such non-religious propaganda papers, where they claim how their ideas are better than everyone else's


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 15, 2014)

.


----------



## Machine (Feb 15, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> It would be nice if we Furries didn't suffer from this affliction, but it's the price we pay for being *anthropomorphic*.  ~_^


I think the word you're looking for is sapient.

Sounds like you're implying that furries are supposed to be "above" this sort of stuff.

That is not, and never will be, the case because furries are human. Wow, shocking.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 15, 2014)

Machine said:


> I think the word you're looking for is sapient.
> 
> Sounds like you're implying that furries are supposed to be "above" this sort of stuff.
> 
> That is not, and never will be, the case because furries are human. Wow, shocking.



I think it's supposed to be a sort of a joke, since some furries are constantly in-character. Thus a furry who's being in the persona of their character is most likely going to be portraying an anthro animal to one degree or another.


----------



## Machine (Feb 15, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I think it's supposed to be a sort of a joke, since some furries are constantly in-character. Thus a furry who's being in the persona of their character is most likely going to be portraying an anthro animal to one degree or another.


So, it's roleplay, then.

FAF doesn't take kindly to those folk. :V


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 15, 2014)

Please, for the love of your god or gods, please stop double/triple/quad posting. It is difficult trying to organize them. If you have to quote multiple posts, use the multi-quote button. Or, use the edit button.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 15, 2014)

.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 15, 2014)

.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 15, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Anthropomorphic means of man or man-like - having the attributes of man, of which being sapient is just one.  Furries are an allegory of man, a demonstration of all the foibles of the human condition viewed from a non-human perspective, making us look doubly stupid for acting like humans.  And yes, it is shocking to behold how stupid we can make humanity look.  One might say it's one of our unique talents as a fictitious species - a talent which has greatly contributed to the amusement of the entire internet, and hopefully also to its enlightenment.



Perri, when Orziel is talking about multi-quotes, they're talking about you. You're generally supposed to keep posts in one post until someone else posts after you. That's what double posting is. 

So if there's multiple people you want to respond to, the best thing to do is to make the inital post, then edit your post you made and throw in the other stuff you wanted to address.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 15, 2014)

.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 15, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> *loads forums for the first time in over a month*
> "Evolution VS Creationism"
> NOPE.jpg
> 
> ...



I'm studying geology for my degree and the formation of our planet and how it has changed over time is not only very academically interesting but incredibly useful. 

For example we use palaeogeographic data to test our climate-change models, to make sure that they can accurately predict how the world's climate changes under certain conditions. 

It's also pretty useful for predicting the location of natural resources, hazards and for various other industrial applications. One example is that the evolution of certain fossil types in the English chalk coincides with flint bands, so palaeontologists are hired to guide tunneling-machines through the chalk, avoiding all the dangerous flints. 

Understanding the vast history of our planet, which includes biological evolution, is really useful.


Creationists, or people who want to explain evolution with divinity rather than search for the actual causes, are throwing all of that useful information away.


----------



## powderhound (Feb 15, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm studying geology for my degree



Is it true geologists know how to make the bedrock? 


I'd be curious to know your thoughts on polonium radio halo's as evidence of a young earth. Since Gentry's work was actually published in several (not complete shit) peer reviewed scientific journals (Nature, Science x 2, Annual Review of Nuclear Science and Earth Science Associates) it often comes up in the more well thought out creation debates. Trying to refute it in a few simple sentences during such brief debates has never been satisfying for me. Curious if you cover this in your course work?


[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html[/FONT]


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 15, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Understanding the vast history of our planet, which includes biological evolution, is really useful.



Sure. If you believe all of it. "Biological evolution" is meaningless to some people - and therefore useless to them.




Fallowfox said:


> Creationists, or people who want to explain evolution with divinity rather than search for the actual causes, are throwing all of that useful information away.



Not necessarily. Just because they're Creationists doesn't mean their automatically idiots, or dismissive of science. Many aren't.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there.


----------



## Conker (Feb 15, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Sure. If you believe all of it. "Biological evolution" is meaningless to some people - and therefore useless to them.


Just because someone doesn't believe it doesn't make it false. If I start believing in fairies, that doesn't make them exist.

Willful ignorance should be frowned upon.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 15, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Sure. If you believe all of it. "Biological evolution" is meaningless to some people - and therefore useless to them.



True. But as Conker said, this is entirely irrelevant. Whether you believe that evolution is a fact or not, that doesn't change one bit that it actually is a fact. Your personal beliefs have no influence on reality. And a reasonable person would set aside their personal beliefs when presented with proper evidence that proves their beliefs to be wrong.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 15, 2014)

Conker said:


> Just because someone doesn't believe it doesn't make it false. If I start believing in fairies, that doesn't make them exist.



The phenomenon may be true, (or false for that matter), but it is still useless to them.



Conker said:


> Willful ignorance should be frowned upon.



Sure. That goes for Darwinists, too - who automatically assume all Creationists are unenlightened.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 15, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> The phenomenon may be true, (or false for that matter), but it is still useless to them.
> Sure. That goes for Darwinists, too - who automatically assume all Creationists are unenlightened.



Is "Darwinist" a 'thing'? I've heard the term once or twice, but never really gave any thought to it, because it sounds so asinine. 

I still consider most, if not all Creationists, stupid to some, if not a great extent. It's better to say "I don't know", than to assert a magical being doing...well...anything really. A few may have more degrees than me, or have been in the game longer, but nothing outlines a complete idiot like Creationism does - Almost regardless of their lifes' accomplishments - Especially if they are denying what they've learned to get to that point.

Though...
If a person finds comfort in their religion, and poses no physical or intellectual harm to others, then let them have at it - as long as it is not spread amongst others, or impactful to the scientific realm in any way.


----------



## powderhound (Feb 15, 2014)

Hi Connor.




Connor J. Coyote said:


> "Biological evolution" is meaningless to some people - and therefore useless to them.



Meaningless because their faith makes them uninterested in learning about it or meaningless because they don't have the intellectual capacity to explore it? 

On the smart but faithful side I still feel principles of evolution do have applicability for those people. They may not discount creation entirely but the scientific principles they learn still gives them a number of useful tools to add to their intellectual armamentarium. As you said creationist does not automatically equal dumb or dismissive of science.

On the other side if it's "meaningless" because they lack education I have mixed feelings about that. Religion has many important social and interpersonal benefits which should not be discounted. It also provides an easy answer to many difficult concepts in life and this is not without merit. I have always just sort of accepted that a certain cross-section of society will not have the capacity or desire to understand the complexities of science and will fall back on religion, which isn't a bad thing. But I can't help but wonder what would happen if those people put same effort into studying science as they did religion.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 16, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Given the multi universe theory, it is illogical to assume our universe was the first universe, just as it would be illogical to assume Earth was the first planet.  Being as their were probably other universes experiencing time at the time of the big bang, it is not logical to say there was no time before the big bang.



It is illogical to say "before" in the absence if time. Other universe's existence and passage of time is irrelevant when our universe has no such thing as time in it.



Lastdirewolf said:


> If a person finds comfort in their religion, and poses no physical or intellectual harm to others, then let them have at it - as long as it is not spread amongst others, or impactful to the scientific realm in any way.



They can still pass on their misinformation to their children, and stunt their intellectual development. Religion is harmful to minors.


As for religion offering easy answers, that's harmful to. Wrong answers, even if they are easy, are never good, since it's best to think "I don't know" and leave the pursuit of knowledge until later, than be convinced in your wrong answer, and never bother to learn again.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 16, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> The phenomenon may be true, (or false for that matter), but it is still useless to them.



Useless, except for the advances in medicine brought about by animal studies, which rely on an understanding of comparative anatomy in animals with which we share a common ancestor.  Or the control of antibiotic-resistant diseases, which arise from evolution in action and requires an understanding of how it works to combat it.

It's been said that nothing of modern biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, and it's pretty accurate.  You benefit directly from the applied knowledge of evolution whether you choose to accept it as reality or not.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 16, 2014)

powderhound said:


> Is it true geologists know how to make the bedrock?
> 
> 
> I'd be curious to know your thoughts on polonium radio halo's as evidence of a young earth. Since Gentry's work was actually published in several (not complete shit) peer reviewed scientific journals (Nature, Science x 2, Annual Review of Nuclear Science and Earth Science Associates) it often comes up in the more well thought out creation debates. Trying to refute it in a few simple sentences during such brief debates has never been satisfying for me. Curious if you cover this in your course work?
> ...




Let's just say (Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2

I'm reading about gentry's work in the link you sent me now. 
Radiation halos have come up in my course, but we have not studied them as a means to age a rock, because there are many factors that could perturb them- it seems a very imprecise means to me when you could stick the sample in a Mass-spectrometer and measure the parent to daughter isotope ratio directly. [of course, gentry would not want us to do this because we would discover the radiation spots are caused by Uranium decay, not Polonium]

The article you provided refutes the entire hypothesis in spectacular detail, so I'll try to build a satisfactory refutation that is only a few sentences. 

Ignoring _all other geology_ in order to be generous, We can use his stipulation that the precambrian granite crust cooled off in 3 minutes and that it is homogenous to discover how thick it was. In 3 minutes there is not time for significant convection, therefore we do not include this in our scaling argument. 
We know *R~(Kt)^0.5**, where R is the radius of thermal diffusion, K is the thermal diffusivity of rock and t is the time taken. 
Inserting values of 10^-6[measured average thermal diffusivity of rock] and 120 seconds [hypothetical time] a radius of thermal diffusivity of 1cm is arrived at. 
Ergo the entire precambrian granite ought to be only cm's thick. 

The continental shields, composed of precambrian granites, are actually on the order of km's thick: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/GeoFacts/geof13.pdf [7 miles of granite  in ohio] 

It takes more than 3 minutes to cool off km's worth of granite, in order to explain that you would need to appeal to a teleological argument of divine intervention- admitting that the hypothesis is rubbish...which is exactly what Gentry does. 

Saying that the precambrian shield granites were formed in 3 minutes is like claiming that you can jump over the empire state building or that the grand canyon was formed by a supersonic flow of water in 5 minutes; it is so physically ludicrous that it should be met with guffaws of laughter.

*This is experimentally confirmed and matches a kinetic model of thermodynamics.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 16, 2014)

Lol why people need to debate about this?

Creationism: pics or it never happened.

Evolution: DNA changes have been documented since like 50 years ago, we all know the several circumstances under it has molecular changes.


----------



## Conker (Feb 16, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> The phenomenon may be true, (or false for that matter), but it is still useless to them.


As Lobar pointed out, the information isn't useless at all. It might seem useless to a particular person, but if that person goes and grabs an antiobotic, he's benefiting from the sciences of biology and chemistry. Probably others as well.  



> Sure. That goes for Darwinists, too - who automatically assume all Creationists are unenlightened.


I don't really think there's a black/white when it comes to Creationists since some are completely daft while others are not. I don't believe in a God, not really, but I also don't begrudge others for doing so. If they want to stick God right behind the BIG BANG and call it good, I have nothing really wrong with that.

To doubt something like Evolution does make someone unenlightened though.

To say "Creationism should be taught in science classes" is appalling. 

To look at science now and go "well the things we don't understand are God so let's just carry on with our lives" is downright harmful.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 16, 2014)

Conker said:


> As Lobar pointed out, the information isn't useless at all. It might seem useless to a particular person, but if that person goes and grabs an antiobotic, he's benefiting from the sciences of biology and chemistry. Probably others as well.
> 
> 
> I don't really think there's a black/white when it comes to Creationists since some are completely daft while others are not. I don't believe in a God, not really, but I also don't begrudge others for doing so. If they want to stick God right behind the BIG BANG and call it good, I have nothing really wrong with that.
> ...



I'm still wondering where these mobs of people who say "I don't understand! It's all God!" are hiding out. I mean seriously? To assume that because one is religious because they don't understand science is just arrogant, plain and simple. I see that all the goddamn time on atheist forums and websites and facebook posts; that if the religious people got a little dose of understanding of science, poof! No more religious person! Or that they're brain dead when it comes to science. Which is assuming a lot, actually. 

Sorry, just a side rant of mine. 

As far as "Information not being useful to someone" let me put it like this. 

Let's say you're talking about your favorite song, let's say a song by REM. And you like it, it sounds awesome. So I come up and I start explaining about guitar techinques used in the song, the chords, the key signatures and you say "Well...that information's not really important to me". And I start having a fit about how "everytime you listen to a song, it's THIS kind of teaching and what not that put it together and to say that it's not important is being unenlightened" or whatever. Sure, key signatures, chords, majors and minors may be important in music, but to someone who's not a musician or studying Music Theory, is it *really* important?


----------



## Conker (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm still wondering where these mobs of people who say "I don't understand! It's all God!" are hiding out. I mean seriously? To assume that because one is religious because they don't understand science is just arrogant, plain and simple. I see that all the goddamn time on atheist forums and websites and facebook posts; that if the religious people got a little dose of understanding of science, poof! No more religious person! Or that they're brain dead when it comes to science. Which is assuming a lot, actually.


I've met a small few online. It's more along the lines of, "there's a gap in this evolutionary record, so God must go in that gap. We don't have to find the missing part." That I have seen a few times. "See, there's room for God and Science in Evolution!" kind of argument, when to me, that needn't be the case and probably isn't. 




> Let's say you're talking about your favorite song, let's say a song by REM. And you like it, it sounds awesome. So I come up and I start explaining about guitar techinques used in the song, the chords, the key signatures and you say "Well...that information's not really important to me". And I start having a fit about how "everytime you listen to a song, it's THIS kind of teaching and what not that put it together and to say that it's not important is being unenlightened" or whatever. Sure, key signatures, chords, majors and minors may be important in music, but to someone who's not a musician or studying Music Theory, is it *really* important?


Without that that kind of music theory, the song might not exist though. So yeah, those things are important. 

The person who likes that song can still not care about them, but there's a difference between having no interest and dismissing the ideas outright.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 16, 2014)

Putting God 'behind the big bang' exhibits a stifling lack of curiosity. We are deplored at others who put God behind biodiversity or the rotation of the planets now, and we will be deplored at the 'holy big bang' subscribers in the future when the nature of the big bang event is more properly elucidated. 

I don't think the 'where are these people hiding?' question is appropriate; we've already seen such people blundering through this thread. 

A basic understanding of science is important, because we currently live in an age which is highly mechanised, but in which hardly anybody understands how or why these machines work, which is frankly terrifying. 
More over though, the 'this information isn't useful to me therefore I am entitled to believe it's of a supernatural origin' is an arrogant claim that is often contorted into the unfortunate expression 'therefore it is useful to nobody', as we've already seen be implied on this thread.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 16, 2014)

I love how everyone talk about the origin of the universe as if they had a PhD in astrophysics, and as if by debating it would make god less or more imaginary.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 16, 2014)

Inignem said:


> I love how everyone talk about the origin of the universe as if they had a PhD in astrophysics, and as if by debating it would make god less or more imaginary.



That's not the point of this discussion. The point is that god isn't needed to explain these things anymore because we actually do have answers today or at least a pretty good understanding of how it could have happened without divine influence.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 16, 2014)

Inignem said:


> I love how everyone talk about the origin of the universe as if they had a PhD in astrophysics, and as if by debating it would make god less or more imaginary.



The information being exchanged is at the educational level of a 15 year old [or at least what level teenagers should be at] , not doctorate.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 16, 2014)

Conker said:


> Without that that kind of music theory, the song might not exist though. So yeah, those things are important.
> 
> The person who likes that song can still not care about them, but there's a difference between having no interest and dismissing the ideas outright.



But ah, the ticket is how do you know that the person saying music theory isn't important to them is saying "I dismiss music theory!" and not just "Eh, has no big time effect on my life if I know music theory or not."

It's like that with some people. Yes, evolution and science are important as far as where we've come, what we've developed, and where we can go. But some people just aren't interested. Day to day life to them is more important than all that stuff. And just 'cause someone says that it's not important to them don't mean they fully, automatically discount it. 

And actually Fallowfox, get this. People actually didn't like the big bang theory at first because they thought it /made the idea of God more plausible/. And why does God behind the big bang mean lack of curiosity? Does the idea of God at all mean a lack of curiostiy? If so, why? 

Also Fallow, if you followed the music analogy I came up with, nowhere did it say "I don't find music theory useful therefore GOD."; that is, if that bit was aimed at me. Also, here's another one for you and that whole "we currently live in a highly mechanized age" thing: 

"We live in a society where music is a large part of it, and the high number of people who don't even know what a Key Signature means is terrifying". How is not understanding machines terrifying? There's plenty of people who use a laptop and don't even know how a hard drive works or the simplicity of swapping one out. They don't know of the wonder and majesty that happens in that quick millasecond or less when I strike the "P" key and see the "P" appear on my screen.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 16, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The information being exchanged is at the educational level of a 15 year old [or at least what level teenagers should be at] , not doctorate.



Precisely since the discussion is at that level, everyone should keep the opinions to themselves and avoid having this debate. Again, evolution is true since creationism fails at having even the smallest piece of physical evidence.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 16, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Precisely since the discussion is at that level, everyone should keep the opinions to themselves and avoid having this debate. Again, evolution is true since creationism fails at having even the smallest piece of physical evidence.



Objection. 

All evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism, just via a different lense.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 16, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Precisely since the discussion is at that level, everyone should keep the opinions to themselves and avoid having this debate. Again, evolution is true since creationism fails at having even the smallest piece of physical evidence.



It is possible to show this with only a fairly modest level of education.



Nikolinni said:


> Objection.
> 
> All evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism, just via a different lense.



Bullshit like this is the reason why these debates are going to happen, unfortunately. 

If we were to continue pursuing this optical metaphor, may I suggest a filter is a more appropriate term? For creationists filter out all demonstrations that life evolves by natural, not supernatural, selection.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection.
> 
> All evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism, just via a different lense.



Just like all evidence for chemistry is evidence for alchemy, right?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 16, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Just like all evidence for chemistry is evidence for alchemy, right?



A key difference between the comparison of alchemy and chemistry to creationism and evolutionism is that chemistry is a subset of alchemy, while creationism and evolutionism do not share this relationship. One can even say chemistry is an evolution of alchemy. 

And if you think about what I said, you'd probably understand it a little better. 

See, if you believe, at the very least, a God of some sort (or heck even an impersonal supernatural force of some kind) put everything into motion or got things started, then things like evolution studies or scientific studies would not contradict that. All it would do is improve one's understanding of the creator's creation, without challenging that notion. Of course, throw in things like The Bible and other religious texts with creation stories, and things get a little more hairy, even if you take Genesis' creation story as an allegory. 

That's kinda what I mean by looking at it under a different lense. The non-spiritual atheist looks at science and sees marvel in the natural world; the spiritual/religious might look at science and see marvel in the skill of the creator (and usually marvel in the natural world as well).


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection.
> 
> All evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism, just via a different lense.


Then my Lovecraftian religion validates the origin of the universe too despite what scientific advances we have made.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> A key difference between the comparison of alchemy and chemistry to creationism and evolutionism is that chemistry is a subset of alchemy, while creationism and evolutionism do not share this relationship. One can even say chemistry is an evolution of alchemy.
> 
> And if you think about what I said, you'd probably understand it a little better.
> 
> ...



Understanding how the world operates is not confirmatory evidence for their having been a creator in any way. The creator is an unwarranted agent in the mechanisms of nature and so far all science ever has been described without ever implying a creator.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 16, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Understanding how the world operates is not confirmatory evidence for their having been a creator in any way. The creator is an unwarranted agent in the mechanisms of nature and so far all science ever has been described without ever implying a creator.



Well of course not. Hence the idea of looking through a lens. Looking through someone's perspective. I'm sure you're capable of doing that, right?  And I didn't say that a religious person looks at the complexity of the world and says "Evidence for God!" (though there /are/ a lot who do that), it just makes them have more awe and respect for the creator they already believe in.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection.
> 
> All evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism, just via a different lense.



Well, I suppose if you twist it in a weird and sadistic way you could see the evidence for evolution like that.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 16, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Well, I suppose if you twist it in a weird and sadistic way you could see the evidence for evolution like that.



Because it seems like people are content to quote just this, and not my evaluation on that phrase (Except you, Fallowfox), I'm gonna repost it again, 

"See, if you believe, at the very least, a God of some sort (or heck even an impersonal supernatural force of some kind) put everything into motion or got things started, then things like evolution studies or scientific studies would not contradict that. All it would do is improve one's understanding of the creator's creation, without challenging that notion. Of course, throw in things like The Bible and other religious texts with creation stories, and things get a little more hairy, even if you take Genesis' creation story as an allegory. 

That's kinda what I mean by looking at it under a different lense. The non-spiritual atheist looks at science and sees marvel in the natural world; the spiritual/religious might look at science and see marvel in the skill of the creator (and usually marvel in the natural world as well)."


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well of course not. Hence the idea of looking through a lens. Looking through someone's perspective. I'm sure you're capable of doing that, right?  And *I didn't say* that a religious person looks at the complexity of the world and says "Evidence for God!" (though there /are/ a lot who do that), it just makes them have more awe and respect for the creator they already believe in.



You literally said 'is evidence for creationism'.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 16, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> You literally said 'is evidence for creationism'.



Huh. I did say that. Oh well, I was just looking back at the block of text you quoted and not that one.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection.
> 
> All evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism, just via a different lense.



Evolution theory allows to predict a lot of things, spcially those involved to genetics *cough* cell biology, drugs, molecular biology, biotchnology *cough* while creationism predicts nothing of benefit for the human race.

think before writting.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 16, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Evolution theory allows to predict a lot of things, spcially those involved to genetics *cough* cell biology, drugs, molecular biology, biotchnology *cough* while creationism predicts nothing of benefit for the human race.
> 
> think before writting.



And this disproves my claim how...? Oh wait...that's right, it doesn't. All it does is take a weak winded approach at saying "science is better lol". 

But think about this, what about the creationist who believes in evolution? Does that somehow bar them from coming up with these scientific advances and theories? I don't really think so.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 16, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Evolution theory allows to predict a lot of things, spcially those involved to genetics *cough* cell biology, drugs, molecular biology, biotchnology *cough* while creationism predicts nothing of benefit for the human race.
> 
> think before writting.



Creationism can offer predictions for the human race depending on whether you believe in it or not.

Think before you type.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> And this disproves my claim how...? Oh wait...that's right, it doesn't. All it does is take a weak winded approach at saying "science is better lol".
> 
> But think about this, what about the creationist who believes in evolution? Does that somehow bar them from coming up with these scientific advances and theories? I don't really think so.



It disproves your claim because the way to tell that a theory is right or wrong is by analyzing how much correct predictions on physical phenomena it allows to predict.

creationism so far has failed to predict anything. Meanwhile, evolution theory has spawned so many medical, pharmaceutical and industrial bnefits it is useless to count it one by one.


----------



## KAS3519 (Feb 16, 2014)

I'm an Atheist, and I've got no problem with creationists, as long as they're willing to sit down and listen to what I have to say about evolution and they have a legitimate argument as to why creationism is real

I cant stand the "TEH BIBL SAIZ SO" people though. If you want to argue about it, at least have a good reason.

(By argue I mean have a conversation debating the topic, not a fight where you stand up and tell at the other person)


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 16, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Creationism can offer predictions for the human race depending on whether you believe in it or not.
> 
> Think before you type.




Please explain.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> And this disproves my claim how...? Oh wait...that's right, it doesn't. All it does is take a weak winded approach at saying "science is better lol".
> 
> But think about this, what about the creationist who believes in evolution? Does that somehow bar them from coming up with these scientific advances and theories? I don't really think so.




Your claim about evolution is teleological. You must find and prove what the purpose is and expose its mechanism. 

Otherwise teleological claims ought to be dismissed until such a time that they are merited. 

It is the difference between saying 'The earthquake occurred because elastic strain was released,' and 'elastic strain was released, but because the earthquake god said so,'.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 16, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Creationism can offer predictions for the human race depending on whether you believe in it or not.


The ones who most rabidly defend it are the ones who will ultimately  cause the most damage to the biosphere. There's my prediction.


----------



## Conker (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> But ah, the ticket is how do you know that the person saying music theory isn't important to them is saying "I dismiss music theory!" and not just "Eh, has no big time effect on my life if I know music theory or not."


But that can be applied to damn near everything, so this isn't an example of science or religion but people just not giving a fuck. That's a whole nother problem.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 16, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection.
> 
> All evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism, just via a different lense.



No.  Natural selection leaves no room for the meddling of a supernatural being, as any divine interference would be _artificial_ selection and alter the applications of evolutionary theory.  To use my previous example, if God is giving bacteria antibiotic resistance mutations from on high and propagating those genes through the bacterial population through his divine blessing, then it matters fuck-all if we control the use of antibiotics or not.

The biggest gap left for God at this point is the creation of the first self-replicating molecule (which is a matter of abiogenesis, not evolution) and being entirely hands-off from there, in the longest trick billiards shot in history.



Ahzek M'kar said:


> Creationism can offer predictions for the human race depending on whether you believe in it or not.
> 
> Think before you type.



Predictions mean it's testable.  I look forward to the peer review of that study.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 16, 2014)

I actually found a student who's specialising in abiogenesis today; I've known him for 2 terms now and didn't know that's what he was doing.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 17, 2014)

The biggest problem with creationism sticking god behind the process of evolution is that this makes god himself irrelevant. With the ball and hill example, its the same as seeing a ball roll down the hill, and at first believing that it's someone manually rolling it down then hill by hand. Then after finding out that it started rolling because it was kicked, and continues rolling because of gravity, you can continue to claim that a someone is behind it, but the claim is irrelevant, because you know the ball would roll down the hill regardless of whether there was someone behind the action. In the same way, sure, you can claim that your god is behind evolution, but that would make your god irrelevant, because evolution happenes regardless of whether someone is making it happen step by step. Basically, evolution doesn't need a god, just like a ball rolling down a hill doesn't need a someone. So all your god needs to do with evolution is sit back and watch. And now we have enough evidence to suggest that this applies to the formation of the first life, and the creation of the universe itself. If there is a god, he isn't needed for the universe to exist in the form that it does. It would "roll down the hill" regardless or his actions.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Rassah said:


> The biggest problem with creationism sticking god behind the process of evolution is that this makes god himself irrelevant. With the ball and hill example, its the same as seeing a ball roll down the hill, and at first believing that it's someone manually rolling it down then hill by hand. Then after finding out that it started rolling because it was kicked, and continues rolling because of gravity, you can continue to claim that a someone is behind it, but the claim is irrelevant, because you know the ball would roll down the hill regardless of whether there was someone behind the action. In the same way, sure, you can claim that your god is behind evolution, but that would make your god irrelevant, because evolution happenes regardless of whether someone is making it happen step by step. Basically, evolution doesn't need a god, just like a ball rolling down a hill doesn't need a someone. So all your god needs to do with evolution is sit back and watch. And now we have enough evidence to suggest that this applies to the formation of the first life, and the creation of the universe itself. If there is a god, he isn't needed for the universe to exist in the form that it does. It would "roll down the hill" regardless or his actions.



I think you kinda just touched base on Deism. >____>


----------



## powderhound (Feb 17, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Let's just say (Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2



I would also have accepted Al2Si2O5(OH)4.



Fallowfox said:


> Radiation halos have come up in my course, but we have not studied them as a means to age a rock



He doesn't really use it as a dating method. He just makes the leap of faith that the presence of orphan polonium halo's indicates instant solidification of the rock. Which is magical thinking given the thermodynamic principles you pointed out. But then that is exactly the point.

I think it's important to realize that the Gentry's initial publications that made it through peer review merely dealt with the basic science of radio halo's and were in no way related to the radical young earth hypothesis he formulated later when the wheels came off the bus. His papers dealing with polonium halo's as evidence for creation where easily shot down under peer review and as such were only published in fundamentalist rather than reputable scientific venues. So while creationists often like to tout him because he was associated with reputable publications, those papers do not support their case for creation. The one's that did never got published.



Fallowfox said:


> the radiation spots are caused by Uranium decay, not Polonium



That's the pink elephant in the room. The simple counter argument I think is that all of Gentry's halo's were from uranium and thorium daughters, indicating the halo's formed long after the rock solidified. The other 22 isotopes of polonium unrelated to the above alpha decay (which would support his argument for instant solidification of the rock) were never found. Even the orphan halo's can be explained with the conventional reasoning that radon gas from uranium decay migrated within the rock to form halo's identical to polonium at locations away from the decaying uranium source.

Gentry's initial published observations were good. But the wheels came off the bus when he tried to use them to support creation. There are other explanations that account for his observations that are in keeping with our current scientific understanding of the universe rather than divine intervention.

However this is the problem with creation debates. The creation side often comes up with a simple analogy that everyone can rapidly grasp. In the case of Gentry's work, the polonium halos are like alka-seltzer bubbles in a glass of water. For them to be preserved in the water it must be frozen at an instant in time. Sounds great, but the universe is not so simple. It is not easy to refute such pseudoscience analogy's when the explanation is complex and audience is not technically minded. This is the challenge. 
_
*â€œIf you can't explain to the charwoman who is scrubbing your laboratory floor what you are doing, you donâ€™t know what you are doing.â€ *_*
-Ernest Rutherford *


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I think you kinda just touched base on Deism. >____>



Tl;Dr: Just because a ball continues to roll after it is kicked does not mean that it is the act of a divine being. It means someone kicked the damn ball down the hil and gravity is helping it go down that hill..

-facepalm.jpg-


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Tl;Dr: Just because a ball continues to roll after it is kicked does not mean that it is the act of a divine being. It means someone kicked the damn ball down the hil and gravity is helping it go down that hill..
> 
> -facepalm.jpg-



And when I said you touched base on Deism, I was aiming at the idea that God kicked the ball down the hill and is just watching what happens...very much like with Deism. Not that he's actively making the ball roll down the hill, or changing how it rolls, he's just watching it roll.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 17, 2014)

Why are we presupposing a magical being to watch the universe turn to shit?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Why are we presupposing a magical being to watch the universe turn to shit?



I dunno. Could be they just set things up to watch how it turns out? 

I mean, I'm not really a follower of the idea that there is a magical force of some kind that just idly watches. I just thought it went good with the idea of a ball rolling down the hill on its own, but was kicked off by something.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Let me put it this way for creationists: please formulate an equation that calculates the divine power.

Implying the logical assumption that if it can be measured then it exists.


----------



## Phyllostachys (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I dunno. Could be they just set things up to watch how it turns out?
> 
> I mean, I'm not really a follower of the idea that there is a magical force of some kind that just idly watches. I just thought it went good with the idea of a ball rolling down the hill on its own, but was kicked off by something.



But why should we suppose that 'something' has 'kicked' the 'ball' with intention? The figurative ball could have been just 'blown off its position by wind'; I mean, there won't be much difference even if the cause of whole process was mere natural phenomena. I find it quite pointless to add an unnecessary stage behind everything.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> And when I said you touched base on Deism, I was aiming at the idea that God kicked the ball down the hill and is just watching what happens...very much like with Deism. Not that he's actively making the ball roll down the hill, or changing how it rolls, he's just watching it roll.


That is the most myopic idea i have ever heard. What ever you are drinking in the morning, stop.

If you do not know how the ball rolled down the hill, it is safe to say i don't know than "der spirit of jesus christ made dat dere ball roll down dat hill". Plus, if you said that to an adult who noticed the northwest wind blow the second the ball rolled down the hill,  they would think you witless.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Let me put it this way for creationists: please formulate an equation that calculates the divine power.
> 
> Implying the logical assumption that if it can be measured then it exists.



Please don't go there, that is not how it works. We want to see evidence, not maths. Just _something_ that at least suggests that creation is a valid idea.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Please don't go there, that is not how it works. We want to see evidence, not maths. Just _something_ that at least suggests that creation is a valid idea.



If there is evidence, it can be measured, that was also implied in my statement.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Phyllostachys said:


> But why should we suppose that 'something' has 'kicked' the 'ball' with intention? The figurative ball could have been just 'blown off its position by wind'; I mean, there won't be much difference even if the cause of whole process was mere natural phenomena. I find it quite pointless to add an unnecessary stage behind everything.



Because you know what? some people just look at the world and think that SOMETHING had to create it. I mean shoot, I read something the other day where Jefferson or Paine or one of those guys wrote an entire thing talking about how the complexity and aweness of the world gives them the belief that something had to create it. That's just the way it is with some people.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Because you know what? some people just look at the world and think that SOMETHING had to create it. I mean shoot, I read something the other day where Jefferson or Paine or one of those guys wrote an entire thing talking about how the complexity and aweness of the world gives them the belief that something had to create it. That's just the way it is with some people.



So it comes down to 'I have a really good feely about this'. 

Personal incredulity isn't a good justification; when I don't understand something in a lecture I tell the lecturer I'm personally incredulous and expect her to prove me wrong.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Because you know what? some people just look at the world and think that SOMETHING had to create it. I mean shoot, I read something the other day where Jefferson or Paine or one of those guys wrote an entire thing talking about how the complexity and aweness of the world gives them the belief that something had to create it. That's just the way it is with some people.



Implying that believing lies and doing wrong things is ok if it feels good.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Implying that believing lies and doing wrong things is ok if it feels good.



Where did I ever say that doing wrong was justified? No where. I don't think one should do wrong if it feels good. 

And yes, I know, feelings aren't evidence/proof/whatever the fuck you want to say. It's not tangible, verifyable, peer reviewed, scientist reveiwed theorized hypthized sciency crap. But that's just the way it is with some people, end of story.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Where did I ever say that doing wrong was justified? No where. I don't think one should do wrong if it feels good.
> 
> And yes, I know, feelings aren't evidence/proof/whatever the fuck you want to say. It's not tangible, verifyable, peer reviewed, scientist reveiwed theorized hypthized sciency crap. But that's just the way it is with some people, end of story.


That's not what anyone is arguing though. People want proof of Creation, not proof that people believe in it.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Aleu said:


> That's not what anyone is arguing though. People want proof of Creation, not proof that people believe in it.



You know what? I honestly feel that even if the skies themselves were to open and God waved to us all and said "Heya guys! Here I am! You can all stop being DICKS to each other." They'd write it off as a massive global hallucination.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Where did I ever say that doing wrong was justified?



Believing lies and using them as justification to act is real, real wrong.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Believing lies and using them as justification to act is real, real wrong.



Ah yes, I remember when this thread presented hard solid evidence that there was absolutely no creator oh wait NO I DON'T. I think the closet we got was "Science leaves no room".


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Ah yes, I remember when this thread presented hard solid evidence that there was absolutely no creator oh wait NO I DON'T. I think the closet we got was "Science leaves no room".



Stephen Hawking back in the 80's felt pity for inferior human beings like us and wrote a book called Brief History of time explaining why god, even if he existed, could not have created the universe.

Now, if you are gonna say that the world's smartest person whose expertise is astrophysics is wrong and you are right, then you must be some kind of undiscovered genius.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Stephen Hawking back in the 80's felt pity for inferior human beings like us and wrote a book called Brief History of time explaining why god, even if he existed, could not have created the universe.
> 
> Now, if you are gonna say that the world's smartest person whose expertise is astrophysics is wrong and you are right, then you must be some kind of undiscovered genius.



Nice appeal to authority there, pal. 

First, Hawking said that "Goddidit" is not an adequate explanation for how the universe came into being. Second, what Hawking said doesn't contrast the bible. The Bible's not concerned with the innerworkings of the universe God created, or how exactly he did it. God did it is one statement, which is enough for Christianity. However, /How/ God did it is another, which we could say that is what science is seeking to answer.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 17, 2014)

Presupposing an event in the early universe without evidence is unwarranted. 

We've as much ground to imply Ganesh did it, or Thor or a pan-dimensional snail.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Presupposing an event in the early universe without evidence is unwarranted.
> 
> We've as much ground to imply Ganesh did it, or Thor or a pan-dimensional snail.



Like science doesn't do the same thing.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Like science doesn't do the same thing.



Oh please do name an example.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Like science doesn't do the same thing.



Going out on a wild limb here, I'm guessing you don't understand mainstream science and have concluded it's all crazy woo, instead of opening a book on the subject.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Oh please do name an example.



Well for starters, we have The Big Bang. There's no solid evidence for it; It's merely assumed because it fits the evidence we currently have based on our current understanding of the laws of physics and current state of the universe. 

Since your lot is so fond of "The evidence for the bible wouldn't work in court" such evidence for the big bang wouldn't work either. We can't /assume/ that someone killed someone without surefire evidence. There'd be way more people wrongfully convicted if we could just merely assume things without conclusive evidence.



Fallowfox said:


> Going out on a wild limb here, I'm guessing you don't understand mainstream science and have concluded it's all crazy woo, instead of opening a book on the subject.



Um..actually no. I don't think it's all crazy woo. Sorry, that's not going to work on me. 

I have evolving beliefs, my friend. They're living, breathing. They'll change and morph as my understanding of things do. And if I want to know something, I'll find it out. 

Besides, what better way to answer a call than with "You just don't understand". 

You might as well be a social justice warrior on Tumblr saying Niko doesn't have the right to argue something because he's thin and has Thin Privilege...and is cis, male, and hetero.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well for starters, we have The Big Bang.* There's no solid evidence *for it; It's merely assumed *because it fits the evidence* we currently have based on our current understanding of the laws of physics and current state of the universe.
> 
> Since your lot is so fond of "The evidence for the bible wouldn't work in court" such evidence for the big bang wouldn't work either. We can't /assume/ that someone killed someone without surefire evidence. There'd be way more people wrongfully convicted if we could just merely assume things without conclusive evidence.



Engage brain!


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well for starters, we have The Big Bang. There's no solid evidence for it; It's merely assumed because it fits the evidence we currently have based on our current understanding of the laws of physics and current state of the universe.
> 
> Since your lot is so fond of "The evidence for the bible wouldn't work in court" such evidence for the big bang wouldn't work either. We can't /assume/ that someone killed someone without surefire evidence. There'd be way more people wrongfully convicted if we could just merely assume things without conclusive evidence.



"no solid evidence"
"it fits the evidence we currently have"
WAT

But alright. Before we talk about the big bang, could you sum up in one sentence what you think the big bang actually is?


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Um..actually no. I don't think it's all crazy woo. Sorry, that's not going to work on me. .



Your posts pretty much show the opposite.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well for starters, we have The Big Bang. There's no solid evidence for it; It's merely assumed because it fits the evidence we currently have based on our current understanding of the laws of physics and current state of the universe.
> 
> Since your lot is so fond of "The evidence for the bible wouldn't work in court" such evidence for the big bang wouldn't work either. We can't /assume/ that someone killed someone without surefire evidence. There'd be way more people wrongfully convicted if we could just merely assume things without conclusive evidence.
> 
> ...



You are suggesting that the physical laws of the universe have changed in order to make it appear that god didn't create it. That actually is crazy woo, though it has naught to do with your being male and everything to do with being too lazy to think how well 'all the evidence I killed him is false your honour, for the laws of nature changed in my bedroom on the 22nd of january,' really would hold up in court. 

You don't presume the laws of nature have changed in the absence of any proof that they even _can _to discredit a theory.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> "no solid evidence"
> "it fits the evidence we currently have"
> WAT
> 
> But alright. Before we talk about the big bang, could you sum up in one sentence what you think the big bang actually is?



Objection. 
I said "Evidence we currently have based on our current understanding of the laws of physics and the current state of the universe". I wouldn't say that's "Solid Evidence". 

Assuming the best guess can be dangerous, even in the precious field of science. "Suspect A killed the victim by shooting him" fits the evidence. Thus we accept that it's true and A is jailed. Except we just made a list of assumptions. We assume suspect B and C don't own guns, that there's no possible other suspects, that A has no alibi, A had motive and opportunity, and that the victim didn't shoot himself. But no, even with all of these assumptions and many more, "Suspect A shot the victim" is true because it's the best guess we have with the limited evidence we have. So tell me how Suspect A and the Big Bang are any different in this regard? 


Also Inignem, I said that in reference to science. I might disagree with the ideas, but I don't write off scientific explanations because they're "too difficult" or I "can't understand it" and proceed to believe in God. I've seen atheists do it with the bible though. I've seen a passage quote, they complain that it makes no sense, therefore the bible is bunk.



Fallowfox said:


> You are suggesting that the physical laws of the universe have changed in order to make it appear that god didn't create it. That actually is crazy woo, though it has naught to do with your being male and everything to do with being too lazy to think how well 'all the evidence I killed him is false your honour, for the laws of nature changed in my bedroom on the 22nd of january,' really would hold up in court.
> 
> You don't presume the laws of nature have changed in the absence of any proof that they even _can _to discredit a theory.



Actually, what I was saying was /our understanding/ of things. You're a scientist (or so I thought); you should be well familiar that new things we learn and encounter can change our perception of things. What I was saying wasn't that I'm suggesting the laws of the universe changed; I'm suggesting that our /understanding/ of the laws of the universe change based on new things we may discover and learn. 

Much like the probability that one is guilty of a crime changes as new evidence is discovered and submitted. It could turn out that new evidence and new things we learn and discover provide solid evidence of the big bang; or it could show that the evidence we thought was evidence for the big bang was really something else.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection.
> I said "Evidence we currently have based on our current understanding of the laws of physics and the current state of the universe". I wouldn't say that's "Solid Evidence".
> 
> Assuming the best guess can be dangerous, even in the precious field of science. "Suspect A killed the victim by shooting him" fits the evidence. Thus we accept that it's true and A is jailed. Except we just made a list of assumptions. We assume suspect B and C don't own guns, that there's no possible other suspects, that A has no alibi, A had motive and opportunity, and that the victim didn't shoot himself. But no, even with all of these assumptions and many more, "Suspect A shot the victim" is true because it's the best guess we have with the limited evidence we have. So tell me how Suspect A and the Big Bang are any different in this regard?
> ...



Heres some solid evidence of the big bang.

- Omnidirectional radiation. Explosions have the form of a sphere. We have registers of radioactive radiation from everywhere, implying that at least there was a big bang.
- Primordial helium - just google it
- Second law of themodinamics implies that the universe is expanding, implying that once it was alltogether.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 17, 2014)

...the big bang was not a 'spherical' explosion. The background radiation reflects the time when the universe cooled adiabatically to a sufficient extent that electrons could bond to protons and became transparent to photons. Physical models predict their wavelength should be similar to sunlight, but also that the universe has stretched since then, which is why these photons are now red-shifted into the microwave spectrum- which is consistent with the model.

@Nik, apologies- 'the universal law changes' is a common creationist argument and I mistook your comment for that. 

I would be very surprised if the laws of the universe we currently think are operative turn out to be so incorrect that they discount the big bang event, but if someone demonstrates it then I will change my mind. 

Until then I have no reason to do so.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> ...the big bang was not a 'spherical' explosion.



The big bang also wasn't an explosion. It didn't even bang. It just explains how space itself started to expand.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> @Nik, apologies- 'the universal law changes' is a common creationist argument and I mistook your comment for that.
> 
> I would be very surprised if the laws of the universe we currently think are operative turn out to be so incorrect that they discount the big bang event, but if someone demonstrates it then I will change my mind.
> 
> Until then I have no reason to do so.



Eh, no harm no foul then, I suppose. 

I don't really have an issue with people believing what they want to believe. You've a good reason, you see the evidence for something, or at least things that point in the direction of it, and it works for you. 

What I don't get is why people have to rip and tear and rend people who choose to believe in a God or something supernatural. To some it even seems like lots of online atheists even delight in "enlightening" someone and causing the destruction of personal and deeply held spiritual beliefs. 

Also, for this I'm just talking about people who believe on their own. Not the crazies who go out and hurt people or rob people of their rights. But then again...pretty much all groups have their share of crazies.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> ...the big bang was not a 'spherical' explosion. The background radiation reflects the time when the universe cooled adiabatically to a sufficient extent that electrons could bond to protons and became transparent to photons. Physical models predict their wavelength should be similar to sunlight, but also that the universe has stretched since then, which is why these photons are now red-shifted into the microwave spectrum- which is consistent with the model.
> 
> @Nik, apologies- 'the universal law changes' is a common creationist argument and I mistook your comment for that.
> 
> ...



Y R U wasting time in FA forums if you know all that?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Eh, no harm no foul then, I suppose.
> 
> I don't really have an issue with people believing what they want to believe. You've a good reason, you see the evidence for something, or at least things that point in the direction of it, and it works for you.
> 
> ...



If people want to block their ears to any criticism of a cherished belief that's their prerogative, and the existence of discussion online does not prohibit them from living under whatever rock they might select. 

I would suggest that beliefs should never be deeply held and personal- if I discovered that Lunar formation theory was substantially wrong I would not well up in existential tears, being unable to modify old beliefs without emotional conflict is not a good place to be in.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> If people want to block their ears to any criticism of a cherished belief that's their prerogative, and the existence of discussion online does not prohibit them from living under whatever rock they might select.
> 
> I would suggest that beliefs should never be deeply held and personal- if I discovered that Lunar formation theory was substantially wrong I would not well up in existential tears, being unable to modify old beliefs without emotional conflict is not a good place to be in.



Well, I find myself in a somewhat similar position then. Except of course, our main difference is that I choose to believe in the supernatural, despite their being little to no evidence for it. But even in that field, I don't close myself off. In fact the day that I began doubting Christianity I didn't end up breaking down, to me it seemed like a progression. Even though I did have to combat the good ol' fear of hell. 

That's kinda what I meant when I said earlier that my beliefs were "living" and "evolving". If I have some sort of spiritual revelation that shows me I was a tad off from something I thought about say, I dunno the afterlife then I'll see if it holds true and if so, I'll adapt it into my system, or some new scientific discovery shows that hey, other dimensions and planes don't exist, then I'll (eventually) adapt that into my system, and revise my perceptions of things based on that new discovery.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> our main difference is that *I choose to believe* in the supernatural



No, you don't choose. In fact, the next part of that sentence (that you have "little to no evidence") suggests that.
A rational person who would be able to choose what he or she believes in would not choose to believe in something that is not supported by evidence.
The reason why you believe in it is not based on a choice. It is based on your conviction that the supernatural exists. You have reasons to believe in it. It doesn't matter how irrational these reasons are (your comments suggest that it might come from a few misconceptions about science), they are what causes you to believe in supernatural stuff.

If it was truly a choice you could choose not to believe in it at any moment. Can you do that?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> No, you don't choose. In fact, the next part of that sentence (that you have "little to no evidence") suggests that.
> A rational person who would be able to choose what he or she believes in would not choose to believe in something that is not supported by evidence.
> The reason why you believe in it is not based on a choice. It is based on your conviction that the supernatural exists. You have reasons to believe in it. It doesn't matter how irrational these reasons are (your comments suggest that it might come from a few misconceptions about science), they are what causes you to believe in supernatural stuff.
> 
> If it was truly a choice you could choose not to believe in it at any moment. Can you do that?




A rational person wouldn't automatically dismiss the supernatural either. As long as it isn't eliminated as a possibility, it still has that chance, no matter how slim, of existing. 

Or as Holmes once put it, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth". And we're barring any examples here of someone playing "Moving the Goalposts" with their supernatural beliefs.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well, I find myself in a somewhat similar position then. Except of course, our main difference is that I choose to believe in the supernatural, despite their being little to no evidence for it. But even in that field, I don't close myself off. In fact the day that I began doubting Christianity I didn't end up breaking down, to me it seemed like a progression. Even though I did have to combat the good ol' fear of hell.
> 
> That's kinda what I meant when I said earlier that my beliefs were "living" and "evolving". If I have some sort of spiritual revelation that shows me I was a tad off from something I thought about say, I dunno the afterlife then I'll see if it holds true and if so, I'll adapt it into my system, or some new scientific discovery shows that hey, other dimensions and planes don't exist, then I'll (eventually) adapt that into my system, and revise my perceptions of things based on that new discovery.



Choosing to believe in the supernatural even when its clear it does not exist is childish.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 17, 2014)

Ok so if people don't choose to believe, then what's the point of even debating...? They're going to be set in their beliefs so why tell them that they're wrong?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> A rational person wouldn't automatically dismiss the supernatural either. As long as it isn't eliminated as a possibility, it still has that chance, no matter how slim, of existing.
> 
> Or as Holmes once put it, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth". And we're barring any examples here of someone playing "Moving the Goalposts" with their supernatural beliefs.



That is true. But if there is no evidence there is no rational reason to believe in it.
A rational person would also go one step further:
"Supernatural" means "above natural". So it is supposedly something that exists above nature or maybe rather outside of nature itself.
Nature is reality. Nature is essentially everything. Everything that exists is part of reality and therefore part of nature. If the supernatural exists it is therefore part of nature and if it is part of nature it is not supernatural.
Ergo: The supernatural does not exist since everything that does exist is already part of nature and therefore potentially scientifically explainable.



Aleu said:


> Ok so if people don't choose to believe, then what's the point of even debating...? They're going to be set in their beliefs so why tell them that they're wrong?



That part of the debate is indeed rather pointless. You can nudge people in the right direction but that's about it.
But when it comes to "evolution/abiogenesis vs. creationism" I think that is a very important debate because it influences what kids will learn in schools in certain states or countries.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Ok so if people don't choose to believe, then what's the point of even debating...? They're going to be set in their beliefs so why tell them that they're wrong?



Knowledge is not a belief.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Inignem said:


> Choosing to believe in the supernatural even when its clear it does not exist is childish.




Alright, you've been bluffing a large hand this whole time. It's time for you to show you're hand. I'm calling you on it. 


If it's so clear, then show me your hand and lay the cards on the table. 

And due to the above, "Supernatural" in this case meaning God, ghosts, et al. So explain why it wouldn't be a part of nature.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> And due to the above, "Supernatural" in this case meaning God, ghosts, et al. So explain why it wouldn't be a part of nature.



If they exist they _are_ part of nature and therefore not supernatural. And if they are part of nature they are explainable and there has to be proper evidence for their existence.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> If they exist they _are_ part of nature and therefore not supernatural. And if they are part of nature they are explainable and there has to be proper evidence for their existence.



Ok, so even with that line of reasoning, the challenge should be to show me proper evidence that says anything that we normally associate with the word "Supernatural" doesn't exist.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Alright, you've been bluffing a large hand this whole time. It's time for you to show you're hand. I'm calling you on it.
> 
> 
> If it's so clear, then show me your hand and lay the cards on the table.
> ...



This isnt  a game. If god exists we would have photos of him. We have photos and other registers of pretty much all what science claims.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Ok, so even with that line of reasoning, the challenge should be to show me proper evidence that says anything that we normally associate with the word "Supernatural" doesn't exist.



That's not how it works.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Ok, so even with that line of reasoning, the challenge should be to show me proper evidence that says anything that we normally associate with the word "Supernatural" doesn't exist.



Show me evidence that unicorns don't exist...

Also, that wasn't my point. My point was that what you think of as "supernatural" is actually part of nature and not outside of it simply because it (supposedly) does exist.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Inignem said:


> This isnt  a game. If god exists we would have photos of him. We have photos and other registers of pretty much all what science claims.



Or, it could just be a part of reality we haven't even touched base on yet. Years before, something like a laptop would appear to be something that wouldn't be real.

Then of course, you can ask questions like "What is 'reality' and how do you define it?" and things like "What makes something real or not?" 

And then there's the idea of things existing outside of reality. For all we know our reality could be like in the matrix, and another reality (The "Real World") exists outside it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Or, it could just be a part of reality we haven't even touched base on yet. Years before, something like a laptop would appear to be something that wouldn't be real.
> 
> Then of course, you can ask questions like "What is 'reality' and how do you define it?" and things like "What makes something real or not?"
> 
> And then there's the idea of things existing outside of reality. For all we know our reality could be like in the matrix, and another reality (The "Real World") exists outside it.



This is really just the "god of the gaps" argument again. Because by your logic god and the supernatural is just something we haven't discovered yet.
But we discover more and more things and a faster and faster pace, so what you think of as supernatural is just this pocket of ignorance that is getting smaller and smaller.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Or, it could just be a part of reality we haven't even touched base on yet. Years before, something like a laptop would appear to be something that wouldn't be real.
> 
> Then of course, you can ask questions like "What is 'reality' and how do you define it?" and things like "What makes something real or not?"
> 
> And then there's the idea of things existing outside of reality. For all we know our reality could be like in the matrix, and another reality (The "Real World") exists outside it.



The laptop was created by man applying physics and chemistry, lol.

If you think we are in the matrix or a similar situation, then you might have schizophrenia or, most probably, you are too scared to pic up a science book and learn how the world is about facts and not feelings.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> This is really just the "god of the gaps" argument again. Because by your logic god and the supernatural is just something we haven't discovered yet.
> But we discover more and more things and a faster and faster pace, so what you think of as supernatural is just this pocket of ignorance that is getting smaller and smaller.



You're the one making claims too. You claim the supernatural doesn't exist. That nature is all there is to reality. Despite that, I'm the one to provide the proof? I asked you to show me proof, no one did. And even still, somehow I'm magically using an argument I'm not even using. Or, is saying that the supernatural is undiscovered yet somehow saying "Goddidit"?



CaptainCool said:


> This is really just the "god of the gaps" argument again. Because by your logic god and the supernatural is just something we haven't discovered yet.
> But we discover more and more things and a faster and faster pace, so what you think of as supernatural is just this pocket of ignorance that is getting smaller and smaller.



You're the one making claims too. You claim the supernatural doesn't exist. That nature is all there is to reality. Despite that, I'm the one to provide the proof? I asked you to show me proof, no one did. And even still, somehow I'm magically using an argument I'm not even using. Or, is saying that the supernatural is undiscovered yet somehow saying "Goddidit"?

And Inignem, don't assume things about me. Because when I eventually prove you wrong, you're gonna look like a dumbass. 
You're talking to the guy who was so interested in finding out the truth behind things like the bible that, despite his fears, he went through with it anyways. Or did you miss the part where I said I had to overcome the good ol' fear of hell?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> You're the one making claims too. You claim the supernatural doesn't exist. That nature is all there is to reality. Despite that, I'm the one to provide the proof? I asked you to show me proof, no one did. And even still, somehow I'm magically using an argument I'm not even using. Or, is saying that the supernatural is undiscovered yet somehow saying "Goddidit"?



I'm not really a claim here, I am just looking at it from a logical point of view.
If something is _real_ (as in it exists) it's part of _real_ity. So I don't really see where I am making a claim here. I'm not saying that the supernatural doesn't exist, I'm just saying that I think you are looking at it from the wrong angle.


----------



## Machine (Feb 17, 2014)

Inignem said:


> The laptop was created by man applying physics and chemistry, lol.
> 
> If you think we are in the matrix or a similar situation, then you might have schizophrenia or, most probably, you are too scared to pic up a science book and learn how the world is about facts and not feelings.


You should try not being a dick.

You're just making atheists look like a bunch of fucking retards spawned from Reddit.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> This is really just the "god of the gaps" argument again. Because by your logic god and the supernatural is just something we haven't discovered yet.
> But we discover more and more things and a faster and faster pace, so what you think of as supernatural is just this pocket of ignorance that is getting smaller and smaller.



Screw this rhetorical debate. There is no evidence of god or gods interventions. Point. 

If someday creationist scientists (oxymoron) manage to show up authentic evidence of gods existence instead of all this boring rhetoric, then they will win. Otherwise, pics or it never happened!


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> That is true. But if there is no evidence there is no rational reason to believe in it.
> A rational person would also go one step further:
> "Supernatural" means "above natural". So it is supposedly something that exists above nature or maybe rather outside of nature itself.
> Nature is reality. Nature is essentially everything. Everything that exists is part of reality and therefore part of nature. If the supernatural exists it is therefore part of nature and if it is part of nature it is not supernatural.



I call that a claim.



Inignem said:


> Screw this rhetorical debate. There is no evidence of god or gods interventions. Point.
> 
> If someday creationist scientists (oxymoron) manage to show up authentic evidence of gods existence instead of all this boring rhetoric, then they will win. Otherwise, pics or it never happened!



And you have no evidence that disproves god. Point!

See it works both ways dear.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I call that a claim.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Burden of proof doesn't lie with someone saying something doesn't exist. You have to prove something DOES exist. Because honestly, how in the hell can you prove unicorns *don't *exist? (Example)
You can't. All you can say is "there is no proof that unicorns exist".
Now if someone comes in and says "NUH UH THEY DO EXIST", you have to prove that they DO. You can't prove a nonexistence.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Burden of proof doesn't lie with someone saying something doesn't exist. You have to prove something DOES exist. Because honestly, how in the hell can you prove unicorns *don't *exist? (Example)
> You can't. All you can say is "there is no proof that unicorns exist".
> Now if someone comes in and says "NUH UH THEY DO EXIST", you have to prove that they DO. You can't prove a nonexistence.



Honestly with that last one I was more or less joking around. 

But Cool did claim that nature is reality. So I'm saying that yes, he did make a claim.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Honestly with that last one I was more or less joking around.
> 
> But Cool did claim that nature is reality. So I'm saying that yes, he did make a claim.



Because nature is reality? Go outside. Look around you. Nature. Boom, reality.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Honestly with that last one I was more or less joking around.
> 
> But Cool did claim that nature is reality. So I'm saying that yes, he did make a claim.



Are you implying that nature isn't real?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Because nature is reality? Go outside. Look around you. Nature. Boom, reality.



Allow me to get philosophical. 

"What is real? How do you define real? If real is what you can taste, touch, see, taste and smell then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

Also, you're kinda changing the definition (or what little definition was set). By cool's definition, "Nature is reality" means nature is synonymous with reality, a claim which inherently implies the supernatural is unreal. 

Where as your definition means that nature is a part of reality (which as you pointed out, is hard to contest, and I don't disagree with). It's akin to saying a square is a rectangle.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Allow me to get philosophical.
> 
> "What is real? How do you define real? If real is what you can taste, touch, see, taste and smell then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
> 
> ...



I am not a very philosophical person. There is a glass soda bottle on my table. I can touch it, I could smash it and stab someone with it. That sounds very real to me.

Here is what I don't get about your concept of reality:
Let's just assume that ghosts are real for this one. I rarely go there but let's just do it... "Supernatural" means "above nature". How can something be "above nature"? What does that mean and what consequences does it have?
Because my was of thinking is that if it exists it IS part of nature and not above it.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 17, 2014)

Supernatural is basically beyond the laws of nature. Hence the words "SUPER" and "NATURAL"


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 17, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I am not a very philosophical person. There is a glass soda bottle on my table. I can touch it, I could smash it and stab someone with it. That sounds very real to me.
> 
> Here is what I don't get about your concept of reality:
> Let's just assume that ghosts are real for this one. I rarely go there but let's just do it... "Supernatural" means "above nature". How can something be "above nature"? What does that mean and what consequences does it have?
> Because my was of thinking is that if it exists it IS part of nature and not above it.



Well I'd love to entertain you with how it works but...I've actually no idea. Even with my own experiences (yes I know, they're "Not evidence") I don't know how they work. I just roll with it. Though I'd like to know. Even thought others tell me to just not worry and enjoy it while it lasts. 

However, a big difference between us is that I'm open to the idea that there could be another plane of reality, or things that exist outside of reality, whereas you're closed to that idea.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 17, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Supernatural is basically beyond the laws of nature. Hence the words "SUPER" and "NATURAL"



If it is beyond the laws of nature it is beyond our ability to explain it.
To me that just sounds like a more comfortable way of saying "I don't know how it works"...


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> See it works both ways dear.



Floatingteapotfallacy.jpg

try harder.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 17, 2014)

Since this has been going downhill for the last page and a bit, may I remind everyone of our 4th rule, "be civil".


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> A rational person wouldn't automatically dismiss the supernatural either. As long as it isn't eliminated as a possibility, it still has that chance, no matter how slim, of existing.
> 
> Or as Holmes once put it, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth". And we're barring any examples here of someone playing "Moving the Goalposts" with their supernatural beliefs.



Actually rationality is all about skepticism. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable we cannot prove it wrong, however ridiculous it is. If we reject it we risk being wrong, but may be corrected later. If we accept it we risk being wrong and will never have any chance of being corrected. 

Ergo we dismiss the supernatural because it is not falsifiable.


----------



## Inignem (Feb 17, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Ergo we dismiss the supernatural because it is not falsifiable.



Clearer than water.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> This is really just the "god of the gaps" argument again. Because by your logic god and the supernatural is just something we haven't discovered yet.
> But we discover more and more things and a faster and faster pace, so what you think of as supernatural is just this pocket of ignorance that is getting smaller and smaller.



There's one thing that I've been wondering here. And I kinda addressed it when I said "You're claiming I'm making a claim I'm not even making", and that's how in the heck is what I said "God of the Gaps"? Isn't GotG when someone says that the unexplained or gaps in science are evidence of God? That the unknown or unexplainable is because of God, something along those lines? Because everywhere I've been reading, that's the vibe I've been getting from it. 

Conversely, what I'm REALLY saying is that things like say, ESP, could just be a branch of science that we haven't explored. I'm not saying that the unknown or strange occurrences that we can't explain are automatic evidence for ESP (Though there are strange occurrences that do make a bunny wonder), I'm saying that we could end up discovering that hey, ESP is another science, so to speak. 

Heck maybe it's like Guilty Gear and we'll discover a new source of energy that enables powers. That's what "Magic" in that series is, if I recall correctly.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> There's one thing that I've been wondering here. And I kinda addressed it when I said "You're claiming I'm making a claim I'm not even making", and that's how in the heck is what I said "God of the Gaps"? Isn't GotG when someone says that the unexplained or gaps in science are evidence of God? That the unknown or unexplainable is because of God, something along those lines? Because everywhere I've been reading, that's the vibe I've been getting from it.
> 
> Conversely, what I'm REALLY saying is that things like say, ESP, could just be a branch of science that we haven't explored. I'm not saying that the unknown or strange occurrences that we can't explain are automatic evidence for ESP (Though there are strange occurrences that do make a bunny wonder), I'm saying that we could end up discovering that hey, ESP is another science, so to speak.
> 
> Heck maybe it's like Guilty Gear and we'll discover a new source of energy that enables powers. That's what "Magic" in that series is, if I recall correctly.



Gotta show us that it works and how it works. Until then 'meh'.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 18, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Gotta show us that it works and how it works. Until then 'meh'.



Which is understandable. I'm just wondering how what I said was "god of the gaps".


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Which is understandable. I'm just wondering how what I said was "god of the gaps".



You erred along the lines of 'absense of evidence is not evidence of absense', and implied that God may yet be found in some uncharted field, as if this makes the idea of a deity any more credible or removes grounds to dismiss God. 

This is a weak god of the gaps argument.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Or, it could just be a part of reality we haven't even touched base on yet. Years before, something like a laptop would appear to be something that wouldn't be real..



Right here, that is your god of the gaps argument.
First you said that the supernatural may be something that we have yet to discover or yet to explain. But we discover and explain things every day, so that pocket of ignorance is getting smaller.
Then you mentioned the laptop and how in the past  no one would have thought technology of that would be possible. But it is now.

The god of the gaps argument is essentially about our change of knowledge and how something that is yet to be explained may be god, or the supernatural in general. And as I said, by that logic the supernatural really is just a pocket of ignorance that is constantly getting smaller.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 18, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> You erred along the lines of 'absense of evidence is not evidence of absense', and implied that God may yet be found in some uncharted field, as if this makes the idea of a deity any more credible or removes grounds to dismiss God.
> 
> This is a weak god of the gaps argument.



Well here's the thing. No evidence therefore God exists is equally as fallicious as no evidence therefore God doesn't exist. Both are examples of an appeal to ignorance. Which is what I was trying to get at when I reversed Inignem's argument and said "It works both ways". And yet, apparently pointing out that people here are making an appeal to ignorance is making a "God of the gaps" argument which is inhereitly fallacious. With the idea that God or ESP could be an unexplanied science, there does also exist the possibility that God or ESP isn't an unexplained science, and simply doesn't exist. 

You are making the claim here (and others as well) formally and repeatedly, that God does not exist. I'll admit I have no "Valid" evidence for my side if you admit your side has no "valid" evidence either. Because both statements are equally fallacious.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well here's the thing. No evidence therefore God exists is equally as fallicious as no evidence therefore God doesn't exist. Both are examples of an appeal to ignorance. Which is what I was trying to get at when I reversed Inignem's argument and said "It works both ways". And yet, apparently pointing out that people here are making an appeal to ignorance is making a "God of the gaps" argument which is inhereitly fallacious. With the idea that God or ESP could be an unexplanied science, there does also exist the possibility that God or ESP isn't an unexplained science, and simply doesn't exist.
> 
> You are making the claim here (and others as well) formally and repeatedly, that God does not exist. I'll admit I have no "Valid" evidence for my side if you admit your side has no "valid" evidence either. Because both statements are equally fallacious.



No they aren't, and if you think they are you do not appreciate what 'skepticism' means. 

'no evidence therefore pixies exist is equally as fallacious as no evidence therefore  no pixies,'

We actually say 'we're not buying pixies until evidence is proposed', otherwise we'd end up thinking bullshit was plausible.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 18, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> No they aren't, and if you think they are you do not appreciate what 'skepticism' means.
> 
> 'no evidence therefore pixies exist is equally as fallacious as no evidence therefore  no pixies,'
> 
> We actually say 'we're not buying pixies until evidence is proposed', otherwise we'd end up thinking bullshit was plausible.



Huh. So is that what literally dozens of atheists say when they go "Why believe in God, since there's not a shred of evidence for it?" In reality they're saying "Oh, well we won't believe in God until you propose evidence".

That's just playing word semantics. To me that's like trying to say reverse racism is different from racism.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Huh. So is that what literally dozens of atheists say when they go "Why believe in God, since there's not a shred of evidence for it?" In reality they're saying "Oh, well we won't believe in God until you propose evidence".
> 
> That's just playing word semantics. To me that's like trying to say reverse racism is different from racism.



It's not word semantics. It's a vital constituent skepticism and the scientific process. In science unfalsifiable hypotheses are rejected until positive proof emerges, because this is literally the only way to ensure you will _eventually _get the right answer.

We do not sit around saying 'hmmm, psychic abilities that only exist outside of experimental conditions,'.


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

Woah -- I'm a bit surprised at the results, really (o -o)

Of all the underground cultures out there, I though furries would be at least some-what 'believers' is things that cannot be entirely proven by science. Unless, of course, this pool us purely based on Christianity; since I've met loads of people who claim to be atheists just because defending the existence of 'god' gets harder and harder every day. 

Here is thought: 
We believe we understand reality. What's out there -- everywhere. Even the things we do not understand, we accept them to exist. Seeing is believing. 

Now, how can we (or could our ancestors)  possibly understand such complex ideas ideas  as 'omniscience' 'omnipotent' even the word 'perfect'? If we look back with a keen eye, there are just some things in our lores, folklore and history that are extremely hard to comprehend...! 

Need evidence? Look at nature ( Let's involce the space too) ... There, we see and understand what infinite is. Nothing that we have 'seen' is infinite, but we understand and accept it's existence. If you agree with me so far, then you need no more evidence to 'prove' the existence of  'it' or 'him' or 'her' or whatever it is that you choose to name it. Energy, creation -- luck... it is all linked to a single something or someone that exists within us. Something that we, as rational and intelligent beings, are starting to get a grasp of. 

I will say that I'm not a fanatic of any religion, church or belief, but I respect all of them. And if you look closely, there is some-sort of relation to it from all of them. I would say that I have some sort of... spiritual belief. One that can and will be put to the test everyday, perhaps throughout my entire life. Hold on to your faith, people. Chances are that's all we will take when we pass on...


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> Woah -- I'm a bit surprised at the results, really (o -o)
> 
> Of all the underground cultures out there, I though furries would be at least some-what 'believers' is things that cannot be entirely proven by science. Unless, of course, this pool us purely based on Christianity; since I've met loads of people who claim to be atheists just because defending the existence of 'god' gets harder and harder every day.
> 
> ...



What do you mean with "entirely proven by science"? Are you suggesting that evolution is not supported by evidence?
Personally I like the result of the poll. It tells me that most people here are rational and prefer logic and reason over things that may be.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 18, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> It's not word semantics. It's a vital constituent skepticism and the scientific process. In science unfalsifiable hypotheses are rejected until positive proof emerges, because this is literally the only way to ensure you will _eventually _get the right answer.
> 
> We do not sit around saying 'hmmm, psychic abilities that only exist outside of experimental conditions,'.



Well then, we can say that according to science, we do not, as of now, have evidence that things like ESP exist. So for the time being, we could hold such ideas as unfalsifiable. 

But ah, who's to say that we'll never encounter evidence for it?



CaptainCool said:


> What do you mean with "entirely proven by science"? Are you suggesting that evolution is not supported by evidence?
> Personally I like the result of the poll. It tells me that most people here are rational and prefer logic and reason over things that may be.



Or it could be the result of Group think. Maybe also because it shows WHO voted for what, people didn't want to vote and be judged over it. Until we have EVERY member come on here and vote, I wouldn't say we can hold that as conclusive.

Also, all this says is that people believe in evolution. Me thinks you look at data that says "More people becoming atheist" and go "Thank GOD! Rationality!" Sure people may believe in evolution, but does that mean they don't believe in the supernatural?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well then, we can say that according to science, we do not, as of now, have evidence that things like ESP exist. So for the time being, we could hold such ideas as unfalsifiable.
> 
> But ah, who's to say that we'll never encounter evidence for it?
> 
> ...



Personally I believe ESPs are nonsense because so far every example for it has been debunked.

Over 100 people voted and one side dominates all other options. So I think we can see the poll as representative for this community.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Personally I believe ESPs are nonsense because so far every example for it has been debunked.



Debunked _so far_â€‹.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2014)

I really don't know what to think of this thread anymore unless I hit myself over a brick. Other than that, it is pretty much arguing in circles with a little bit of Science Rock and Bill Nye in the mix.

Speaking of...


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well then, we can say that according to science, we do not, as of now, have evidence that things like ESP exist. So for the time being, we could hold such ideas as unfalsifiable.
> 
> But ah, who's to say that we'll never encounter evidence for it?
> 
> ...



If evidence is encountered that is the moment I shall change my mind. Simple as.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Debunked _so far_â€‹.



There is no evidence for it and every single example for it has been debunked and yet you still believe in it? Do you have some supernatural power? Maybe you might want to have a word with James Randi^^


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> What do you mean with "entirely proven by science"? Are you suggesting that evolution is not supported by evidence?
> Personally I like the result of the poll. It tells me that most people here are rational and prefer logic and reason over things that may be.



Well, I think that if people begin to stand back and try to ignore the complexity behind the works of our past, nature and life... we're heading in the wrong direction. . . How long until ethics and morale is replaced by induction and programming...? If.. it hasn't already started... D:


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> There is no evidence for it and every single example for it has been debunked and yet you still believe in it? Do you have some supernatural power? Maybe you might want to have a word with James Randi^^



I'd say I'm a bunny who believes in infinite possibilities.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> Well, I think that if people begin to stand back and try to ignore the complexity behind the works of our past, nature and life... we're heading in the wrong direction. . . How long until ethics and morale is replaced by induction and programming...? If.. it hasn't already started... D:



What does complexity have to do with anything?



Nikolinni said:


> I'd say I'm a bunny who believes in infinite possibilities.



And while doing that you also believe in things that you simply shouldn't believe in. It distracts from those things that actually are worth believing in.

Believe in it once it's proven so you don't risk being wrong. Because believing something and being wrong is bad, it takes a lot of time and effort to get a way from it then.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 18, 2014)

Can we just get this out of the way? There's no such thing as a psychic. Just like there are no unicorns, no magic wands and no Harry potter.



Leinad Obtrebla said:


> Woah -- I'm a bit surprised at the results, really (o -o)
> 
> Of all the underground cultures out there, I though furries would be at  least some-what 'believers' is things that cannot be entirely proven by  science. Unless, of course, this pool us purely based on Christianity;  since I've met loads of people who claim to be atheists just because  defending the existence of 'god' gets harder and harder every day.
> 
> ...




This is beyond incoherent...


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> What does complexity have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ask me how many weeks it took me to get over Christianity.



Fallowfox said:


> Can we just get this out of the way? There's no such thing as a psychic. Just like there are no unicorns, no magic wands and no Harry potter.



Maybe not to you.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> Well, I think that if people begin to stand back and try to ignore the complexity behind the works of our past, nature and life... we're heading in the wrong direction. . . How long until ethics and morale is replaced by induction and programming...? If.. it hasn't already started... D:



...
What?

What makes us different than the rest of the other animals on this big hunk of rock is the ability to use our rationale to discovr new things, innovations, and problem solving. If we stop trying to dig up our past, then we are bound to repeat it, like now where people still live with a superstitious mindset to understand how bacteria can become immune to antibiotics. 

As a Buddhist, ignorance is a sin, and I refuse to put my pot into ignorance.




Fallowfox said:


> Can we just get this out of the way? There's no such thing as a psychic. Just like there are no unicorns, no magic wands and no Harry potter.



Thank you for ruining my life long dream of joining Hogwarts, you ass. >:V


----------



## Lobar (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Huh. So is that what literally dozens of atheists say when they go "Why believe in God, since there's not a shred of evidence for it?" In reality they're saying "Oh, well we won't believe in God until you propose evidence".
> 
> That's just playing word semantics. To me that's like trying to say reverse racism is different from racism.



this unironically because reverse racism isn't a thing :V


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Can we just get this out of the way? There's no such thing as a psychic. Just like there are no unicorns, no magic wands and no Harry potter.
> 
> No, there are not. But why did someone came up with those ideas then? Dreams? Fantasies? Insanity? Trying to tell a story? All I'm asking is for people to think about the origin of things -- or everything~
> 
> ...



Aaaaand that's the easy way out. 

Seriously though. Have you guys put YOUR own thought into this so called 'rationality' -- or did you guys just read a bunch of articles here and there and got your selves convinced that science is on top of the self and soul? Seek the truth! 

Science can be a dangerous, shady thing sometimes. Some believe global warming is B.S. while some others defend to death that we're slowly destroying ourselves. O noes!


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Ask me how many weeks it took me to get over Christianity.
> 
> Maybe not to you.



If it isn't too personal for you to answer I would like to know that.

Do you have an example for an existing psychic? Or examples for psychic powers?

I still think this is a GREAT example why people believe in powers like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5myT93yRjs


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Maybe not to you.


I've seen this discussed here multiple times before. Just because you believe something exists doesn't make it ~actually~ exist.

The fact that we're typing on a forum, for example, is an "objective" truth:



> Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings



(The existence of) Magic wands, unicorns, ect are not objective truths. They ~are~ subject to one's own biases and feelings. Please stop mixing up this kind of ""truth"" with fact.


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> ...
> What?
> 
> What makes us different than the rest of the other animals on this big hunk of rock is the ability to use our rationale to discovr new things, innovations, and problem solving. If we stop trying to dig up our past, then we are bound to repeat it, like now where people still live with a superstitious mindset to understand how bacteria can become immune to antibiotics.
> ...



That's exactly what I meant to say in my previous post! Buddhism is just another school of thought that is meant to  guide us to both discovery of ourselves and the world around us. Teachings that shouldn't be diminished by 'science'.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> Aaaaand that's the easy way out.
> 
> Seriously though. Have you guys put YOUR own thought into this so called 'rationality' -- or did you guys just read a bunch of articles here and there and got your selves convinced that science is on top of the self and soul? Seek the truth!
> 
> Science can be a dangerous, shady thing sometimes. Some believe global warming is B.S. while some others defend to death that we're slowly destroying ourselves. O noes!



Anthropogenic climate change isn't a controversy in science; there's a scientific consensus it is happening. The debate is amongst the general public, who generally have a poor understanding of science, may not even know what science means and think that using words like 'soul' means they are truth-seekers.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> That's exactly what I meant to say in my previous post! Buddhism is just another school of thought that is meant to  guide us to both discovery of ourselves and the world around us. Teachings that shouldn't be diminished by 'science'.



But that has nothing to do with religion or supernatural hogwash. It's just a philosophy and it depends on how well you actually do observe the world around you.


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Anthropogenic climate change isn't a controversy in science; there's a scientific consensus it is happening. The debate is amongst the general public, who generally have a poor understanding of science, may not even know what science means and think that using words like 'soul' means they are truth-seekers.



People no longer use the word 'soul' nor are truth-seekers, for they have been put down by science. Ironically, that's just what happened in the past with religion. The tables have turned, and now they want to eliminate the 'soul' from the being due to years and years of religious oppression... I understand. :/ 

Fallow, what you are saying ,and how you say it, sounds like you are just repeating what is being told by the current media. . . Is my previous argument incoherent? Read about Rene Descartes. Next you're saying that the study of general and fundamental problems and issues of the world is not worth looking into D:


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> That's exactly what I meant to say in my previous post! Buddhism is just another school of thought that is meant to  guide us to both discovery of ourselves and the world around us. Teachings that shouldn't be diminished by 'science'.



No you didn't.

Buddha always stated that don't put all your eggs into blind faith and always look to other things for knowledge and discovery. Science is a part of that knowledge to discover how things works and wonders it may hold. There's no magic, no psychic, just understanding how something works by looking deeper into it.

Besides, if you came into the Earth Science lab and spouted heebie jeebie nonsense to get out of your labwork instead of doing the experiement, you wouldn't do too well.


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> But that has nothing to do with religion or supernatural hogwash. It's just a philosophy and it depends on how well you actually do observe the world around you.



I did not said a thing about 'supernatural'....
....and religions are ALSO schools of thought. They are meant to make you think -- to grow as a being. But it is no lie that religion has been abused of in order to manipulate and controls others...


----------



## Distorted (Feb 18, 2014)

As much as I love the concepts of magic and souls and the like, I have to admit that it's rather archaic. Pretty romantic and interesting, but not really practical. You can still learn about just don't treat as the one and only truth. Science tells us a lot more about things than those other forms of thought.



Leinad Obtrebla said:


> I did not said a thing about 'supernatural'....
> ....and religions are ALSO schools of thought. They are meant to make  you think -- to grow as a being. But it is no lie that religion has been  abused of in order to manipulate and controls others...



I think the fact that religion is susceptible to that kind of corruption makes it less likely to be held credible.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> I did not said a thing about 'supernatural'....
> ....and religions are ALSO schools of thought. They are meant to make you think -- to grow as a being. But it is no lie that religion has been abused of in order to manipulate and controls others...



But that's what this discussion is about. Whether you should believe in things that are explained through logic and reason or in the supernatural.

Religion has nothing to do with thinking. If it did no one would be religious because everyone would realize that it makes no damn sense at all.


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> No you didn't.
> 
> Buddha always stated that don't put all your eggs into blind faith and always look to other things for knowledge and discovery. Science is a part of that knowledge to discover how things works and wonders it may hold. There's no magic, no psychic, just understanding how something works by looking deeper into it.
> 
> Besides, if you came into the Earth Science lab and spouted heebie jeebie nonsense to get out of your labwork instead of doing the experiement, you wouldn't do too well.



I never said in my post I denied science. In fact -- I voted for 'Both, but evolution dominant' -- Science and experimentation have also been part of our past. Hell, they are our past! And no. I wouldn't walk into a 'Earth Science lab' and say such thing. But you seem to know about the topic, so do I -- How does this giant piece of rock regulates it's own temperature? It's fairly complicated. nature is complicated. Science helps us to understand it, but it is not enough to even begin to comprehend what really lies in the core of such mechanism... and I'm not saying it's an invisible man, but it sure has to be 'something' -- and that something that I believe that it exists is what will lead me to scientific discovery. A discovery that can only be achieved with the aid of curiosity. And who or what gifted us with this 'ability'?


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> But that's what this discussion is about. Whether you should believe in things that are explained through logic and reason or in the supernatural.
> 
> Religion has nothing to do with thinking. If it did no one would be religious because everyone would realize that it makes no damn sense at all.



It does; depending on how you approach it. If you read the bible -- or just a fragment of it -- you'd see that it can somehow be applied to today's word. For it is a food for thought, NOT to be taken as a reality on it's entirely. The bible can be reduced in just one word; Love. Problem is nobody practices it -- for it's meaning has been altered throughout the centuries Dx


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> I never said in my post I denied science. In fact -- I voted for 'Both, but evolution dominant' -- Science and experimentation have also been part of our past. Hell, they are our past! And no. I wouldn't walk into a 'Earth Science lab' and say such thing. But you seem to know about the topic, so do I -- How does this giant piece of rock regulates it's own temperature? It's fairly complicated. nature is complicated. Science helps us to understand it, but it is not enough to even begin to comprehend what really lies in the core of such mechanism... and I'm not saying it's an invisible man, but it sure has to be 'something' -- and that something that I believe that it exists is what will lead me to scientific discovery. A discovery that can only be achieved with the aid of curiosity. And who or what gifted us with this 'ability'?



Didn't you know, the Invisible pink Unicorn named Medina that lives in the core of the sun gave you that intelligence. :V
What lives at our core? It is the Great Old one Tsathoggua. :V

The fact that we've done seismic tests gives us a general formulation of what our core is, how plate tectonics work, what is the oldest plate on this planet, and which ones are the most active.

There is nothing supernatural that rules us, just nature. One thing i agree with you is that nature is a complicated thing, but that doesn't mean we can't sit down and look at how a caterpillar turns into a monarch butterfly.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> It does; depending on how you approach it. If you read the bible -- or just a fragment of it -- you'd see that it can somehow be applied to today's word. For it is a food for thought, NOT to be taken as a reality on it's entirely. The bible can be reduced in just one word; Love. Problem is nobody practices it -- for it's meaning has been altered throughout the centuries Dx



Saying that the bible is about love is an insult to humanity. Slavery, homophobia and murder have nothing to do with love.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Saying that the bible is about love is an insult to humanity. Slavery, homophobia and murder have nothing to do with love.



Because I clearly remember Christ advocating Slavery. Oh, no I don't. 

I remember clearly Christ advocating homophobia. Oh wait, no I don't. 

I clearly remember him advocating murder. Oh wait NO I DON'T.

I realized that the above has only to do with a tiny part of the bible. Still, aside from that infamous Leviticus verse, there isn't -that much- homophobia in the bible compared to everything else. Slavery and murder we've been over dozens and dozens of times. Slavery in the bible, at least the type advocated by God, is more or less indentured servitude. Murder depends on one's set of laws and rules. Murder is the unjust killing; Killing is just killing. 

Besides, wasn't one of the commandments "You shall not murder"? (Mistranslated in the KJV as thou shalt not kill).


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Because I clearly remember Christ advocating Slavery. Oh, no I don't.
> 
> I remember clearly Christ advocating homophobia. Oh wait, no I don't.
> 
> ...



Jesus did not advocate slavery, that is riOH WAIT HOLD ON! 
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."  Ephesians 6:5
And "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it." Luke 12:47

"Slavery in the bible, at least the type advocated by God, is more or less indentured servitude."
Owning another human being like property is and always will be morally unacceptable. People are not property, no matter how you look at it.

Yes, one of the commandments was not to kill people. So why did god itself then break that law by making humans kill others?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Jesus did not advocate slavery, that is riOH WAIT HOLD ON!
> "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."  Ephesians 6:5
> And "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it." Luke 12:47
> 
> ...



Objection. I said "murder" not "kill". I even _explained it for you_. Also, Ephesians was _Written by Paul, not Jesus_. Also soon after that verse we get Ephesians 6:9 which reads: "Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master[d] and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him."

Three problems with Luke. 
1. It's a parable. A story. If you'd, y'know actually _read it instead of searching "slavery in the bible" on google_. Therefore, you can't interpret it literally. Strike one. 

2. So you're saying you don't support disciplining bad workers? Strike two. 

3. Said servant is guilty of mistreating his own servants. Strike three. You're out!

If you actually read that chapter, you'd easily be able to see that. But alas, in your haste to prove me wrong, you clearly Didn't Do the Research.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> I never said in my post I denied science. In fact -- I voted for 'Both, but evolution dominant' -- Science and experimentation have also been part of our past. Hell, they are our past! And no. I wouldn't walk into a 'Earth Science lab' and say such thing. But you seem to know about the topic, so do I -- How does this giant piece of rock regulates it's own temperature? It's fairly complicated. nature is complicated. Science helps us to understand it, but it is not enough to even begin to comprehend what really lies in the core of such mechanism... and I'm not saying it's an invisible man, but it sure has to be 'something' -- and that something that I believe that it exists is what will lead me to scientific discovery. A discovery that can only be achieved with the aid of curiosity. And who or what gifted us with this 'ability'?



I still do not see your point. Could you express it explicitly? 

The fact curiosity exists does not beg the question 'is their a creator?'. It can only beg the question 'why is their curiosity', to which the best current answer is that it's an evolved trait that, in the right measures, aids the survival of some animals.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Jesus did not advocate slavery, that is riOH WAIT HOLD ON!
> "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."  Ephesians 6:5
> And "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it." Luke 12:47
> 
> ...



Because the Bible is a reliable source for information on Jesus. Did you know up until the 15th century it taught about reincarnation? It's been rewritten more times than a tumblr fanfiction.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 18, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Because the Bible is a reliable source for information on Jesus. Did you know up until the 15th century it taught about reincarnation? It's been rewritten more times than a tumblr fanfiction.



And they recently found out that the camels that are being described in it where domestecated hundreds of years after the events supposedly happened.
It's a fairy tale. It's unreliable, it's morally questionable, it's irrelevant. Heck, I am not even convinced that Jesus ever existed...


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Saying that the bible is about love is an insult to humanity. Slavery, homophobia and murder have nothing to do with love.



Love is the core of the bible. There are many mean things that I cannot begin to explain to you unless you study Christian catechism. There are many examples of love thy neighbour and such, but here's one to make you think: 

Abram was told to sacrifice his son in the name of god for doubting of his existence. Love for an invisible being -- love for a religion. A love bigger than a father's love, that's what the bible says. Is it a morale thing to do? Would you do something similar -- give something precious and than you love -- for something greater? (Heads-up, I'm trying to trick you) 





Ozriel said:


> Didn't you know, the Invisible pink Unicorn named Medina that lives in the core of the sun gave you that intelligence. :V
> What lives at our core? It is the Great Old one Tsathoggua. :V
> 
> The fact that we've done seismic tests gives us a general formulation of what our core is, how plate tectonics work, what is the oldest plate on this planet, and which ones are the most active.
> ...



Funny, how you are more right in your sarcastic approach than your actual argument  

The sun provides the energy to the planet. That energy is absorbed AND reflected by the land, especially the snow. The energy that is reflected is no longer UV rays -- it is transformed into sensitive waves or infra-red. The Ozone layer traps this new heat, and thus, the earth temperature rises. However, by the use of wind, the earth manages to cool down itself. Starting by the ones coming from the Polar cell, to the Ferrel Cell and lastly the Hadly cell. This is known as the Coriolis effect. I've studied Environmental science, and no -- I did not get kicked out of class when I debated with the professor about the possible existence of Gaia, given how much the Earth seems to have a 'conscience' sometimes. 

He applied the scientific method on it. We both concluded on something that we could not know, for there is no evidence to prove there IS a Gaia, or there isn't 



> I still do not see your point. Could you express it explicitly?
> 
> The fact curiosity exists does not beg the question 'is their a creator?'. It can only beg the question 'why is their curiosity', to which the best current answer is that it's an evolved trait that, in the right measures, aids the survival of some animals.



I agree on the evolution trait bit. But survival, really? 
I believe once our ancestors learned how to kill Mammoths is when this whole 'thinking' process began. Palaeolithic cave paintings ... music... folklore and all that began. Stories. Such as religion! 
Muslims are forbidden to eat pork. You know why the Quran says it so? Because the desert is an arid place with limited resources, and pigs cannot be moved in large distances. So farming these animals required some sort of settlement, one that was likely to make them slob and weak... so it was used for teaching. 


All in all fellas, I think that everything falls to the principles of Teleology. There is no proof that a 'god' exists. There is no proof that a 'god' does not exist. (Please check the papers on Teology before saying something like 'Evolution!") So I think it's as simple as letting people choose. What irks me is to see people trying to shove down those with a little faith or belief left. Do so if those jackasses are trying to hijack a plane.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Heck, I am not even convinced that Jesus ever existed...



Now this is just silly. There are records of *a* Jesus being crucified around that time. If anything he could've been a prophet just like Muhammed only suffering from delusions of grandeur.

"Muslims are forbidden to eat pork. You know why the Quran says it so?  Because the desert is an arid place with limited resources, and pigs  cannot be moved in large distances. So farming these animals required  some sort of settlement, one that was likely to make them slob and  weak... so it was used for teaching. "

Actually, like the Jews, it was because of the health/cleanliness factor. It's the same with shrimp. Of course now it doesn't apply because we can cook things properly.


----------



## Conker (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> Abram was told to sacrifice his son in the name of god for doubting of his existence. Love for an invisible being -- love for a religion. A love bigger than a father's love, that's what the bible says. Is it a morale thing to do? Would you do something similar -- give something precious and than you love -- for something greater? (Heads-up, I'm trying to trick you)


That's really a terrible example. What kind of loving God would even ask that of someone, trick or otherwise? It's absolutely deranged. 

It's just more proof that the Christian God, at least in the Old Testament, was petulant and insecure. "PROVE YOU LOVE ME! DO IT DO IT DO IT!" 

Of course, the other way to do the Abraham story is, "the voices in my head are telling me to kill my son" which is what it all amounts to. Evidently his voices had multiple personality disorder.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 18, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> And they recently found out that the camels that are being described in it where domestecated hundreds of years after the events supposedly happened.
> It's a fairy tale. It's unreliable, it's morally questionable, it's irrelevant. Heck, I am not even convinced that Jesus ever existed...



Oh, there's evidence that a person call Jesus existed and went around preaching, but whether or not he performed miracles is up to debate. It's not so much a fairy tail as it is cultural stories in the form of metaphors. I've seen some people say that the story of the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for the relationship between two city-states, and how they eventually went to war because of the way a king was behaving. Aka, Snake = king, Tree of knowledge = resources and Eve and Adam = the peoples of the two cities.


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

Conker said:


> That's really a terrible example. What kind of loving God would even ask that of someone, trick or otherwise? It's absolutely deranged.
> 
> It's just more proof that the Christian God, at least in the Old Testament, was petulant and insecure. "PROVE YOU LOVE ME! DO IT DO IT DO IT!"
> 
> Of course, the other way to do the Abraham story is, "the voices in my head are telling me to kill my son" which is what it all amounts to. Evidently his voices had multiple personality disorder.



A terrible.... And a tricky one -- given the fact that you can argue the bible is a book of fiction, and that, right there, is a proof of what could happen if you take your love...or your faith.. too far. You could say that this event is to warn the reader of what could happen if they let their 'love' for got drive them mad. But I believe is more like "Believe in God and you shall not kill your son" -- anyhow, did Abram even had a son? ;O


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> Funny, how you are more right in your sarcastic approach than your actual argument


Sarcasm is a behavioral trait I developed to deal with other people's bullshit on a daily basis. :V




> The sun provides the energy to the planet. That energy is absorbed AND reflected by the land, especially the snow. The energy that is reflected is no longer UV rays -- it is transformed into sensitive waves or infra-red. The Ozone layer traps this new heat, and thus, the earth temperature rises. However, by the use of wind, the earth manages to cool down itself. Starting by the ones coming from the Polar cell, to the Ferrel Cell and lastly the Hadly cell. This is known as the Coriolis effect. I've studied Environmental science, and no -- I* did not get kicked out of class when I debated with the professor about the possible existence of Gaia, given how much the Earth seems to have a 'conscience' sometimes.*




That last bit has nothing to do with science and more with theology, which is like mixing bleach and ammonia at that point. The more you argue it, the more noxious it becomes. 



> He applied the scientific method on it. We both concluded on something that we could not know, for there is no evidence to prove there IS a Gaia, or there isn't



Because there is no proof that Gaia has any involvement, or any supernatural force. And how do you prove that a supernatural force created something? What evidence? How?
If the Greek Gods Existed, I would be more liable to believe them because at least Zeus comes down from Mt. Olympus from time to time to fuck some poor woman in the form of a swan...or bull. 

Even if you say that the planet has a conscience, the planet is just a planet with us human "renters" on it, and humans are ruled by nature no matter how much magic you want to put into it. 

At that point, it is safer to say "I don't know" than to assume or speculate that "the invisible pink unicorn named Medina that lives in the sun may have created the world." If you don't know, you can use what resources you have to find out for yourself.




Ahzek M'kar said:


> Because the Bible is a reliable source for information on Jesus. Did you know up until the 15th century it taught about reincarnation? It's been rewritten more times than a tumblr fanfiction.



Many cultures had reincarnation in their stories and cultures, so it wouldn't be uncommon if the bible had it in their stories as well.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> A terrible.... And a tricky one -- given the fact that you can argue the bible is a book of fiction, and that, right there, is a proof of what could happen if you take your love...or your faith.. too far. You could say that this event is to warn the reader of what could happen if they let their 'love' for got drive them mad. But I believe is more like "Believe in God and you shall not kill your son" -- anyhow, did Abram even had a son? ;O



In other words, follow your conscience. As I seem to remember Abram didn't want to kill his son and was hesitant to do it. This story seems to me to be a warning against following your faith blindly.

What also annoys me is that people think that the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc, etc are reliable sources for understanding god. These books were written by _men, _not by god (who I'm pretty sure does not need a book to commune with his creation) and so they cannot put into words what a god would be. It's _their_ interpretation of god, which is usually different from what actually is.



Ozriel said:


> That last bit has nothing to do with science and more with theology,  which is like mixing bleach and ammonia at that point. The more you  argue it, the more noxious it becomes.



If this is the same Gaia I'm thinking about, then Orzriel has a bit of skewed idea of it. The Gaia theory as pertaining to the theory that the earth is self-regulating has nothing to do with religion.


----------



## Leinad Obtrebla (Feb 18, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> In other words, follow your conscience. As I seem to remember Abram didn't want to kill his son and was hesitant to do it. This story seems to me to be a warning against following your faith blindly.
> 
> What also annoys me is that people think that the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc, etc are reliable sources for understanding god. These books were written by _men, _not by god (who I'm pretty sure does not need a book to commune with his creation) and so they cannot put into words what a god would be. It's _their_ interpretation of god, which is usually different from what actually is.
> 
> ...



As far as I know, Jesus and Mohamed somehow 'heard' things as they meditated on their own. The word of god, they said. Probably one of the roots of self-realization or conciousness... The bible is a guide, not a rule book. To me is just like any other fable that may have some truth in it, but not to be taken entirely into account. 

As for Gaia, I meant more of a 'Pachamama' concept, not the Greek goddess. However, I'm pretty sure they are somewhat linked. Everything is linked. 

But my point back there was as simple as to prove that, even after gaining the scientific knowledge, there is always room for belief -- a belief that behind the complexity of nature, there is 'something' that drives it along. . . Though I'm not saying it has to be human! The Grizzly man taught me that. xD (Great film. Poor guy.) 

As for magic -- I've never mentioned ANYTHING regarding magic in here. For me, magic is not a set of tricks you do with a cork... Magic exists in things such as art, music and drama. And I call it magic, when you might call it dopamine or whatever the chemical substance is. 

'Love is a chemical reaction. We choose to give it a meaning'     

Yeah, yea.  Now please, may the scientists find a way to extract and inject 'love' onto others, so that we can hold hands together and let those who want to praise a unicorn be -- as long as they pay their taxes and be polite citizens


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> But my point back there was as simple as to prove that, even after gaining the scientific knowledge, there is always room for belief -- a belief that behind the complexity of nature, there is 'something' that drives it along. . . *Though I'm not saying it has to be human!* The Grizzly man taught me that. xD (Great film. Poor guy.)


  Well you're at least innocent of *that* narcissistic, arrogant assumption.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> If this is the same Gaia I'm thinking about, then Orzriel has a bit of skewed idea of it. The Gaia theory as pertaining to the theory that the earth is self-regulating has nothing to do with religion.



I know that the earth is regulating to a degree, but because of the word Gaia, it is easy to mix it with the Greek Goddess.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> But my point back there was as simple as to prove that, even after gaining the scientific knowledge, there is always room for belief -- a belief that behind the complexity of nature, there is 'something' that drives it along. . . Though I'm not saying it has to be human! The Grizzly man taught me that. xD (Great film. Poor guy.)



To be honest, I don't think something that would be able to create a universe and everything in it would even have a face. It would just be sentient pure primordial power.



Ozriel said:


> I know that the earth is regulating to a degree,  but because of the word Gaia, it is easy to mix it with the Greek  Goddess.




Ah, I was thinking of a particular theory that proposes that the earth's ecosystem maintains itself through plants, animals, etc.


----------



## Conker (Feb 18, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> A terrible.... And a tricky one -- given the fact that you can argue the bible is a book of fiction, and that, right there, is a proof of what could happen if you take your love...or your faith.. too far. You could say that this event is to warn the reader of what could happen if they let their 'love' for got drive them mad. But I believe is more like "Believe in God and you shall not kill your son" -- anyhow, did Abram even had a son? ;O


When something is so open to interpretation, it shouldn't be blindly followed as a rule book to life. 

It shouldn't be used as a basis for making laws or forcing morals onto others.

It shouldn't be used to as a valid reason to oppress people.

And it shouldn't be taught in a god damned science class.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 19, 2014)

'Gaia' 
This word does not mean what you think it means. Modern Gaia theory does not stipulate that earth is conscious. It stipulated that the environment and life feedback into one another in their respective evolutions; that they evolve in concert. 

Notions of 'intentional' co evolution in a march of progress type world are not viewed as credible even in Gaia theory.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 19, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Now this is just silly. There are records of *a* Jesus being crucified around that time. If anything he could've been a prophet just like Muhammed only suffering from delusions of grandeur.





Ahzek M'kar said:


> Oh, there's evidence that a person call Jesus existed and went around preaching, but whether or not he performed miracles is up to debate.



I see walking-on-water Jesus and delusional-hippie Jesus as two different entities.
There _could_ have been a preacher named Jesus who had a lot of influence and who pissed Nero off and got crucified. But that was over 2000 years ago. If he existed his name probably wasn't even "Jesus".

When I say "Jesus didn't exist" I am talking about THE Jesus. This Jesus right here. Considering where he supposedly lived he probably looked a lot more like this.
But the Jesus from the bible simply can't exist because he is nothing but a loophole that was used to bridge the old and the new testament.

But the evidence for preacher-Jesus is a little wonky, which is normal because of how long ago that was.


----------



## Phyllostachys (Feb 19, 2014)

I don't find it necessary that something should be behind abiogenesis and evolution. It is more likely that abiogenesis and sustainment of life on earth happened because by chance, the condition has been favorable for such phenomena, not because some sort of obscure sentience or intention planned them. Organisms seek to survive not because of some obligation or instruction, but because only genes that resulted in carriers that sought(and thus increased the chance for) survival could, well, survive. Evolution is rather random and has neither foresight nor planning, and human sapience is just another trait that helped survival of the carriers of responsible genes and thus remained, with side traits that allowed us to have things such as language and culture.

I wonder why some people keep look for reason or intention even for the things that does not particularly have(or need) such things, and some of them disapprove of others that does not follow that same unnecessary idea, or even attempt forcefully imposing it to others. If setting such imaginary intent and purpose behind everything bring comfort to one's mind, itâ€™s oneâ€™s freedom to do so, but it should always remain personal.


----------



## Sonlir (Feb 19, 2014)

one day maybe I'll see the light of creationism and Christianity. but until that happens I believe in nothing but facts and science


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 19, 2014)

Phyllostachys said:


> Evolution is rather random and has neither foresight nor planning



I agree with most of what you said, but this part I have a problem with.
Evolution is not random. It's true that it is a blind process without planning but natural selection is not random. It is a blind process because it favors every gene and every allel equally. Every trait can be passed on, it just needs to be advantageous for the species. That happens because the trait gives the animal a higher rate survival compared to other members of the species. It gets to mate and over time the positive trait spreads through the whole population.
The only thing that can be random are mutations. Usually evolution is more about genetic variation and not actual mutations.
Most mutations are disadvantageous. A higher chance to get cancer is not a positive trait for example. But a very advantageous trait that was caused by a mutation is also gonna spread through the population.



Sonlir said:


> one day maybe I'll see the light of creationism and Christianity. but until that happens I believe in nothing but facts and science



The day I convert to christianity is gonna be the day I lost my marbles.


----------



## Phyllostachys (Feb 19, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Evolution is not random. It's true that it is a blind process without planning but natural selection is not random.



Ah, yes. Blind process. That was more or less what I intended when I typed random. I guess I should practice my English more.




CaptainCool said:


> The only thing that can be random are mutations. Usually evolution is more about genetic variation and not actual mutations.
> Most mutations are disadvantageous. A higher chance to get cancer is not a positive trait for example. But a very advantageous trait that was caused by a mutation is also gonna spread through the population.



Well, it was my understanding that genetic variation was caused by mutation, but maybe that was a misunderstanding due to wonky translations in Korean books or plain confusion on my part.

And on deleterious genes, I believe that it is possible for them to be common in certain population, if it expresses after the carrier's reproductive period in it's lifespan, and evade selection pressure.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 19, 2014)

.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 19, 2014)

'


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 19, 2014)

I can't read all that... Especially at work.
So I'm gonna focus on this part rigt here of what you said about the big bang theory:

"A myth created to fill a void for which there is no available information. 

A euphemism for the birth of our universe which may or may not have included an actual bang."

Both of these lines are plain wrong.
First, the big bang is not a myth. It happened, it is a testable fact. The cosmic background radiation is more than enough evidence for it, especially since it fits every single prediction that was made based on the calculations that have been made. The big bang is a done deal.

Second, the big bang has nothing to do with the origins of the universe and there was no bang.  It simply explains how space started to expand and nothing else.
Space itself can fold in on itself, so all in all you have to see the expansion of space as nothing but space being scaled up. Which isn't event hat hard to imagine. Because if space was infinite to begin with (just more tightly packed) and you expand it you still have infinite space. You are still at square one, everything is just less tightly packed and less hot. So space cooled down, the radiation was red-shifted to the infrared spectrum and here we are.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 19, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I see walking-on-water Jesus and delusional-hippie Jesus as two different entities.
> There _could_ have been a preacher named Jesus who had a lot of influence and who pissed Nero off and got crucified. But that was over 2000 years ago. If he existed his name probably wasn't even "Jesus".
> 
> When I say "Jesus didn't exist" I am talking about THE Jesus. This Jesus right here. Considering where he supposedly lived he probably looked a lot more like this.
> ...



You DO know that Jesus' original name in Hebrew was Yeshua, right? 

Also a loophole to bridge the OT and NT? You know that earlier writings prophesied that such a person was coming right? And what he'd be coming for?



CaptainCool said:


> I can't read all that... Especially at work.
> So I'm gonna focus on this part rigt here of what you said about the big bang theory:
> 
> "A myth created to fill a void for which there is no available information.
> ...



Actually, didn't we already go over this? The Big Bang isn't a "done deal"; if it were, there'd be no serious objections to it. Like the article that Perri linked: 

http://voices.yahoo.com/is-cosmic-microwave-background-proof-big-459695.html?cat=4

And as I discussed earlier, all we have is so-called evidence that /appears/ to fit it. It's not conclusive, not definite. Therefore, until I see hard, conclusive, without a shadow of a doubt evidence, I'll reserve some doubt for it. 

Or, is it okay to call it "Case Closed" when we just see enough evidence to make a good assumption that someone is innocent or guilty?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 19, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> You DO know that Jesus' original name in Hebrew was Yeshua, right?
> 
> Also a loophole to bridge the OT and NT? You know that earlier writings prophesied that such a person was coming right? And what he'd be coming for?
> 
> ...



I don't see prophecies as evidence for something.

As for the big bang, you are not a physicist. What would count as "conclusive evidence" for you? What a physicist, a professional on the subject, sees as evidence and what you see as evidence is probably worlds apart.
Some things are explained, but not in an easily understandable way.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 19, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I don't see prophecies as evidence for something.
> 
> As for the big bang, you are not a physicist. What would count as "conclusive evidence" for you? What a physicist, a professional on the subject, sees as evidence and what you see as evidence is probably worlds apart.
> Some things are explained, but not in an easily understandable way.



I'm not saying the prophecies are evidence for him; I'm merely trying to show you that he's not just some character who popped up out of nowhere and was like "Hey guy! I'm here to change everything!" 

As for conclusive evidence, I'd say that it'd have to be something that proves it with little room for doubt. What I'm seeing so far is "We have stuff that points as this being /most likely/ the case", which to me, "Most likely" doesn't cut it; at least in the courtroom example I keep using. And I'm really only doing that example because I see a lot of atheists go "Evidence for the bible wouldn't hold up in court", and so I decided to hold some ideas on your side to that same standard.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 19, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I see walking-on-water Jesus and delusional-hippie Jesus as two different entities.


And you'd be wrong-ish. They're the same person but they're perceived differently. They're not two different people.


CaptainCool said:


> If he existed his name probably wasn't even "Jesus".


You have one thing right. It'd be more like "Joshua" or some variant of that.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 19, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm not saying the prophecies are evidence for him; I'm merely trying to show you that he's not just some character who popped up out of nowhere and was like "Hey guy! I'm here to change everything!"
> 
> As for conclusive evidence, I'd say that it'd have to be something that proves it with little room for doubt. What I'm seeing so far is "We have stuff that points as this being /most likely/ the case", which to me, "Most likely" doesn't cut it; at least in the courtroom example I keep using. And I'm really only doing that example because I see a lot of atheists go "Evidence for the bible wouldn't hold up in court", and so I decided to hold some ideas on your side to that same standard.



The thing is that if you brought it in front of a judge who has a working and deep knowledge of astrophysics it would most definitely hold up in court.
There is quite a bit of evidence for it by the way:

-First of all, tere is the observable fact that space is expanding at a rate of v = H0*D. The expansion must have started at some point, that is what the big bang explains (and why a more fitting name would be "everywhere stretch"...).
-I already mentioned the cosmic background radiation.
-The abundence of light elements is very strong evidence for it.
-Clouds of light elements that they found (nothing heavier that He) could only have formed directly after the big bang.

Just read up on it a little and it actually makes a heck of a lot of sense.


----------



## Inpw (Feb 19, 2014)

Aleu said:


> You have one thing right. It'd be more like "Joshua" or some variant of that.



Yeshua.

I never understood why the different translations of the bible even changed the names. My name remains the same in all languages.

Afrikaans - "Jesus" (pronounced yeesus) and "Here" (Pronounced heareh)


----------



## Inciatus (Feb 19, 2014)

Accretion said:


> Yeshua.
> 
> I never understood why the different translations of the bible even changed the names. My name remains the same in all languages.
> 
> Afrikaans - "Jesus" (pronounced yeesus) and "Here" (Pronounced heareh)


Probably just different pronunciations of letters. Some groups pronounce the yud with a J sound while others with a Y sound.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 19, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Actually, there aren't any records supporting the existence of a Jesus Christ.  My own search for evidence of the historicity of Jesus went very much like this.  (Beware:  Foul language ahead)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTqyocFOMXE



Seeing someone wearing a shirt saying "logic", flaunting his supposed intellectual superiority, and spouting curses generally makes me think they're not as logical as they think they are. He's simply regurgitating opinions he's read on the internet or in a book, thinking that makes him an expert on the subject and has not bothered to look into the other side of the argument.

I suggest you read this then:

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm.



Accretion said:


> Yeshua.
> 
> I never understood why the different translations of the bible even  changed the names. My name remains the same in all languages.
> 
> Afrikaans - "Jesus" (pronounced yeesus) and "Here" (Pronounced heareh)



Jesus is a Roman name, and so should have been said as "Uesus", because in Latin J's are pronounced as U's. Most likely everyone in that era had a Roman name, seeing how they were the ruling empire. Much like how many Chinese people have Western names for tourist purposes.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 19, 2014)

I would be careful quoting from a site that features lovely stories about the power of jesus turning gay people straight. http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4219369/k.6288/Can_Homosexuals_Change.htm


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 19, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I would be careful quoting from a site that features lovely stories about the power of jesus turning gay people straight. http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4219369/k.6288/Can_Homosexuals_Change.htm



I was looking for an article on the subject via google, and did not really pay attention to any of the other material on the site. Your point is noted though.

I will point out however that that is not the reason I post that link, and that particular argument has no baring on the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 19, 2014)

The commentary from perri is simply painful to read. I dismiss your interpretation of quantum mechanics not because I have an agenda but because you quite literally exhibited no understanding of what quantum mechanics actually is.

John Hagelin's interpretations of quantum mechanics are *not* shared by other physicists for instance, but a 10 minute youtube video [in which he even says other scientists don't agree with him] is offered as 'evidence' for some spiritual dimension. 

What is true and false isn't about what 'feels' nicest. It's about what can be demonstrated, as you would do in court of law. Poetry about 'fields of unified consciousness' make pretty prose but is there actually any data to support this wild interpretation?



Ahzek M'kar said:


> I was looking for an article on the subject  via google, and did not really pay attention to any of the other  material on the site. Your point is noted though.
> 
> I will point out however that that is not the reason I post that link,  and that particular argument has no baring on the point I was trying to  make.



It does; the website is clearly a bullshit-mill. 

For instance, the website claims that pliny the younger's writings about christians are proof jesus existed. Pliny did not live in the same time or place as Jesus and never mentioned him. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_younger#Epistle_concerning_the_Christian_Religion


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 19, 2014)

Thus proving the problem I have with "religious" types...the Bible is intended to be a guideline to living a good and moral life, not a literal history or law. If more people lived by the actual teachings of love, respect and acceptance in the bible and not focusing on the whole "this is bad and you should be hated for it" part, the world would be a much better place. The bible in and of itself is more the less a work of fiction with a moral, much like Aesop's Fables, but on a much grander scale. Just remember: religion is a means by which to understand that which we cannot comprehend, so as our knowledge expands, the "historical" aspect of religious writings loses some of it's significance.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 19, 2014)

Just came across a lovely quote from john 'What is a wave function made of? It's made of the stuff thoughts are made of,'

What...like, highly ordered arrangements of interacting brain cells, John? 

You may as well base your entire interpretation of science off of dr Seuss.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 19, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> It does; the website is clearly a bullshit-mill.
> 
> For instance, the website claims that pliny the younger's writings about christians are proof jesus existed. Pliny did not live in the same time or place as Jesus and never mentioned him.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_younger#Epistle_concerning_the_Christian_Religion



Ignoring the fact that those separate articles have nothing to do with one another and are written by different authors who might have radically different views for all you know. 

I was trying to avoid using Wikipedia due to the stereotypes associated with it. Note Pliny lived only a short while after Jesus supposedly did, it would be the same as historians commenting on figures like Hitler or Stalin. He's referring to the followers of christ, which is why the article includes his writings I assume. Jesus and Pliny are only about 30-40 years apart.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 19, 2014)

Leinad Obtrebla said:


> How long until ethics and morale is replaced by induction and programming...? If.. it hasn't already started... D:



Ethics and morality can be (and I believe are) just as logical and objective as science, AND does not need to depend on a spiritual fantasy book or decrees from higher powers.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 19, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> Ignoring the fact that those separate articles have nothing to do with one another and are written by different authors who might have radically different views for all you know.
> 
> I was trying to avoid using Wikipedia due to the stereotypes associated with it. Note Pliny lived only a short while after Jesus supposedly did, it would be the same as historians commenting on figures like Hitler or Stalin. He's referring to the followers of christ, which is why the article includes his writings I assume. Jesus and Pliny are only about 30-40 years apart.



I decided to read around the website further and, trust me, things don't get better. I'm currently perusing articles that claim global warming is all made up. 

Wikipedia is light-years better than a bullshit-mill. 

Pliny the younger observes the practices of christians and, horrendously, he tortures and executes some of them because he views them as a threat to Rome. He doesn't provide any evidence that Jesus exists though, and even if we did discover a new set of writings by Pliny the Younger saying 'the christians worshiped jesus who they say lived in israel etc,' this would not constitute evidence, because Pliny didn't ever see Jesus, neither did the followers he is speaking to, and they were probably told about it by people who never saw jesus and so on.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 19, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Pliny the younger observes the practices of christians and, horrendously, he tortures and executes some of them because he views them as a threat to Rome. He doesn't provide any evidence that Jesus exists though, and even if we did discover a new set of writings by Pliny the Younger saying 'the christians worshiped jesus who they say lived in israel etc,' this would not constitute evidence, because Pliny didn't ever see Jesus, neither did the followers he is speaking to, and they were probably told about it by people who never saw jesus and so on.



That's a lot of assumptions. Using Hitler as an example (not a pleasant one but convenient), the proportion of people who actually saw him in person is a lot smaller than the people who knew about him. So just because Pliny didn't see or mention Jesus doesn't mean he had no knowledge of a person of that name. You don't have to be an idiot to work out Hitler's relation to the Nazis, even if you've never seen him.

I'm not trying to say Pliny's accounts are definite evidence, but they shouldn't be discounted.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 19, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> That's a lot of assumptions. Using Hitler as an example (not a pleasant one but convenient), the proportion of people who actually saw him in person is a lot smaller than the people who knew about him. So just because Pliny didn't see or mention Jesus doesn't mean he had no knowledge of a person of that name. You don't have to be an idiot to work out Hitler's relation to the Nazis, even if you've never seen him.
> 
> I'm not trying to say Pliny's accounts are definite evidence, but they shouldn't be discounted.



We definitely know hitler existed because there are official records and proof. 

We don't know whether prophets exist just because people say their name a lot for _this_ reason [a comedy sketch, but bare with]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icTrzUuWlHI


All pliny's writings really show are that there was a bunch of people called christians and that pliny enjoyed murdering them. :\


----------



## Rassah (Feb 19, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> If our universe has no time in it, nothing in our universe can move, and nothing can transpire.  Time can not begin unless there is time outside our universe for someone or something to move in, and thereby give our universe the kick that starts our time rolling down the hill.  A bang is motion.  Motion requires time to get from Point A to Point B.  Show some logical way that there can be a bang in a place with no time.




You are correct, without time, nothing can move or transpire. Time requires the existence of matter and energy, as time is a function that includes both. Time can not begin unless matter and energy come from somewhere, and a bang is indeed motion, involving the sudden appearance of matter and energy from somewhere, followed by it expanding outward. We used to believe that this matter and energy appeared spontaneously, all on their own. That it just happened, and, to conform to the "matter/energy can not be created or destroyed" law, believed that when this spontaneous event happened, equal parts of matter and antimatter appeared, meaning the sum total of everything was zero, and thus no new matter or energy was created. Everything balanced out. We used to *believe *that, but since then we have discovered that the universe consists of equal parts of matter and antimatter by observing it through telescopes, and we have observed spontaneous quantum events whereby matter and antimatter popped into existence in tiny explosions all on their own, with nothing causing it, in our Hadron Colider experiments. So our beliefs were confirmed by actual scientific observation, and now what we used to simply believe is something we *know* as fact.
What's more, time is affected by gravity, where the stronnger the gravity, i.e. the more tightly matter is packed together, the slower time moves. At least that's the belief we had based on mathematical simulations. We then confirmed that belief by experiments in space using satelites that are farther from earth, and through observation of black holes and such. (We even have to use that knowlede in our GPS satelites, as time on those satelites moves at a different rate than time down here on the surface) If we apply that knowledge to the Big Bang, we would assume that time was moving MUCH slower at the point of the initial "bang," and was speeding up as things expanded from that point. And, again, that is what observations in the universe point out as fact. So, if you had a time machine, and tried to travel to the point where Big Bang happened, you probably would never reach it, since the farther you travel back, the slower the time would be. It would be like traveling towards a point that you keep coming closer to, but can never reach. Which, again, was proven as fact through observations of the universe and various experiments.
So, in short, we came up with all these beliefs about the Big Bang, and how it must have happened, based on mathematical formulas and such, and have since confirmed that those formulas are fact, and that what we believed happened actually does happen. That's why the Big Bang is no longer in question, and why we don't need god in the universe: We already explained and proved how the universe came to be, and god wasn't needed in the process.




Perri_Rhoades said:


> That is the thing.  God is irrelevant.  He says nothing, does nothing.  If he exists, he is a mere spectator, and our fates remain in our own hands.  Thus, the existence of God is of no importance what so ever.  He has no help to offer us, and he has no need of our praise.




So why should we believe in god, or give him any mind at all, if he is as irrelevant as a hypothetical teapot orbiting the sun? This is what separates natural and supernatural. Even if you can't directly see things that are natural, you can still measure and test for them, because they all have actual effects and consequences on the real world. They "do things." Supernatural things can't be tested or observed, so even if things like ghosts existed, if you can't see them, measure them, and they have absolutely no effect or consequence on the real world, then they are completely irrelevant, and shouldn't be thought of anything more than stories or fantasies with no bearing on reality.


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 19, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> We definitely know hitler existed because there are official records and proof.
> 
> We don't know whether prophets exist just because people say their name a lot for _this_ reason [a comedy sketch, but bare with]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icTrzUuWlHI
> 
> ...



That Sketch sounds more like the Romans themselves than anyone else. I do like those outfits though.

 My point is, at the time, Pliny's records would have been considered proof in the same way records of Hitler's endeavors are. A few hundred or thousand years from now and we may be contemplating whether or not Hitler Existed. If you talk about the Nazis, it goes without saying that Hitler was a major figure in their "movement". We can assume this is the same with Christians during their founding years. Pliny wouldn't have had to mention Jesus as the founder or major figure of Christianity, but it's generally assumed in passing. The very fact that he refers to them as "Christians" shows he has a measure of knowledge of their cult, which given the fact he was a governor, it's unlikely he was ignorant of them and their beliefs.

I just realised how my examples might seem to anyone new reading them. Hitler being used in the same hypothesis as Jesus.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 19, 2014)

Ahzek M'kar said:


> That Sketch sounds more like the Romans themselves than anyone else. I do like those outfits though.
> 
> My point is, at the time, Pliny's records would have been considered proof in the same way records of Hitler's endeavors are. A few hundred or thousand years from now and we may be contemplating whether or not Hitler Existed. If you talk about the Nazis, it goes without saying that Hitler was a major figure in their "movement". We can assume this is the same with Christians during their founding years. Pliny wouldn't have had to mention Jesus as the founder or major figure of Christianity, but it's generally assumed in passing. The very fact that he refers to them as "Christians" shows he has a measure of knowledge of their cult, which given the fact he was a governor, it's unlikely he was ignorant of them and their beliefs.
> 
> I just realised how my examples might seem to anyone new reading them. Hitler being used in the same hypothesis as Jesus.



There are photographs and dental records of Hitler. Denying his existence is unreasonable. 

Pliny's record is 'I knew a guy who knows a guy who has a friend whose uncle's second wife had a cousin who once knew someone who said that they met Jesus,'. 

In thousands of years we won't be contemplating hitler's existence just like we don't contemplate pliny's existence; there are *actual records *of them.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 19, 2014)

Even if there were no photos of Hitler, or even copies of his own writing, there are thousands of other people's writings, first hand witness accounts, military plans, and other evidence from people who lived around him and reported on his existence, and, most importantly, all of which fits together perfectly and confirms each other's stories. There are practically zero writing from eye witnesses or people who interacted with Jesus about his existence, or his miracullus acts (which should have had tons of reports all on their own).


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 19, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Even if there were no photos of Hitler, or even copies of his own writing, there are thousands of other people's writings, first hand witness accounts, military plans, and other evidence from people who lived around him and reported on his existence, and, most importantly, all of which fits together perfectly and confirms each other's stories. There are practically zero writing from eye witnesses or people who interacted with Jesus about his existence, or his miracullus acts (which should have had tons of reports all on their own).



Forgetting the fact that more people exist in recent times to document things. Plus, we are talking about things that happened thousands of years ago, if there were many other documents written about Jesus, then a fair few of them would have been lost to multiple causes; fall of the Roman empire, time, etc, etc.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 19, 2014)

But we do have a lot of accounts and documents from that time about people who didn't perform miracles...


----------



## Ahzek M'kar (Feb 19, 2014)

Rassah said:


> But we do have a lot of accounts and documents from that time about people who didn't perform miracles...



If you're referring to famous people like Caesar or some other famous historical figure, they would have more documents and records about them anyway, given mankind's retarded habit of venerating "royal" individuals.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 19, 2014)

A student I know is currently spreading a 'satirical' facebook meme around that implies 'if you don't disbelieve abaraham lincoln you have no right to disbelieve jesus'

Abraham sits next to Horus and Mithras, and the poster boldly claims he does not exist, just as a similar version did for Jesus. 

He is yet to concede that the difference in these examples is that there are libraries worth of strong evidence that Lincoln really did exist, whilst the 'strongest' evidence that jesus existed is the hearsay of the ancient world, and that even if jesus _did_ exist it would be physically impossible for him to have magical powers- just like abraham lincoln didn't have magical powers. 

The point of the original poster was that ancient cultures often nicked eachother's gods and stories and re-wrote them, which is why the same derived characters so frequently occur in spatially and chronologically close religions.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 19, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> A student I know is currently spreading a 'satirical' facebook meme around that implies 'if you don't disbelieve abaraham lincoln you have no right to disbelieve jesus'
> 
> Abraham sits next to Horus and Mithras, and the poster boldly claims he does not exist, just as a similar version did for Jesus.
> 
> ...



As long as you don't say Jesus ripped off Horus because they were both born Dec. 25th.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 19, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> As long as you don't say Jesus ripped off Horus because they were both born Dec. 25th.



But what if that _was_ said?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 19, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> But what if that _was_ said?



I'd call you an idiot because there's no evidence to suggest neither Jesus nor Horus was born on the 25th of December.


----------



## Yarem4 (Feb 19, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> As long as you don't say Jesus ripped off Horus because they were both born Dec. 25th.



I'd prefer Jesus 'cause Horus is an ass


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 20, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'd call you an idiot because there's no evidence to suggest neither Jesus nor Horus was born on the 25th of December.



One would have only said that, because you implied it. If you're going to go along with neither being born on Xmas, then you can piss off.


----------



## Yarem4 (Feb 20, 2014)

Well since horus is a god who's only information we have is from mythology and it's a fact that the ancient church adopted the 25th of December from a pagan festivity and turned into Jesusday...  Nikolinni would be right


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 20, 2014)

Most Christian holidays are just adaptations of earlier pagan holidays, Christmas is at it's heart a celebration of the Winter Solstice, Easter a celebration of the Vernal Equinox, and so forth and so on...mostly to make it easier for pagan Romans to adapt to Christianity when Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 20, 2014)

I miss the original Christmas, which was celebrated by big feasts, parties, and orgies (mistletoe was considered an aphrodisiac, and standing under it got you much more than just a kiss).


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 20, 2014)

oh to be back in the Roman days, when the celebration for every occasion was a drunken orgy.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 20, 2014)

'Orgy' didn't mean sex party. It meant dinner party to the Romans.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 20, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> As long as you don't say Jesus ripped off Horus because they were both born Dec. 25th.



Jesus wasn't born on the 25th. He ripped off the celtic solstice on that one, when the church changed his birthday in order to associate him with a religious festival that already existed.


edit: faaaaaah double post; how come a discussion about orgies was in the same thread as this?


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 20, 2014)

Oh, I thought "Orgy" referred to a nu metal band from the early 2000's... :V

and because why not? Don't you know this fandom's all about the orgies?


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 20, 2014)

.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 20, 2014)

.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 20, 2014)

.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 20, 2014)

"Now, it's bad enough that you talk about folding it, or having it expand. Because, if it's already filling everything at once, there's nowhere for it to expand too."
No, that's not true. Because infinity+X is still infinity. If you have something that is infinitely huge it can still get bigger without changing size because after growing its size is still infinite.
Actually, for space to be able to infinitely stretch into itself it doesn't even have to be infinite. This is something that I don't even begin to understand... It has to do with the infinite differentiability of the metric of spacetime. You get pretty deep into general relativity when you look at that stuff and I am simply not bright enough to understand that stuff.
But this I understand: Infinity in itself is not a number, it's a mathmatical concept. You are treating it like a number, that is where the error in your reasoning comes from.

This video is a great explanation of what we know so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs


----------



## Inciatus (Feb 20, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> edit: faaaaaah double post; how come a discussion about orgies was in the same thread as this?


Because it is a furry forum. It may act gentlemanly but it cannot hide what is underneath.


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 20, 2014)

Inciatus said:


> Because it is a furry forum. It may act gentlemanly but it cannot hide what is underneath.



Yep, furries are ALL about the orgies.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 20, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> "Now, it's bad enough that you talk about folding it, or having it expand. Because, if it's already filling everything at once, there's nowhere for it to expand too."
> No, that's not true. Because infinity+X is still infinity. If you have something that is infinitely huge it can still get bigger without changing size because after growing its size is still infinite.
> Actually, for space to be able to infinitely stretch into itself it doesn't even have to be infinite. This is something that I don't even begin to understand... It has to do with the infinite differentiability of the metric of spacetime. You get pretty deep into general relativity when you look at that stuff and I am simply not bright enough to understand that stuff.
> But this I understand: Infinity in itself is not a number, it's a mathmatical concept. You are treating it like a number, that is where the error in your reasoning comes from.
> ...



This reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere once: 

"If you're seeking the infinite what instruments do you have to seek the infinite? Only sense organs, isn't it? So through your sense organs if you're seeking the infinite it's like wanting to go to moon with a bullock cart, isn't it so? That is the plight of humanity right now: with a limited perception, they are trying to grasp that which is beyond."


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 20, 2014)

_"I'm  quite aware that there are varying interpretations of quantum physics,  but he is actually a scientist in the field.  And what I've observed is  that the other scientists I've listened to on the subject are not in any  huge conflict with him.  Out of all the scientists I've listened to on  the subject there was a grand total of 1 who was really apposed to these  interpretations.  Therefore, if I were to dismiss John Hagelin, it  would be because I felt his suggestions to be too fantastic to be  believed - not because I denied his opinions were backed by proper  scientific credentials and the support of other scientists.

What  you are doing now is what I predicted would happen.  You're saying,  "How dare you take the word of an accredited scientist about science.   Don't listen to him.  Listen to me." "_

almost no quantum physicists think that quantum physics implies we are all part of a 'single unified conscious universe'. This is the stuff of poetry; the physical mechanics involved do not imply this in the slightest. 

if you think most scientists are okay with spiritual interpretations of quantum mechanics it's because you're only listening to fringe scientists talking in soothing voices on youtube, rather than actually having read any quantum mechanics or knowing what the mainstream interpretations are. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics


Crazy scientists on youtubes don't represent all of physics, just like one chemist with schizophrenia who claims the rapture is coming doesn't mean that all chemistry is about that!


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 20, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> _"I'm  quite aware that there are varying interpretations of quantum physics,  but he is actually a scientist in the field.  And what I've observed is  that the other scientists I've listened to on the subject are not in any  huge conflict with him.  Out of all the scientists I've listened to on  the subject there was a grand total of 1 who was really apposed to these  interpretations.  Therefore, if I were to dismiss John Hagelin, it  would be because I felt his suggestions to be too fantastic to be  believed - not because I denied his opinions were backed by proper  scientific credentials and the support of other scientists.
> 
> What  you are doing now is what I predicted would happen.  You're saying,  "How dare you take the word of an accredited scientist about science.   Don't listen to him.  Listen to me." "_
> 
> ...




"Almost no quantum physicists think that quantum mechanics"... 
saying that while Perri says that she's watched scientists on youtube talk about that .-.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 20, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> "Almost no quantum physicists think that quantum mechanics"...
> saying that while Perri says that she's watched scientists on youtube talk about that .-.



Watching youtube videos isn't a good way to gauge mainstream science. People tend only to watch videos that reinforce their views, however loopy they are. 

The actual mainstream science, which is freely available in library books and on reputable scientific websites, makes no suggestion that quantum physics implies anything spiritual and often criticises people who think it does. 

Quantum physics is about this http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L10/O2full.gif
 and this http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/imgpar/feynm5.gif

not this http://www.spiritualastroscience.com/uploads/pics/mednew9_01.gif


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 20, 2014)

'


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 20, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Watching youtube videos isn't a good way to gauge mainstream science. People tend only to watch videos that reinforce their views, however loopy they are.
> 
> The actual mainstream science, which is freely available in library books and on reputable scientific websites, makes no suggestion that quantum physics implies anything spiritual and often criticises people who think it does.
> 
> ...



"People tend only to watch videos that reinforce their views. . ." 

Ah, I've seen this a lot. From pretty much anyone. 

Also, I don't know if it's just me, but I have this thing about tossing around the word mainstream. To me, it doesn't feel like something being "mainstream science" makes it more...better/qualified. BUt eh, that's just me.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 20, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Well, I watched the video, and for the most part it's all Greek to me.  And of course I don't read Greek.  So any proof in Greek is no proof at all.


Wait so you're dismissing evidence/an explanation because you can't understand it?

Wow.

EDIT: May be relevant - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDl7g_2x74Q
& http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elvOZm0d4H0&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 20, 2014)

Raptros said:


> Wait so you're dismissing evidence/an explanation because you can't understand it?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> EDIT: May be relevant - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDl7g_2x74Q



Thinking inside of one's own box is still thinking inside of a box.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 20, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Well, I watched the video, and for the most part it's all Greek to me.  And of course I don't read Greek.  So any proof in Greek is no proof at all.
> 
> However, I did catch one thing that I didn't expect to see, which was the suggestion that there was indeed time before the big bang.  This makes a lot more sense and matches up with the parent universe theory and the back side of the black hole theory, which I like a lot better.  So, now that we can stop saying there was no time before the big bang, I can stop saying that's utter non-sense.
> 
> ...



Well how about I try to explain the greek? 

Pretty much what the video is claiming, without all the fluff, is that the universe is infinite, and that at findings by various people led to the idea that this infinite universe is somehow contained into one small point. And things were...odd at this small point, because of the superheat and the bending of time/space. It got so crazy that time and most physical/scientific laws broke down. Then, which is what we're trying to find out, it all just started expanding, and X Years later, we get the beginning of the solar system, earth, and all that fun stuff. 

One thing I was wondering though, is when the video pitched the idea that what if there were events that led to the previous universe condensing into the Big Bang and then leading it to expand again. Is this a cycle the universe goes through? Does it just get infinitely bigger and then infinitely smaller, and repeat until the end of existence? Or did actions in that previous universe lead it to condensing to that one point which then led to it expanding? 

Or....well now I have my own ideas, but rational folk such as yourself would have no room for such crazy ideas.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 20, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> "People tend only to watch videos that reinforce their views. . ."
> 
> Ah, I've seen this a lot. From pretty much anyone.
> 
> Also, I don't know if it's just me, but I have this thing about tossing around the word mainstream. To me, it doesn't feel like something being "mainstream science" makes it more...better/qualified. BUt eh, that's just me.



Actually mainstream science is usually more likely to be correct than fringe science. Almost all scientific endeavors end up confirming the current consensus. Revolutions are the rarity, which is why they are so interesting and earn people nobel prizes. 

Unfortunately the news often represents scientific progress as 'breakthroughs' that overturn consensus, eventhough most of them simply confirm it. A good example being sky news' response to the discover of Ida, a fossil that should have existed in the record was found, but Sky interpreted it as 'the missing link between man and primates' implying that there was still a debate about humans being primates and even worse, getting ida's position in history very very wrong. 

if you want to understand science you have actually got to pick up books, not just watch youtube videos and the like, because they are often totally wrong, and the only way to determine which are right is to read the literature.



Nikolinni said:


> Well how about I try to explain the greek?
> 
> Pretty much what the video is claiming, without all the fluff, is that  the universe is infinite, and that at findings by various people led to  the idea that this *infinite universe is somehow contained into one small  point*. And things were...odd at this small point, because of the  superheat and the bending of time/space. It got so crazy that time and  most physical/scientific laws broke down. Then, which is what we're  trying to find out, it all just started expanding, and X Years later, we  get the beginning of the solar system, earth, and all that fun stuff.
> 
> ...



This is wrong, and is the opposite of what the video asserted. An infinite space is also not a necessary tenet of big bang theory, just one possible variant. 

The cyclic universe model is a difficult topic. Nobody knows anything about it.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 20, 2014)

Raptros said:


> Wait so you're dismissing evidence/an explanation because you can't understand it?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> ...



Well, think about it. What good is evidence presented to you if you can't comprehend the evidence?


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 20, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well, think about it. What good is evidence presented to you if you can't comprehend the evidence?


One should at least put some effort in to understand what the evidence is saying (this goes for showing and receiving).

Otherwise, dismissing it is an ignorant thing to do.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 20, 2014)

If you are not prepared to put some effort in, you should be prepared to be wrong.


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 20, 2014)

IMHO if you yourself cannot comprehend an idea you shouldn't present it until you can, and never dismiss anything until you do your research.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 20, 2014)

'


----------



## Rassah (Feb 20, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Unfortunately, the internet is all some of us have access to.  And I suppose it slips past your gaze every time I say that I don't believe in any of this, and that I take it all with a grain of salt.



And yet you bring up things like you possibly believing in ghosts, or that unified field theory is related to god. Shouldn't those things be likely untrue too? I'm not sure if you answered, but is there anything you do actually believe in? Because while you claim to be a sceptic about everything, there are things you seem to want to convince people are possible.


Regarding infinity, one of the reasons it could apply to the universe is because if you get to the edge of the universe, there is still something beyond that edge. Just as if you think of the highest number you can, you can always add 1 to it.
Another reason it could apply is relativity: if the universe is expanding at the speed of light, and nothing can travel at the speed of light, then nothing can ever reach the edge of the universe. There may be an edge, but it's impossible to get to. I'm sure with the outer edges being less gravitationally dense than the inner areas that have stars and matter, that there are some screwy time issues out at the edges, too (time moving way faster?). Just guessing on that last one though.
An even more confusing reason infinity could apply to the universe is due to the overall gravity of it warping space. A circle is an example of infinity: You can travel over the circle for ever, over and over, and never reach its "end." In the universe example, if you were to build a doughnut shaped tunnel around a black hole, just within the area where gravity is strong enough to attract/bend light and force it to "orbit" around it, you could stand inside of that curved doughnut tunnel, look fotward, and to you it would seem straight. You'd even be able to see yourself. That's because, like a satelite traveling forward around the earth, but in reality curving around it, all photons (light) will look like they are traveling forward, but in reality will be curving around the black hole. So, even though to someone looking from outside they will see an obviously curved doughut shape, in your perspective, you will travel in what you think is a straight direction (it will look straight), and eventually end up right where you started. The same thing may apply to the universe as a whole (though in a more braintwisting crazy way), where if you travel out in a straight direction, the universe's gravity will bend space-time, and will only make you think you are traveling straight, but in reality you'll eventually end up where you started.
P.S. we know black holes, and even heavy stars, bend light, and we know that satelites orbit around heavy objects, so we pretty much know a doughnut shaped hallway will look straight if it's around a black hole. I don't know if we know for certain that this applies to the entire universe though.

P.P.S. The universe is quite a heck of a lot of fun and interesting if you are willing to read and learn about it. Much more interesting than medieval stories about ancient gods terrorising desert dwellers.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 20, 2014)

Rassah said:


> And yet you bring up things like you possibly believing in ghosts, or that unified field theory is related to god. Shouldn't those things be likely untrue too? I'm not sure if you answered, but is there anything you do actually believe in? Because while you claim to be a sceptic about everything, there are things you seem to want to convince people are possible.
> 
> 
> Regarding infinity, one of the reasons it could apply to the universe is because if you get to the edge of the universe, there is still something beyond that edge. Just as if you think of the highest number you can, you can always add 1 to it.
> ...



Well the thing is, at least for me, the universe IS interesting, and that I don't subscribe to the belief of "medieval stories about ancient gods terrorizing desert dwelers", unless even believing in the idea of a soul == Subscribing to medieval beliefs. 

If anything the supernatural ideas I hold enhance my views of the universe, the endless possibilities, the infinite things that could be real or could be true. Do I realize I could be wrong? Well sure enough, yes I do. But like...I don't know. Like, what if we're just, one possible universe? And there's an endless amount of other universes out there? That our own universe isn't the only thing going on forever, but the possiblities of different universes and realities are continuing for eternity as well? That the whole of existence is just this endless creation of various universes, realities, and so on? 

Which kinda brings me back to when I started talking about the whole idea of our universe starting out big, condensing into that one point, and then expanding again with the Big Bang. What if it wasn't OUR universe that condensed into that one point? What if that existence before that one point was in fact another reality, another universe, another something taking that infinity, putting it into what I'm just gonna call a pocket-dimension because I'm lacking the proper words at the moment, and then let it go, which eventually leads to our universe expanding and eventually becoming what it is?

Granted, all of this is pure speculation on my part. I guess being a writer just leaves me prone to coming up with all these insane ideas.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 20, 2014)

You're not that far off (and still no need to imagine god in it) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 20, 2014)

.


----------



## Conker (Feb 20, 2014)

Yarem4 said:


> Well since horus is a god who's only information we have is from mythology and it's a fact that the ancient church adopted the 25th of December from a pagan festivity and turned into Jesusday...  Nikolinni would be right


The only information we have about Jesus is from mythology :V Well, some legal documents from ye olden times as well I suppose, but the bulk is from the Bible which is no different than an ancient Egyptian holy text.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 20, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Unfortunately, the internet is all some of us have access to.  And I suppose it slips past your gaze every time I say that I don't believe in any of this, and that I take it all with a grain of salt.  I'm well aware of the deceptive nature of the internet.  But I pride myself on being open minded.  So I'm not disrespectful of scientists whose theories are unpopular with the rest of the scientific community, as the scientific community as been wrong before.
> 
> I didn't link Hagelin's video to sell his views on quantum physics anyway.  I linked it because of it's comparative properties to how I was raised to think of God to illustrate the point that there are many different ideas about what a creator might be, and that they are not all incompatible with science.  A foolish attempt on my part to get people thinking about how limited their perspectives on the subject are, everyone seeming to assume that a creator has to conform to some prejudicial impression of an old man in a chair in the sky with supernatural powers, when relatively few people in the world who believe in such stuff subscribe to such a limited concept.
> 
> ...



John's views are incompatible. He is deliberately confusing jargon with poetic meanings of words. That's all his position is. 
...furthermore 'christian' science is bullshit. Science does not start with a prefix of any faith, otherwise it is not science; it is bullshitting to provide phony evidence for a prerequisite faith-held position.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 20, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> John's views are incompatible. He is deliberately confusing jargon with poetic meanings of words. That's all his position is.
> ...furthermore 'christian' science is bullshit. Science does not start with a prefix of any faith, otherwise it is not science; it is bullshitting to provide phony evidence for a prerequisite faith-held position.



Christian Science is an actual legit sect of Christianity >__>


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 20, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Christian Science is an actual legit sect of Christianity >__>



It smells of poo poo and confirmation bias.


----------



## Conker (Feb 20, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Christian Science is an actual legit sect of Christianity >__>


All the more reason to ignore it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 20, 2014)

Conker said:


> All the more reason to ignore it.


The way its members would ignore legitimate medicine, allowing their children to die of treatable conditions. 
I suppose keeping the population down isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 20, 2014)

.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 21, 2014)

Perri, every time you type "Scientists say..." just stop because you don't have the slightest clue what actual, well-repected scientists say.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 21, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Perri, every time you type "Scientists say..." just stop because you don't have the slightest clue what actual, well-repected scientists say.



Why do we only have to listen to well-respected scientists? 

That's like stopping her because she don't get her opinions from no "Well respected" musicians.

Edit: I know why you should listen to well-respected scientists and all that stuff. I'm just throwing things out there for people to inevitably call me an idiot over.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 21, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> No, John is talking in a language the general public can understand.  Sue him for being smart enough to know most people don't speak science.
> 
> Well, I'd agree with you about Christian Science, if I thought you actually knew what Christian Science was.  But because you're most likely hating on it for the wrong reasons you put me in the regrettable position of having to defend it.  Which totally sucks.  But, on second thought, I don't feel like degrading myself that much.
> 
> This has burned itself out and I'm tired.  See you all again sometime . . . maybe.



He is using the language barrier between science and colloquial speech to trick people into thinking scientific language is spiritual in nature. :\

If you want to talk in language the public understands that language needs to actually reflect what quantum mechanics is about; his speech had literally nothing at all to do with what quantum mechanics is- and I can see that with only a trivial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

How most scientists approach the jargon barrier is by starting their discussion or book with an introduction that defines key pieces of jargon specifically, so that there is no ambiguity. 
For example a book on evolutionary biology will define words such as 'locus' 'gene' 'allopatric' and 'allometric'. If your audience doesn't leave with some knowledge of what the jargon means, so that they can understand it properly in the future, you haven't done a good job.



Nikolinni said:


> Why do we only have to listen to well-respected scientists?
> 
> That's like stopping her because she don't get her opinions from no "Well respected" musicians.
> 
> Edit: I know why you should listen to well-respected scientists and all  that stuff. I'm just throwing things out there for people to inevitably  call me an idiot over.




Music is subjective. Science is an objective field. Why would you make this comparison if you know it is false and expect people to call you an idiot for making it? ._.

If you want to understand volcanic hazards you speak to a volcanologist who everyone agrees knows her stuff, you don't speak to a biologist who has a hypothesis about volcanoes which everyone else on the planet thinks is wrong.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 21, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> And I apparently get around more than most people here who only seem to focus on very limited areas and have minds as closed as steel traps




This is HIGHLY ironic, because we are the ones who are saying that based on observable and verified-thousands-of-times evidence, things are so and so, and you are the one saying, "No, I don't believe any of it!"


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 21, 2014)

Rassah said:


> This is HIGHLY ironic, because we are the ones who are saying that based on observable and verified-thousands-of-times evidence, things are so and so, and you are the one saying, "No, I don't believe any of it!"



Well, granted she's like that even religious wise. 

But I think she says that because it's just how some of the members act. To me it almost seems like they're on a conversion mission. Like they HAVE to change your mind and make you now think that all spirituality is bunk and that doing so makes you some weak-minded fool (Spiritual thinking, that is). And then us spiritual folk have to put up with being called closed minded/dumb/irrational/gullible/manipulable/sheeple/too afraid to read science/too dumb for science/what have you. Which to me, seems highly in-courteous. 

I mean like even you Rassah said that some of my ideas concerning pre-Big Bang weren't off, but then you had to toss in the whole bit of "works without God" as if you HAVE to say that, that you HAVE to convince me that it can work without God being around or whatever. 

Y'know what? Honestly? I see where you guys are coming at. I can look at things from Captain Cool's perspective and see why and understand why he thinks there's enough evidence for evolution, or the big bang, or see the perspective of people saying science really doesn't need God/Gods/Spirits/what have you. So at least know that, guys. That I understand your viewpoint; I just continue on with what I believe for various reasons. And as always, they're open to being changed or morphed depending on what new things I discover and find out. 

So that's pretty much it. A lot of my crazy spiritual stuff I say is kinda just ideas to kick around, but it's clear that people here don't want to kick around spiritual ideas because their world view "leaves no room for it". I kinda think that's what she means when she says "closed as steel traps". That and there's also the never changing views and animosity towards religious and spiritual people. 

Anyways, that's pretty much it.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 21, 2014)

Someone pointed out a very important difference about god vs science to me today. Falsefiability. Scientists only accept ideas that can be proven wrong. That's pretty much it. Gods and spirituality things can't be proven wrong, so should be discarded and ignored. Only things that we can test and possibly prove wrong are worth learning about and believing in.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 21, 2014)

Rassah said:


> Someone pointed out a very important difference about god vs science to me today. Falsefiability. Scientists only accept ideas that can be proven wrong. That's pretty much it. Gods and spirituality things can't be proven wrong, so should be discarded and ignored. Only things that we can test and possibly prove wrong are worth learning about and believing in.



Well perhaps that's your world view. But to others? Not so, really.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 21, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well perhaps that's your world view. But to others? Not so, really.



The problem is those other views are actually really stupid. 

They're right up there with blaming bad weather on the gays.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 21, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The problem is those other views are actually really stupid.
> 
> They're right up there with blaming bad weather on the gays.



Stupid to you, to others not really. The idea that they are is simply youre feelings and thoughts on how one's life should be lived. We all have our own ways of life.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 21, 2014)

.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 21, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well perhaps that's your world view. But to others? Not so, really.



The opposite view, that of believing in things that are not falsifiable and can never be proven wrong, is that you end up believing in things you have no hopes of learning anything from. Seriously, what have you learned from god or spirituality?



Perri_Rhoades said:


> The two scientists I listen to most are Richard Dawkins...




So why do you dismiss his claim about evolution being true? Isn't that the thing he advocates the most about?





Perri_Rhoades said:


> Damn straight I'm telling people I donâ€™t believe in it. The things you people believe in are absolutely insane, and have not been proven or demonstrated anywhere but on a blackboard.




But they have been proven and demonstrated! That's what I've been telling you! We can see and observe gravity by watching object orbit each other. We can see light being bent by looking at stars as they pass in front of other stars, and see the light bend and warp around the near star as if it was a magnifying glass, seeing the far star off to the side of the near star when we know it's actually directly behind it. This gravitational lens warping is even more pronounced when we observe black holes. We have also proven and demonstrated the effects of gravity and speed on time by launching super-acurate atomic clocks into space on our GPS satellites, and seeing a drift in time despite the clocks being initially perfectly synchronized. All this is so well tested and proven that we have to use it and account for it in everything from GPS, to WiFi, to even hard drive cables.




Perri_Rhoades said:


> And stay off the backs of those who find it pleasurable to dream about what might be.




No one has issues with dreamers. The issues are with those who adamantly refuse to learn, because they are stuck on some stupid logic error.




Perri_Rhoades said:


> Up is down can easily be proven wrong, and therefore it must be right. But up is up can not be proven wrong, and therefore it must be false.



Those are relative descriptive terms. They can't be proven either way, just like you can't prove that fast is fast (as related to what?). So wrong analogy.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> The Bible and Christianity can and have been put to the test and the research many times. They have been proven wrong every time. By your theory they must be true.



No, what I said is *can be proven wrongâ€‹, *not *has been proven wrongâ€‹. *If it has been proven wrong, it's obviously wrong. If it can be proven wrong, but despite numerous tests has not been proven wrong, then it's likeky right. If it can't be proven wrong in any way, then it's not right or wrong, and is simply irrelevant. The claims in the bible have proven wrong, so they are wrong. The claim about god or Christ can't be proven wrong, because they have no bearing or effect on our world, and thus irrelevant. Evolution can be proven wrong in many many ways, but despite all the tests has not been so far, and thus is likely the most not-wrong idea we have. That's how knowledge and science works.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> There is an easy test for God. Itâ€™s written in The Bible. Go into your closet and listen for the still small voice. If you hear it, then God exists and youâ€™re stuck with him. If you donâ€™t, he doesnâ€™t exist, and you can forget all about him. Except, by your theory, if you prove him to not exist, then you have to believe in him.



How does not hearing the voice prove that he doesn't exist? Maybe he just didn't want to talk then. So that doesn't disprove god, and thus my theory, that he can't be proven wrong, and is thus wrong, still stands.




Perri_Rhoades said:


> I do understand what the evidence for the big bang is. It's non-existent. It is all theory and assumption based on a single observation that the stars are moving away from each other,...




You forgot to mention factual tested laws of physics, observation of the way stars gravitate around each other, observation and testing of a very specific type of radiation that could only happen in a Big Bang type event, observation of quantum particles and their behavior, and all these thousands of actual observations having only one way in which they can all fit together. And none of it is assumption (which in science is called hypothesis). Remember I asked you what your opinion was on consensus from various different fields coming together to work and create something that is a sum of all parts? (like your computer depending on hundreds of different scientific facts, all coming together to make your computer work) It's the same thing with Big Bang and Evolution.





Perri_Rhoades said:


> And that's just as true for any interpretation of quantum mechanics. We know it's there. We know how it works. We even know how to use it to build things. But anyone who tells you he knows for sure why it works also has a bridge in Brooklyn he'd like to sell you.



Do you understand that quantum mechanics is an actually observable phenomenon? As in, it's not just formulas on a blackboard, it's actual stuff we have actually seen and tested with our instruments? That it's not a "theory" in a colloquial sense, but an established fact we have to keep in mind when we make things? Your computer processor, which is a physical piece of sand, had to be built with electricity, conductivity, heat, and quantum mechanics in mind, and would not have worked without taking those into consideration.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> The onus is not upon me to believe in anyone's theory just because somebody says a consensus of people believes in it. The onus is upon scientists to explain things in a way that makes logical sense to me, if they are to be owed the honor of my belief.




Wrong. The onus on scientists is to come up with usable data that others who understand it can put to good use. Scientists don't owe you anything. The onus is on you to actually learn to understand what it is that they are saying, or simply admit that you don't understand it, instead of saying it's wrong because you don't believe it.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> The people on this board talk gobbledygook - incomprehensible jargon that proves nothing, and then turn around and treat everyone who will not bend and say they see sense in their nonsense like dirt.




This is what I mean BTW. Your side is being treated badly because you either say "I KNOW god did it" or say "I KNOW what you are saying is wrong," when you have no proof or evidence. If someone spews gobbledygook, you either ask for evidence and explanation, showing a willingness to learn, or you admit that you don't understand and don't know what's being said, and move on. People claiming knowledge, including knowing that it's gobbledygook, as you claim, despite showing no evidence of having knowledge, is what pisses scientists off.


----------



## Conker (Feb 21, 2014)

Rassah said:


> So why do you dismiss his claim about evolution being true? Isn't that the thing he advocates the most about?


It is. It's one of his major theses (I think that's the right plural) for not believing in God. Evolution answers all of his problems, and so he goes with it.

He's written two or three books about it, and it shows up quite a bit in _The God Delusion_ from what I remember.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

Rassah, what does it matter if I tell you what I've learned? You will just negate anything I've to say. You're so closed minded about religion and spirituality you can't even concieve anything positive about it.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Rassah, what does it matter if I tell you what I've learned? You will just negate anything I've to say. You're so closed minded about religion and spirituality you can't even concieve anything positive about it.



And your side is more closed-minded about science. I'm spiritual myself but even I can see evolution is a thing. If something proves itself to me, then I will acknowledge it.

IDK why people are still on this thread tbh. I kinda gave up when Jesus and Hitler were mixed.


----------



## Conker (Feb 22, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I kinda gave up when Jesus and Hitler were mixed.


Now that's some crazy shipping!


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

Aleu said:


> And your side is more closed-minded about science. I'm spiritual myself but even I can see evolution is a thing. If something proves itself to me, then I will acknowledge it.
> 
> IDK why people are still on this thread tbh. I kinda gave up when Jesus and Hitler were mixed.



So the guy who says he'll change his views based on evidence/proof is more close minded about science...huh...

And I don't know if I argued against evolution in this thread but taking a second look, yeah I can see tthat it is a thing, that it's got a lot going for it. 

Still, you don't see me asking what value/good things we can get from evolution or the big bang, as if the very *idea* that one could get good ideas from it is inconcievable, do ya?


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 22, 2014)

.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well perhaps that's your world view. But to others? Not so, really.





Nikolinni said:


> Stupid to you, to others not really. The idea that they are is simply youre feelings and thoughts on how one's life should be lived. We all have our own ways of life.



No, it IS stupid to believe in things that are not falsifiable. Because if you do believe in things that can't be proven wrong you can't be proven wrong yourself as well!
In my opinion it is mindblowingly stupid thing to do. To risk being wrong without _ever_ having the chance to be proven wrong.
And being proven wrong is incredibly important, because it means that you learned something new based on something real that you discovered and tested.
That is the problem with faith. Because faith is the fear of being proven wrong and clinging to a belief that is not falsifiable.




Nikolinni said:


> Rassah, what does it matter if I tell you what I've learned? You will just negate anything I've to say. You're so closed minded about religion and spirituality you can't even concieve anything positive about it.



You say that like "negating what you have learned" is a bad thing. Think about it, if you have learned something that is not true, have you really learned anything at all?
No one in this thread is close minded about religion or spirituality. Those who are speaking up against these concepts based on a scientific point of view are more open minded than anyone else. Because science in essence means to be open minded on a rational level. To question things that have not met their burden of proof and to accept those claims  that have been demonstrated to be true.
Rejecting something that is not based on any evidence has nothing to do with being close minded. It is a rational response.




Perri_Rhoades said:


> Whatâ€™s that got to do with folding space and creating a dimension for every choice you make?  If you can fold space letâ€™s see you do it.  *Until youâ€™ve done it youâ€™ve not proven a thing.*




There.
If you don't understand this article stop commenting on spacetime, ok?



Perri_Rhoades said:


> *In that event, scientific knowledge is faith â€“ faith that it will not ever be proven wrong, and therefore you can go around acting like things you have not disproven are somehow facts*.  And when you ask me to believe in these things you are asking me to share your faith in them.  But my faith is not up for grabs.  I accept that evolution exists.  I do not acknowledge conclusive knowledge of how it works and what its limitations might be.



Bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit.
Science is the concept of looking at the world and making conclusions based on observation, evidence and experimentation. Saying science is based on faith only demonstrates one thing: You know nothing about science.



Perri_Rhoades said:


> *None of that proves the scenario of the big bang as laid out by science*.  As Niko is so fond of pointing out, its circumstantial evidence.  It doesnâ€™t prove how things happened in any specific terms.  It suggests a lot of things that are likely to have happened, but not so anyone can sit in court and say â€œI am as good as an eye witness to how things happened.â€



You already demonstrated that you have no working knowledge about cosmology, astrophysics, quantum physics or general relativity and yet you still have the balls to question the work of those who are professionals in those fields? Are you serious?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Stupid to you, to others not really. The idea that they are is simply youre feelings and thoughts on how one's life should be lived. We all have our own ways of life.



Not all opinions are of the same value. You would never accept unfalsifiable medicinal practices...well maybe _you_ would actually. :\


also, the 'ideas that richard dawkins say border on the insane'. Have you like...actually read his books on evolutionary biology and genetics? Or do you just follow his twitter or something?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> No, it IS stupid to believe in things that are not falsifiable. Because if you do believe in things that can't be proven wrong you can't be proven wrong yourself as well!
> In my opinion it is mindbogglingly stupid thing to do. To risk being wrong without _ever_ having the chance to be proven wrong.
> And being proven wrong is incredibly important, because it means that you learned something new based on something real that you discovered and tested.
> That is the problem with faith. Because faith is the fear of being proven wrong and clinging to a belief that is not falsifiable.
> ...



I don't have a problem with people rejecting things based on no evidence. I get that, in fact in the page prior I even said that I can understand why you would think that way or come to that conclusion. My issue is this whole "Oh you're still irrational/gullible/etc" state of mind, and this seemingly driven want to "De-Convert" me from whatever spiritual ideas I hold. As if it's like a mission from God (so to speak). When I argue that you guys are being closed minded, this is what I'm talking about. I don't think being scientific, religious, democrat, republican, whatever automatically makes one more open or closed; it is their attitudes, their thinking, the /person/ themselves, that makes them closed or open. 

And how do you know I can never be proven wrong? If science one day turns up that there's no such things as other dimensions or planes or realities, for instance, well there goes some of my beliefs. If it proves that your mind can't effect anything, there goes more. In fact I've stated that repeatedly, actually. That if science shows me the things I follow are false, then oh well, they're false. 

And faith isn't being scared of being proven wrong. I'm gettin' real tired of people and their BS definitions of what faith is. You might as well say "Faith is being too scared to open a science book". If such a thing were true, least about me I'd not be looking to take Physics in college. 

And when I answered Rassah's challenge with "It doesn't matter what I've learned", by learned I didn't mean things like "Christ died for your sins" or "The Eightfold Path Can Lead to Nirvana"; I meant ideas, concepts things like faith, love, hope, wonder, music, story ideas, compassion, empathy, and so on. That if I were to make such a list, chances are someone would find some way to knock it in some way.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 22, 2014)

.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 22, 2014)

Ignorance isn't something to be proud of, really. That's the worrying trend in this thread. :\ 

'yeah I'm ignorant, but it allows me to have different views- and those different views entitle me to remain ignorant!'


also...belief is not a 'non sciencey word'. 

Belief means 'I am convinced x is true'. In science we say 'I am convinced x is true, because of evidence y,'

Belief does not mean 'conviction without reason',.


An incorrect proposal about what belief should entail in this thread is 'whether it suits your lifestyle'. In science beliefs are accepted or denied only on epistemological grounds. Some beliefs might be very worrying or inconvenient, but they are believed because of the evidence that backs them up.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Ignorance isn't something to be proud of, really. That's the worrying trend in this thread. :\
> 
> 'yeah I'm ignorant, but it allows me to have different views- and those different views entitle me to remain ignorant!'
> 
> ...



Yes but you see not everyone bases their lives based around what science says, does, and defines. It's not the be-all-end-all for what people should do with their lives.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 22, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Ignorance isn't something to be proud of, really. That's the worrying trend in this thread. :\
> 
> 'yeah I'm ignorant, but it allows me to have different views- and those different views entitle me to remain ignorant!'
> 
> ...



I have to interject and say you are quite a trooper. I've seen some heavy one-sided debates in my day, but this one is just taking the cake. Hundreds of responses, and there seems scarcely a scratch.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Yes but you see not everyone bases their lives based around what science says, does, and defines. It's not the be-all-end-all for what people should do with their lives.



Holding a model of the world which happens to be correct, or as close to correct as possible, doesn't tell you what you should do with your life. It does help you get what you want out of life though; if you find out that it's not physically possible to achieve an ambition you might change your priorities. 

[an interesting real example was an artist who wanted to project the word 'she' onto the moon- she was unaware that the power required to do that was greater than all power consumed by humans ever. If she had a better understanding of the world she could have decided to move onto a more realistic project, instead of losing her valuable time]


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 22, 2014)

The ignorance displayed in this thread is quite frankly, disgustingly insulting to the physicists and cosmologists that have put in their life's work studying the subject only to be told their work is invalid because of complete and utter ignorance and an unwillingness to learn.

Warping of space-time? Pretty much the reason why gravity works (which we can see the effect of), and the reason why Earth is blasting around the sun at about 107,200 Km/h (on average). If you get enough matter in one place you can warp space-time yourself. Actually, your body is warping space-time right now, but only to a minuscule degree.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 22, 2014)

I believe this is one of the reasons GPS works [a relative change in proximity  between you and a geostationary satellite to the massive earth, which distorts space time, would perturb GPS readings if the satellites did not perform corrections]

This isn't just fancy physics someone wrote down on a chalk board to look smart. It's pretty useful stuff.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I believe this is one of the reasons GPS works [a relative change in proximity  between you and a geostationary satellite to the massive earth, which distorts space time, would perturb GPS readings if the satellites did not perform corrections]
> 
> This isn't just fancy physics someone wrote down on a chalk board to look smart. It's pretty useful stuff.



Well of course science can be, and is, useful. I don't really give two rips about science to be honest. 

It's more or less the people that defended and hold it as a banner of truth not unlike a religious fundie that's my main point of discontent with science.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well of course science can be, and is, useful. I don't really give two rips about science to be honest.
> 
> It's more or less the people that defended and hold it as a banner of truth not unlike a religious fundie that's my main point of discontent with science.



Science changes its beliefs based on what's observed, whereas religious faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. 

This is the difference between fundamentalist and science.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Science changes its beliefs based on what's observed, whereas religious faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
> 
> This is the difference between fundamentalist and science.



Yes but here's the thing. 

Time and again on this thread I've witnessed plenty of people try to, seemingly, push their world beliefs onto others, hitting them repeatedly over the head with the teachings of science in fierce repremandation of even _daring_ to be religious because there's no "Scientific proof". 

THAT, my friend, is what I mean by acting like a fundamentalist. Sure science might be changing, but you can still sure as hell still beat pepole over the head with it like a fundie can. 

Even with my changing flows and ideas of spiritualism, you don't see ME bashing people over the head with it and acting like you're a fool for not subscribing to it, do you?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 22, 2014)

The objective of this thread was to debate 'evolution of creationism'. Justifying the former position, and making it clear that the evolutionary process is in no way divine, is not fundamentalism. It's the point of the thread.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The objective of this thread was to debate 'evolution of creationism'. Justifying the former position, and making it clear that the evolutionary process is in no way divine, is not fundamentalism. It's the point of the thread.



Let me make it perfectly clear to you. 
*
It's not what you're arguing, it is HOW you are doing it that I'm accusing you of being a fundie over. Your attitude and treatment of "the other side".

*
Your behavior is the best argument against your side, just as with the religious fundies.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Time and again on this thread I've witnessed plenty of people try to, seemingly, push their world beliefs onto others, hitting them repeatedly over the head with the teachings of science in fierce repremandation of even _daring_ to be religious because there's no "Scientific proof".



There is a fundamental difference though... Science is not a beliefsystem! It describes how the world actually works!
So if I tell a creationist that "No, what you believe is a load of bull and evolution is a fact" that is not me forcing my beliefs on him or her. That is me explaining how things are, whether I like it or not! Because unlike religion science is not a security blanket...


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Let me make it perfectly clear to you.
> *
> It's not what you're arguing, it is HOW you are doing it that I'm accusing you of being a fundie over. Your attitude and treatment of "the other side".
> 
> ...



Actually this is called an ad hominem fallacy. I could be a total asshole and still be correct that 1 and 1 make 2.


I suspect any justification you don't like will receive a plea of 'stop being a big meanie- I'm right because you're a meanie!' response. 
The ultimate get-out clause.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Actually this is called an ad hominem fallacy. I could be a total asshole and still be correct that 1 and 1 make 2.
> 
> 
> I suspect any justification you don't like will receive a plea of 'stop being a big meanie- I'm right because you're a meanie!' response.
> The ultimate get-out clause.



I know it is. But here's the thing. I'm not trying to diminish your viewpoint and press my viewpoint off as correct. I've stopped with the arguing that Big Bang or evolution is true or false. I'm attacking to diminish your fog of smugness and self-righteousness. 

And besides, even if you were an asshole and correct, people still turn off to that stuff, don'tcha know? Courtesy goes a long way, take it from a Cast Member. 



CaptainCool said:


> There is a fundamental difference though... Religion is not a beliefsystem! It describes how the world actually works!
> So if I tell a evolutionist that "No, what you believe is a load of bull and creationism is a fact" that is not me forcing my beliefs on him or her. That is me explaining how things are, whether I like it or not! Because unlike science religion is not a security blanket...



....with a few small edits I've shown that such a statement is something a religious fundie person could easily say. 

Hello pot, this is kettle. I'm just calling to say "You're black!"


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 22, 2014)

How saintly of you to take it upon yourself to remodel my personality. Naturally I'm very appreciative; if only people's feelings came ahead of facts the world would surely be a better place- not that it would matter, because it would feel like a better place to me!

If only engineers and mathematicians would be more humble and press less objective standards; numbers might really be the devil's work and machines might really be run by tiny fairies. How rude such professionals are to deny these points; how fundamentalist of them!
I mean, we couldn't possibly support a biologist who denies biodiversity is the work of a space-genie; such fundamentalism is a poison to this earth!


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> ....with a few small edits I've shown that such a statement is something a religious fundie person could easily say.
> 
> Hello pot, this is kettle. I'm just calling to say "You're black!"



Only that the result is complete and utter nonsense. Did you even read the result of your edit...? It makes no sense at all!
Scientific facts are not a personal belief! EÂ²=(mcÂ²)Â²+(pc)Â² is not a personal belief of mine, it is true even if I don't believe it's true. And if I explain to you that it is true that is not me forcing anything on you, it is simply how reality works! 
But something like creationism IS a personal belief! It is not supported by evidence and it works against everything that we know. It doesn't explain reality, it is just creationists forcing their nonsense on others...


----------



## Conker (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> ....with a few small edits I've shown that such a statement is something a religious fundie person could easily say.
> 
> Hello pot, this is kettle. I'm just calling to say "You're black!"


You can reword that sure, but it doesn't change the fact that it's factually incorrect.

That's the difference.

It's kind of a big difference too!


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 22, 2014)

The next person to be uncivil here will be infracted and the thread will be locked. Last warning.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

Conker said:


> You can reword that sure, but it doesn't change the fact that it's factually incorrect.
> 
> That's the difference.
> 
> It's kind of a big difference too!



The point that I'm trying to make, that no-one seems to get at the moment, is that it's not what you're arguing but how you're arguing it. You're not being closed minded or mean for venturing to say "Y'know the idea of God doesn't make sense"; but when you say "Well the idea of God is rubbish and anyone who believes in it is a gullible moron incapable of comprehending science" then you're veering into dis-courtesy. But people on here seem content to straw man me and say "You're saying meanies are people daring to say you're wrong!", which is a totally incorrect rendering of my argument.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> The point that I'm trying to make, that no-one seems to get at the moment, is that it's not what you're arguing but how you're arguing it.



So this could have been solved multiple pages ago if Fallowfox or CC were a little nicer? Somehow I doubt that.

Is this nice enough?
"I can appreciate your belief in a supernatural deity/deities, *but* in the realm of science, it bares no accurate resemblance of anything even remotely true, and should not be thought of in scientific terms; thusly, it should not be used in the field, in the classroom, in a science lab, or in any way weighed or thought of as equals with science. You can still believe whatever you want, I may not know why, and I don't wish to take it from you, unless you try and press your deity/deities into science."

Getting into the nitty gritty details just opens up a can of worms and puts people on the defensive, even if they take care and word it carefully and thoughtfully.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So this could have been solved ~15 pages ago if Fallowfox or CC were a little nicer? Somehow I doubt that.



Oh no, the Evolution vs Creationism debate wouldn'tve been settled if they were nicer. This is something I've just started to point out within the last page or so.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 22, 2014)

.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 22, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> That is you explaining how you think it works.  If you even argue creation against evolution as a fact, you are automatically wrong, because evolution has nothing to do with creation.  Evolution has to do with what happened after creation.  Creation requires a different explanation, which science is currently working on.  Science will very likely have a more rational explanation for creation within the next 10 years, according to Michio Kaku.  And it is not what you'd be telling the creationist is a fact.



Look at the thread title.
Don't tell me, I know that. Tell the creatards.
Actually, I think that is the best part about this whole thing! They make it so painfully obvious that they have absolutely no FFFFFFFFFFFUCKING idea what evolution is, they rage against it even though it isn't even the opposite to creation! XD
I was talking to a jehovah's witness guy. When I asked him what evolution even is he essentially exaplained it as "how life started and how monkeys changed into humans". He had never even heard about abiogenesis.

I am actually pretty convinced that most people who believe in creationism are simply too dense to grasp rather basic scientific concepts like evolution. Evolution in itself is a rather tough subject but I mean the basic part of it. Like that life does change over long periods of time.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Look at the thread title.
> Don't tell me, I know that. Tell the creatards.
> Actually, I think that is the best part about this whole thing! They make it so painfully obvious that they have absolutely no FFFFFFFFFFFUCKING idea what evolution is, they rage against it even though it isn't even the opposite to creation! XD
> I was talking to a jehovah's witness guy. When I asked him what evolution even is he essentially exaplained it as "how life started and how monkeys changed into humans". He had never even heard about abiogenesis.
> ...



So I think it's time to play Definitions again. 

Cool when you say "Creationism", you mean the idea that some Christians argue; that is the whole earth is 6,000 years old and that God did everything just as in Genesis, right? 

Alright, I think when Perri and I (Well, I know me) say "Creation" Or "Creationism" we mean just the idea that a God or something got everything going, which the idea of can be compatible with evolution, since it can merely be the idea that the "something" that started the big bang was God or The Force or whatever you call it. 

I think this is important to get out of the way, especially with Perri and I talking, because our idea of "Creation" and "Creationism" might differ from the idea you get when you hear it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 22, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> So I think it's time to play Definitions again.
> 
> Cool when you say "Creationism", you mean the idea that some Christians argue; that is the whole earth is 6,000 years old and that God did everything just as in Genesis, right?
> 
> ...



I actually dump that kind of creation, the christian version and all other ideas of creationism into the same pot. It's not supported by any evidence so I don't care about it.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 22, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I actually dump that kind of creation, the christian version and all other ideas of creationism into the same pot. It's not supported by any evidence so I don't care about it.



Eh, well I was just wondering, just in case. Since it's not unheard of for me to see people who say "Religion" and talk about how evil it is, only to find out that for them "Religion" meant stuff like Judaism, Christianity, etc.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 22, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> In actual science, yes.  An actual scientist, like say Richard Dawkins, has the evidence in front of him with all the equipment and knowhow to examine it, draw conclusions from it, and set forward a proposal as to what he thinks it means.  I seriously doubt anyone on this board has that ability.
> 
> If we are to apply believe to the conclusions of Richard Dawkins, some faith in Richard Dawkins to know his business is implied.  Said faith might not be considered greatly unreasonable, but I highly doubt Richard Dawkins himself would agree with it.  He's quite adamant that anything he sets forward is subject to disproof.  And faith is counter to the will to disprove something.
> 
> ...



Technically, you don't really nbeed to have spirituality. it's a nice thing to have, but it is more like a condiment than a full course meal. Like Sriracha is to the life of Pho noodle soup. It is good to put Sriracha into your pho noodle soup, but you don't need it.

And it insinuate that furries need spirituality to make a fursona is ignorant in itself. Saying all furries are spiritual is the same as saying to others that all pho noodle soups need Sriracha to taste good. At that point, it become subjective.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 22, 2014)

.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 22, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> snip.



You are being brick-wall dismissed because you're conflating scientific jargon with poetic prose, not because everyone else is a fundamentalist of somesort. 

if you were to suggest, for example, that you disagree about the current mainstream views concerning group selection then people would lend their ear. if you say that you think quantum mechanics implies everyone is part of a magical mega-conscious everyone will simply say 'pfffftt' because that hypothesis is blatantly unfalsifiable, teleological and overly anthropomorphic. 


I'm sure you've read whining comments from internet 'scientists' and fringe-folk claiming that they're being black-listed by fundie science. Read the literature, not the internet and you might get a proper understanding of what actually goes on in the arena of scientific debate. 

Science isn't about accepting the mainstream beyond question. Beliefs are held with confidence that is a function of the supporting evidence. The world isn't binary. This however doesn't mean that you have free-reign to say 'well I should be able to suggest quantum mechanics is about spirituality!', because you are still required to meet your own burdens of reason and proof, first and foremost falsifiability and correct use of scientific language.



....also did you seriously use a video of kaku talking about souls to suggest that quantum physics is so embryonic that we aren't entitled to criticise your mistakes about it, or deplore the ignorance you exhibit about it in the face of lives spent working on it?



Perri_Rhoades said:


> *I come  into these debates to play Cygnus, God Of Balance, hopefully to prevent  you from descending into chaos from needlessly extreme views.*



You are literally the reason this thread has gone to shit; do you know what a 'middle ground fallacy' is?

It is also an awful shame that the middle ground you seek seems to be some sort of intellectual no-man's land in which 'knowledge is just opinions' or some such state, a place where everything is equally unjustified and utterly pointless. 

in the real world justification of ideas differs and, in some cases, we're lucky enough to actually stumble across things which are categorically right or undeniably false. We can use these as starting points to build upon, eroding the uncertainty we experience in life.

It's simply very painful to see someone with such a very poor understanding of the scientific areas, some of which I study, speaking about them as if they are an expert who is entitled to call vast swathes of science 'glaring holes', or otherwise imply that there is no difference between those disciplines and spiritual woo. 

Much of the world is a lot subtler and a lot more certain than you think it is, and that certainty has been hard-won by lifetimes of work, which you don't appear to appreciate even enough to read actual literature. :\ Instead you watch youtube videos and have the audacity to call it 'research'.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 22, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> What attracts me to these discussions is the middle ground - the balance between man's practical scientific side and his impractical religious side, *both of which are products of evolution*, and therefore theoretically helpful to the survival of the species.  Any scenario I project as a science fiction writer where one side is dominant over the other ends in disaster.



The scientific side and the religious side are based out of purposeful involvement by humans, which is not evolution. People are not born with an innate...sense? I guess I'll call it, of religion or science. It's the culture and environment around us that we gain that knowledge, which is a product of the human hand, and not necessarily nature itself. _Hypothetically_ is the term you were looking for, but you'd be wrong on both accounts. Religion isn't a necessity to life (and is only seen as such by some people, because of the culture and environment they grew up in), nor is it a balancing factor against science, they aren't even close to being on the same tier or weight at all. Science _is_ necessary to life, whether or not people know it or want to believe it.

I can't even begin to comprehend how you live in a uh..."balanced" world that without science we'd have the Spanish Inquisition, and without religion, we'd have some New World Order shit. 

You don't have to put all your eggs in one basket, but equally dividing them as you see fit is just as illogical.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 23, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> I like the theory that is set forth in "The Flight Of Dragons," where the magical world recedes as science advances, but remains in some unseen dimension where it continues to be accessible to the human mind, because without it, man can not be inspired to advance science.  And then there is the Rush *"2112" *theory in which chaos rules man so long as the heart and mind are out of balance.  So I come into these debates to play Cygnus, God Of Balance, hopefully to prevent you from descending into chaos from needlessly extreme views.


 That'd be 'Hemispheres', coming from someone who used to have their entire discography of crypto-Objectivist preaching


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 23, 2014)

'


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> I must confess something.  I find this place to be spiritual poison.  The majority of people posting in this thread are simply not nice, downright mean, hostile, anti-intellectual, predator types.  There is absolutely nothing here that I come to The Furry Community to enjoy, and being here actually undoes all the spiritual benefit I get from hanging out with my fellow furs in other places.  There are people here who literally make me sick.
> 
> I would highly recommend, if Iâ€™m as useless and bothersome as responses seem to indicate, that you all have the good sense to stop responding to me so I may feel free to leave this place and never bother any of you again.



Look at the poll. FAF obviously favors reason and logic over things that "may be". That is not us "being mean", it's radically different viewpoints colliding.
The way your posts fueled this mess is because you seem to have a dangerous half-knowledge about mainstream science and you mix it with spirituality. That simply doesn't work out very well.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Feb 23, 2014)

You know, somebody should do a Teach the Controversy campaign for the theory of the four humors to see how many creatards would change medical treatment based on that.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Look at the poll. FAF obviously favors reason and logic over things that "may be". That is not us "being mean", it's radically different viewpoints colliding.
> The way your posts fueled this mess is because you seem to have a dangerous half-knowledge about mainstream science and you mix it with spirituality. That simply doesn't work out very well.



Objection. 

This poll merely asks one's own opinion over evolution; it does NOT give a window into one's own spirituality, and therefore I'd say it's not a good window into how "logical and reasoning" someone is. 

That's like taking a poll on if people are atheist (With the definition on the poll being: Not believing in God(s)) and seeing a large turnout of "Yes" and thinking "Thank God! Rationality!" but then not considering that people that answered might, say, believe in magic or spirits, just not God(s). If I marked "evolution" on this poll, would you count that as part of your "People who are 'rational'"?



Ozriel said:


> Technically, you don't really nbeed to have spirituality. it's a nice thing to have, but it is more like a condiment than a full course meal. Like Sriracha is to the life of Pho noodle soup. It is good to put Sriracha into your pho noodle soup, but you don't need it.
> 
> And it insinuate that furries need spirituality to make a fursona is ignorant in itself. Saying all furries are spiritual is the same as saying to others that all pho noodle soups need Sriracha to taste good. At that point, it become subjective.



That's kinda sorta my take on it. I don't believe people need to be spiritual; when I say stuff like "We all have our own paths" I'm merely referring to how one lives their life. Some people are spiritual strictly; some are Scientific with a side-order of spirituality, some people are spiritual with a side-order of science, and some people are strictly science.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

The pole probably does provide a good window into people's spiritual views, actually. I bet that, if the pole's options are arranged on a y axis that y is an exponential decay with respect to spirituality. 

I also bet it is a logarithmic function of mathematical ability.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The pole probably does provide a good window into people's spiritual views, actually. I bet that, if the pole's options are arranged on a y axis that y is an exponential decay with respect to spirituality.
> 
> I also bet it is a logarithmic function of mathematical ability.



I still think it's silly to use just one's take on evolution as a basis for people becoming more "rational". There's more to "Rational" and "Irrationality" than if you believe other planes exist or not.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I still think it's silly to use just one's take on evolution as a basis for people becoming more "rational". There's more to "Rational" and "Irrationality" than if you believe other planes exist or not.



The pole's not a perfect measurement, but Captain cool was correct; it is obvious that Faf isn't an overly spiritual place.

In your hypothetical example of and atheism poll, people who actually believed in magic but not gods would probably constitute a negligible minority.


----------



## Conker (Feb 23, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> I would highly recommend, if Iâ€™m as useless and bothersome as responses seem to indicate, that you all have the good sense to stop responding to me so I may feel free to leave this place and never bother any of you again.


If that's the case, then the only thing keeping you here is your need to get the last word in. 

You could just quietly leave and this thread would die off.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 23, 2014)

.


----------



## Conker (Feb 23, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> *sigh*  You just had to reply, didn't you?  So you have only yourself to blame for whatever I spew next.  Just remember, I did want to spare you further exposure to my logic.


Terribly rude of you to blame the victims.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2014)

One last thing Perri, when did I ever say that I am not a spiritual person? For me spirituality simply isn't about fairy tales, it's about real things and how everything works together.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 23, 2014)

This thread makes me want to crack open my vintage science text from 1964 to see what they were teaching about the subject >.>


----------



## Fernin (Feb 23, 2014)

You people are still running around in circles about this?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

How enlightening it must be for you, perri, to live with the possibility of so many possibly existent planes open to you. It's just a shame that these planes' enticement appears to have distracted you from this one, which is definitely real. 

A bird in one hand is worth two in the bush.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> How enlightening it must be for you, perri, to live with the possibility of so many possibly existent planes open to you. It's just a shame that these planes' enticement appears to have distracted you from this one, which is definitely real.
> 
> A bird in one hand is worth two in the bush.



Hey if she wants to dream, let her dream. She ain't hurtin' you, is she? Or can you not sleep at night knowing you haven't convinced someone ya world belief is correct?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Hey if she wants to dream, let her dream. She ain't hurtin' you, is she? Or* can you not sleep at night knowing you haven't convinced someone ya world belief is correct?*



Since perri was complaining that she was unable to leave until people stopped challenging her, I think that comment is, unfortunately more true of her. :\ 

 Unfortunately her model contains some very obvious systematic errors:

-She confuses scientific jargon with colloquial language, and therefore draws premature or impossible conclusions.*

-She thinks that youtube is a better source to understand the scientific arena than scientific literature itself. 

These two habits are not only incorrect, but if she persuades other people to adopt then her presence actually is deleterious. Unless we are going to state that persuading lots of people to become ignorant air-heads isn't doing any harm.

*The conclusions she has drawn from scientific language are literally on a par with concluding the dinoflagellates [red algae] are dinosaurs, because the word _looks_ similar. When I arrive and explain that's not what the prefix 'dino' means, I'm accused of being spiritually poisonous...which has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Since perri was complaining that she was unable to leave until people stopped challenging her, I think that comment is, unfortunately more true of her. :\
> 
> Unfortunately her model contains some very obvious systematic errors:
> 
> ...



So pretty much it's "We have to stop her way of thinking and curb her ideas, least they spread"?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> So pretty much it's "We have to stop her way of thinking and curb her ideas, least they spread"?



Yes. Whilst people have the right to be deluded and do the equivalent of thinking dinoflagellates are dinosaurs, we want to avoid everybody ending up believing that. 

It's the same reason the first thing I mention to anybody who asks me about palaeontology is that the website 'reptileevolution.com' is a bullshit-mill, run by an artist who knows nothing about evolution. To prevent people from falling foul of the tide of ignorance that website has been spreading.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Yes. Whilst people have the right to be deluded and do the equivalent of thinking dinoflagellates are dinosaurs, we want to avoid everybody ending up believing that.
> 
> It's the same reason the first thing I mention to anybody who asks me about palaeontology is that the website 'reptileevolution.com' is a bullshit-mill, run by an artist who knows nothing about evolution. To prevent people from falling foul of the tide of ignorance that website has been spreading.



And then you wonder why people like me come in and say "You're acting like a religious fundamentalist". After all, that kinda just sounds like something a religious person would say. Except the thing is, you justify it with "SCIENCE!" which, in my honest opinion, doesn't make it any better. 

It's like trying to justify a racist act by saying "Well it's for the 'better of the community'".


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> And then you wonder why people like me come in and say "You're acting like a religious fundamentalist". After all, that kinda just sounds like something a religious person would say. Except the thing is, you justify it with "SCIENCE!" which, in my honest opinion, doesn't make it any better.
> 
> It's like trying to justify a racist act by saying "Well it's for the 'better of the community'".



So when I tell people that reptileevolution.com is a bad website full of errors I'm exhibiting fervant religious fundamentalism? Or being a fucking racist?

._. 

Perri made some really simple mistakes, which were easily demonstrated and that everybody else can avoid making by learning from her example, even if she stubbornly refuses to consider the possibility of an error. This is not comparable to a southern lynching.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 23, 2014)

If I were to walk around telling people that the sky is green, pointing out to me that it's not is not religious persecution.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

I have to admit I did not see the race card being played for daring to correct someone for using scientific language incorrectly. [just think how many times we had to define what theory meant, and users still insisted on using the colloquial definition!]

Comparing this to racism isn't only hilarious, but it trivialises actual racism- as if racism is something as petty as calling someone a noob on an online forum.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I have to admit I did not see the race card being played for daring to correct someone for using scientific language incorrectly. [just think how many times we had to define what theory meant, and users still insisted on using the colloquial definition!]
> 
> Comparing this to racism isn't only hilarious, but it trivialises actual racism- as if racism is something as petty as calling someone a noob on an online forum.



I'm not comparing you to racism. I'm saying your actions are _like_ someone doing something racist and using reasoning like "It's for the greater good" to justify it -- besides that, racism can be something more than lynching someone or beating them up because of their race. 

What I'm trying to do is point out a double standard here -- you've made a value claim: It's okay to shut people up if they disagree with you or what others say on Science, using the words "because they're wrong" to justify


----------



## Conker (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> And then you wonder why people like me come in and say "You're acting like a religious fundamentalist". After all, that kinda just sounds like something a religious person would say. Except the thing is, you justify it with "SCIENCE!" which, in my honest opinion, doesn't make it any better.
> 
> It's like trying to justify a racist act by saying "Well it's for the 'better of the community'".


This makes me want to start drinking because God damn.

How the fuck is justifying something with science bad? Why is wanting to spread empirical knowledge bad? 

Because the difference between religious fundamentalism and science fundamentalism is the latter is based in facts, understanding, and the want to learn more. Those are, you know, really good things. 

This comparison you're trying to make is faulty. It's not even apples and oranges but apples and tyrannosaurus rexes.



> What I'm trying to do is point out a double standard here -- you've made  a value claim: It's okay to shut people up if they disagree with you or  what others say on Science, using the words "because they're wrong" to  justify


What kind of world is this turning into where being wrong is totally fine and not worth correcting? 

"it's okay that you're wrong as long as you're happy ^__________^" 

No. Wrong is fucking wrong. Be happy in ignorance, but don't get pissed when someone who studies this shit goes, "yeah that's fucking wrong and here's why." 

No one can stop you from willfully believing in something wrong, but people will correct you for saying something wrong. In a public place like this where others are here to read and maybe learn something, that's a good thing.

Good god, what the fuck are we even going on about now?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm not comparing you to racism. I'm saying your actions are *like *someone doing something racist and using reasoning like "It's for the greater good" to justify it -- besides that, racism can be something more than lynching someone or beating them up because of their race.
> 
> What I'm trying to do is point out a double standard here -- you've made a value claim: It's okay to shut people up if they disagree with you or what others say on Science, using the words "because they're wrong" to justify



That is comparing my actions to racism. That's what this little english word here does. 

Challenging perri is not 'shutting her up'. By contrast you actively are trying to shut people up who challenge whacky spiritual views, by implying they're all as bad as racists. 

I've been explicit about why perri was wrong; she confuses scientific language with colloquial phrases and derives her idea of what mainstream science is from youtube, instead of from the scientific literature.

Neither of you will recognise this. Instead of asking 'why is confusing everyday language with jargon bad?' you resort to calling people fundamentalists for daring to suggest you 'world views' aren't rigorous.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> That is comparing my actions to racism. That's what this little english word here does.
> 
> Challenging perri is not 'shutting her up'. By contrast you actively are trying to shut people up who challenge whacky spiritual views, by implying they're all as bad as racists.
> 
> ...



Y'know what? That's it. I'm done. Finished. The end. 

I don't know how else, how more plainly I can make it. Maybe it's because I'm studying english more than science? I dunno? But the idea I've been getting at is -how- you say it is different from -what-. When I say "You're like someone being racist" I mean your attitude, thought processes, stuff like that. Good Lord, no wonder you guys can't read the bible metaphorically or understand Jesus' parables. 

Challenging someone isn't shutting them up no, but it's the manner, the style in which you choose to challenge one. And saying "Oh we have to stop their way of thinking" is not challenging, by the way, that's pretty much saying that you have to shut up their way of thinking lest they contaminate it.


----------



## Conker (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Challenging someone isn't shutting them up no, but it's the manner, the style in which you choose to challenge one. And saying "Oh we have to stop their way of thinking" is not challenging, by the way, that's pretty much saying that you have to shut up their way of thinking lest they contaminate it.


I don't recall this thread starting off all that vitriolic. But it's 37 pages of bullshit now and people are tired of being polite. 

I mean fuck, we were on page like 14 and still arguing about the definition of science jargon. That's insane. 

One can only take such dense bullshit for so long before sarcasm and cynicism take over.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Y'know what? That's it. I'm done. Finished. The end.
> 
> I don't know how else, how more plainly I can make it. Maybe it's because I'm studying english more than science? I dunno? But the idea I've been getting at is -how- you say it is different from -what-. When I say "You're like someone being racist" I mean your attitude, thought processes, stuff like that. Good Lord, no wonder you guys can't read the bible metaphorically or understand Jesus' parables.
> 
> Challenging someone isn't shutting them up no, but it's the manner, the style in which you choose to challenge one. And saying "Oh we have to stop their way of thinking" is not challenging, by the way, that's pretty much saying that you have to shut up their way of thinking lest they contaminate it.



That's what's pissing me off, Nikki. 

I have to repeat myself for 10 pages, along with a chorus of other users, just to explain what the word 'theory' means and people still don't understand. 

When we finally say 'you're being idiots' you snap round and go 'well, somebody's behaving like stalin! It's no wonder you're not an emotionally superior christian like me,'


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> That's what's pissing me off, Nikki.
> 
> I have to repeat myself for 10 pages, along with a chorus of other users, just to explain what the word 'theory' means and people still don't understand.
> 
> When we finally say 'you're being idiots' you snap round and go 'well, somebody's behaving like stalin! It's no wonder you're not an emotionally superior christian like me,'



Objection. I'm not Christian. 

And it's Niko. 

Look, I'm not talking about the fustration of explaning theory or whatever. I'm talking about peoples' attitudes towards the religious and spiritual in general. Even at the beginning of debates, I see people acting certain ways, doing certain things, saying certain things that I'm pointing out right now. Using the double standard of "Screw religious people trying to force Jesus down our throats! Wait, Jesus! C'mon guys! Let's shove Science down their throat and label them as this that and those if they don't agree with us!"

I've seen people be abrasive towards religious/spiritual people right off the bat in various places. And that's what I'm arguing against; one's attitude, not the need to correct someone on how to properly use theory in a scientific context.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 23, 2014)

What keeps it from being a double standard is that science has objective evidence behind it.  Thus it's not forcing a viewpoint, it's forcing an acceptance of _reality_.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Lobar said:


> What keeps it from being a double standard is that science has objective evidence behind it.  Thus it's not forcing a viewpoint, it's forcing an acceptance of _reality_.



*Throws hat on the floor*

I quit.

*exits stage left*


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> *Throws hat on the floor*
> 
> I quit.
> 
> *exits stage left*



Again?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 23, 2014)

This has been like watching a very long train crash >_>


----------



## Lobar (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> *Throws hat on the floor*
> 
> I quit.
> 
> *exits stage left*



You know, in _any other context_, no one would think twice about challenging someone else's misguided beliefs.  If we were setting someone straight who rejected the accomplishments of modern medicine and felt treating disease by realigning your aura with crystals was just as valid, I doubt you'd take issue.

That shouldn't change when the "alternative viewpoint" is a religious one.  Religion hasn't earned any special favors.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2014)

I have never seen a thread in which some people are so pissed off about reality itself :T

How often are we supposed to explain that science itself is not a beliefsystem that you can force on people? Gravity is not a belief for example! Whether you like it or not, if I drop you from the top of a skyscraper you are gonna fall. No belief and no wishful thinking is gonna stop that.


----------



## Conker (Feb 23, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> This has been like watching a very long train crash >_>


But without the satisfying explosion at the end :[


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 23, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I have never seen a thread in which some people are so pissed off about reality itself :T
> 
> How often are we supposed to explain that science itself is not a beliefsystem that you can force on people? Gravity is not a belief for example! Whether you like it or not, if I drop you from the top of a skyscraper you are gonna fall. No belief and no wishful thinking is gonna stop that.



I'm reminded of the many fundies who appear to claim that the validity of a scientific theory is determined by what they consider to be the consequences of accepting it.
e.g. we should not accept the theory of evolution because it teaches us we are just animals who can do whatever they want without consequences.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I'm reminded of the many fundies who appear to claim that the validity of a scientific theory is determined by what they consider to be the consequences of accepting it.
> e.g. we should not accept the theory of evolution because it teaches us we are just animals who can do whatever they want without consequences.




This isn't just a fundamentalist view. 

I bumped into a philosophy student yesters, who was pretty uncomfortable with the idea that morality is explicable as an emergent phenomenon of competing genes because he thought it could undermine the moral absolutes he held to be true.

I suppose he would propose that moral truths would be true whether or not they are predicted by a gene centric model. That's a difficult area, because the model can be wrong, is at risk of being teleological etc, but also because thinking morality has absolute truths has its own faults- not everyone agrees which truths are absolutely true in the first place.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 23, 2014)

.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 23, 2014)

Alright man, look. I'm a pretty spiritual person. But I also respect science. I understand the difference between theory and scientific theory.

Fallow isn't saying that people can't dream or think or whatever. He's saying (as pretty much everyone else except for you and your fanboy) that claiming them to be reality is a different ballgame. Have your fantasies but keep them that way and if you don't understand something, don't barge in and try to be passing as some expert and spouting off pseudoscientific bullshit. It's kinda fucked up how you claim people should "observe and think" when you haven't been even trying to yourself.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 23, 2014)

Religion has dominated the world for centuries with censorship and bigotry, and their believers are worried about being censored and calling others bigots? 

I can't even begin to laugh, because it's so profoundly stupid I can't even believe it was said. I aimed to correct a mistake here and there, but come the fuck on, _really_? 

I get the open-mindedness aspect, but Niko and Perri, you guys can totally be open-minded...You just don't sound like it, and not only that, you're using it as an excuse to interpret science and reality in any way you choose...Which is not how things work. 

I'm a schizophrenic, my reality is _really_ fucked up, but I don't consider for a second that I should be open-minded about it. If my brain is personally convinced that my best friend is a secret lizard man, but every other shred of evidence proves otherwise, there's absolutely no rhyme or reason for me to consider that as a realistic possibility.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

If you want people to contemplate your posts make them shorter. The probability of someone replying to that one crucial line in your post decreases as the post gets larger, just as the chance of a 1 being selected on a dice decreases as the number of faces increases. 

Dooping people into believing bullshit, as reptileevolution.com does [to the extent that reconstructions of extinct animals from that site have appeared in movies and documentaries] is not free thought and it's not encouraging people to think. People are largely accepting that website's claims uncritically because they're tricked into believing the psuedoscience by all the nice graphics and long words. 

It's surprisingly difficult to actually persuade people to think about claims critically; if it sympathises with views they already hold or appears authoritative they don't tend to think critically about it before accepting. [just like you accept whatever kaku says instead of being critical of his claims and checking whether the rest of the scientific community agree and why]


And fine, you have access to Kaku via youtube. You _could_ have access to the entire scientific community if you picked up a book or read a journal once in a while. I think you would actually be surprised how much Kaku's books differ from his youtube quotes, for starters. 

Physicists don't spend all their time thinking about how lovely and spiritual everything is, their subject frankly isn't about that kind of thing at all, as you would discover if you read their literature.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Alright man, look. I'm a pretty spiritual person. But I also respect science. I understand the difference between theory and scientific theory.
> 
> Fallow isn't saying that people can't dream or think or whatever. He's saying (as pretty much everyone else except for you and your fanboy) that claiming them to be reality is a different ballgame. Have your fantasies but keep them that way and if you don't understand something, don't barge in and try to be passing as some expert and spouting off pseudoscientific bullshit. It's kinda fucked up how you claim people should "observe and think" when you haven't been even trying to yourself.



What I'm talking about is much more than just correcting definitions. Did you read what I said? The whole what you say is different from how you say it? That's a point I've been trying to get accross. That even if you're right and correct about something, you shouldn't act a certain way about it, cause its not right. What you're saying may be correct, but the manner in which you're saying it is incorrect. 

I'm down with science too, and find it quite interesting. I'm also not a Christian, so please stop grouping me with religious groups that have oppressed others. Which is also something I've mentioned a few times here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> What I'm talking about is much more than just correcting definitions. Did you read what I said? The whole what you say is different from how you say it? That's a point I've been trying to get accross. That even if you're right and correct about something, you shouldn't act a certain way about it, cause its not right. What you're saying may be correct, but the manner in which you're saying it is incorrect.
> 
> I'm down with science too, and find it quite interesting. I'm also not a Christian, so please stop grouping me with religious groups that have oppressed others. Which is also something I've mentioned a few times here.



This is literally what's happening. 

A: *uses jargon incorrectly*
B: actually this is what that means
A *continues anyway*
B: actually this is what that means
A: *Still using incorrect jargon*
B: You're wrong, please stop that
A: But I have a kook scientist on a youtube video that used that word
B: But that's not what it means. D:
A: Says you, the entire scientific community is just censoring that one guy who happens to be right
B: Oh FFS you're an idiot
A: *Oh my god you're just like a racist!*


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> This is literally what's happening.
> 
> A: *uses jargon incorrectly*
> B: actually this is what that means
> ...



Wouldn't I be like C or something? Also I wasn't saying you were racist. In fact I don't even know why I thought the racist analogy. I think Perri was right, racist wasn't the right word....though I'm not sure of censored is either. 

What I meant to paint was the idea that something wrong is still wrong, even if the cause is just. The ends don't justify the means.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 23, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> What I'm talking about is much more than just correcting definitions. Did you read what I said? The whole what you say is different from how you say it? That's a point I've been trying to get accross. That even if you're right and correct about something, you shouldn't act a certain way about it, cause its not right. What you're saying may be correct, but the manner in which you're saying it is incorrect.
> 
> I'm down with science too, and find it quite interesting. I'm also not a Christian, so please stop grouping me with religious groups that have oppressed others. Which is also something I've mentioned a few times here.



Excuse you but I never said you were Christian. I'm just putting it into perspective that someone who is more or less Christian is more scientifically aware than those who claim to not be Christian to highlight outrageous irony.

Also, yes, I get it. What you say vs how you say it. But when people keep trying to explain it and she states that she's proud of ignorance...the fuck are people supposed to do?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

I did say he was christian, incorrectly, because I was accused of not understanding jesus.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I did say he was christian, incorrectly, because I was accused of not understanding jesus.



I know but he quoted me saying "stop assuming I'm christian" even though I never said that.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 23, 2014)

Aleu said:


> Excuse you but I never said you were Christian. I'm just putting it into perspective that someone who is more or less Christian is more scientifically aware than those who claim to not be Christian to highlight outrageous irony.
> 
> Also, yes, I get it. What you say vs how you say it. But when people keep trying to explain it and she states that she's proud of ignorance...the fuck are people supposed to do?



I dunno.  Ya kinda got me there. 

Also sorry bout that. Shoulda mentioned the not a Christian thing was aimed at lastdirewolf.

Also too thanks, I know that at least someone gets what I'm saying .


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 23, 2014)

.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 23, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> I feel really sorry for you.  Apparently you skipped over the bit where this became an attack on all spirituality.  That gives you and Captain Cool as much to worry about as anybody.
> 
> You're just proving my point.  I never said I was an expert on anything.  I specifically said, repeatedly, I was not.  Fallowfox suggested I was putting myself forward as some kind of expert, and you are still buying it.  You are still hearing him.  You are not hearing me.
> 
> ...


Except you were passing it off. You refused to learn even when a simple definition correction came up, it was ignored. You, yourself had said that you came in here to bring balance or some bullshit.

You honestly need a huge dose of humility because these people that have been arguing it for the past forever of pages, while I hate their guts sometimes, actually know what they are talking about AND have provided valid and sufficiently backed posts. Your only use was for them to provide pretty neat information but it got old and boring when it was nothing but repetition and you throwing a hissy-fit because they're not seeing you're "enlightened intellect" of ignorance.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Feb 23, 2014)

> Last edited by Ozriel; Today at 01:18 AM.																 Reason: You edit your posts? I edit the Original text back. Please do not do that.



My comments are withdrawn.  If you put them back, they're yours and I take no responsibility for them.  They were all created under the false pretext that I was talking to intelligent people who were actually listening.  Having discovered that to be false, my wasted time has been relegated to my trash basked.  If you want to waste your time reposting my trash, it's your time to waste.

And if you want to get out your ban hammer, you go right ahead.  The bunny has left the building.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 23, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Hmmm.  *The person who says they have no beliefs and knows nothing needs a lesson in humility.  I think not*.  I think what you call humility I call peer pressure.  But, though I find it regrettable to say this, I don't think my peers are very smart.  I don't even think my peers a very nice.  I don't think I like my peers at all.  I feel pretty darn sure my peers don't like me.  And at this point I begin to wonder if my peers are really my peers.  I'm pushing 52.  Maybe I'm too old for this BS.
> 
> And you know what else, damn the humility, damn courtesy.  They're useless here.  *I'm just casting pearls before swine, at a considerable cost to myself in time and health.*  So if you think I'm an idiot, you're right.  So you just spent 20 pages arguing with an idiot.  Don't you feel brilliant?



Going by those sentences alone, yes, you do.
Also "Observing and thinking is all I ever do.  But you're absolutely right.  I  apologize profusely for suggesting that anyone else should try it." implying that only you think and no one else does. That statement coming from a person who doesn't understand the difference between theory and scientific theory yet claims they "like science".


----------



## Conker (Feb 23, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> Hmmm.  The person who says they have no beliefs and knows nothing needs a lesson in humility.  I think not.  I think what you call humility I call peer pressure.  But, though I find it regrettable to say this, I don't think my peers are very smart.  I don't even think my peers a very nice.  I don't think I like my peers at all.  I feel pretty darn sure my peers don't like me.  And at this point I begin to wonder if my peers are really my peers.  I'm pushing 52.  Maybe I'm too old for this BS.
> 
> And you know what else, damn the humility, damn courtesy.  They're useless here.  I'm just casting pearls before swine, at a considerable cost to myself in time and health.  So if you think I'm an idiot, you're right.  So you just spent 20 pages arguing with an idiot.  Don't you feel brilliant?


And it's here that I have to go "Troll who played one hellova ballgame" because any other answer to this post would just depress the fuck out of me.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 24, 2014)

Conker said:


> And it's here that I have to go "Troll who played one hellova ballgame" because any other answer to this post would just depress the fuck out of me.





Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm pretty sure Fallow is being trolled at  this point. Perri is going for the long game, and it is epic.



:v called this like 10+ pages ago


----------



## Rassah (Feb 24, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Rassah, what does it matter if I tell you what I've learned? You will just negate anything I've to say. You're so closed minded about religion and spirituality you can't even concieve anything positive about it.



I'm actually not closed minded about it at all. If you show me any evidence for it being true, or having an effect on our world, or it having a net positive effect instead of net negative, I'll gladly change my mind. But so far the only evidence for anything in religion is in how it affects our culture.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 24, 2014)

People here do realize that fact and truth are different right? If you need a refresher, how about you go watch Indiana Jones.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2014)

What are you getting at?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 24, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> What are you getting at?



It's a philisophical thing. 

Facts and Truths differ in the sense that facts are pretty much universal, and can be backed with evidence, whereas truths can have more to do with what one believes and one thinks. 

Therefore the idea of Spirituality would be a Truth in this case, since there's no Facts that for certain say Yay or Nay; it's kinda more or less down to each person to decide if there's any truth to it. 

The whole "Indiana Jones" thing refers to what Indy said in one of the movies, where he said that archaeology deals mainly in facts; if you're looking for truths, there's a philosophy class down the hall.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> It's a philisophical thing.
> 
> Facts and Truths differ in the sense that facts are pretty much universal, and can be backed with evidence, whereas truths can have more to do with what one believes and one thinks.
> 
> ...



I would have though truth constitutes the entire body of statements which are right, whereas facts are a subset of demonstrable truths. 

EG, it happens to be true that Mary murdered Paul, but it could not be shown to be a fact in court.

This is what you're suggesting?


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 24, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I would have though truth constitutes the entire body of statements which are right, whereas facts are a subset of demonstrable truths.
> 
> EG, it happens to be true that Mary murdered Paul, but it could not be shown to be a fact in court.
> 
> This is what you're suggesting?



I think what I'm hitting at (or at least what I'm reading) is mainly that truths are subjective and facts are objective, at least in this context. 

For the court case example, you could hold a truth that someone was guilty, and then back up that truth with evidence. Truths can be shaped with facts. For example, you have plenty of facts that point for you and for others to the truth that the spiritual world doesn't exist. Meanwhile, I could use those same facts or my own ways of thinking, and hold onto the truth for myself nad others that the spiritual world does exist. Or something to that effect. 

It's something I just started reading about today, so my takes on it might not be exactly as they are.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I think what I'm hitting at (or at least what I'm reading) is mainly that truths are subjective and facts are objective, at least in this context.
> 
> For the court case example, you could hold a truth that someone was guilty, and then back up that truth with evidence. Truths can be shaped with facts. For example, you have plenty of facts that point for you and for others to the truth that the spiritual world doesn't exist. Meanwhile, I could use those same facts or my own ways of thinking, and hold onto the truth for myself nad others that the spiritual world does exist. Or something to that effect.
> 
> It's something I just started reading about today, so my takes on it might not be exactly as they are.



Erm...no I disagree. 

What's actually true in reality might not be demonstrable, but this doesn't mean truth is subjective. Potentially there is an objective answer to every unfalsifiable question, but no possible way to arrive at that answer. 

Your idea of 'truth' is actually 'opinion', which is a bad definition because it is known that not all opinions are true.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 24, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Erm...no I disagree.
> 
> What's actually true in reality might not be demonstrable, but this doesn't mean truth is subjective. Potentially there is an objective answer to every unfalsifiable question, but no possible way to arrive at that answer.
> 
> Your idea of 'truth' is actually 'opinion', which is a bad definition because it is known that not all opinions are true.



Then could we say in this case everyone trying to push the idea that God exists and that God doesn't exist are merely trying to push their opinions as facts?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Then could we say in this case everyone trying to push the idea that God exists and that God doesn't exist are merely trying to push their opinions as facts?



People are trying to justify their opinions. This is what debate is and it is unremarkeable. 

Opinions are not sacred, and trying to justify or discredit opinions is a good thing, because if we do find out an opinion is wrong, or correct or partly correct, then the views we hold can be modified to model the world more accurately. 

Unfortunately some people have it in their heads that opinions are all equally meritable, even unfalsifiable ones, and that discussing them is tantamount to oppressing freedom of speech. Take a moment for that to sink in and it becomes how ironic that particular view is.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 24, 2014)

So now we're arguing over the definitions of 'truth' and 'fact'?

They are freaking *synonyms*. Something that is a _fact _is _true _to the best of humanities knowledge. Something that is _true _conforms with what is _factual_. 

I know Christianity has the capitalised 'Truth', which has a different connotation (and frankly, is a shameful abuse of the word), so it shouldn't be used in the same way, because in context it has a different meaning.


----------



## Rassah (Feb 24, 2014)

I'm still waiting for this whole mess to get to 'ethics' vs 'morality,' so that I can really step in


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 24, 2014)

Rassah said:


> I'm still waiting for this whole mess to get to 'ethics' vs 'morality,' so that I can really step in



Says the person who's signature appears to tell of their disdain for continuing to be charitable :v


----------



## Rassah (Feb 24, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Says the person who's signature appears to tell of their disdain for continuing to be charitable :v



I was forced to add it when people complained that I had a conflict of interest, or was trying to sell something, because I was a director of some organization. That's only to point out that I'm not selling or earning anything from it. Just giving up a whole lot of time and money. Also, it's a whole lot of work, which I don't get compensated for, so... yeah,  Note that I have been doing this "job" for over two years, so something must be wrong with me XD


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 24, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So now we're arguing over the definitions of 'truth' and 'fact'?
> 
> They are freaking *synonyms*. Something that is a _fact _is _true _to the best of humanities knowledge. Something that is _true _conforms with what is _factual_.
> 
> I know Christianity has the capitalised 'Truth', which has a different connotation (and frankly, is a shameful abuse of the word), so it shouldn't be used in the same way, because in context it has a different meaning.



This. They are both essentially the same, "fact" is just a less general term. They describe the same thing in different situation.
And I agree that the "Truth" definitely is a shameful abuse of it and also incredibly ironic since the "truth" is always supported by evidence.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 24, 2014)

It's at this point that I wonder if I was the only one who looked into the quote. Here it is, in case you don't want to venture into ye internet and find it:

"Archaeology is the search for fact ... not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 24, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> It's at this point that I wonder if I was the only one who looked into the quote. Here it is, in case you don't want to venture into ye internet and find it:
> 
> "Archaeology is the search for fact ... not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."



In this case "truth" once again simply stands for "opinion".
What you believe to be the truth and what is actually true are two different things.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 24, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> It's at this point that I wonder if I was the only one who looked into the quote. Here it is, in case you don't want to venture into ye internet and find it:
> 
> "Archaeology is the search for fact ... not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."


I didn't have to search for it because I already knew it :V V:

Anyway, do you guys not realize you're arguing over something THOUGHTMASTER said?

JUST SAYIN'


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> It's at this point that I wonder if I was the only one who looked into the quote. Here it is, in case you don't want to venture into ye internet and find it:
> 
> "Archaeology is the search for fact ... not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."






There _is_ a difference in truth and facts. Truths are things which are objectively the case, facts are truths which can be demonstrated. 

In every day usage this is usually not a significant difference. 

Indianna jones is making fun of people who use the word truth, rather than fact, because people who can't justify their views factually often garble on about spiritual and moral truth nonsense. IE, the philosophers, who Jonesy probably believes are pointless gits.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 24, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I didn't have to search for it because I already knew it :V V:
> 
> Anyway, do you guys not realize you're arguing over something THOUGHTMASTER said?
> 
> JUST SAYIN'



Maybe that was TM's plan all along?


----------



## Aleu (Feb 24, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Maybe that was TM's plan all along?



that would imply that he thinks :v
He did say he prefers "action over thought"


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 24, 2014)

Aleu said:


> I didn't have to search for it because I already knew it :V V:
> 
> Anyway, do you guys not realize you're arguing over something THOUGHTMASTER said?
> 
> JUST SAYIN'



Hey now, heeey now! â™ªâ™«
That's mean :c
But yeah he needs to _think_ before he posts :V


----------



## Coywolf (Feb 24, 2014)

My first degree was in anthropology and if you look at the creation story it fits very nicely when you stretch it out. You can not remove a bible verse from it historical, cultural and historic context and have it still be true. The creation story had to be in an understandable format for the people of the tmes. I figure I will ask God when I get there. 
I would not want to believe in a God I can understand, why sweat the small stuff?


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 24, 2014)

Coywolf said:


> My first degree was in anthropology and if you look at the creation story it fits very nicely when you stretch it out. You can not remove a bible verse from it historical, cultural and historic context and have it still be true. The creation story had to be in an understandable format for the people of the tmes. I figure I will ask God when I get there.
> I would not want to believe in a God I can understand, why sweat the small stuff?


Becuase creating the Earth before the sun definitely makes sense. :V


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 24, 2014)

Perri_Rhoades said:


> My comments are withdrawn.  If you put them back, they're yours and I take no responsibility for them.  They were all created under the false pretext that I was talking to intelligent people who were actually listening.  Having discovered that to be false, my wasted time has been relegated to my trash basked.  If you want to waste your time reposting my trash, it's your time to waste.
> 
> And if you want to get out your ban hammer, you go right ahead.  The bunny has left the building.



That is no excuse to edit your posts with a (.).

If you feel that you've lost the battle, then take a step back from the thread and just pretend it does not exist.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 25, 2014)

Raptros said:


> Becuase creating the Earth before the sun definitely makes sense. :V



It's not just that! On day one gawd supposedly created "the earth, the heavens, light and darkness". So the sun came _after_ the light :V


----------



## Lobar (Feb 25, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> It's not just that! On day one gawd supposedly created "the earth, the heavens, light and darkness". So the sun came _after_ the light :V



Well, there you go.  God created light already in motion, in order to give the appearance of a universe more than 6,000 years old.

*:V*


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 25, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Well, there you go.  God created light already in motion, in order to give the appearance of a universe more than 6,000 years old.
> 
> *:V*



I couldn't remember on which day gawd supposedly did stuff so I googled it and ended up on this poor excuse of a website: http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/days-of-creation.html
They believe dinos and humans lived together and that they were both vegetarians... Yeah, because a velociraptor with razor sharp teeth was totally a vegetarian :V


----------



## Aleu (Feb 25, 2014)

So I actually did some real biblical verse research instead of relying on a looney site :V

"
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 [SUP]2 [/SUP]And  the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of  the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
 [SUP]3 [/SUP]And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
 [SUP]4 [/SUP]And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
 [SUP]5 [/SUP]And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
 [SUP]6 [/SUP]And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
 [SUP]7 [/SUP]And  God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the  firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
 [SUP]8 [/SUP]And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
 [SUP]9 [/SUP]And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
 [SUP]10 [/SUP]And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
 [SUP]11 [/SUP]And  God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and  the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,  upon the earth: and it was so.
 [SUP]12 [/SUP]And  the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind,  and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:  and God saw that it was good.
 [SUP]13 [/SUP]And the evening and the morning were the third day.
 [SUP]14 [/SUP]And  God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide  the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and  for days, and years:
 [SUP]15 [/SUP]And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
 [SUP]16 [/SUP]And  God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the  lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
 [SUP]17 [/SUP]And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
 [SUP]18 [/SUP]And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
 [SUP]19 [/SUP]And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
 [SUP]20 [/SUP]And  God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature  that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open  firmament of heaven.
 [SUP]21 [/SUP]And  God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which  the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged  fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
 [SUP]22 [/SUP]And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
 [SUP]23 [/SUP]And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
 [SUP]24 [/SUP]And  God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,  cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and  it was so.
 [SUP]25 [/SUP]And  God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their  kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and  God saw that it was good.
 [SUP]26 [/SUP]And  God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let  them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the  air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every  creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
 [SUP]27 [/SUP]So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

So Earth wasn't first. It was day and night. Earth was just some...void thing.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 25, 2014)

I actually get how they made that stuff up. Because when you see Genesis in order it actually makes sense. First there was nothing, then there was some "void-like" thing which was then formed into a better shape and so on and so forth. I can totally see the logic behind it, it was the best they were able to come up with at the time.

What makes me sad is that people still do believe in it today even though we do know better now >__>


----------



## Aleu (Feb 25, 2014)

What I find interesting is that in that paragraph...thing...it talks about how God made man and woman in his image...but then talks about Adam and Eve separately. It's kinda foggy on whether or not the supposed man and woman from before are the same. Kinda puts a hole in the whole "Adam and Eve not Steve" argument. For all we know that COULD have been Steve :V


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 25, 2014)

Yeah, it's very foggy at best. Who knows what was lost in translation after all those years.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 25, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Yeah, it's very foggy at best. Who knows what was lost in translation after all those years.



The Vatican. 

seriously they have dozens of books that for some reason weren't part of the Bible. That's why I can't take anyone who says The Bible is the literal word of God seriously (well there's dozens of reasons but that's the only one that doesn't involve science)


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 25, 2014)

Aleu said:


> The Vatican.
> 
> seriously they have dozens of books that for some reason weren't part of the Bible. That's why I can't take anyone who says The Bible is the literal word of God seriously (well there's dozens of reasons but that's the only one that doesn't involve science)



Oh man, can you imagine what they are hiding in there? X3 Rumor has it that if those documents are ever released it would essentially wreck christianity


----------



## Hooky (Feb 25, 2014)

So the bible is somewhat of a chinese whisper. I think people may need to look over their documents and realise that it was just used to simplify and understand the world eons ago. You know, to make the world seem less of an unknown mess (of a fear) by bringing in concepts of the world from societal traits of the time.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2014)

Coywolf said:


> My first degree was in anthropology and if you look at the creation story it fits very nicely when you stretch it out. You can not remove a bible verse from it historical, cultural and historic context and have it still be true. The creation story had to be in an understandable format for the people of the tmes. I figure I will ask God when I get there.
> I would not want to believe in a God I can understand, why sweat the small stuff?



It surprises me someone who studies human culture and presumably appreciates that there is a large number of conflicting religions, can still believe the religion they happen to have been born into is the one true religion, or that any of that religion's claims- whether it be that there is a god, paradise, a life force, chakras etc, are anything other than their own culture's invention.

Actually since this information is so freely available, it puzzles me that the great majority of humans with access to that information, conclude the very same. 

We're just highly derived monkeys. Was there a point in our evolution from the most primitive tetrapod that the immortal space monkey that God is usually represented as  decided 'this group of primates is similar enough to me now that I will give them an immortal consciousness that I will judge upon its moral choices,'. 

But the icing on the cake is that, given this event is so unbelievable, God apparently decided to give the monkeys a book to prove it, being fully aware that hundreds of other tribes of monkeys had already made books with the incorrect nature of God recorded in them that are indistinguishable from the 'true' book. 

It's just like....wah!?


----------



## Lobar (Feb 25, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> But the icing on the cake is that, given this event is so unbelievable, God apparently decided to give the monkeys a book to prove it, being fully aware that hundreds of other tribes of monkeys had already made books with the incorrect nature of God recorded in them that are indistinguishable from the 'true' book.
> 
> It's just like....wah!?



Just some of the monkeys, too.  There were some other monkeys on the other side of the planet that were left to remain ignorant (and presumably suffer the eternal consequences thereof) for centuries until the rest of the monkeys found them.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 26, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> It surprises me someone who studies human culture and presumably appreciates that there is a large number of conflicting religions, can still believe the religion they happen to have been born into is the one true religion, or that any of that religion's claims- whether it be that there is a god, paradise, a life force, chakras etc, are anything other than their own culture's invention.
> 
> Actually since this information is so freely available, it puzzles me that the great majority of humans with access to that information, conclude the very same.
> 
> ...



Well obviously those other monkeys are just false prophets. Like FLAREON. They worship false idols, like the DOME FOSSIL.

We are talking about brainwashed loonatics here, you can't rationally explain why they believe what they believe even though there is a ton of evidence that demonstrates that they are wrong.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 26, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Well obviously those other monkeys are just false prophets. Like FLAREON. They worship false idols, like the DOME FOSSIL.
> 
> We are talking about brainwashed loonatics here, you can't rationally explain why they believe what they believe even though there is a ton of evidence that demonstrates that they are wrong.



Some of them don't even know _why _they believe what they believe. Oh sure any given Christian should be able to rattle off what Jesus' death meant, but try pressing them to the level I've been pressed on this board. You'd prolly be able to trip them up sooner or later. 

In fact according to one of my Christian friends, I know more about the bible and had read it more than your average churchgoer. Now that's just sad. Guys, there's more in your bible than just what the pastor says to read.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 26, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Yeah, it's very foggy at best. Who knows what was lost in translation after all those years.


 Amusingly enough you can find that out rather easily, there are scholars dedicated to such things. (I have one in the family)

For example, in the old versions Virgin Mary was not a Virgin, and the phrase where "virgin marry" arrived first was a repeated mistranslation over several generations which started as "Mary Married" 

Not only to mention 50 years before it was printed via press the bible was actually significantly longer, as those elements showed jesus being a dick as a kid, they where removed before the bible was spread as widely. Cool things.

One can still find these older bibles kicking about, the bishop up here has one and has talked about it's changes a few times.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 26, 2014)

Mokushi said:


> Amusingly enough you can find that out rather easily, there are scholars dedicated to such things. (I have one in the family)
> 
> For example, in the old versions Virgin Mary was not a Virgin, and the phrase where "virgin marry" arrived first was a repeated mistranslation over several generations which started as "Mary Married"
> 
> ...



I think Perri linked me to one of those one time. I didn't read much of it at the time since I was still in my hardwired Christian phase, but she's done some fine looking-into when it comes to the bible. 

Believe it or not she's actually one of the main reasons why I stopped being Christian >____>


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 26, 2014)

Mokushi said:


> Amusingly enough you can find that out rather easily, there are scholars dedicated to such things. (I have one in the family)
> 
> For example, in the old versions Virgin Mary was not a Virgin, and the phrase where "virgin marry" arrived first was a repeated mistranslation over several generations which started as "Mary Married"
> 
> ...



Ha! I can see how these parts would be a problem 
But it still baffles me how people see the bible as "the word of god" when it is so very obvious that it was changed over time. It's not even hidden, you can look that stuff up! 



Nikolinni said:


> I think Perri linked me to one of those one time. I didn't read much of it at the time since I was still in my hardwired Christian phase, but she's done some fine looking-into when it comes to the bible.
> 
> Believe it or not she's actually one of the main reasons why I stopped being Christian >____>



Reading the bible and thinking about what it says is actually very often the first step away from christianity. If you are not _entirely_ uneducated and if you have an average general knowledge about most stuff you will see the bible as complete nonsense when you actively read it.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 26, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I actually get how they made that stuff up. Because when you see Genesis in order it actually makes sense. First there was nothing, then there was some "void-like" thing which was then formed into a better shape and so on and so forth. I can totally see the logic behind it, it was the best they were able to come up with at the time.
> 
> What makes me sad is that people still do believe in it today even though we do know better now >__>



Have you ever looked into Arius and what he thought Christianity was supposed to be? It's interesting to read.




CaptainCool said:


> I couldn't remember on which day gawd supposedly did stuff so I googled it and ended up on this poor excuse of a website: http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/days-of-creation.html
> They believe dinos and humans lived together and that they were both vegetarians... Yeah, because a velociraptor with razor sharp teeth was totally a vegetarian :V



If dinosaurs existed when Homo Sapiens did, we'd be still living in caves. :V


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 27, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Have you ever looked into Arius and what he thought Christianity was supposed to be? It's interesting to read.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have not! I'll look into it if I remember.

Their example for dinos being vegetarians is the giant panda because those have sharp teeth as well... The irony is that panda teeth are actually a way better example for evolution


----------



## Fernin (Feb 27, 2014)

Round and round and round it still goes!


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 27, 2014)

Well, so far we didn't have a hardcore creationist in the thread and things are going rather smoothly right now so who cares? :3


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 27, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Well, so far we didn't have a hardcore creationist in the thread and things are going rather smoothly right now so who cares? :3



Well, it's rather difficult to have a debate on evolution/creation when the only people talking either think evolution is true, or evolution is true but has an intelligent force behind it.
What we need is someone who thinks that evolution is bunk and God created the Earth 6000+ years ago because his holy book says so.

Then again, it's rather difficult to debate with _them_ too.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 27, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Well, it's rather difficult to have a debate on evolution/creation when the only people talking either think evolution is true, or evolution is true but has an intelligent force behind it.
> What we need is someone who thinks that evolution is bunk and God created the Earth 6000+ years ago because his holy book says so.
> 
> Then again, it's rather difficult to debate with _them_ too.



That's the problem when dealing with facts vs. opinions.
Evolution is a fact. The only way to argue in it's favor is to explain the evidence and to give examples for it.
If someone believes there is a mystical driving force behind it.... What are you supposed to do? The only way to argue against that is to demand evidence for it... They don't have evidence and "how dare you question our opinion which we are entitled to?!" >__> So that starts going in circles  since you can't really argue in favor of an unfalsifiable entitiy.

And dealing with the super creatards isn't really what I would call "debating" either. Their only "argument" is "the bible said so! >:C"  so all you can do is demand proper evidence, and at that point they just stop listening because they are brainwashed loonies.


----------

