Pseudo-Scientific Nonsense

[tplank]

At a minimum you have faith in reason itself.<br /><br />As far as mixing "belief and theory", I personally am not very troubled by the juxtaposition. It seems to trouble others far more. I am content to know that there is much about which I am ignorant and that God will work out the details in due course. The compulsion so many feel to explain everything in terms of their faith perplexes me. There is nothing wrong with an occasional, "I'm not sure". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">I don't remember reading anything in his post that gave any hint of him being Catholic or even supporting what they have done.</font><br /><br />Great job at taking something out of context. He pointed out how “intolerant” anti-theists are, I pointed out how intolerant theists are. <br />

 

[contracommando]

<br /><font color="yellow">Maybe we should have a separate religious forum? <br /><br />It's called a "Church." <br /><br />*Vaguely muttering about how we don't insist on science discussions in Churches. Apparently it doesn't work the other way around...*</font><br /><br />Let me put this another way…..maybe we should have a forum for people who think the Earth is 6 days old and that human females are descended from Adam‘s rib…..a church forum….so that nonsense like that doesn’t spill over into the science forums.<br /><br />*Vaguely muttering about how <i>some</i> insist on comparing stories of people turning things into snakes, burning bushes, Noah’s Ark, people being swallowed by whales, and Samson having Herculean like strength - only to have it neutralized by cutting off his hair- to rational thought (aka, science). Apparently the two aren’t compatible.*

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">Please do tell me where I said anything about Noah's ark or water into wine.<br /><br />I still see nothing comming from you except atheist fodder.</font><br /><br />It kinda speaks for itself. If not an atheist, then you are a……….

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">To which side does the burden of proof belong?</font><br /><br />To the side that makes the claims. To the people who say God exists based on something someone said thousands of years ago. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">And reductionists and atheists perhaps need to answer why they are so all-fired interested in removing purpose from the universe. Does this pursuit somehow give their lives meaning, even purpose?</font><br /><br />I’m not the one who said that, you said that. Also, does giving false purpose to the universe - based upon unprovable fairy tales -give your life purpose? <br />

 

[contracommando]

I’ve said plenty. Feel free to offer your own proof of the existence of your God.

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">But can't you at least agree to disagree?</font><br /><br />Alright, I will.

 

[tplank]

Gee, I jumped in here expecting a fracas and a whole lot reasonableness seems to have broke out. Darn. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[spasser]

<font color="yellow">It kinda speaks for itself. If not an atheist, then you are a………</font><br /><br />A Christian or Jew? maybe... in which case he MIGHT believe in Noah's ark....<br /><br />what about other theistic religions? What about people who simply believe in a god, but don't believe in those gods which mainstream religions believe in? What about agnostics?<br /><br />Most ID people are Christians simply because that's the predominant theistic religion... but really ID is just a philosophy arguing for the existence of some god.

 

[spasser]

<font color="yellow">I’ve said plenty. Feel free to offer your own proof of the existence of your God. </font><br /><br />The contrary can't be proven either. Atheism is no more scientific than theism.

 

[tplank]

I think the most scientific of the various worldviews is agnosticism. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[spasser]

Naturally... since technically one cannot say either way....<br /><br />one might as well throw one's hands in the air and say "I don't know."<br /><br />Such a position is unimpeachable.

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">Atheism is no more scientific than theism.</font><br /><br />One is based on reason and logic. The other is based on fairy tales invented by people thousands of years ago….and not based on anything other than “take my word for it.” To reiterate: the biblical story of Samson, a guy who‘s magical hair gave him superhuman strength. But when it was cut off, he lost his superpowers; my, how scientific.

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">what about other theistic religions?</font><br /><br />They’re wrong too.<br /><br /> <font color="yellow">What about people who simply believe in a god, but don't believe in those gods which mainstream religions believe in? </font><br /><br />It depends. Regardless, if it is based on superstition or something that obviously can’t be true (the Earth was created out of the corpse of a dead native-American god in one ancient creation myth, for example) then it is wrong too. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">What about agnostics? </font><br /><br />That’s fine.

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">Most ID people are Christians simply because that's the predominant theistic religion... but really ID is just a philosophy arguing for the existence of some god.</font><br /><br />1) I seriously doubt ID people like Pat Robertson (and most American ID’ers) would approve of teaching that other gods, other than their one, might exist (like a Hindu god or a Norse god). They know that won’t happen because most ID people in the US are fundamentalist Christians, so they allow the false belief that ID “isn’t just Christian” to be argued - knowing the whole time that if ID were taught in a predominately Christian nation, the concept would be interpreted by the students from that perspective. <br /><br />2) Not really, that‘s a tactic to divert attention away from some of the main proponents of ID (Fawell, Robertson, Carl Baugh, etc. -all of whom are creationists). If 90% of the ID people in America are fundamentalist Christians and creationists who oppose teaching evolution, then it is probable that ID (which proposes an alternative to evolution) is being used by those people as a way to sneak their “Earth created in 6 days” beliefs into the schools. Furthermore, that god could be interpreted to be anything from Frodo Baggins to cyborg-like aliens living on zeta reticulai ; and that type of wild, unproven speculation does not belong in a high school science class.

 

[kmarinas86]

History is not science... stop teaching history =P<br /><br />History touted as science is pseudoscience to say the least. Ufology is an prime example of this.<br /><br />Primoridal evolution and Intelligent design are both unfalsifable, because the nature of the question, "What is the origin of life?" It is impossible to avoid circular reasoning in such cases. With the origin of life, we are left with fossils, and with ufology, were are left with the "memory fossils" left over after a ufo experience. All such accounts regarding history are faith based and are defended on the basis of opinion and perspective (not science).

 

[eric2006]

Post deleted by Eric2006

 

[eric2006]

Post deleted by Eric2006

 

[eric2006]

Post deleted by Eric2006

 

[eric2006]

Post deleted by Eric2006

 

[eric2006]

Post deleted by Eric2006

 

[yevaud]

While I have my own religious beliefs, I am also scientifically trained. And I find no crisis due to this.<br /><br />That being said and done, I must take issue with the following:<br /><br /><i>You prove to me that God doesn't exist. Then I will believe you. </i><br /><br />You are attempting to alter the rules of proof in your favor, by attempting to throw the onus on those who are skeptical - by demanding that they prove (or disprove) a negative.<br /><br />That is intellectually disingenuous.<br /><br />If asked "why is there a God," you might as well answer "because." Because that's the evidenciary standard you just set. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[spasser]

<font color="purple">You prove to me that God doesn't exist. Then I will believe you.</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">You are attempting to alter the rules of proof in your favor, by attempting to throw the onus on those who are skeptical - by demanding that they prove (or disprove) a negative.</font><br /><br />Erich already stated the following...<br /><br /> <font color="purple">You have no valid evidence that God does not exist. No one here has valid evidence that he does.</font><br /><br />Erich's simply pointing out how ridiculous ContraCommando is for saying atheism is "scientific" and thus implying that theism has been proven wrong. He's turning the tables to prove that CC's assertions are nonsense baseless.<br /><br />

 

[eric2006]

Post deleted by Eric2006

 

[eric2006]

Post deleted by Eric2006