Motivation of Atheists and Christ Deniers?

@kellyjay said
You think humanity sprang up where under a rock, in a pond, and you think science has shown you that?

You angrily complain and when you feel someone has misrepresented you, and yet here you are dishonesty misrepresenting what Ghost of a Duke has said.

@kellyjay said
Why would the bar be higher we are attempting to find the truth about things. Truth doesn’t come with different flavors where for example this is a scientific truth and that is a religious truth what is being presented is either true or false.

We either vigorously examine what is being presented or we don’t.

My point is that "religious truths" are based on our faith and our beliefs. There is no "proof" that we are "doing it right", so our adherence to our beliefs is all we have, there is no double-checking our work, no homework or research to do to insure that we get it right.

"Scientific truths", on the other hand, are written in stone. There is no fudging the facts based on our own belief systems. The facts are the same for everyone. We must bend to them, doing our homework, to assure that we do "get it right".

This is what I meant by the bar for science is higher. We have to meet that bar to get it right, while with religion, we only have to satisfy our own belief, which is subjective.

@suzianne said
My point is that "religious truths" are based on our faith and our beliefs. There is no "proof" that we are "doing it right", so our adherence to our beliefs is all we have, there is no double-checking our work, no homework or research to do to insure that we get it right.

"Scientific truths", on the other hand, are written in stone. There is no fudging the facts based ...[text shortened]... r to get it right, while with religion, we only have to satisfy our own belief, which is subjective.

<<"Scientific truths", on the other hand, are written in stone.>>

There are no “scientific truths” and nothing in science is written in stone. No scientist in the world would agree with your statement.

@moonbus said
Please listen. It's really quite simple. Yes, there are different kinds of truth, "flavors" as you metaphorically call it.

Science is not faith minus god. Science and religion move in different universes of discourse, and they offer different kinds of truth. Science explains mankind's whence, but has nothing to say about his wherefore. Religion ...[text shortened]... s (which is the business of science) and reasons (which is the business of philosophy and religion).

Precisely.

I've said similar in the past: science tells us the how, religion tells us the why.

I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but I do not look to them for explanation of how they did it. That's how we get the creation story in Genesis.

I believe in evolution as one of God's tools, cosmology as his design for the universe, chemistry as God's recipe book. In fact all of science addresses exactly how "Goddidit". But I do not look to science for a "why". Science simply doesn't know or care why; it just is.

@plantermoo said
<<"Scientific truths", on the other hand, are written in stone.>>

There are no “scientific truths” and nothing in science is written in stone. No scientist in the world would agree with your statement.

Oh, no. Science IS "written in stone". It is based on facts. We just don't know ALL the facts yet. We haven't found a comprehensive Rosetta Stone for science yet. Scientists are working on a "theory of everything" as we speak, but they're not there yet. This is why at least half of science is Discovery. The other half is Application, and sometimes, that is where we get slowed down.

@kellyjay said
I think he was shooting for the best possible explanation given what he thought he knew at the time.

No. I suspect he waited for what the evidence showed him. Science doesn't "do" confirmation bias.

We get that you may not respect science. But spare us the lip service.

@moonbus said
You wonder at the gigantic difference between humans and all other animals. It really comes down to only one thing, and it's just what Suzi says it is: we have free choice. They don't. Apes and every other creature just does what their physiologies tell them, eat, sleep, procreate, avoid predators. We, uniquely among the animals, can do something else than what our physiologi ...[text shortened]... we do; apes have only physiological causes for what they do. No further explanation required.

Concise and succinct. Well-done.

@plantermoo said
Where did this free choice come from?

And you think free choice alone accounts for us walking on the moon when chimps, our so-called closest relatives, are still swinging from trees, eating bananas and flinging poo at each other?

From God.

After all, we are the goal of evolution. We have the power to look up at the night sky and say "I want to find out what's up there and how it works." The neck structure of pigs renders them unable to look up at the sky. The social structure of chimpanzees means their highest pinnacle is the boss of their troop; they can't aspire to more than that. What makes us human is that our reach always exceeds our grasp. We choose what to achieve. Our free will choice is the result of having a soul.

@moonbus said
Where free choice came from is having the intellectual capacity to understand the consequences of our actions. It's about seeing causal relations and saying, 'this would be a good outcome, that would be a bad outcome.' Chimps have a rudimentary ability to 'see' consequences; ours is slightly better, but unevenly distributed across individual specimens. Dogs can be trained not ...[text shortened]... was by throwing off the yoke of Christian dogma which held mankind in the Dark Ages for 1,000 years.

Interesting take.

@suzianne said
My point is that "religious truths" are based on our faith and our beliefs. There is no "proof" that we are "doing it right", so our adherence to our beliefs is all we have, there is no double-checking our work, no homework or research to do to insure that we get it right.

"Scientific truths", on the other hand, are written in stone. There is no fudging the facts based ...[text shortened]... r to get it right, while with religion, we only have to satisfy our own belief, which is subjective.

I can not disagree strong enough I don’t have a blind faith that I have to believe in make believe a baseless evidence less faith. God is or is not, Jesus was in real history or not, Jesus is the Son of God made flesh or not. If life did not start from non-life then all believers who accept that as the beginning of evolution are wrong!

There are true things we speak about and that which isn’t.

@suzianne said
Oh, no. Science IS "written in stone". It is based on facts. We just don't know ALL the facts yet. We haven't found a comprehensive Rosetta Stone for science yet. Scientists are working on a "theory of everything" as we speak, but they're not there yet. This is why at least half of science is Discovery. The other half is Application, and sometimes, that is where we get slowed down.

Science is important and interesting and possibly the end of man, not the beginning of truth. It can only go so far before realizing it knows nothing. Just my opinion, like yours😉.

@kellyjay said
I can not disagree strong enough I don’t have a blind faith that I have to believe in make believe a baseless evidence less faith. God is or is not, Jesus was in real history or not, Jesus is the Son of God made flesh or not. If life did not start from non-life then all believers who accept that as the beginning of evolution are wrong!

There are true things we speak about and that which isn’t.

Suzianne's post was succinct, reasoned and reasonable. In response you come up with this, which makes no sense whatsoever. I mean really, what on earth are you on about? If you're going to post here, at least try to make it comprehensible, even if what you're saying is complete nonsense.

@kellyjay said
I can not disagree strong enough I don’t have a blind faith that I have to believe in make believe a baseless evidence less faith. God is or is not, Jesus was in real history or not, Jesus is the Son of God made flesh or not. If life did not start from non-life then all believers who accept that as the beginning of evolution are wrong!

There are true things we speak about and that which isn’t.

This is perilously close to word salad. It’s hard to understand your intent when the sentences are not grammatically well-formed.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You are holding us back as a species. Evolve already.

What happens when the substance runs out…

@suzianne said
From God.

After all, we are the goal of evolution. We have the power to look up at the night sky and say "I want to find out what's up there and how it works." The neck structure of pigs renders them unable to look up at the sky. The social structure of chimpanzees means their highest pinnacle is the boss of their troop; they can't aspire to more than that. What makes ...[text shortened]... exceeds our grasp. We choose what to achieve. Our free will choice is the result of having a soul.

<<We have the power to look up at the night sky and say "I want to find out what's up there and how it works." The neck structure of pigs renders them unable to look up at the sky.>>

Well, ya got me.

If pigs only had a flexible neck, they’d be solving the riddles of the universe.