113 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elite Elite]

The Angry One wrote...

The Elite Elite wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Creationism has little to do with religion, it is more the deliberate spread of ignorance.
No Christian I know for instance subcribes to the idiocy of creationism.

Alright, when you say creationism I assume you are refering to the belief that the world was created in a literal six day time peroid correct? So many people seem to get this wrong. Creationism is simply the belief that the world was created by God. It is not a reference to the Biblical account. Also, I watched Ben Stein's documentary. He was not promoting the Genesis account.

I refer to creationism in the sense of intelligent design, the belief that God created all animals as they are.

That is not creationism/intelligent design. Intelligent design is simply the belief that, by looking at how complex and vast the universe is, one can come to the possible conclusion that it was created by a higher being. The belief that God created the animals as they are known to be today, is generally by taking the Genesis account literally. I don't recall Stein doing that in his documentary. (Or anything else I've heard from him)

[DuffyMJ]

GothamLord wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Yes, because everyone knows Ben Stein has to beat the ladies away with a stick!

To be fair, Ben Stein has the personality of a brick to go with his voice of a particularily bored assembly line robot.
He also was born without a brain. Tragic really.

Yes because being a lawyer, a speech writer for two U.S. Presidents, never mind his entertainment career makes him born without a brain.  He might be boring, but please dont imply the man is stupid. 

He's a neo-con idiot.  There, I implied it.

[GothamLord]

The Angry One wrote...

Irrelevant. One can be educated and still carry a deep personal stupidity.

"Personal stupidity" as you call it is a lack of common sense or plain ignorance.  Stupid is an incorrect term and your choice of saying born without a brain is still misplaced.  

Ah yes, that.
Not to turn this into a religious debate, but that argument has always amused me, it assumes the whole thing is a binary condition.
Believe (in God) or don't. However, given that there are many different beliefs and interpretation of a god or gods, it gets a bit complicated. For example, what if belief in your god angers the one "true" god and you are in fact headed for a worse punishment than one who believes in nothing?

Always a possibility that *my* God is the wrong. Either way though the athetist would be left with egg of their face, theres still a God.

If one spreads ignorance, I shall call them ignorant. Intelligent design is ignorance because it places personal belief before evidence.

Ever think its called Intelligent design because its beyond man's ability to grasp? 

[Sawp]

That thread is going nowhere.

Modifié par Sawp, 20 avril 2010 - 09:02 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Sawp wrote...

That thread is going nowhere.

NIHILIST

[DuffyMJ]

Putting personal belief over evidence isn't ignorant, it's just bad science. Not all research or informed opinion is empirical, there's nothing inherently wrong with guiding policy or action based on normative values, qualitative research, or moral values. Personally, I believe overly-relying on science is uncomfortably utilitarian.

[Jack Package]

THIS DISCUSSION IS IRRELEVANT.

YOU ARE SHORT SIGHTED.

[Tlazolteotl]

DuffyMJ wrote...

Putting personal belief over evidence isn't ignorant, it's just bad science. Not all research or informed opinion is empirical, there's nothing inherently wrong with guiding policy or action based on normative values, qualitative research, or moral values. Personally, I believe overly-relying on science is uncomfortably utilitarian.

And deciding policy based on illogical constructs guarantees a lack of consensus.
Since neither one person with "values," nor the person who believes in the opposite, are ever likely to be reasoned with.

[The Angry One]

The Elite Elite wrote...

That is not creationism/intelligent design. Intelligent design is simply the belief that, by looking at how complex and vast the universe is, one can come to the possible conclusion that it was created by a higher being. The belief that God created the animals as they are known to be today, is generally by taking the Genesis account literally. I don't recall Stein doing that in his documentary. (Or anything else I've heard from him)

No, he actively campaigns against evolution, which is the antithesis of intelligent design.
Universe creation has little to do with it.

[The Angry One]

GothamLord wrote...

"Personal stupidity" as you call it is a lack of common sense or plain ignorance.  Stupid is an incorrect term and your choice of saying born without a brain is still misplaced. 

You have no sense of levity sir.
What I mean is Stein does not reason like a normal person does, he is narrow minded and thus stupid.

Always a possibility that *my* God is the wrong. Either way though the athetist would be left with egg of their face, theres still a God.

Even if that god is Xenu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
What if Buddhism is the one true faith? You're just as screwed as me then, man.

Ever think its called Intelligent design because its beyond man's ability to grasp? 

I believe we've grasped how life on this planet came to be just fine, thanks.

[Nightwriter]

GothamLord wrote...

Let me try and dumb it down for you.  

Believe in God + Dying = No Afterlife 
Therefore nothing is lost because there was nothing to lose.

Believe in Nothing (No God,Afterlife) + Dying = Afterlife / Judgement   
Lose the chance of pleasurable afterlife, by religious belief that shunning God earns you damnation or punishment of some sort.

So... believing in God is just... an insurance plan?

That... certainly puts faith in perspective for me, I guess. If I get what you're saying.

[Tlazolteotl]

Nightwriter wrote...

So... believing in God is just... an insurance plan?

That... certainly puts faith in perspective for me, I guess. If I get what you're saying.

I doubt that's what Gothamlord is saying ...
The argument is simply one that's regurgitated often by christians to "prove" they aren't illogical.

It was put forwards by Blaise Pascal ages ago, and though brilliant in his day (as was Descartes' meditations), is clearly idiotic nowadays to anyone with a smidgeon of logical ability.

[GothamLord]

Nightwriter wrote...

So... believing in God is just... an insurance plan?

That... certainly puts faith in perspective for me, I guess. If I get what you're saying.

Its more than that for *me*.  Make sure you read the posts before that one as well. 

[Onyx Jaguar]

Searching for answers and reasons and adjusting that search when you hit a roadblock (for instance coming up with a malleable hypothesis until you get more information) is better than adopting a strategy that is akin to instant gratification.

[Halmiriliath]

Nightwriter wrote...

So... believing in God is just... an insurance plan?

That... certainly puts faith in perspective for me, I guess. If I get what you're saying.

*Admiral, we have a long sentence alert!*

Would my saying that I believe faith to be an enlightening and transcendental relationship with a higher being/ the incomprehensible for the betterment of all give you some encouragement that faith isn't all about heavenly reward or insurance plans?

Modifié par Halmiriliath, 20 avril 2010 - 10:00 .

[enormousmoonboots]

The Angry One wrote...

Also..

You know, I've seen that picture a lot, but I've never quite noticed his eyes before. Seriously. Look at them. He's wicked wall-eyed. Maybe that's what makes it look so bad.

/ignores rest of thread

[Tlazolteotl]

Halmiriliath wrote...

Would my saying that I believe ...

That there is why it wouldn't ... ?
'cos if it's true, and you can prove it, you wouldn't have to believe it.

[Nightwriter]

Halmiriliath wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

So... believing in God is just... an insurance plan?

That... certainly puts faith in perspective for me, I guess. If I get what you're saying.

*Admiral, we have a long sentence alert!*

Would my saying that I believe faith to be an enlightening and transcendental relationship with the incomprehensible for the betterment of all give you some encouragement that faith isn't all about heavenly reward or insurance plans?

Yes. Yes, it very much would.

However, I should point out that your definition of faith is quite different than most Christians' I know.

It is man's determination to try to present his personal comprehension of the "incomprehensible" as infallible fact that I generally object to.

[Jonathan Shepard]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

So... believing in God is just... an insurance plan?

That... certainly puts faith in perspective for me, I guess. If I get what you're saying.

I doubt that's what Gothamlord is saying ...
The argument is simply one that's regurgitated often by christians to "prove" they aren't illogical.

It was put forwards by Blaise Pascal ages ago, and though brilliant in his day (as was Descartes' meditations), is clearly idiotic nowadays to anyone with a smidgeon of logical ability.

That's like saying having car and health insurance is idiotic. Not if you get into an accident. Considering in this analogy, that death would be such an accident, everyone is guaranteed to have an accident. And you wouldn't want to come up without insurance there, would you? 

If believe is just an "error" in the brain's programming, then what is the consequence in believing in at least one deity? Gives you a better chance than not believing at all. Because if there is no god, then believes are wrong, but nothing really happens to them- no eternal salvation or damnation. If they're right, even some of them, then sure, bunches of people will still be damned. But there's still a chance.

It might just be guess work, but so was a lot of early science.

On Topic: Because that's how BioWare wanted him. Stereotypically witty, "charming," and attractive... depending on your Shepard's face, really....

[Tlazolteotl]

Please, read my initial post on Pascal's wager.

It is clearly idiotic, 'cos logically ... a deity is more likely to choose the NOT faithful.

[Halmiriliath]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Halmiriliath wrote...

Would my saying that I believe ...

That there is why it wouldn't ... ?
'cos if it's true, and you can prove it, you wouldn't have to believe it.

Ah, the quest for proof. What if I don't feel the need to prove anything? Why should I have to search for empirical proof for something I believe to be regardless? I would never deny anyone else's right to believe in what they want, and wouldn't wish to be told that something so personal to me is wrong based on a lack of evidence.

My, but we could go round in circles with this, and I'm not entirely sure the boards are the place to discuss such matters. Message me if you wish to continue this discussion. 

Modifié par Halmiriliath, 20 avril 2010 - 09:48 .

[DuffyMJ]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Putting personal belief over evidence isn't ignorant, it's just bad science. Not all research or informed opinion is empirical, there's nothing inherently wrong with guiding policy or action based on normative values, qualitative research, or moral values. Personally, I believe overly-relying on science is uncomfortably utilitarian.

And deciding policy based on illogical constructs guarantees a lack of consensus.
Since neither one person with "values," nor the person who believes in the opposite, are ever likely to be reasoned with.

It prevents a universal consensus, but that's not exactly a possibility.  There's too much information, undereducation, multiracial and ethnic cultures and backgrounds to operationalize things into policy that satisfies both empirical goals and political feasibility...   That's why a federalized system of local governments is a wonderful thing.  Texas may think Jesus partied with Raptors and cave men, but you're very easily able to relocate to New York State or Vermont or whatever to have a rational scientific education...

[Tlazolteotl]

DuffyMJ wrote...

It prevents a universal consensus, but that's not exactly a possibility.  There's too much information, undereducation, multiracial and ethnic cultures and backgrounds to operationalize things into policy that satisfies both empirical goals and political feasibility...   That's why a federalized system of local governments is a wonderful thing.  Texas may think Jesus partied with Raptors and cave men, but you're very easily able to relocate to New York State or Vermont or whatever to have a rational scientific education...

And that helps the human species how, exactly?
Individuals are irrelevant.

There has never been a weapon humans have invented that they never used on themselves.
'cos it only takes one itchy trigger finger to spoil everyone's party.

If your'e at all familiar with the Fermi Paradox, it's almost mathematical proof (more so than any religion, anyhow) that interstellar travel is impossible.
And if it's only my opinion that says so, that impossibility is largely due to biological constructs being utter failures at rationality.

[Nostradamoose]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

The Angry One wrote...



Irrelevant. One can be educated and still carry a deep personal stupidity.

Yes

I'm the living proof

[MEUTRIERE]

enormousmoonboots wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Also..

You know, I've seen that picture a lot, but I've never quite noticed his eyes before. Seriously. Look at them. He's wicked wall-eyed. Maybe that's what makes it look so bad.

/ignores rest of thread

I think it might just be the lighting.  I think the little light reflection on his right eye is making it appear to look more to the right than the other.  If that made any sense.