[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Did you know that some (a lot?) of laymen that take evolution as fact still believe we evolved from monkeys and get right pissed off when you attempt to correct them?
But yeah, yer right, atheists are so much smarter than us dumb-asses that believe in God.

It's not really a matter of intelligence. People are not, contrary to popular opinion, rational beings. Rationality takes a back seat to values. Even with scientists and atheists. We believe what we believe and select those aspects of reason that support our beliefs, while rejecting others. And our ability to change what we believe is probably quite limited.

I'm with CDO. Many of the secular humanists are just as evangelical as preachers in prosletyzing their beliefs and trying to tell us they are right and others are wrong.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

We are not discussing intangibles, it is proven science. Do you feel that it is right to deny a child who is gravely ill a blood transfusion because it is against their religious beliefs? Or refusing to give a woman emergency contraception (after she was raped) because it is against your religious practice?

You moved quickly from the personal view that someone holds that has no impact on society to one that does, but is seen rarely. I get that these logical leaps seem necessary for you to continue this discussion, but like invoking the atheist's holy example of 300 year old witchcraft trials to support religious suppression, they realty don't contribute much.

There are a lot if things I don't like in life, but I can't say denying medical services because of religion makes me near as mad as killing children in the name of politics or simple indifference. Lots if kids are dying every day because they are targeted in war. If you were posting your anger over that, then your transparent arguments wouldn't seem so....transparent in their agenda.

Denying medicine because of religious beliefs is a problem, especially in the most recent case in Oklahoma, but I'd be far more interested to know where your ire is in the far more common denial if medicine because of a lack of money.

Really, once again, your agenda is showing.

I have ire for the lack of basic care to anyone, but the topic we are talking about is religion so my views will reflect that subject. If we were talking about state sponsored healthcare you would hear my comments for that as well. I dont have an agenda against religion, I have an agenda against the suppression of science for the belief in the supernatural.

In all honestly the subject of creationism as a held belief only bothers because it is such a high majority. If the numbers were flipped around 15% belief in creationism, 32% evolution in w/o God and 46% in evolution with divine ignition, I would be much less concerned about scientific advancement in a world superpower. even if it was 46% evolution with god, 32% creationism and 15% with evolution w/o God I would be far less concerned.

The reason I am concerned at all is because of the massive potential we have for scientific advancement in the US. With the majority of your citizenry forsaking science fact it is hard for programs like NASA or science education to receive public funding.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm with CDO. Many of the secular humanists are just as evangelical as preachers in prosletyzing their beliefs and trying to tell us they are right and others are wrong.

I agree that if both sides are talking about such things as the existence of God, both side can become so polarized that both sides can become impractical in their expectations of each other. However evolution is not an intangible occurrence it is constantly happening and overwhelming evidence has been found to support the theory. The same cannot be said for creationism.

[sandorski]

Any Religious Belief that contradicts demonstrable Reality deserves ridicule. Unless some kind of evidence can be presented to verify that Belief.

[Zipperfish]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I agree that if both sides are talking about such things as the existence of God, both side can become so polarized that both sides can become impractical in their expectations of each other. However evolution is not an intangible occurrence it is constantly happening and overwhelming evidence has been found to support the theory. The same cannot be said for creationism.

There is a lot of evidence supporting evolution. But there is also a lot of evidence that we are essentially meat puppets whose entire existence is predetermined (if you are a Newtonian determinist) or based on chance (if you subscribe to quantum physics). This evidence supports the notion that free will does not, in fact, exist. So the people who believe in god have no choice but to, and if they stop believing, they have no choice in that either, if you want to be a strict rationalist about it all.

If there is no free will, the American Dream is a casualty. The American Dream is that if you make good choices you will rise to the level of your abilities. But, of course, it is likely that we can't make choices at all. What we do is entirely based on the state of the universe at the time of the Big Bang, or upon quantum randomness.

The first point is that most atheists continue to believe that they choose to be atheists, despite evidence that they had no choice. The second point is, that while free will may be an illusion, it is an illusion that is not that easy to dispel and may be quite useful. Belief in god is the same, in my opinion.

[RUEZ]

sandorski sandorski:

Any Religious Belief that contradicts demonstrable Reality deserves ridicule. Unless some kind of evidence can be presented to verify that Belief.

No.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I agree that if both sides are talking about such things as the existence of God, both side can become so polarized that both sides can become impractical in their expectations of each other. However evolution is not an intangible occurrence it is constantly happening and overwhelming evidence has been found to support the theory. The same cannot be said for creationism.

There is a lot of evidence supporting evolution. But there is also a lot of evidence that we are essentially meat puppets whose entire existence is predetermined (if you are a Newtonian determinist) or based on chance (if you subscribe to quantum physics). This evidence supports the notion that free will does not, in fact, exist. So the people who believe in god have no choice but to, and if they stop believing, they have no choice in that either, if you want to be a strict rationalist about it all.

If there is no free will, the American Dream is a casualty. The American Dream is that if you make good choices you will rise to the level of your abilities. But, of course, it is likely that we can't make choices at all. What we do is entirely based on the state of the universe at the time of the Big Bang, or upon quantum randomness.

The first point is that most atheists continue to believe that they choose to be atheists, despite evidence that they had no choice. The second point is, that while free will may be an illusion, it is an illusion that is not that easy to dispel and may be quite useful. Belief in god is the same, in my opinion.

Now this is a fantastic thought! I view that I dont have a choice in being an atheist because I cant suspend my perception of the world to accommodate religious beliefs. In essence I dont have a choice in my atheism because it would be dishonest to believe in something I do not see evidence for. I think it holds true to many theists who feel the same way, they cannot forsake god because they know he is there. However if sufficient evidence was ever shown to me proving the existence of a God/s my position on the matter would change, I dont know if the same could be said for many creationists since they have sufficient evidence to disprove creationism.

Again this is my initial reaction, and I will have to think more on your post Zip, thank you!

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

Any Religious Belief that contradicts demonstrable Reality deserves ridicule. Unless some kind of evidence can be presented to verify that Belief.

That is your right. However, if you wish to exercise that right on the threads, then you'll be flamed back, as is my right.

[Gunnair]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

We are not discussing intangibles, it is proven science. Do you feel that it is right to deny a child who is gravely ill a blood transfusion because it is against their religious beliefs? Or refusing to give a woman emergency contraception (after she was raped) because it is against your religious practice?

You moved quickly from the personal view that someone holds that has no impact on society to one that does, but is seen rarely. I get that these logical leaps seem necessary for you to continue this discussion, but like invoking the atheist's holy example of 300 year old witchcraft trials to support religious suppression, they realty don't contribute much.

There are a lot if things I don't like in life, but I can't say denying medical services because of religion makes me near as mad as killing children in the name of politics or simple indifference. Lots if kids are dying every day because they are targeted in war. If you were posting your anger over that, then your transparent arguments wouldn't seem so....transparent in their agenda.

Denying medicine because of religious beliefs is a problem, especially in the most recent case in Oklahoma, but I'd be far more interested to know where your ire is in the far more common denial if medicine because of a lack of money.

Really, once again, your agenda is showing.

I have ire for the lack of basic care to anyone, but the topic we are talking about is religion so my views will reflect that subject. If we were talking about state sponsored healthcare you would hear my comments for that as well. I dont have an agenda against religion, I have an agenda against the suppression of science for the belief in the supernatural.

In all honestly the subject of creationism as a held belief only bothers because it is such a high majority. If the numbers were flipped around 15% belief in creationism, 32% evolution in w/o God and 46% in evolution with divine ignition, I would be much less concerned about scientific advancement in a world superpower. even if it was 46% evolution with god, 32% creationism and 15% with evolution w/o God I would be far less concerned.

The reason I am concerned at all is because of the massive potential we have for scientific advancement in the US. With the majority of your citizenry forsaking science fact it is hard for programs like NASA or science education to receive public funding.

Must have missed the point made by Shep when the US made it to the moon when those beliefs we're held by a higher percentage.

Again, your personal agenda is clear in that it is simply an affront to you that people can have these beliefs in 2012.

Get over how important you think you are.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski sandorski:

Any Religious Belief that contradicts demonstrable Reality deserves ridicule. Unless some kind of evidence can be presented to verify that Belief.

You mean like the same way you cling to your belief in man-made global warming?

[Guy_Fawkes]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Must have missed the point made by Shep when the US made it to the moon when those beliefs we're held by a higher percentage.

Again, your personal agenda is clear in that it is simply an affront to you that people can have these beliefs in 2012.

Get over how important you think you are.

I must have annoyed you something fierce, I dont really understand why, the closest I can think of is you see me as an embodiment of extreme atheism. I never said that you could not have scientific advancement with a creationist belief just that when you throw out scientific evidence for the sake of religious belief you retard scientific advancement as well. Stem cell research is a another example of this.

[Gunnair]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Must have missed the point made by Shep when the US made it to the moon when those beliefs we're held by a higher percentage.

Again, your personal agenda is clear in that it is simply an affront to you that people can have these beliefs in 2012.

Get over how important you think you are.

I must have annoyed you something fierce, I dont really understand why, the closest I can think of is you see me as an embodiment of extreme atheism. I never said that you could not have scientific advancement with a creationist belief just that when you throw out scientific evidence for the sake of religious belief you retard scientific advancement as well. Stem cell research is a another example of this.

I see you exactly as a sermonizing evangelical athiest soon becoming another one trick pony because you certainly like these threads.

That and your keenness to extinguish rights and freedoms on your particular crusade.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Damn Gunnair you found me out, I guess I should close my account now.

[Gunnair]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Damn Gunnair you found me out, I guess I should close my account now.

The petulant drama queen retort hardly helps your cause. Maybe, just maybe, you'd endure less ire if you opted to keep your preaching to yourself and try to stop converting people to your beliefs.

[Canadian_Mind]

I'm with GF on this one. It's not even the numbers that bother me. Yes the US has made huge scientific advancement before with even more people believing in god, devine intervention, etc. The concern I see, and what I think GF is trying to express, is that while the overall amount of people who believe in god is going down, the number who can't or wont establish their own personal divide between what they believe and scientific fact is growing.

I could theorise that, because the portion who believe in god, creaionism, etc. is declining, those who still believe see this as a threat to the establishment of what they believe. In turn, they try to get more people to believe in it by attempting to legitimise it by intertwining their beliefs with select scientific facts that support their beliefs, and downplaying those that don't. On the more extreme end of things you may have those who now outright are ridiculing science, or are attempting to replace science with their own religious based "fact." Keep in mind this is just speculation.