New To Forum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2015, 02:24 AM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 01:40 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 07:26 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  My original question remains: is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority? Not every lay man can verify science so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to faiths that believe blind following a clergy.

Yes, it is. You've got us - atheism is religion and scientists are clergy.

It's all an elaborate scam! And the best part is we can tell you about it like this and you'll assume we're joking Big Grin

Welcome to the forum OT Smile

I think that like atheism itself, the evolution / creationism debate arises from a reaction to religion. No one would even need a word for "one who does not believe in Gods" if religion didn't make the weird idea of a God so pervasive throughout society. No one would need to get so tied up in whether or not scientists were lying to us over our origins *except* that in some book which is held as a central tenet of faith for a major religion, there is an absurd tale that contradicts the current scientific theory.

As you correctly pointed out, we don't lose anything as atheists if evolution is incorrect. It's just a theory, we discard it as an explanation and move on - or more likely modify it to reflect our new understanding.

However, theists are kind of *invested* in the debate because if their little myth is incorrect then their faith as a whole is thrown into question.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
18-05-2015, 05:29 AM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 07:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 07:20 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Augustine and Aquinas stuff...

I believe in a creator who is Eternal yet interacts with the universe with Attributes. Different to Christian theology.

It's "different FROM Christian theology". Augustin and Aquinas never said anything remotely similar.
"Interacts" requires time, and decision making AND Special Pleading. A god who "acts" is neither eternal nor infinite. The "act" refutes "eternal". Obviously you've never examined the priors. Eternal is "timeless". A god who "acts" needs time and therefore is not timeless. Can't have it both ways, (unless you use the Special Pleading falacy).

I was saying what you are quoting is Augustine and Aquinas. What I believe is dofferent. The Essence of the Originator is eternal and interaction with creation is done with attributes of the Divine.

This is different to Augustus and Aquinas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 05:32 AM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 07:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 07:26 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  My original question remains: is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority? Not every lay man can verify science so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to faiths that believe blind following a clergy.

And you were given the answer. No. The reason : evidence. There are MOUNTAINS of peer-reviewed falsifiable evidence that support scientific facts, (which you would know if you ever studied any science). Your "lay man" special case is irrelevant and apparently an argument from (and FOR) ignorance. As I said above it's YOUR JOB to get an education. No one is going to hand you anything. Apparently your entire thread here is about arguing a case for intellectual laziness. Are you lazy Mr. Not-all-that "objective" theist ? You seem like a whiny little bitch arguing that you have too much homework to do, and it's too hard.

And BTW, you're not going to "prove" god by logic. Logic is insufficient. This universe and Reality have been proven to be "non-intuitive" to human brains. Relativity, Uncertainty and the math of Dirac are not "logical", yet proven to be true. You need "evidence", not just logic.

Relativity, uncertainty and math of Dirac being illogical is how religious people debate that trinity is hard to comprehend.

I'm a strong believer in logic. However time relativity is not illogical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 05:34 AM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 09:56 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello again! Big Grin

I get my computer back from the shop and see I've missed the kick off of the conversation.

(17-05-2015 04:38 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I see evolution as the one main point upon which atheists are adamant. What I find intriguing is that atheists and others claim there is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution. If there is an academic consensus does this make it a reality? What I mean by this is how do we view structures of scientific theories? What are the limitations of evolution?

I also see both groups fighting tooth and claw on this particular issue.
Is it a scientific 'fact' that is in reality an appeal to authority? Or an appeal to ad populum?

Though it has been addressed by others after your post, I feel like adding my own thoughts.

Atheists do not necessarily need or use science to not believe in deity's. It is kind of as simple as that.

Science deals with what is testable, what is knowable (And what is falsifiable) etc. Hence, essentially what is natural.

Religion would seem to be dealing with things that are not natural or 'Supernatural by default.

Atheists simply do not see the need for believing in anything supernatural. Of course... people are also free to not believe in the natural world either... Things would indicate that doing so does not end well...

(17-05-2015 07:26 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  My original question remains: is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority? Not every lay man can verify science so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to faiths that believe blind following a clergy.

I have a counter question to yourself. Do you need to verify the facts of gravity? Of plate tectonics? Of astronomy? So as to be able to have an underpinning of how accurate such sciences are?

Also, to say that "Not every lay man can verify science.." is to show poorly the common man. I, personally, think quite highly of plumbers, mechanics, engineers, glaziers just to name a few who have skills and knowledge with out which we all would be quite derth of things in our lives.

So... to indicate that only 'Science' is some how of some inestimable measure as opposed to other fields is wrong.

Much cheers to all.

Thanks for the answer. I accept that answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 05:49 AM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 10:06 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 07:26 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  My original question remains: is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority? Not every lay man can verify science so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to faiths that believe blind following a clergy.

By putting the word facts in quote marks in the manner you have, you are showing your religious bias (betraying your moniker) and it wreaks of sarcasm.

When you dip your hand in water and it becomes wet, are you blindly allegiant to Noah Webster for giving you a succinct word to describe how your hand feels? Or is your hand wet? It's a fact that the water makes your hand wet and you're not blindly believing it because the evidence is your wet hand. You verified your hand was wet by feeling it, by drying it off with a towel and seeing the transference of the water molecules from your hand to the towel. Others see you do it and tell you your hand is wet because they, too, experienced what it was like to dip their hands into water. Time after time when we see water, recognize it as such and dip our hands in it, we know for a fact it will become wet. If someone would come by and say water isn't wet, we would require proof and it would have to be tested and reviewed by peers and proved to in fact not be wet.

When Darwin and Wallace arrived at the same conclusions pertaining to evolution, it was so significant because two separate, unfamiliar people studied evidence and arrived at the same conclusion. And this conclusion has been tested and retested, refined and improved millions of times. It's what is known as the scientific method. If they were full of shit, someone would be able to prove the theory wrong. After a couple of centuries, surely one bone or one fossil would be found in the wrong layer of the geological column, right? Nope. Nada. Zilch. And why? Because it's fact. Not "fact."

You are more than welcome to get a shovel and dig your way to the Earth's core to try to find one for yourself. Are we blindly following these scientists? No, we trust the scientific method because it works (bitches). Actual scientists are watchdogs, making sure there is no pseudoscience being passed off as true science. They aren't secret handshake frat boys looking to pull the wool over the eyes of the world. Their evidence is transparent for the world to double check, and any one of your clergy or religious leaders are also more than welcome to try to refute ANY piece of evidence in this theory.

But guess what, none of you will, because it's much easier for you to stick your head in the sand than a shovel.

Evolution is fact. And your earlier remark about it shattering the bible would seem to be true on the outside, but any real religious scholar would know the Catholics have accepted evolution for decades, they just have a whole other level of bullshit they use to get around it so they can sleep at night.

No, the bible doesn't need evolution to defeat it; common sense does that quite nicely.

Now, about that "objective" part of your moniker ... Oops, did I just use quote marks?

I don't blind follow any clergy. Just for your information.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 05:58 AM by objectivetheist.)
RE: New To Forum
The principle of sufficient reason states that nothing is without reason. It is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or a cause.

Just a thought: why do so many people swear and insult on here when discussing?

In the mean time I will read those two books quoted further up in the thread and whatever other recommendations you guys can give. After that I will get back to you on this subject.

Our timings are different. I'm posting from tge UK. You guys from the US And elsewhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 06:03 AM
RE: New To Forum
Quote: So... to indicate that only 'Science' is some how of some inestimable measure as opposed to other fields is wrong. End of quote

Correction: I was not referring to science but just evolution. But as I said I will read the books recommended and get back to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 06:09 AM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 06:45 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 05:54 AM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Just a thought: why do so many people swear and insult on here when discussing?

Because most of the people here have heard a lot of variations on the things you've said to the point of nausea.
Naturally this leads to a rather visceral response.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
18-05-2015, 06:11 AM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 05:54 AM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Just a thought: why do so many people swear and insult on here when discussing?

'Cos we fucking feel like it, ya pommy bastard Wink

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
18-05-2015, 06:19 AM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 04:38 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I see evolution as the one main point upon which atheists are adamant. What I find intriguing is that atheists and others claim there is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution. If there is an academic consensus does this make it a reality? What I mean by this is how do we view structures of scientific theories? What are the limitations of evolution?

It is true that atheists often have no reason to reject mainstream science, but most Christians also accept it[1]. Evolution has been well tested and well proven over the last 150 years. There is really no reasonable doubt over the question these days. Those who reject evolution typically do so for religious reasons but if you boil those reasons down they usually end up with the idea of a global conspiracy among scientists or simply following the beliefs of a Charismatic leader.

What do you understand evolution to be, what would your preferred model be, and what do you see as the key differences between the two?

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/relig...evolution/

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: