ATTN: People Who Believe in Creation Myths

[john9blue]

people like NS are just like the straw men that atheists make, whenever they debate someone like me.

Man itd be sweet if you were as smart as you thought you were. Youd be able to solve all the worlds problems n shit.

many intelligent people have already solved many of the world's problems.

the hard part is always convincing the world that you have the answer.

[Lootifer]

people like NS are just like the straw men that atheists make, whenever they debate someone like me.

Man itd be sweet if you were as smart as you thought you were. Youd be able to solve all the worlds problems n shit.

many intelligent people have already solved many of the world's problems.

the hard part is always convincing the world that you have the answer.

The funniest bit is i actually think you're serious

[Juan_Bottom]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

[PLAYER57832]

Assuming ANYTHING is a pretty poor scientific approach.

Ultimately, some assumptions have to be made, since we can never have 100% absolute proof of anything.

Its a sematic question. Of course, there are times when you have to set parameters and that might mean specifying some assumptions. However, they have to be defined, they become part of the "test". Saying "we have to assume "a", because we just cannot test it" is different from saying that you assume something ... and that it does not need to be questioned or tested. What I mean is that a good scientist will try to frame a study so that the question of a or b (or c, d, e, f...) in such a case is nuetral. If that is not possible, then generally the study won't be a fully reliable scientific study.

When it comes to evolution, whether God is manipulating genes or it is some other process/combination of processes, is just not something scientists can determine. They can determine how changes happen over time and to some extent the direct physical mechanisms, but that's it. When scientists begin to try and claim "we have an explanation".."therefore no God"... it is when they leave science and go to religion themselves.

Most scientists, contrary to Nightstrike's beliefs, actually are people of faith

Can we see some statistics of this? I find this hard to believe, unless you stretch the definition of "scientist" by a fair margin...[/quote]

Ironically enough, there was just a study published on this very question.
Here is an article that discusses it:
http://www.annarbor.com/faith/science-v ... s-beliefs/

Here is the study referenced: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195392982

[Haggis_McMutton]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

great quote.
I find it's a good rule of thumb that when you're 100% certain of something, it might be time to re-examine it.

[john9blue]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

unless you are an agnostic, you have no right to be posting that quote.

"the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

[Symmetry]

Assuming ANYTHING is a pretty poor scientific approach.

Ultimately, some assumptions have to be made, since we can never have 100% absolute proof of anything.

No, then it steps outside of science and becomes belief.

Now.. in some cases, it is OK to set certain parameters. If those parameters are defined, then they become part of the "test". However, that is not strictly an assumption.

Most scientists, contrary to Nightstrike's beliefs, actually are people of faith

Can we see some statistics of this? I find this hard to believe, unless you stretch the definition of "scientist" by a fair margin...

Ironically enough, there was just a study published on this very question.
Here is an article that discusses it:
http://www.annarbor.com/faith/science-v ... s-beliefs/

Here is the study referenced: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195392982[/quote]

Does this mean that you no longer consider atheism to be a faith? Sorry to butt in, but you seem to be taking a kind of different stance on whether atheism is a faith or not here compared to previous discussions.

[PLAYER57832]

Does this mean that you no longer consider atheism to be a faith? Sorry to butt in, but you seem to be taking a kind of different stance on whether atheism is a faith or not here compared to previous discussions.

No. I was being lazy. Good catch.

That said, while atheism is a faith belief, it is not generally a "religion", though there are religions that are atheistic (I think scientology is one???). And.. I think I did specify religion, not just beliefs/faith.

[Juan_Bottom]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

unless you are an agnostic, you have no right to be posting that quote.

"the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

Don't you remember when I tested you? And you believed that I had impregnated you with worm-sperm? What you need, is to try reading some literature on this subject. Multiple people have buried the agnostic argument, including you, by happenstance of not catching my trap. Dawkins did a whole chapter on this in his book "the Demon Haunted World." Even the first Agnostic (Huxley) was likely just trying to find a more sensitive way of fracturing religious adherence in common science.

"the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

Why?

[john9blue]

Don't you remember when I tested you? And you believed that I had impregnated you with worm-sperm? What you need, is to try reading some literature on this subject. Multiple people have buried the agnostic argument, including you, by happenstance of not catching my trap. Dawkins did a whole chapter on this in his book "the Demon Haunted World." Even the first Agnostic (Huxley) was likely just trying to find a more sensitive way of fracturing religious adherence in common science.

"the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

Why?

i don't recall this trap. why don't you try it?

[Juan_Bottom]

And I don't recall anyone ever quoting you in agreement. It's hard to believe that you've gone so far to the dark side that you're not even allies with NS.

[PLAYER57832]

wrong person..

[Haggis_McMutton]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

unless you are an agnostic, you have no right to be posting that quote.

"the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

Being a solipsist and accepting the possibility of magic underwear would also be in line with the quote.

Unfortunately we aren't beings of pure energy yet and have to lead our lives based on some reasonable assumptions like "The sun is going to come up again in the morning" and "The bridge is going to support my weight" and even "There is no need to waste precious resources prostrating myself before some superhuman entity in the vain hope that it'll let me go to a happy magic fantasy land after I die"

Edit: Also, I'm not sure about Juan, but I'm definitely an agnostic. Also an atheist.

[john9blue]

And I don't recall anyone ever quoting you in agreement. It's hard to believe that you've gone so far to the dark side that you're not even allies with NS.

but the dark side has cookies...

You do realize that even though Dawkins is cited often as an almost militant atheist, his faith was actually unkown... even to those who were closest to him. His real point was that we need to be able to question everything.

i don't think so...

although atheists have a tendency to foist their label onto people that don't actually qualify (einstein, sagan, hawking, etc.) dawkins is definitely an atheist.

dawkins also believes that he does not have faith, which is self-contradictory.

Being a solipsist and accepting the possibility of magic underwear would also be in line with the quote.

Unfortunately we aren't beings of pure energy yet and have to lead our lives based on some reasonable assumptions like "The sun is going to come up again in the morning" and "The bridge is going to support my weight" and even "There is no need to waste precious resources prostrating myself before some superhuman entity in the vain hope that it'll let me go to a happy magic fantasy land after I die"

do you think that "god doesn't exist" is one of these reasonable assumptions?

[tkr4lf]

Yeah. Nothing wrong with Muslims except that their religion is dumb. Initially I deduct 20 IQ points from their perceived intelligence and then I'm good. My ex was a Muslim and so was her whole family. But at least she wasn't a creationist.

Interesting. I wanted to know just how far your hypocritical bigotry extended. Your intolerance is simply shocking, especially given your tirade in a private forum that you're no long associated with. Creationists are your "enemies"? Fairly harsh, don't you think? And the haughtiness in "deducting IQ points" based on a religious belief is telling as well. You believe yourself better than anyone who doesn't share your of "truth", and are completely intolerant of any opposing view, or belief system. Not that you would care, but I've lost any respect for you.

You can pick apart any religion, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, whatever you like. But this whole idea of instantly thinking a religious person to be "retarded" (your word), "stupid", (your word), and an "idiot" (again, your word) is egotistical, and worse, bigoted.

That's the thing with militant atheists, they're just as bad as religious fundamentalists.

The juan_bottoms and night strikes of the world both stand for intolerance and extremism, just on opposite sides of the spectrum from each other.

The militant atheists give the rest of the non-believers a bad name, while the religious extremists give the normal believers a bad name.

Maybe if the moderate, rational majority would just ignore these types, they would go away. Like a troll. But maybe not. I don't know.

[PLAYER57832]

You do realize that even though Dawkins is cited often as an almost militant atheist, his faith was actually unkown... even to those who were closest to him. His real point was that we need to be able to question everything.

i don't think so...

although atheists have a tendency to foist their label onto people that don't actually qualify (einstein, sagan, hawking, etc.) dawkins is definitely an atheist.

dawkins also believes that he does not have faith, which is self-contradictory.
?

Yeah, Symmetry just pointed out that I had the wrong person.

[natty dread]

That's the thing with militant atheists, they're just as bad as religious fundamentalists.

Well, the important thing is you've found a way to feel superior to both.

[john9blue]

^ an xkcd reader, i see...

[john9blue]

Edit: Also, I'm not sure about Juan, but I'm definitely an agnostic. Also an atheist.

you ain't a real agnostic, son.

maybe 70-80% agnostic or so.

but not a true, possibly red-blooded agnostic.

the act of identifying yourself as an atheist means that you are not a true agnostic, because you drew a conclusion about the god question.

[Haggis_McMutton]

although atheists have a tendency to foist their label onto people that don't actually qualify (einstein, sagan, hawking, etc.) dawkins is definitely an atheist.

So what would you call all of those?

You know, I enjoy debating all of the nitpicky things like knowledge/belief/valid definitions/unfalsifiability and so on. But ultimately I think it's kind of silly that we think these are any kind of real distinctions when compared with the distinction between all of these and religious people.

Here we are, arguing about initial causes and abstract entities while the actions we take regarding religion are essentially the same, debating it and only practising it rarely purely for social reasons (at least I'm assuming you don't regularly pray, correct me if I'm wrong). Meanwhile there are people who think they know exactly why how and who made the universe. There's people out there who think that in a certain month, they need to not put food in their mouths while the sun is up in order to not anger the creator of the universe. There are people out there who decide to homeschool their kids so that they can more effectively impose archaic mythical and magical beliefs onto the next generation.

When considering the real gap here, how silly is it to describe the categories as atheist, agnostic and theist? Perhaps we should start using something more like:
1. takes no actions based on belief in a god = agnostic, atheist
2. takes only currently socially acceptable actions based on belief in a god = religious moderates
3. takes any actions deemed necessary based on belief in a god = fundamentalists, extremists, jihadists

Being a solipsist and accepting the possibility of magic underwear would also be in line with the quote.

Unfortunately we aren't beings of pure energy yet and have to lead our lives based on some reasonable assumptions like "The sun is going to come up again in the morning" and "The bridge is going to support my weight" and even "There is no need to waste precious resources prostrating myself before some superhuman entity in the vain hope that it'll let me go to a happy magic fantasy land after I die"

do you think that "god doesn't exist" is one of these reasonable assumptions?

I think that "a god that cares about anything I do doesn't exist" is definitely a reasonable assumption, therefore you should lead your life as if there is no god.

[natty dread]

^ an xkcd reader, i see...

I debated myself about posting the strip again, but I figured I have already posted it so many times on this forum that a textual reference should be enough.

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah. Nothing wrong with Muslims except that their religion is dumb. Initially I deduct 20 IQ points from their perceived intelligence and then I'm good. My ex was a Muslim and so was her whole family. But at least she wasn't a creationist.

Interesting. I wanted to know just how far your hypocritical bigotry extended. Your intolerance is simply shocking, especially given your tirade in a private forum that you're no long associated with. Creationists are your "enemies"? Fairly harsh, don't you think? And the haughtiness in "deducting IQ points" based on a religious belief is telling as well. You believe yourself better than anyone who doesn't share your of "truth", and are completely intolerant of any opposing view, or belief system. Not that you would care, but I've lost any respect for you.

You can pick apart any religion, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, whatever you like. But this whole idea of instantly thinking a religious person to be "retarded" (your word), "stupid", (your word), and an "idiot" (again, your word) is egotistical, and worse, bigoted.

Whoa whoa whoa

Let's put this into context for everyone else.
You guys were making fun of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is not a joke and it's never funny. No one in the world can be blamed for a "tirade" against such outlandish and irresponsible gossip as that. The Holocaust is not a f*cking joke. No one in the world would blame me for quitting that sh*t in protest either. F*ck those guys. And this is where you calling me a hypocrite is coming from.

Secondly, I'm not a bigot. My great uncle, as I have explained, was hanged by the KKK on an Indian reservation. Bigotry makes me as angry as anyone else because my family is part of a minority. I've spoken out like this since forever, and I'm pretty much the head Militant-Atheist around here since Militant and MaleAlphaThree disappeared.
You've only failed to put my anger into their proper categories. I'm not being bigoted against Christians anymore than I am against Muslims, as you can see from my previous posts. I don't think these people need to be sent to their own Island or killed or anything like that. I'm cool with them as human beings. But! what I am prejudiced against is flagrant stupidity. Believing in a God, or Creationism, means believing in something even though all the facts are against it. It's like believing that space aliens killed Kennedy. That's why I automatically deduct 20 IQ points from their perceived intelligence. There's nothing bigoted about calling their faith against facts stupid. And I feel exactly the same for people who believe in Bigfoot. They're retards. But that doesn't make me a bigot either.
Yet Bigfoot fanatics are not dangerous people. They just want permission to walk around your timbers and look for massive turds. I'm cool with that. Creationists on the other hand, want to end scientific inquiry and frame all discoveries into a biblical mold. They want to erase Evolutionary Teaching because their beliefs disagree with it, not because the facts do. They want to bandy together to gain more political power. As an Atheist, these people are my mortal enemies. They're the ones attacking your freedom of thought and right to make up your own mind based on evidence. And wont someone please think of the children?

Egotistical I may be though.

The militant atheists give the rest of the non-believers a bad name, while the religious extremists give the normal believers a bad name.

Maybe if the moderate, rational majority would just ignore these types, they would go away. Like a troll. But maybe not. I don't know.

We're militant because we win every single debate and are tired of pretending like we're all on the same intellectual level. If these people would pick up a book other than the Bible once in a while I wouldn't have to act militant. You're no more rational than I am. You're just less involved in the battle.

Yeah, Symmetry just pointed out that I had the wrong person.

Carl Sagan! Who's works JBII is well acquainted with, no doubt!

[Haggis_McMutton]

Edit: Also, I'm not sure about Juan, but I'm definitely an agnostic. Also an atheist.

you ain't a real agnostic, son.

maybe 70-80% agnostic or so.

but not a true, possibly red-blooded agnostic.

the act of identifying yourself as an atheist means that you are not a true agnostic, because you drew a conclusion about the god question.

More like a working assumption, which is all we ever have in real life anyway.
Lemme see a couple of miracles and I'll change the working assumption.

You're just arbitrarily deciding that the god question, as opposed to every other question out there, should have special treatment. We shouldn't make assumptions based on available evidence (or lack thereof), we should just raise our hands and say "I can't know for sure, so I dunno, lol".

[Juan_Bottom]

Dude, Haggis I told him that before. ^5

[john9blue]

More like a working assumption, which is all we ever have in real life anyway.
Lemme see a couple of miracles and I'll change the working assumption.

You're just arbitrarily deciding that the god question, as opposed to every other question out there, should have special treatment. We shouldn't make assumptions based on available evidence (or lack thereof), we should just raise our hands and say "I can't know for sure, so I dunno, lol".

hey, i'm all for making assumptions based on evidence! that's what science is all about, you know.

i just don't have any evidence for the assumption that god doesn't exist.

i mean, i've got evidence for the assumption that the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist. i've got evidence for the assumption that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. but i don't have any against god. would you like to provide some?