Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 89 (586881)
10-15-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by SignGuy
10-15-2010 11:03 AM


Re: Evidence please
On the contrary, the reason science doesn't reason with Christians is because it is something you feel & experience.
Again, that is simply NOT true.
The majority of Christians do acknowledge that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the ONLY model that there is to explain the variety of life we see about us.
You can speak for YOUR beliefs or even for the beliefs of YOUR chapter of Club Christian but do not presume to speak for GOD or for Christianity.
In the words of the Clergy Project Letter:
quote:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:03 AM SignGuy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:55 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
SignGuy
Junior Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 10-14-2010


Message 77 of 89 (586891)
10-15-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
10-15-2010 11:13 AM


Re: Evidence please
Point taken....I will claim though, this isn't a majority. From what I can tell many Christians are pure creationists....but I accept your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 10-15-2010 11:13 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 89 (586892)
10-15-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by SignGuy
10-15-2010 11:03 AM


SignGuy writes:
And to be frank, I see the appeal of choosing to believe in evolution or some other natural process of existence.
I don't think you do. It isn't a choice so much as acknowledging the elephant in the room. It isn't a matter of wanting a "substitute" for religion. On the contrary, religion has always been a substitute for real knowledge.
SignGuy writes:
Furthermore, he or she never feels responsible for there actions to a higher being.
And yet, many Christians and members of other religions do accept the facts. Contrary to your opinion again, it's the religionists who tend to treat religion as a get-out-of-hell-free card. Following a god's orders is no substitute for an internalized sense of morality.
SignGuy writes:
Don't be suprised or offended if the majority of Christians dont even look at the data you present them.
But they do. It's only the ones with small faith and big mouths who oppose the evidence.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:03 AM SignGuy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:41 AM ringo has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 89 (586898)
10-15-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by SignGuy
10-15-2010 11:03 AM


Re: Evidence please
Look, nomatter what evidence I bring to the table for creation there is an enormous amount of data interpreted to support your views. I still just see mounds and mounds of evidence, but no smoking gun.
How much time have you spent looking for this "smoking gun" and what would it look like if you found it?
And to be frank, I see the appeal of choosing to believe in evolution or some other natural process of existence. It is very convient, even if it all seems to be "logical". Because you see if a person doesn't want to be affiliated with any religion, they have secular science with mounds of data (that gets interpreted, the data may be true but it still gets filtered by scientific interpretation.....) to back up a "logical" choice.
But it would not be at all logical to reject all religion on the basis of understanding such things as biology and geology.
It is a VERY hard thing to trust in a God you cannot see with your eyes but know is true, alive, and Holy....consequently it is a VERY VERY emotional process filled with joy. Don't be suprised or offended if the majority of Christians dont even look at the data you present them. These people have experienced God, creator of the uninverse, personally and are very grateful and humbled that God cared so much to save them through Jesus Christ. But you want to take that away with science? cuz its more logical?
In the first place, if people want to argue you out of being a Christian, rather than a creationist, you won't find them saying: "The Grand Canyon was formed by the action of the Colorado River, therefore there is no God". They'll be banging on about the Problem of Evil.
In the second place, you complain that being a Christian is "hard". But by tying Christianity to counterfactual statements about science you yourself are doing your darndest to make it well-nigh impossible. That may not be your intention, but it's your effect. I can take seriously the proposition that Jesus died for my sins --- but if you want to make it "Jesus died for my sins and the Grand Canyon was not formed by the erosive action of the river which actually flows through it" then this is something that I cannot take seriously. I know too much.
But in general, on this website, I do not feel a common respect for other parties. I have seen people who are religious called **** for brains, stupid, ignorant and ironically wicked.
Well, I hope no-one will call you "**** for brains". But there might be a case to be made out for "ignorant".
Consider that when you were asked for evidence for creationism --- when you could have come up with any argument you pleased --- you chose this:
And im not a specialist in rocks, aren't many layers of the grand canyon really hard rock??
... and then it got even worse. I repeat, you could have picked any argument you chose. And yet you picked one in a field where a couple of minutes with google would have given you the expertise to know that you were wrong. You decided to base your argument on a subject to which you have evidently never devoted two minutes' research or five minutes' thought. Is this not ignorance? Is this not conscious ignorance?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:03 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 80 of 89 (586900)
10-15-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by SignGuy
10-15-2010 11:03 AM


Why We Believe and Why We Disagree
Hi SignGuy and welcome to the forum.
Look, nomatter what evidence I bring to the table for creation there is an enormous amount of data interpreted to support your views. I still just see mounds and mounds of evidence, but no smoking gun.
Well there's part of your problem for starters; science is not some cheap murder-mystery. Science doesn't really deal in smoking guns, it deals in the weight of accumulated evidence, which provides gradually greater levels of confidence. Science is always tentative. It doesn't claim to make absolute statements of truth. There is always room for further refinement.
And to be frank, I see the appeal of choosing to believe in evolution or some other natural process of existence. It is very convient, even if it all seems to be "logical". Because you see if a person doesn't want to be affiliated with any religion, they have secular science with mounds of data (that gets interpreted, the data may be true but it still gets filtered by scientific interpretation.....) to back up a "logical" choice.
I have often heard this line of argument from Christians, especially creationists. I have to say, I do not recognise it at all. that is not how I approach the subject, nor is it a view I've ever heard atheists/agnostics espouse.
I don't disbelieve Christianity because it is "convenient". I disbelieve it because it lacks supporting evidence.
I don't trust in the scientific method because it provides me with some spurious rationale for ignoring Christianity. It trust in science because it works (and has saved my life once or twice).
I don't believe in evolution because it provides me with some bad excuse to do wicked things. I believe in it because of the weight of evidence in its favour.
Furthermore, he or she never feels responsible for there actions to a higher being. They can live life as they choose, with little to no consequences and feel comfortable because a small group of people interpret data, and write convincing papers to justify the way they chose to live.
Again, this is a familiar argument but again, it bears no relation to reality. I think you have misunderstood the motivations behind belief in concepts like evolution,with regard to both atheists and the millions of Christians who believe in evolution.
Do you really imagine that I (as an atheist) make reference to evolution in making moral decisions? I don't. It's not relevant. Do you really think that I make reference to evolution as some sort of excuse to ignore a god in whom I simply don't believe? I don't. Neither do I feel any need to make reference to the Christian god when making moral decisions; I don't believe he is real. He no more enters into my decision making process than any other fictional character.
Your religion is very important to you, I understand that. The thing is, it's just not important to me. I don't need to have an opinion one way or the other about God in order to make any decision about what I believe or how I should behave. Do you need to consider the reality of Shiva when making decisions? Of course not, I doubt you give him a moment's thought. Well that's how I feel about your god.
It's also worth mentioning that millions of Christians manage to believe in evolution without feeling any need to deny their belief in God. Many Christians see no conflict there. They don't believe in evolution out of some need to deny God, indeed, they don't deny God. They believe it for the same reasons I do; the weight of evidence is in evolution's favour.
On the contrary, the reason science doesn't reason with Christians is because it is something you feel & experience.
You're right, that does contrast with science.
These people have experienced God, creator of the uninverse, personally and are very grateful and humbled that God cared so much to save them through Jesus Christ. But you want to take that away with science? cuz its more logical?
First, I cannot take anyone's beliefs from them. They can only believe as they see fit. I may try to persuade them round to my point of view, but that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The problem here is this; what do you do when a piece of religious dogma contradicts well evidenced science? What happens when religious dogma contradicts the facts? I would say that any idea which is so plainly contrary to reality should be considered false and that false ideas should be confronted and discouraged. You can call that an attempt to "take away" a person's beliefs if you like, but I can't take anyone's belief away. Everyone chooses what to believe for themselves. If an idea can be shown to be false, people will naturally abandon it. That seems like a good thing to me.
Competition is of ideas inevitable. You for instance say that you will stand up for the Lord. Okay, fair enough, but in doing so, you are trying to "take away" another person's belief in Islam, or another's belief in Hinduism, another's belief in Animism...
All philosophies must take their place in the marketplace of ideas. The supporters of those ideas will do their best to advocate for them, but this will always, by necessity, take place at the expense of other ideas. There's nothing wrong with that. I do it and you do it too. In fact, we all try to persuade others of the rightness of our ides. It's human nature.
But in general, on this website, I do not feel a common respect for other parties. I have seen people who are religious called **** for brains, stupid, ignorant and ironically wicked.
And I have seen Christians behave similarly. You are right that people do not always show each other the respect we should, both here and elsewhere. The internet has a tendency to breed rudeness.
You should be aware though that this is the "Free For All" forum. Moderation here is extremely minimal. If you want more civilised discussion, the other forums are more closely moderated.
But actually it is very arrogant to think, even if it you are conviced its true, that any one party should insist that other people beleive the facts you claim are facts indeed, or else you are dumb.
No-one is saying that. The problem is that, given that some creationists believe patent absurdities, we must find some way to explain the origin their peculiar ideas. Just yesterday, a creationist on this forum claimed that drinking blood of a different blood type would kill you. Now that's not right. It's horribly, painfully wrong. What is your explanation for such weird beliefs? Do you really think that a person who makes such a claim can be considered intelligent, sane and reasonable? Certainly he is deluded; what is your explanation for his delusion? What is your explanation for my failure to believe in Jesus Christ?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:03 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 81 of 89 (586906)
10-15-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by SignGuy
10-15-2010 11:03 AM


Re: Evidence please
Note the subtopic title. Why is it, that whenever a creationist is pressed for evidence or an experiment, the first thing they say is along the lines of "you wouldn't accept it anyways". Let's see how you fare:
Look, nomatter what evidence I bring to the table for creation there is an enormous amount of data interpreted to support your views..
Figured as much. And this was in response to Ringo providing you with a simple experiment you could do yourself. Instead of refuting the experiment or performing it, you chose to cry about it.
And to be frank, I see the appeal of choosing to believe in evolution or some other natural process of existence. It is very convient, even if it all seems to be "logical".
Huh? Do you realize how much easier it would be to tell my 6 year old son, when he asks me about stars and clouds and animals, "god did it"? Fuckin AAA I would love for it to be that damn easy! THAT, my friend, is convenience. However, I would actually like for my prodigy to know how the world really works, not just give him some easy to swallow pill that requires no thought whatsoever.
On the contrary, the reason science doesn't reason with Christians is because it is something you feel & experience.
I think you juxtaposed the words "science" and "christianity". I've NEVER heard a scientist/atheist etc claim they "feel" science or evolution. However, time and time again, christians say exactly that about their invisible homie.
Becoming a true Christian is not easy..
I can imagine that it is, since every single christian has their own idea as to what a "trve christian" is....
Don't be suprised or offended if the majority of Christians dont even look at the data you present them.
Yes. Cognitive Dissonance is a bitch, isn't it?
But in general, on this website, I do not feel a common respect for other parties..
The only disrespect I see is for people who are seriously mentally challenged. The christians who don't just start spouting off at the mouth about dumb shit have no problems. You seem to actually be interested in civil discourse, so you shouldn't have a problem. For example: check out Slevesque (who is ALSO an administrator), GDR, purpledawn (also an admin) and iano, for example. Those three are all theists to some degree and do not receive any harsh treatment and have all been here for some time.
I have seen people who are religious called **** for brains, stupid, ignorant and ironically wicked.
The individuals who are on the receiving end of those monikers are deserving of them.
.but neither should expect an entire planet will end up beleiving ONE point of view.....that is impossible without brainwashing on some level..
To some extent, I concur. However, there are MANY concepts that do only have one valid POV. Would you accept the teaching of geo-centrism? Holocaust denial? What about 2+2=5?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:03 AM SignGuy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:56 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 82 of 89 (586908)
10-15-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by SignGuy
10-15-2010 11:03 AM


choice
And to be frank, I see the appeal of choosing to believe in evolution or some other natural process of existence... Furthermore, he or she never feels responsible for there actions to a higher being. They can live life as they choose, with little to no consequences
I hasten to add that you can live life as you choose, with the exact same potential consequences I do. You choose to live life as a Christian presumably? I'm presuming if you thought it leads to immoral behaviour you wouldn't choose to live life as a Christian.
Incidentally - I believe I am accountable to a higher being: Everybody else. And regardless of how I choose to relate to that being, there's likely to be consequences when I act in a way that impacts on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:03 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 89 (586909)
10-15-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by SignGuy
10-15-2010 11:03 AM


Arrogance?
But actually it is very arrogant to think, even if it you are conviced its true, that any one party should insist that other people beleive the facts you claim are facts indeed, or else you are dumb.
But this is not a conclusion that I came to merely by observing that creationists disagree with me. It's a conclusion that I came to by studying their arguments and trying to take them seriously. Like dwise1, I wasn't prepared to just brush off creationism, I looked into it deeply, to see what they had to say.
And what I found was a pile of nonsense piled on error. I remember telling a friend of mine (who had studied biology at university) about some of the more popular arguments I'd seen, and after we'd finished laughing she said: "No, but let's take their case seriously, you've spent enough time laughing at their stupid weak fringe arguments of dumb uneducated creationists, now give me the strong mainstream arguments of educated intelligent creationists".
Me: "I just did."
My point is that maybe it's not "arrogance" that leads me to dismiss creationist arguments. Maybe they are, in fact, 99% "ignorant, stupid or insane", as the thread title puts it.
How long does it take you to dismiss the proposition that Bush was behind 9/11? It took me a lot longer, because I looked into all the most popular arguments for it. It turns out to be rubbish. Am I arrogant to say so? I at least had the humility to check out the arguments, but having weighed them in the balance, I found myself with nothing to say but "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:03 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 84 of 89 (595743)
12-10-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
10-15-2010 11:56 AM


ringo:
quote:
I don't think you do. It isn't a choice so much as acknowledging the elephant in the room. It isn't a matter of wanting a "substitute" for religion. On the contrary, religion has always been a substitute for real knowledge.
"Religion has always been a substitute for real knowledge."
This is the Biggest of the Big Lies touted by atheists, by far.
Galileo was a devout Catholic.
Galileo Galilei (Italian pronunciation: [ɡaliˈlɛːo ɡaliˈlɛi]; 15 February 1564[4] — 8 January 1642),[1][5] commonly known as Galileo, was an Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher who played a major role in the Scientific Revolution. His achievements include improvements to the telescope and consequent astronomical observations, and support for Copernicanism. Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy",[6] the "father of modern physics",[7] the "father of science",[7] and "the Father of Modern Science".[8] Stephen Hawking says, "Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science."[9]
Does this sound to you like "a substitute for real knowledge"?
Copernicus was a Catholic priest.
Nicolaus Copernicus (Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik; German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; in his youth, Niclas Koppernigk;[1] Italian: Nicol Copernico; 19 February 1473 — 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance astronomer, priest[2][3][4] and the first person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe.[5]
Copernicus' epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), published just before his death in 1543, is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the scientific revolution. His heliocentric model, with the Sun at the center of the universe, demonstrated that the observed motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting Earth at rest in the center of the universe. His work stimulated further scientific investigations, becoming a landmark in the history of science that is often referred to as the Copernican Revolution.
Was the Copernican Revolution "a substitute for real knowledge"?
Isaac Newton penned "the most important scientific book ever written".
Does that sound to you like "a substitute for real knowledge"?
Sir Isaac Newton FRS (4 January 1643 — 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 — 20 March 1726])[1] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian, and is considered by many scholars and members of the general public to be one of the most influential people in human history. His Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Latin for "Mathematical Principles Of Natural Philosophy"; usually called the Principia), published in 1687, is probably the most important scientific book ever written. It lays the groundwork for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws, by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation; thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution.
One day as Newton was turning his model of the solar system, an atheist friend of his came into Newton's workshop and marveled at the beautiful planets turning under Newton's guidance.
"Did you build that?" he asked Newton.
Newton replied, "No it built itself."
Now we may expect the excuses from the godless set that these scholars were all Christians, men of God, because that was virtually a necessity back then. But this begs the question of religion being antithetical to "real knowledge." Moreover, there are hundreds of millions of enlightened Christians today. That a disproportionate number of scholars have been brainwashed by the liberal public education system in no way establishes the pretenses of the godless left's claim to exclusive rights to "real knowledge" as opposed to what I suppose ringo would characterize as "unreal knowledge."
Truth and knowledge are not functions of how many people comprehend them. As S. Fred Singer says in his book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years :
"Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the earth revolved around the sun, but he was right! "

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 10-15-2010 11:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2010 9:44 AM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 12-10-2010 10:35 AM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 89 by Blue Jay, posted 12-10-2010 11:05 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 85 of 89 (595746)
12-10-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by hooah212002
10-15-2010 1:13 PM


Re: Evidence please
hooah212002:
quote:
The only disrespect I see is for people who are seriously mentally challenged. The christians who don't just start spouting off at the mouth about dumb shit have no problems. You seem to actually be interested in civil discourse, so you shouldn't have a problem. For example: check out Slevesque (who is ALSO an administrator), GDR, purpledawn (also an admin) and iano, for example. Those three are all theists to some degree and do not receive any harsh treatment and have all been here for some time.
And you, sir, clearly are not "interested in civil discourse."
Had any newly arrived poster laced his message with vulgarities and ignorant condemnation such as you wrote, he would be attacked wholesale by scores of members here, if not banned for trolling. But you get away with it on the basis of, what, being a card-carrying atheist?
Your definition of being "seriously mentally challenged" is anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Moreover, they had better treat you with respect, and no profanity, otherwise it's curtains.
Now on to the topic of ignorance, stupidity, insanity, and wickedness as bantered endlessly by the very hateful, very arrogant and condescending socialist, Richard Dawkins.
People can, and have every right, to ask questions, even pointed questions regarding the mechanisms of macroevolution. Questioning things is in fact the essence of science, except in the domains of macroevolution (which you of course lump in to the overall term "evolution") and global warming, recently converted to the more politically correct "climate change."
But proponents of macroevolution, and for that matter, "climate change," contend that the slightest doubt, the slightest questioning of any mechanism or dogma must be refuted in the most arrogant, most dismissive, most militant way possible.
Such intolerance, and in your case, such profanity and hostility, are out of line. That so few on your side of the aisle have the guts to challenge your crudeness and anti-intellectualism is a great embarrassment to the forum claim of "Understanding through Discussion."
The group conduct makes this an absolute lie.
quote:
10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.
-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate
Does any of you think that referring to others as "seriously mentally challenged" is "abusive, harassing, needling, hectoring, or goading"? Any of you?
Is it "cooly academic" to use vulgar words as Mister Hooah did above? If so, please provide just two or three links to academic papers or presentations made at conferences using the same profanities Hooah uses above.
Edited by BarackZero, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by hooah212002, posted 10-15-2010 1:13 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2010 9:30 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 86 of 89 (595751)
12-10-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by BarackZero
12-10-2010 8:56 AM


Re: Evidence please
But you see, it seems that in about 90% of your posts, if not more, you don't want to produce any actual argument, you just want to whine and blub about the existence of people who disagree with you.
If you were like other theists or creationists and spent your time here producing substantive arguments for your point of view, then we'd take you seriously.
When you spend your time sniveling and lying about anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, then no, no-one is going to respect you. They're going to think of you ask a stupid crybaby and a liar.
What can I say? Come back when you've grown up, maybe grown a pair, and have something even slightly interesting to say about any topic under discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:56 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 89 (595755)
12-10-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by BarackZero
12-10-2010 8:41 AM


"Religion has always been a substitute for real knowledge."
This is the Biggest of the Big Lies touted by atheists, by far.
Galileo was a devout Catholic.
Ah, that would be why the Church condemned his ideas as "heretical [...] expressly contrary to Holy Scripture [...] heresy [...] false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures".
Yes, he was a good Catholic except when it came to science.
Religion tried to be a substitute for real knowledge.
Guess what? Knowledge won.
Try to lie less often, and to be less of a hypocrite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:41 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 88 of 89 (595764)
12-10-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by BarackZero
12-10-2010 8:41 AM


BarackZero writes:
Truth and knowledge are not functions of how many people comprehend them.
That was my point. People like Galileo, Copernicus and Newton went after real truth and knowledge without regard for what the religious majority proclaimed to be The Truth™. If they retained their faith, it was not at the expense of dispensing with real truth and knowledge.
Another scientist, arguably of similar stature to Newton, Copernicus and Galileo, who did lose much of his faith was Charles Darwin. It can go either way. What's important is that scientists don't let their religion, if any, get in the way of knowledge.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:41 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 89 of 89 (595777)
12-10-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by BarackZero
12-10-2010 8:41 AM


Hi, BarackZero.
BarackZero writes:
"Religion has always been a substitute for real knowledge."
This is the Biggest of the Big Lies touted by atheists, by far.
For any broad statement, you can always point out a couple of exceptions (e.g., some people who smoke for sixty years never develop lung cancer).
So what?
The existence of a few exceptions doesn't mean the overall pattern isn't real.
Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, etc... do you know what these men all have in common?
Why, they didn't let religion substitute for real knowledge, of course.
They stand out as extraordinary examples in history because people who do what they did are rare.
A very large proportion of religious people do indeed allow religion to substitute for real knowledge.
Pointing out a handful of people who don't doesn't change that.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by BarackZero, posted 12-10-2010 8:41 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024