Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

Originally posted by TruthAboveIgnorance
reply to post by oozyism

 

The empirical evidence presented are nifty little pictures Egyptians put on almost all of their structures. On top of that they actually kept records of their history, they were surprisingly good book keepers.

Sorry mate, little pictures are not regarded as empirical evidence.

Second line.

reply to post by TheWill

Sorry for any confusion, and please don't go down Oozyism's path of demanding to know when ignorance has led to people being easier to control... after all, this is being posted on a forum with the motto "deny ignorance", so isn't that sort of the point?

Sorry mate, you referred to ignorance in general, and as an Atheist people would assume by ignorance you mean ignorance regarding the sciences.

Sciences have nothing to do with manipulation, whether you are a genius who has the ability to build an atom bomb because of your knowledge, or not, does not effect you when it comes to manipulation.

I have already proven that.

But

You still won't tell us what you mean by ignorance, unless you do, I will keep assuming you are talking about the sciences.

Originally posted by TruthAboveIgnorance
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Your post is a perfect example of how belief in a god and the the belief in evolution could co-exist, within someones personal belief structure.

It's odd to me that for some this is almost as bad. Eg: Fundamental Creationists. Or people who take the bible, 100% literally.

edit on 9-12-2010 by TruthAboveIgnorance because: (no reason given)

I have no issue with personal spirituality. I actually recommend it. I personally contemplate and ponder the concept of a greater organization and even unfathomable consciousness throughout the multiverse
Hell, such conversations are my favorite philosophical discussion to have

I find -religion-, aka, the established rulebook with deities, angels, "science" and other such stuff to be a distraction to the seeking, a corruption to the search, and an insult to the intellect of those truely wanting to uncover the (potentially impossible) nature of everything (Everything meaning...everything. The cosmos, the potential univeral membranes, etc).

I also love pondering and considering Extraterrestrials (this is relevant).
I therefore am very skeptical of claims...you see, I don't feel the need to call every satellite and flicker of light in the sky a alien and ignore any opposing argument.

Religion is to the understanding of the greater order in the universe
what
chinese lanterns are to UFOlogy.

The faster we can rid ourselves of religion in public discource, the faster we can truely understand the true nature of the cosmos, and who knows...we might just find signs of patterns and order beyond our current comprehension.

But for now, we are stuck with a ton of nonsense insulting our intelligence and forcing many to reactively accept religion out of fear even when their intellectual understanding knows better.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by SaturnFX

If there is nothing to die for, then you have to figure out what there is to live for.
Some would call this love and enlightenment

wow are you sure you are not a Christian or a believer of something or other ? this sounds exactly like Christianity...

let's philosophize on morality for a few, and where these belief structures came from and who first started to write them down.

These belief structures have been around since the dawning of civilization.
I am fond of Plato myself, he has some timeless insight

Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge.

You will find such "christian" values pre-dates christ by a very long time, found in civilizations that valued their scientists and philosophers.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Well said. I agree.

I was simply stating for the Christians, Creationists, and other Religious believers that your example is a form where the two could co-exist.

On another note Oozyism,
How are hieroglyphics not observable information that have been tested through experience and experiments?
How else do we know their meaning?
Furthermore,
How are languages translated if not through a formal system of requirements, that are then tested?

The term empirical was originally used to refer to certain ancient Greek practitioners of medicine who rejected adherence to the dogmatic doctrines of the day, preferring instead to rely on the observation of phenomena as perceived in experience. Later empiricism referred to a theory of knowledge in philosophy which adheres to the principle that knowledge arises from experience and evidence gathered specifically using the senses. In scientific use the term empirical refers to the gathering of data using only evidence that is observable by the senses or in some cases using calibrated scientific instruments. What early philosophers described as empiricist and empirical research have in common is the dependence on observable data to formulate and test theories and come to conclusions.

Are you suggesting that humans do not, in fact, sense hieroglyphics with sight?
Are you suggesting that hieroglyphics are not data simply in a different language?

Originally posted by TruthAboveIgnorance
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Well said. I agree.

I was simply stating for the Christians, Creationists, and other Religious believers that your example is a form where the two could co-exist.

Creationism and to date every religion requires a complete dismissal of evolution to explain the origin of species on planet earth.
They must disregard any and all scientific understanding..that is the actual intent topic of this whole thread.

Your discussing something belonging in Cosmology and theoretical physics. Evolution in this thread is about mud to blood...and that is a very exacting science...some holes still, but its a relatively young study...still, within a very short time, tons upon tons of evidence, and proof, has been given.

Now...if you want to discuss a greater consciousness...some sort of each universal membrain acting like layers in a mind boggling consciousness our pinbrains can barely even speculate on..I am all for it.

Long ago, I was religious..once I shrugged that off and looked for actual understandings in the universe..I found the few tidbits of mystery and the mountain of what we already have uncovered to be worth a thousand religious revelations..
One day you may drop the religion and seek the truth. I wish you well in that if and when you come to that decision.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I personally am in no way religious. In fact I personally feel that religions(the institutionsrulesrule books etc.) have done more detriment than good.
A rather sound historical record backs that up. They have done more to keep bigotry, and intolerance alive than science ever has. However, who am I to deny another their religious scruples. They simply aren't for me.

That being said. Not believing Biological Evolution is like no one mentioning the Great White swimming in the bath tub. It doesn't matter if you "believe" or have "faith" to the contrary.He is still there. All you have to do is go outside, and there is evidence.

I don't comprehend how others don't get this, regardless of their faith based beliefs.

I guess in the scheme of my well being it doesn't matter though, I will still be left hemisphere biased, They will still be right hemisphere biased. And we will continue going round and round.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You will find such "christian" values pre-dates christ by a very long time, found in civilizations that valued their scientists and philosophers.

yes it really bites I do not speak ancient Greek, but I do speak the commoners language...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Do some research before you type:

Unlike Theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are Atheists, Agnostics and Apatheists who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature

Satanism

There are many branches of Satanism and many Satanists ARE atheists. Very few Satanists are the spooky robed or cloaked figures of common cult-related folklore.

If at any point in time the attack on belief and religion gets so severe that it becomes a mental health issue,,, I'm seriously going to throw myself onto the gears of the machine. quit my job and protest in front of city hall 24/7 and I'm agnostic. For 40000 plus years people have held all sorts of beliefs like "theirs an afterlife" and that belief will be whats attacked next. You want everyone to be forced or manipulated into atheism ? I didn't think so. Seriously think about it....................

reply to post by SaturnFX


One should always be skeptical. Even when someone denies the existence of God or a god. We don't know the answer to the question of God's existence. We don't even really know how we came to exist. We have evidence to suggest the Big Bang, yes, but it cannot be proven 100%.

I'm not sure if I believe in God or not but I lean towards not. I just see the problem being that it can't be proven either way, that we know of.

I do not believe that Creationism should be taught in school. Seeing as there are numerous amounts of religions and then even more numerous denominations/sects in those suggests it would only cause more trouble in schools.

reply to post by DrunkNinja


Agreed. It's completely reasonable to let people believe how they want. No matter how much you think they're wrong or prove them to be. People of all walks of life are unreasonable at times.

reply to post by PhantomLimb

I'm not sure if I believe in God or not but I lean towards not. I just see the problem being that it can't be proven either way, that we know of.

That would be Agnostic-Atheism. It means you don't really believe in a God but you don't make a claim to know for sure that there isn't one. Its very hard to disprove something entirely. That's why most atheists are also agnostics.

What we've found thus far suggests that life is the product of natural processes but we don't have all the answers yet, we still have a lot to learn. That being said what we do have thus far points squarely toward Evolution and completely away from Creationism. Creationism is a pretty unscientific idea to begin with, seeing as how it invokes magic at some point

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
I do not believe that Creationism should be taught in school. Seeing as there are numerous amounts of religions and then even more numerous denominations/sects in those suggests it would only cause more trouble in schools.

I starred you for that but I believe if they are going to push evolution as the new religion then an alternate view should be presented. I was not taught creationism in public school and I doubt they heave if ever in a very long time, although I do believe American Heritage should be taught in middle school and even grade school, of which it is... social studies.

I always knew there was something funny about the ape2man statues down at the museum when I was young.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Do some research before you type:

Unlike Theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are Atheists, Agnostics and Apatheists who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature

Satanism

There are many branches of Satanism and many Satanists ARE atheists. Very few Satanists are the spooky robed or cloaked figures of common cult-related folklore.

bzzt !

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities"

even the self is a deity and satan of which the said church is named after is a deity also.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
if they are going to push evolution as the new religion then an alternate view should be presented.

1) they are not teaching atheism as a new religion...religion is being taught are religion in theology.

Would you expect evolution to be discussed in a theological class? no
Leave science in science and religion in religion.

If there is an alternative, any would be glad to hear about it. Just present the peer reviewed papers, the proof, the mountain of evidence, and the consensus of scientists worldwide for the alternative theory..then sure...give the second plausable theory equal time.

I do however fully agree..."creationism" in its basic form should be discussed while teaching evolution.
Right at the end, when all evidence and ongoing work has been presented, only a single sentence need be said for creationism in a nutshell:
"Some people reject this science however, and instead thinks a invisible space wizard magicked everything into existance for our general amusement".
I think I could support that extra sentence in our schools.

reply to post by TruthAboveIgnorance


Stories from the past can't be empirically proven nor denied, except through empirical evidence (stories are not empirical evidence). If data can be collected to support such stories, then I will accept the story, if not, then leave it alone.

You can't say that the drawings are empirical evidence that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids using slaves to move the rocks up and up.

That is evidence, but that is not empirical evidence.

There is a huge difference between evidence and empirical evidence.

Evidence is any information used to support a belief.

It is a belief which states Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids as described by historians.

The only way we can be sure is if we went back in time.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
bzzt !

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities"

even the self is a deity and satan of which the said church is named after is a deity also.

swat that fly.

Yes, atheism simply does not allow for supernatural deitys controlling and whatnot.

Satanism is, in some sects, actually worshipping a paranormal entity as described in biblical teachings (with a twist of course).
However, Anton Levay's "church of Satan" and the satanic bible is a parody of the catholic church..its not soo much worshipping satan, as it is simply making fun of catholicism.
You do not actually need to believe in Satan, or worship the deity, in order to be accepted as part of the church. Ultimately, it simply comes down to enjoying making fun of the catholics.

I can only encourage all the theists to visit and peruse this link and hope that critical thought will, eventually, prevail.

reply to post by oozyism

Stories from the past can't be empirically proven nor denied, except through empirical evidence (stories are not empirical evidence). If data can be collected to support such stories, then I will accept the story, if not, then leave it alone.

Whoa Whoa... What the heck just happened? Did I just step through a portal to the Twilight Zone? Did oozyism just say something I agree with?

What you said there in that quote basically sums up why Creationism shouldn't be in science classes, because we have no evidence supporting the stories. I encourage you to take your own advice - there's no evidence for Creation so leave it alone. Stories are not empirical evidence and right now stories is all Creationism has. Evolution on the other hand has mountains of empirical evidence.

By the way we do know that humans built the pyramids, we're just not 100% decided on which method they used. There are several different methods that have been proposed.