Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

page: 33
44
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Both science and religion will come and go eventually.

And we will fly off into the sparkling skies.




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs
Both science and religion will come and go eventually.

And we will fly off into the sparkling skies.


is that a religious contonation ?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


For one the New Testament does not count as empirical evidence because it presents different accounts of the same events. If it were empirical all of these accounts would be identical. Any scientist will tell you that a theory cannot be based off of case studies, which is what the Bible would be classified as. A case study can inspire an empirical study that will eventually lead to a theory, but is not evidence of anything by itself.

Secondly, any biologist will tell you that evolution is not random. Mutations are random. However, the environment and sexual preference are not random. These are the things that determine which mutations get passed on.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


"Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?"

I believe the Creation part is 'old Testament' or you could be in the wrong thread ?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I was responding to EarthCitizen's comment that the New Testament was empirical evidence for Creation, so ask him how that works.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
When I was young, I thought that tree's made wind...they blew and wind, like a fan, was created. more trees = more wind...just made sense to my simple mind.

As I grew older, I realized that the tree leaves were not actually creating wind, but rather they were simply reacting to the wind.


This is basically the mindset difference of a creationist verses an evolutionist.
One will see a intelligence in the tree deciding to make wind..the other will see a reactionary force simply flipping around by the wind.



Maybe that will make sense to some whom simply cannot understand science, or refuse to read the detailed articles.
Intelligent design is a childlike simple way of viewing the world..but eventually you grow up mentally and see its not as magical as you thought it was.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I agree with everything you said except for a single point: Science is full of just as much 'magic' as superstition.

The wonders we've uncovered through science outdo even the most spectacular descriptions of the world as found in all religious and mythic works.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


" the Bible does a really good job of addressing the "Why" "

Lol! if you believe in talking bushes, yeah.
edit on 15-12-2010 by thirdeyeaware because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-12-2010 by thirdeyeaware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thirdeyeaware
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


" the Bible does a really good job of addressing the "Why" "

Lol! if you believe in talking bushes, yeah.
edit on 15-12-2010 by thirdeyeaware because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-12-2010 by thirdeyeaware because: (no reason given)


Why not...we had a talking bush for 8 years as president...however, there is speculation that it was just Cheney throwing his voice.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I was responding to EarthCitizen's comment that the New Testament was empirical evidence for Creation, so ask him how that works.


Only if you tell me why 60%-70% of the worlds' scientists are atheists. An atheist means he/she believes in no diety whatsoever and no magick, regardless if it is black or whte. It is a terribly narrow point of view to have, nevermind the blasphemy aspect which is a bit childish.

I think we should of started the conversation by first defining what *divine intervention*, *spiritual guidance*/*intelligent guidance* are then move accordingly. Divine intervention could range from god/allah/buddah, satan, grey aliens, reptillian aliens, or just simply super-human strength such as from human/alien hybrids.

Our universe has many unsolved mysteries and not everything can be tackled in a laboratory by scientific investigation. Sometimes you just have to go by *word of mouth* and believe far fetched claims....you don't have to but some people will and you should respect their right to believe anything they want to believe. Freedom of speech and freedom to think are constitutional rights guaranteed by the first amendment!
edit on 16-12-2010 by EarthCitizen07 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Only if you tell me why 60%-70% of the worlds' scientists are atheists. An atheist means he/she believes in no diety whatsoever and no magick, regardless if it is black or whte.


Actually, atheism speaks nothing about magick. That would be asupernaturalism.

As for 'believes', that is an incorrect phrasing. Atheists do not believe, it's a null position. They feel like there's no good reason to accept any deity, hence no belief.



It is a terribly narrow point of view to have,


How is it narrow? Atheism is the nonexceptance in the light of a lack of evidence. Most atheists, especially the scientists, would accept any claim which has evidence, it's not like we reject the possibility.



nevermind the blasphemy aspect which is a bit childish.


What do you mean by this? Serious question, I don't get what you mean here.



I think we should of started the conversation by first defining what *divine intervention*, *spiritual guidance*/*intelligent guidance* are then move accordingly.


Finally something I agree with.



Divine intervention could range from god/allah/buddah, satan, grey aliens, reptillian aliens, or just simply super-human strength such as from human/alien hybrids.


...ok, three out of those are 'divine', the rest would be naturalistic.

Aliens, or human hybrids of such, would be natural forces. Also, they wouldn't solve the question because we'd then be asked where they came from...the same with deities.



Our universe has many unsolved mysteries and not everything can be tackled in a laboratory by scientific investigation.


...um...yes they can. Please, provide me a claim that science cannot handle about the universe.



Sometimes you just have to go by *word of mouth* and believe far fetched claims....


Nope, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[quite[
you don't have to but some people will and you should respect their right to believe anything they want to believe.


I respect their right to believe, but I do not have to respect their belief. If someone believes something that is stupid or clearly false, it is not their right to have that go unchallenged.



Freedom of speech and freedom to think are constitutional rights guaranteed by the first amendment!


Hey look, yet another person making a USA specific claim on an international message board.

Guess what, I live in Europe...not that I don't believe in freedom of speech, expression, conscience, and thought...it's just that your justification is improper.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Actually, atheism speaks nothing about magick. That would be asupernaturalism.


And what is "super"-naturalism?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
As for 'believes', that is an incorrect phrasing. Atheists do not believe, it's a null position. They feel like there's no good reason to accept any deity, hence no belief.


kool, as in "kool"-aid.........


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How is it narrow? Atheism is the nonexceptance in the light of a lack of evidence. Most atheists, especially the scientists, would accept any claim which has evidence, it's not like we reject the possibility.


At least you don't reject the possibility. Again thats kool!



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by earthcitizen07
nevermind the blasphemy aspect which is a bit childish.


What do you mean by this? Serious question, I don't get what you mean here.


It means some people take religion a little too seriously and believe ONLY what the OFFICIAL church wants them to believe. Is nothing obvious for you?




I think we should of started the conversation by first defining what *divine intervention*, *spiritual guidance*/*intelligent guidance* are then move accordingly.


Finally something I agree with.


...ok, three out of those are 'divine', the rest would be naturalistic.

Aliens, or human hybrids of such, would be natural forces. Also, they wouldn't solve the question because we'd then be asked where they came from...the same with deities.


So how can science answer that question?



...um...yes they can. Please, provide me a claim that science cannot handle about the universe.


Well since you can't answer the above question (where do the aliens and dieties come from) I guess that IS ONE CLAIM that science cannot handle. Tell me, to become a scientist is it a pre-requisite to have an overblown ego? Does science play the role of god? Did scientists themselves create the universe at los alamos national laboratories?



Nope, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


There is NOTHING extraordinary about science, religion, ufos/aliens, stupidity, etc....They have all been around for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and yet debating these topics seems to be an excercise in futility. I wonder WHY? Can science answer that question?



I respect their right to believe, but I do not have to respect their belief. If someone believes something that is stupid or clearly false, it is not their right to have that go unchallenged.


Indeed nothing should go unchallenged...especially not the absurdity of "If I can't touch,smell, see something with my own two eyes then it MUST NOT be true." Using that same logic why should I believe thomas jefferson or ben franklin existed? Just because history books say so? Who cares, the bible was real to, but some people cannot accept its real See how irrational "proof" can be IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE AS PROOF?!



Guess what, I live in Europe...not that I don't believe in freedom of speech, expression, conscience, and thought...it's just that your justification is improper.


Freedom of speech means you can be as crazy as you want without causing harm to yourself, others and/or government. Causing harm to the government, by not paying your taxes, is ESPECIALLY dangerous and will land you in jail.

BTW I am an american living in greece. We also have "freedom of speech" here and its almost the same "freedom of speech" they have in america. What about YOUR VERSION of "freedom of speech"? Is it kool there???



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Um, can I say something?

As much as I would not necessarily agree with madness' assertion that there is nothing that is beyond the realm of science, I do want to say that:

1) you continue to misinterpret what he is saying of atheism: it is not believing that there is no god, it is not believing that there is a god. You liken it to saying that if you can't see it, smell it, touch it or taste it, it must not be real, whereas his point seems to be that the atheist perspective is if you can't see it, smell it, touch it or taste it, then it may not be real.

There is a big difference.

2) evidence and proof are not the same thing. A witness account in a court of law is considered evidence, but as much as it is informative, it doesn't prove anything. A fossil homonid is evidence supporting our simian origins, but again, it is not absolute proof of them. That's why we have "reasonable doubt" in courts of law, and levels of "significance" in science - to tell us where we can say that the evidence is close enough to exhaustive to be considered proof.

Is this any help?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


I don't have a problem with your everyday atheist. They can believe whatever they want or not want...even hinduism! Its the vocal bunch that express themselves in absolute terms without really giving second thought to anything.

You sir play the middle road which is much smarter.

Cheers and thanks for the laugh. Bussiness is lousy and my sex life isn't that great either...so god knows I needed it!



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And what is "super"-naturalism?


Um...care to clarify? I mean, I think nature itself is quite "super".... but I'm not sure if that's what you mean.




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
As for 'believes', that is an incorrect phrasing. Atheists do not believe, it's a null position. They feel like there's no good reason to accept any deity, hence no belief.


kool, as in "kool"-aid.........


What?




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How is it narrow? Atheism is the nonexceptance in the light of a lack of evidence. Most atheists, especially the scientists, would accept any claim which has evidence, it's not like we reject the possibility.


At least you don't reject the possibility. Again thats kool!


Well, it would be impossible to reject the possibility. Just like it's possible for there to be an invisible pink unicorn, or Odin, or that little floaty green spaceman from the Flinstones.



It means some people take religion a little too seriously and believe ONLY what the OFFICIAL church wants them to believe. Is nothing obvious for you?


I just wanted clarification. I didn't want to assume what you were saying and then stuff words into your mouth.





So how can science answer that question?


Well, there would be evidence of EBE tampering or hybridization in human genetics...





...um...yes they can. Please, provide me a claim that science cannot handle about the universe.


Well since you can't answer the above question (where do the aliens and dieties come from)


Both are unconfirmed entities. Science also cannot answer where the tooth fairy comes from. If it's not confirmed, science can't say anything about it.



I guess that IS ONE CLAIM that science cannot handle.


If there were evidence of extraterrestrial life or deities science could handles it.



Tell me, to become a scientist is it a pre-requisite to have an overblown ego?


Science isn't something that inflates the ego. If anything it humbles the individual by making the grandeur of the natural universe apparent.

It is enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to think that there are fairies beneath it (or so someone said, not my own words but I can't remember the source)



Does science play the role of god?


There is no role to fill.



Did scientists themselves create the universe at los alamos national laboratories?


No, but they aren't claiming to have done that. The claim is that the universe could have arisen naturally.





Nope, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


There is NOTHING extraordinary about science, religion, ufos/aliens, stupidity, etc....They have all been around for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and yet debating these topics seems to be an excercise in futility.


Well, religion does have quite a few extraordinary claims, like the violation of natural laws, the divine creation of the universe, etc.

Science makes some extraordinary claims too...but it backs them up with evidence. Lots of it. Black holes, supernovae, heliocentric solar systems, spheroid planets, the Big Bang, evolution, etc. All of those claims are extraordinary with ample evidence to support them.

UFOs...well, that's also an extraordinary claim. It's a claim that beings are able to travel faster than the speed of light to visit a backwater underdeveloped society (at least by their standards). There is insufficient evidence for extraterrestrial visitation, no matter how cool it would be.



I wonder WHY? Can science answer that question?


Sure, neurobiology.




Indeed nothing should go unchallenged...especially not the absurdity of "If I can't touch,smell, see something with my own two eyes then it MUST NOT be true."


Hey look, it's a straw man argument. The skeptical claim is that "If I don't have supporting evidence I have no reason to accept a claim"



Using that same logic why should I believe thomas jefferson or ben franklin existed? Just because history books say so?


...no, because we actually have their writings, contemporary accounts of their actions, and pieces of their own property.



Who cares, the bible was real to, but some people cannot accept its real


The Bible is comprised of many unconfirmed claims, including the historicity of characters such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. We have no supporting evidence outside the Bible for any of those individuals. In fact, the earliest piece of evidence outside the Bible we have for Jesus is.....from around 40 years after he supposedly died from someone who was born about 20 years after he supposedly died.

The Bible has zero evidence for most of its claims.



See how irrational "proof" can be IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE AS PROOF?!


What evidence? You make a lot of claims without any evidence.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


Just to clarify, I don't think that there's anything beyond the realm of scientific reasoning and methodology, at least with regard to claims of reality. We may not have the technology or understanding to explain some claims now, but we might in the future and the methodology will be the same.

Artistic claims, for example, are not something science cares about. It's not a reality claim, it's one that is relatively subjective. That's something for philosophy.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I think I know what you are saying, and I further think that I agree - however, my point - as always - is an avoidance of absolutes: If an "artistic" claim was correct, and there was a god that was not of the gaps, existing only as the intention behind events which happen through normal causal chains, science - and perhaps more to the point humanity - would never know.

So my reason for not necessarily agreeing with your statement that everything is answerable to science was not because there is something that is not, but that there might be.

From my perspective, this is not so much a philosophical point as a facet of my ongoing avoidance of absolutes. I'd be the juror sitting around going "well yes, we seem to agree that he is most likely to be guilty, but what if the unreasonable doubt is actually valid?"

edit on 17/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
[The Bible is comprised of many unconfirmed claims, including the historicity of characters such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. We have no supporting evidence outside the Bible for any of those individuals. In fact, the earliest piece of evidence outside the Bible we have for Jesus is.....from around 40 years after he supposedly died from someone who was born about 20 years after he supposedly died.

The Bible has zero evidence for most of its claims.


Abraham and Moses are from the old testament, while the life of jesus and his teachings are from the new testament. I think it is patently false to claim there is no evidence for the new testament because the level of details expossed is more than sufficient.

Besides its quite perposterous to assume billions of people worldwide were fooled to believe a false messiah. Thousands of churches were built worldwide based on this very belief system, not to mention the monasteries and the monks that followed a strict code of discipline for a rich and rewarding afterlife. Jesus was "allegedly" resurrected 40 days after his crucifixation and there were live witnesses to the occassion; its what easter is based on! Christmas is based on his birth!

And what about the twelve apostles? Were they traveling the old world misleading everyone? Do you and the rest of the athiests really believe that? Sorry but after-a-while the athiest arguement becomes cynical, not to mention the OTHER RELIGIONS which follow the same general principles of christianity with different messiahs and a slightly different twist of events.

No religion really is against another religion because more-or-less they are all based on gnosis. Its human weakness and our corrupt politicians that try to find weakness in others and exploit them for personal/empirical gain. AFAIK most muslims respect christians and even jews which is a religion based on the old testament. One religion builds on another religion or at the very least acknowledges the other for its strengths and weaknesses.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think it is patently false to claim there is no evidence for the new testament because the level of details expossed is more than sufficient.

Ah, the "it's a good story so it must be true" argument.


Besides its quite perposterous to assume billions of people worldwide were fooled to believe a false messiah. Thousands of churches were built worldwide based on this very belief system,

And how rich and powerful did this make the Catholic church?
Are you unaware that people will scheme, lie and commit great misdeeds in the pursuit of power and wealth?


not to mention the monasteries and the monks that followed a strict code of discipline for a rich and rewarding afterlife.

And it's said Muslims blow themselves up in order to spend their afterlives with a surplus of virgins.
Does that make the Muslim faith and traditions true also?
Does the "one billion Hindus cannot be wrong" argument also hold water?


Jesus was "allegedly" resurrected 40 days after his crucifixation and there were live witnesses to the occassion;

40 days?
That doesn't agree with any of the contradictory accounts in the bible of the resurrection of Christ.
The bible is an interesting book. Perhaps you should try reading it one day.


its what easter is based on! Christmas is based on his birth!

No, Easter is a fertility festival. The word has the same root as estrus: The periodic state of sexual excitement in the female of most mammals, excluding humans, that immediately precedes ovulation and during which the female is most receptive to mating; heat.

Christmas was invented as a replacement for the pagan celebration of the winter solstice.


And what about the twelve apostles? Were they traveling the old world misleading everyone? Do you and the rest of the athiests really believe that?

What proof have you that 12 men who had seen Jesus with their own eyes then travelled the world preaching?


Sorry but after-a-while the athiest arguement becomes cynical, not to mention the OTHER RELIGIONS which follow the same general principles of christianity with different messiahs and a slightly different twist of events.

You are proving one does not need Christ in order to propagate "Christian" principles.
I guess the difference between these religions you mention was the political power of the backers.


No religion really is against another religion because more-or-less they are all based on gnosis. Its human weakness and our corrupt politicians that try to find weakness in others and exploit them for personal/empirical gain. AFAIK most muslims respect christians and even jews which is a religion based on the old testament. One religion builds on another religion or at the very least acknowledges the other for its strengths and weaknesses.

I stopped being a Christian because the church taught all the followers of other religions would go to hell.
Has that teaching changed recently?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Abraham and Moses are from the old testament, while the life of jesus and his teachings are from the new testament. I think it is patently false to claim there is no evidence for the new testament because the level of details expossed is more than sufficient.


And yet there's still no evidence to prove any of the claims of the New Testament about the life of Jesus. Again, the Bible itself cannot be taken as evidence as the Gospels are contradictory on certain facts.



Besides its quite perposterous to assume billions of people worldwide were fooled to believe a false messiah.


Nope. I mean, if you're a Christian you believe 4-5 billion people around the world were fooled by false religions. You believe 1.5 billion people were fooled by a single false prophet.

It's not that hard to fool people into believing a religion.



Thousands of churches were built worldwide based on this very belief system, not to mention the monasteries and the monks that followed a strict code of discipline for a rich and rewarding afterlife.


...popularity isn't an argument for validity.



Jesus was "allegedly" resurrected 40 days after his crucifixation and there were live witnesses to the occassion; its what easter is based on!


You don't even get this right. He was allegedly resurrected three days after his alleged crucifixion. And there isn't a single source outside the Bible that can confirm this. You'd expect such a miraculous even to be documented in histories.



Christmas is based on his birth!


Christmas was based on pagan holidays. There's no specific time of year given for the birth of Jesus in any Biblical account of his birth. It's a holiday that wasn't celebrated until several hundred years after the death of this alleged historical figure.



And what about the twelve apostles? Were they traveling the old world misleading everyone?


...well, maybe. Or maybe they simply didn't exist. Or maybe they were convinced of something false themselves.



Do you and the rest of the athiests really believe that? Sorry but after-a-while the athiest arguement becomes cynical, not to mention the OTHER RELIGIONS which follow the same general principles of christianity with different messiahs and a slightly different twist of events.


They're all equally wrong. It's not cynical, it's just realistic. There's zero evidence to confirm the majority of the historical or any of the theological claims of a single world religion.



No religion really is against another religion because more-or-less they are all based on gnosis.


Please, tell this to the Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus.



Its human weakness and our corrupt politicians that try to find weakness in others and exploit them for personal/empirical gain. AFAIK most muslims respect christians and even jews which is a religion based on the old testament. One religion builds on another religion or at the very least acknowledges the other for its strengths and weaknesses.


And yet none of them seem to be based upon things like...reality...or...history.

In fact, the only religion that gets close to historicity is Islam, and that's only because it's the newest out of the major world religions.





top topics
 
44
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join