It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists Will Destroy ATS

page: 11
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
You know, I have to agree with the OP on this one. I lurked about this site for over a year, and it wasn't until I saw some Creationism vs Atheism type argument that I felt to join up. And at first, it was good. Until I detected a distinct pattern. The first pattern is obviously human in nature, support those who agree with you, deny those who don't, and make no effort to find a middle ground. The second pattern is, religion almost always seems to find it's way into any topic, derail it, then leave it whimpering and broken. While I don't liek the idea of exclusing anyone based on their belief system, I really have never been able to understand why any religious people would wnat to come to this site, other than to sermonize and defend their faith from inquisitive minds. I was a member for about 2 weeks, then I got tired of the same ankle-biting two-faced hypocritical pattern of all sides of any debate around here.

I only have this question for you faith based people:

Why do you bother? Surely you realize that you're dealing with a very unique variety of people here, the only reason most people here even talk about religion is to disprove it and paint it as a villain. What could you possibly hope to achieve, no one is going to convert based on anything you say. If you're goal is to muddy the waters and keep posters here distracted and unfocused on the real conspiracies, you're doing a fine job of that.




posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
'Science cannot provide all the answers'Why do so many scientists believe in God?




Russell Stannard emeritus professor of physics at the Open University. He is one of the atom-smashers, picking apart the properties of matter, energy, space and time, and the author of a delightful series of children's books about tough concepts such as relativity theory. He believes in the power of science. He not only believes in God, he believes in the Church of England. He, like Tom McLeish, is a lay reader. He has con tributed Thoughts for the Day to Radio 4, those morning homilies on the mysteries of existence. Does it worry him that science - his science - could be about to explain the whole story of space, time matter and energy without any need for a Creator?

"No, because a starting point you can have is: why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a world? Now I cannot see how science could ever provide an answer," he says.





modern science did not emerge 400 years ago to challenge religion, the orthodoxy of the past 2,000 years. Generations of thinkers and experimenters and observers - often themselves churchmen - wanted to explain how God worked his wonders. Modern physics began with a desire to explain the clockwork of God's creation. Modern geology grew at least partly out of searches for evidence of Noah's flood. Modern biology owes much to the urge to marvel at the intricacy of Divine providence. In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics.


www.guardian.co.uk...

this web page is a good read.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 





Why do you bother? Surely you realize that you're dealing with a very unique variety of people here,


Are you telling me this is/was an atheist site?

Why shouldn't they bother,

Scientist try and prove their theories

Believers in alien life forms want you to see their point of view, and prove something is out there.

Why isn't there a place for Christians, you don't have to debate them or even read their post, why would you want to deny them?




[edit on 013131p://bSaturday2008 by Stormdancer777]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Personally, I don't see any real point in the whole debate other then simple intellectual curiosity. Regardless of how we came into existence, we're here now. Proving where we came from one way or another won't change that fact. We still would have to provide food and shelter for ourselves and our loved ones. We would still be born, live, and eventually die.

With all the current problems in the world, arguing over something that happened in our far distant past just seems a moot point to me. All it seems to accomplish is driving a wedge between people who might just be able to get along otherwise.

Yet here we are, lines clearly drawn in the sand, arguing and getting all worked up over something that doesn't really make any difference in the first place.

Wherever we came from, we're here now, so just try to make it better while we are.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


haha. Because we ARE the people here. Many of the people here are religious, from one background or another. Alot are christians of different stripes. I think we have a few muslims too. Some neo-nazi christian identity folks, some jewish people, some pagans, and so on. That's a very silly question! But i like your outfit!



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
And yes, Creationism and Intelligent Design are religion. Both presuppose the objective existence of a Supreme Being who created this Universe and is responsible for its well-being.


Doesn't evolutionary theory that unequivocally states that there is NO Supreme Being who designed evolutionary process also constitute a religion?

I.e., wouldn't that require faith/belief that there no Supreme Being? It seems from a scientific standpoint, at best one must be agnostic. What I've seen is a cross-over in which people wear the cloak of science to conclude there is no God. Science can't conclude there is no God anymore than it can conclude there are no ghosts, no aliens, or anything else that is beyond the means of being proven one way or another.


No, it does not. This is a common misperception. Evolutionary theory makes NO claims either way for or against a Supreme Being. Evolution is the theory, with mountains of evidence to back it up, that life diversifies and changes to fill whatever niche is necessary for survival. That these changes tend to progress in certain directions, such as the development of Intelligence, is considered to be fairly random. And, evolution does not necessarily lead directly to intellignet beings. Cockroaches are considered by many to be the height of evolution for the niche they fill--that of, essentially, doing away with waste left behind from other creatures. They are practically immune to disease and radiation, they can survive for days or weeks without body parts (such as their HEADS) and go for long periods without feeding, or eat almost anything that is available.

Evolution is NOT religion.

Religion is based on unprovable spiritual assertions accepted as a matter of Faith.

Evolution is a theory based on empirical evidence and provable fact that forms a base of Knowledge.

Knowledge and Faith are very different; Martin Luther asserted that Knowlegde is the Enemy of Faith.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
You evaded my entire question like a politician at a presidential debate!


What I asked was, doesn't evolutionary theory that unequivocally states that there is NO Supreme Being who designed evolutionary process also constitute a religion?

What I'm saying is that many people who promote evolutionary theory simultaneously bash theists, wrongly insinuating that evolution and faith are mutually exclusive.

From what I've seen, a lot of that is what's going on here.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 



In light of my personal experiences with such folk, and Marxism aside, I have to state with all conviction that in a purely intellectual sense Lenin had a point.


Yes good points in a purely intellectual sense let's throw creationists in the Gulags.


*sigh*

Your reliance on hyperbole is tiring. I added you to my Respected Foes list because I had some respect for you and your opinion. I see that respect may have been misplaced.



The human mind requires new information and experiences. Organized religion, especially that which seeks to dismiss and suppress Intellectualism as some kind of "devil worship", effectively numbs the mind and robs it of the ability and impetus to seek that new experience. If God created all, and God provides all you need, why bother to seek out anything but a deeper relationship with God? In my opinion this is a waste of human capacity.


"Human capacity" sorta like Horse Power Niiiiiiiiice


Actually the "Human Capacity" for intellectualism, curiosity, and knowledge. To willingly suppress these things, or to seek their suppression in others, is indeed a waste of the vast resource that is the Human Intellect.




And yes, Creationism and Intelligent Design are religion. Both presuppose the objective existence of a Supreme Being who created this Universe and is responsible for its well-being.


And you presuppose the non existence.


No, I do not. Evolutionary theory makes no assumptions or assertions either way. Creationism and ID do. Evolutionary theory is based on a body of Knowledge, while CT and ID are based entirely on Faith. Oil and Water. One cannot have "Knowledge" of God.


To your peril. Intelligence and consciousness are not material. You can't explain your on ability to reason.


Yet.


If your brain is an accidental occurence of chemicals then why do you assume it can determine what is truth? BIG ASSUMPTION. without a creator.


*sigh* An assumption based on a body of empirical evidence. A Theory. Knowledge.


And don't forget atheism is a religion as well.


By the broadest definition of "religion", sure. The courts use such broad definitions out of fairness to the greatest number of people. I do not consider Atheism or Secular Humanism to be religions any more than I consider "The Lord of the Rings" to be a factual historical document, logical puzzles such as "cannot have X without Y" notwithstanding. They are Philosophies, not religions.


[edit on 5/31/2008 by The Nighthawk]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
You evaded my entire question like a politician at a presidential debate!


What I asked was, doesn't evolutionary theory that unequivocally states that there is NO Supreme Being who designed evolutionary process also constitute a religion?


I answered your question directly. Your question itself was inherently fallacious in assuming ET asserts there is no Supreme Being. I was pretty clear in pointing out your fallacy.


What I'm saying is that many people who promote evolutionary theory simultaneously bash theists, wrongly insinuating that evolution and faith are mutually exclusive.

From what I've seen, a lot of that is what's going on here.


I don't bash "theists", I bash people who use their faith to justify an anti-Intellectual viewpoint that robs people of their curiosity and intelligence in exchange for faith and rely on faith alone to form their whole of reality.

"Pure" Creationism (6,000-year-Earth) is in this category. It is entirely based on Scripture and gross misperception of the physical world.

Intelligent Design, while still primarily faith-based, is not quite so bad. At least most proponents of ID are looking for something to prove their claims.

My biggest beef with both is the push to teach either or both in public schools as legitimate alternatives to ET, partially because ET has far more empirical evidence than either one and also because as faith-based concepts they violate the Constitutional Church/State separation. I also think teaching faith to kids who have not developed enough to make informed opinions is irresponsible.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Agnostic theoretical physicist , Paul Davies

Christianity and the Birth of Science
by Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D

ldolphin.org...


“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature—the laws of physics—are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”


I think the whole problem here is the insinuation that creationist are not rational and reasonable and have nothing to offer.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I read everything I can on modern scientific theory, archeology and anthropology, I try to keep up with the latest in science and technology,

I believe in a creator,

I also try and read all the ancient texts to make comparisons,

Today's prophets are the scientists, there has to be thought, the vision, modern visionaries are not unlike the Prophets of old, we/they are all still trying to understand the universe,

cut each other some slack


[edit on 023131p://bSaturday2008 by Stormdancer777]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

I don't bash "theists", I bash people who use their faith to justify an anti-Intellectual viewpoint that robs people of their curiosity and intelligence in exchange for faith and rely on faith alone to form their whole of reality.


This view is nothing but eloquently worded intellectual elitism. But like my grandfather used to say, no matter how much you shine up a turd, it's still a turd.

What it still comes down to is this: You "bash people who use their faith to justify a viewpoint." That's a pretty intolerant and abhorrent way to communicate with fellow ATS members.

And then you justify your bashing with the *false* claim that the people you are bashing are somehow "robbing people of their curiosity and intelligence." This is just more crap piled on top of crap. Nobody is robbing anybody of anything by how they justify their viewpoints.

This attitude mirrors the OP in condescension, arrogance, elitism and intolerance, and is far more dangerous to the long-term survival of ATS than tolerating creationists who post their views here.

This attitude is almost a textbook definition of Facism. Here's how Facism is defined by Wikipedia:


Fascism is a government, faction, movement, or political philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition.[1] In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race, fascism seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.


Maybe the analogy isn't a perfect fit for the attitudes expressed here, but it's not far from it.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

I don't bash "theists", I bash people who use their faith to justify an anti-Intellectual viewpoint that robs people of their curiosity and intelligence in exchange for faith and rely on faith alone to form their whole of reality.


This view is nothing but eloquently worded intellectual elitism. But like my grandfather used to say, no matter how much you shine up a turd, it's still a turd.


I knew I'd read this sooner or later on this thread. "Intellectual Elitism" is the desire to RULE those one deems to be of lower intellectual "quality". MY desire is for those who believe in things that are demonstrably FALSE to pick themselves up out of that malaise and accept knowledge and fact in order to become intellectuals themselves. There's a huge difference.


What it still comes down to is this: You "bash people who use their faith to justify a viewpoint." That's a pretty intolerant and abhorrent way to communicate with fellow ATS members.


When a "viewpoint" is factually incorrect and denies empirical evidence I feel a need to educate those who are its proponents by pointing out the inherent fallacy of their erroneous belief. Seeking education for all is the opposite of intellectual elitism.


And then you justify your bashing with the *false* claim that the people you are bashing are somehow "robbing people of their curiosity and intelligence."


Note the specific example I have put forth in throughout my posts on this thread. If you believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth you essentially spit in the face of the whole of physical Science. The very belief in such a thing is more bigoted than anything I have stated on this thread because it denies the work of thousands to discover how this world works, and it implies that those who do not "believe" are somehow either "lost without faith" or deliberately trying to cover up some "Godly" Truth.


This is just more crap piled on top of crap. Nobody is robbing anybody of anything by how they justify their viewpoints.


And yet you accuse me of just that.


This attitude mirrors the OP in condescension, arrogance, elitism and intolerance, and is far more dangerous to the long-term survival of ATS than tolerating creationists who post their views here.


Welcome to ATS!! Step into the political threads if you want to see some real action!


This attitude is almost a textbook definition of Facism. Here's how Facism is defined by Wikipedia:


Fascism is a government, faction, movement, or political philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition.[1] In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race, fascism seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.


Maybe the analogy isn't a perfect fit for the attitudes expressed here, but it's not far from it.


Oh yes it is. I seek to educate. I ask that individuals make the choice to exercise their natural curiosity and seeks facts instead of wrapping themselves in a blanket of faith. Education is not repression. It is exactly the opposite. Through konwledge one finds freedom. In my personal experience blind faith brings only intellectual slavery.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Oh yes it is. I seek to educate. I ask that individuals make the choice to exercise their natural curiosity and seeks facts instead of wrapping themselves in a blanket of faith. Education is not repression. It is exactly the opposite. Through konwledge one finds freedom. In my personal experience blind faith brings only intellectual slavery.



Educating people is a far cry from bashing them. I have no qualms with anything you just stated. That said, if people deny your education, there isn't much you can do.

In my opinion, ostracizing those who refuse your education isn't the answer. Then again, maybe it is depending on the question.

I would also suggest that as part of the education process, you may want to err on the side of being humble, not arrogant. You may want to err on the side of admitting what is unknown, instead of what is claimed to be known beyond any doubt.

If both sides did this more often, common ground may be found.

(Anybody know the lyrics to Kumbaya???)



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   


MY desire is for those who believe in things that are demonstrably FALSE to pick themselves up out of that malaise and accept knowledge and fact in order to become intellectuals themselves.


I think the argument here is, that it can't be demonstrably false without proof that it is demonstrably false. I'm certainly not malaised. I went in search of dating procedures for dig sites and found out they don't actually date most of what they dig up from an archaeological site. They pre-date the site, determine the age for each strata in the dig and anything found within those strata that doesn't agree with their prior dating, is thrown away as contamination. Reason given is that they don't have the funds or manpower to date every artifact in a dig. So it's based on a procedure, done in advance, and generally applied to everything in the dig.

Let's consider the ages - copper, iron, stone, etc.
These were happening simulatenously in many places, and not end to end at all. Although there was also a general progression, overall, generally applying it to every culture encountered was a huge mistake in my opinion.

There are things that you have to assume in science, that you were not around to see, and cannot say is verified. These things are impressed on your mind as the only viable answers and you agree to view them in that light, regardless of any other potentiality or theory (until they say otherwise). Oftentimes, it's just a popularity contest, what is and isn't true. But erm, I'm here to say, you can't base truth merely on popular vote.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I do think the issue here is how specific topics are raised and then hijacked for other means. Yes I have noted some sound topics being hijacked for religion but it's no use us bleating about this - we should (christian, non christian etc.) stick to the subject of the debate and if we want to create a debating area for religion, create that separately.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Double post. See below.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Well, I think this thread has royally proved its point. Every single manifestation of creationist damage to sane and civil discussion referred to in the OP has been demonstrated repeatedly on it. Kudos to The Nighthawk and others for stoutly keeping up the battle against the forces of obscurantism, but I think the work here is done.

There remains only one question...


Sieg Heil Astyanax

Welcher Sieg sind Sie mich bitten zu hageln, Bigwhammy?

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Can anyone name some specific threads that were hijacked????
Where were the moderators???




top topics



 
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join