Originally posted by Starrman How could I hate something I don't believe exists?
What I do hate is that humans put their lives in the hands of faith and the supernatural, instead of reason and a common sense view of the world.
It is an irony that EVOLUTION has distilled in humans an ability to believe in completely irrational things.
You might hate the fact but it was a belief in a creator that helped Newton and Einstein uncover their views of the universe.
Religion has enabled large groups to fight for a common cause and conquer other cultures. It is not just the "opium of the masses" but a social force, sometimes for good.
Children can be made to behave by avoiding the bogeyman.
Adults need more. When tapeworms where rife, then the pig became unholy. Diets bad? Fish on friday. etc. etc.
Originally posted by petrosianpupil It is an irony that EVOLUTION has distilled in humans an ability to believe in completely irrational things.
You might hate the fact but it was a belief in a creator that helped Newton and Einstein uncover their views of the universe.
Religion has enabled large groups to fight for a common cause and conquer other cultures. It is not just the " ...[text shortened]... e. When tapeworms where rife, then the pig became unholy. Diets bad? Fish on friday. etc. etc.
The irony is that all these things could have been accomplished without the notion of god.
Originally posted by Starrman How could I hate something I don't believe exists?
What I do hate is that humans put their lives in the hands of faith and the supernatural, instead of reason and a common sense view of the world.
So you think it's reasonable to believe that there was no intelligent mechanism involved in the formation of life from non-life and that all of life is simply one big mistake?
Originally posted by amannion If there was a god, I definitely wouldn't want to know him/her/it. The very notion of a god fills me with dread - that is, the notion that there might be able to exist supernatural aspects to this world, makes no sense to me at all and I would hate to live in such a world.
You mention neither side proving their case in the creation/nature debate. That's ...[text shortened]... t's not really a debate is it?
Both sides are coming from entirely incompatible positions.
Science attempts to develop workable theories. Creationism aims to refute those theories but aside from some generic 'god did it' does not bother to present their own theories.
You mean to say that 'god did it' cannot be regarded as a theory for why a certain phenomena happened which has no other coherent explanation?
Originally posted by dj2becker And the greater irony is that you cannot provide any evidence to prove the statement you just made.
Excluding the guillotine, would you care to make a list of some of the useful things that were invented my atheists?
I don't need to, it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that these things are not contingent upon god's existence.
Instead of trying to be childish by attempting to score points with your little off-topic snipes, why don't you go back to playing with your toys and leave the discussions to the grown ups.
Originally posted by dj2becker So you think it's reasonable to believe that there was no intelligent mechanism involved in the formation of life from non-life and that all of life is simply one big mistake?
'Mistake' implies there is right and wrong: plan and failure to follow it: intelligence. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that there is no intelligence in the formation of the universe and you know I do already, so why bother asking that question?
Surely true scientists should approach the subject (and a good many more) with agnostic skeptism, rather than true atheism, which is a statement of belief. After all we probably can never know what happened pre big bang, and as for god it depends what you conceptualise for the term.
One measures a circle, beginning anywhere- Charles Fort
Originally posted by london nick Surely true scientists should approach the subject (and a good many more) with agnostic skeptism, rather than true atheism, which is a statement of belief. After all we probably can never know what happened pre big bang, and as for god it depends what you conceptualise for the term.
One measures a circle, beginning anywhere- Charles Fort
I'm not sure what agnosticism or atheism have got to do with scientific methodology. Scientists should approach science of any sort with a scientific mind, the question of god is irrelevant to the nature of empirical investigation, regardless of whether they are atheists or theists or anything in between. Also, I think you're confused about atheism, what do you mean 'true atheism'? Do you mean strong atheism? I am a weak atheist and by this I hold a position of denial, not one of belief, so your statement about atheism needs some clarification.
Originally posted by Starrman I'm not sure what agnosticism or atheism have got to do with scientific methodology. Scientists should approach science of any sort with a scientific mind, the question of god is irrelevant to the nature of empirical investigation, regardless of whether they are atheists or theists or anything in between. Also, I think you're confused about atheism, what ...[text shortened]... tion of denial, not one of belief, so your statement about atheism needs some clarification.
I meant the view that the existance of god/gods is unlikely, even perhaps unproveable but possible. Many seem to think that scientists should be atheists, and I was making the point that saying definatively that either god does or does not exist is an unscientific statement of belief.
People are too quick to dismiss that which does not fit their world view.
Originally posted by london nick I meant the view that the existance of god/gods is unlikely, even perhaps unproveable but possible. Many seem to think that scientists should be atheists, and I was making the point that saying definatively that either god does or does not exist is an unscientific statement of belief.
People are too quick to dismiss that which does not fit their world view.
Weak atheism is scientific, it is an empirically justified position based upon observation (or the lack of it).
If I could be 100% scientific about everything, I would, but you're quite right, people do often dismiss that which is not in their world view.
Originally posted by petrosianpupil It is an irony that EVOLUTION has distilled in humans an ability to believe in completely irrational things.
Such as? Big, flying bearded men in the sky creating universes? One so powerful yet still seems to spend his entire existence caring about such insignificant specks as us. No, that's the worst narcissisms of religion. Evolutionary theory is about simplicity. It only required heredity, and mutation. So simple, yet explains so much.
Creationism vs Naturalism
06 Feb '07 15:07
Back to Top