ATTN: People Who Believe in Creation Myths

[Symmetry]

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?

I'm sort of interested in the evidence against the flying spaghetti monster now.

[Haggis_McMutton]

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?

What's the evidence against the invisible pink unicorn?
Also what's the evidence against Ghutulela? (she's a goddess only I know about right now, but it's gonna be a big thing in 50 years)

Also, also, which god? You have to define god as a falsifiable hypothesis first.

[natty dread]

difference between FSM and god?

god is more popular

[john9blue]

I'm sort of interested in the evidence against the flying spaghetti monster now.

as far as we know, spaghetti can't fly. or be conscious...

What's the evidence against the invisible pink unicorn?

all evidence suggests that you can't be both invisible and pink at the same time.

Also, also, which god? You have to define god as a falsifiable hypothesis first.

god = conscious being that created the universe

[natty dread]

as far as we know, spaghetti can't fly. or be conscious...

yeah but fsm is not made of spaghetti, he's just shaped like spaghetti, and besides, you can't prove sentient spaghetti doesn't exist somewhere

your evidence fails

all evidence suggests that you can't be both invisible and pink at the same time.

why would it have to be at the same time, maybe it alternates between states of invisibility and pinkness

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I'm sort of interested in the evidence against the flying spaghetti monster now.

as far as we know, spaghetti can't fly. or be conscious...

What's the evidence against the invisible pink unicorn?

all evidence suggests that you can't be both invisible and pink at the same time.

Also, also, which god? You have to define god as a falsifiable hypothesis first.

god = conscious being that created the universe

As far as we know, energy and matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

-TG

[Pedronicus]

I've only read the first page and went straight to leaving a message.

I would of lived to of been on line awake and drunk when this thread started. Damn my place of birth.
on second thoughts, thank f*ck i was born where i was, so I'm not a bible bashed ijot from the middle of nowhere.

[john9blue]

yeah but fsm is not made of spaghetti, he's just shaped like spaghetti, and besides, you can't prove sentient spaghetti doesn't exist somewhere

your evidence fails


why would it have to be at the same time, maybe it alternates between states of invisibility and pinkness

all of this goes directly against everything humans have ever known. you're going to have to prove your hypotheses.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as you know.

[natty dread]

yeah but fsm is not made of spaghetti, he's just shaped like spaghetti, and besides, you can't prove sentient spaghetti doesn't exist somewhere

your evidence fails


why would it have to be at the same time, maybe it alternates between states of invisibility and pinkness

all of this goes directly against everything humans have ever known. you're going to have to prove your hypotheses.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as you know.

nothing in human knowledge says that the existence of flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn is impossible

by genetic manipulation of the genes of a pony we could conceivably one day create a pony that has a single horn in it's head and has pink fur

we could also conceivably develop invisibility technology - in fact, some advances have already been made, there are metamaterials that can bend microwaves around an object, once the same can be done to visible light invisibility is possible

a spaghetti monster is simply any monster that resembles spaghetti, you can't prove that such a monster doesn't exist somewhere

also i don't have to provide evidence for anything, as i'm not making any claims - you're the one making the claim that a god is more probable than fsm or pink unicorns, somehow

[john9blue]

nothing in human knowledge says that the existence of flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn is impossible

by genetic manipulation of the genes of a pony we could conceivably one day create a pony that has a single horn in it's head and has pink fur

we could also conceivably develop invisibility technology - in fact, some advances have already been made, there are metamaterials that can bend microwaves around an object, once the same can be done to visible light invisibility is possible

a spaghetti monster is simply any monster that resembles spaghetti, you can't prove that such a monster doesn't exist somewhere

also i don't have to provide evidence for anything, as i'm not making any claims - you're the one making the claim that a god is more probable than fsm or pink unicorns, somehow

the odds of one of those things not only occurring naturally, but being the conscious creator of the universe, are extremely small.

the fact that the odds are so small is evidence against your theories

also, since FSM is conscious and created the universe, and since the IPU is the same way, both of them qualify as gods. so the probability of a god existing is by definition greater than the probability of the FSM existing, and greater than the probability of the IPU existing (since the probability of both is >0)

[Serbia]

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.

Don't lump me in there - I never participated. Which can be explained in part by saying I'm just not witty enough to participate. Although, I was one of those who suggested we should just stop, since you were offended.

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?

Again, bigotry. You have your beliefs, and call any opposing view stupid. With a sweeping hand, you call them retards, stupid, and call them your mortal enemies. That is bigoted. You cannot accept that other have opinions different from your own. You believe yourself superior. And hey, if you're cool with all that, that's fine. Bottom line is, this is an internet forum, and we all hide behind some level of anonymity. So now, I can go on ignoring you, and you can ignore me. End of the day, doesn't change anything.

[natty dread]

the fact that the odds are so small is evidence against your theories

that doesn't even begin to make any sense

lso, since FSM is conscious and created the universe, and since the IPU is the same way, both of them qualify as gods.

that just makes the definition of "god" meaningless

also no one said the invisible pink unicorn created the universe

[Juan_Bottom]

That is bigoted. You cannot accept that other have opinions different from your own. You believe yourself superior.

We're not talking about opinions though.

[chang50]

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"

Why??You can believe/disbelieve any proposition and still have some degree of doubt.Thus the agnostic atheist disbelieves in the existence of god(s),but does not claim to know this.An entirely sensible position surely?

[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"

Why??You can believe/disbelieve any proposition and still have some degree of doubt.Thus the agnostic atheist disbelieves in the existence of god(s),but does not claim to know this.An entirely sensible position surely?

eh, i meant a real, 100% agnostic. maybe i was overreacting since nobody is a true agnostic. everyone has some degree of gnosticism in their beliefs.

in fact, i find that some theists are more agnostic than most atheists, because they profess their faith and don't claim to have proof of their beliefs.

the sensibility/rationality of a position is related to both the degree of agnosticism of one's beliefs, and the evidence supporting their conclusion (in this case, theism or atheism)

with other questions, the dispute is almost always about which conclusion the evidence supports. but when i talk with atheists about the god question, they usually try to convince me that they don't need evidence at all to draw the conclusion that god doesn't exist! i find that really unusual.

[chang50]

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"

Why??You can believe/disbelieve any proposition and still have some degree of doubt.Thus the agnostic atheist disbelieves in the existence of god(s),but does not claim to know this.An entirely sensible position surely?

eh, i meant a real, 100% agnostic. maybe i was overreacting since nobody is a true agnostic. everyone has some degree of gnosticism in their beliefs.

in fact, i find that some theists are more agnostic than most atheists, because they profess their faith and don't claim to have proof of their beliefs.

the sensibility/rationality of a position is related to both the degree of agnosticism of one's beliefs, and the evidence supporting their conclusion (in this case, theism or atheism)

with other questions, the dispute is almost always about which conclusion the evidence supports. but when i talk with atheists about the god question, they usually try to convince me that they don't need evidence at all to draw the conclusion that god doesn't exist! i find that really unusual.

My evidence is the lack of evidence provided by theists,after all this is only one of millions of things i disbelieve in,you cannot seriously expect anyone to provide more than that.

[thegreekdog]

Whoa whoa whoa


You want to talk about "tolerating" creationists? You tolerate a noisy child at a grocery store. You tolerate a couple making out in the park. But don't ever you suffer a creationist!!!
These people believe that their personal version of their holy book is the definition of true reality. This same book says that they should smite the blood of homosexuals upon the pillows of which they lie. It's only a matter of time before they realize how hypocritical they are being and they start doing this too. These people do wield some political power and are more than willing to use it in horrible manners. They want to add the ten commandments to the Constitution and remove Evolution from our public schools teaching curriculum. How much more want should I have in tolerating a creationist than in tolerating a racist?
All disciplines of science agree on the earth's age. This isn't a matter of debate among professional fact-checkers. It's only an issue to these Bible thumping retards. They pollute the minds of children, they pollute political issues, and they're generally just jerks. Here they are science's chief enemy, above politicians, and so they are mine enemy. As they should be your enemy as well. They won't listen to reason, like a couple in the park may, because they have already rejected all reason in favor of creationism.

Yes, they are very horrible people and should be put in jail.

[MeDeFe]

Whoa whoa whoa


You want to talk about "tolerating" creationists? You tolerate a noisy child at a grocery store. You tolerate a couple making out in the park. But don't ever you suffer a creationist!!!
These people believe that their personal version of their holy book is the definition of true reality. This same book says that they should smite the blood of homosexuals upon the pillows of which they lie. It's only a matter of time before they realize how hypocritical they are being and they start doing this too. These people do wield some political power and are more than willing to use it in horrible manners. They want to add the ten commandments to the Constitution and remove Evolution from our public schools teaching curriculum. How much more want should I have in tolerating a creationist than in tolerating a racist?
All disciplines of science agree on the earth's age. This isn't a matter of debate among professional fact-checkers. It's only an issue to these Bible thumping retards. They pollute the minds of children, they pollute political issues, and they're generally just jerks. Here they are science's chief enemy, above politicians, and so they are mine enemy. As they should be your enemy as well. They won't listen to reason, like a couple in the park may, because they have already rejected all reason in favor of creationism.

Yes, they are very horrible people and should be put in jail.

How about they stop being horrible people instead?

[thegreekdog]

Whoa whoa whoa


You want to talk about "tolerating" creationists? You tolerate a noisy child at a grocery store. You tolerate a couple making out in the park. But don't ever you suffer a creationist!!!
These people believe that their personal version of their holy book is the definition of true reality. This same book says that they should smite the blood of homosexuals upon the pillows of which they lie. It's only a matter of time before they realize how hypocritical they are being and they start doing this too. These people do wield some political power and are more than willing to use it in horrible manners. They want to add the ten commandments to the Constitution and remove Evolution from our public schools teaching curriculum. How much more want should I have in tolerating a creationist than in tolerating a racist?
All disciplines of science agree on the earth's age. This isn't a matter of debate among professional fact-checkers. It's only an issue to these Bible thumping retards. They pollute the minds of children, they pollute political issues, and they're generally just jerks. Here they are science's chief enemy, above politicians, and so they are mine enemy. As they should be your enemy as well. They won't listen to reason, like a couple in the park may, because they have already rejected all reason in favor of creationism.

Yes, they are very horrible people and should be put in jail.

How about they stop being horrible people instead?

Clearly they need jailtime before that happens. Why would we have jails if not for that?

[comic boy]

Jails are an integral part of the entertainment business , the inmates are needed only because they double as unpaid extras .Alcatraz only ever had 23 prisoners yet has spawned 1.842 movies , 912 documentaries , 3 soaps and 26,409 video games.

[john9blue]

My evidence is the lack of evidence provided by theists,after all this is only one of millions of things i disbelieve in,you cannot seriously expect anyone to provide more than that.

i can and i do.

Jails are an integral part of the entertainment business , the inmates are needed only because they double as unpaid extras .Alcatraz only ever had 23 prisoners yet has spawned 1.842 movies , 912 documentaries , 3 soaps and 26,409 video games.

where did these numbers come from?

[MeDeFe]

Whoa whoa whoa


You want to talk about "tolerating" creationists? You tolerate a noisy child at a grocery store. You tolerate a couple making out in the park. But don't ever you suffer a creationist!!!
These people believe that their personal version of their holy book is the definition of true reality. This same book says that they should smite the blood of homosexuals upon the pillows of which they lie. It's only a matter of time before they realize how hypocritical they are being and they start doing this too. These people do wield some political power and are more than willing to use it in horrible manners. They want to add the ten commandments to the Constitution and remove Evolution from our public schools teaching curriculum. How much more want should I have in tolerating a creationist than in tolerating a racist?
All disciplines of science agree on the earth's age. This isn't a matter of debate among professional fact-checkers. It's only an issue to these Bible thumping retards. They pollute the minds of children, they pollute political issues, and they're generally just jerks. Here they are science's chief enemy, above politicians, and so they are mine enemy. As they should be your enemy as well. They won't listen to reason, like a couple in the park may, because they have already rejected all reason in favor of creationism.

Yes, they are very horrible people and should be put in jail.

How about they stop being horrible people instead?

Clearly they need jailtime before that happens. Why would we have jails if not for that?

To satisfy a bronze-age notion of vengeance still prevalent among some less developed groups in society. They feel that those who do harm, either to another individual or to society as a whole, must have a similar wrong inflicted upon themselves in turn. Jails fulfill this function by ostracizing those perceived as wrong-doers from society, dehumanising them, and finally stigmatising them and making it very difficult for them to re-integrate and become productive members of society.

Exactly what can be considered "harm" is not defined since a person can go to jail not just for inflicting physical injury or pain on another, but also for smoking the wrong kind of plant. Defining the latter as "harm" is a stretch by any standard. To make things even odder, you are more likely to go to jail if you harm one person than if you impair the health of millions by polluting a source for water supply.

Incidentally there is a fairly large overlap between the groups of those adhering to the aforementioned bronze-age notion and idiots who believe in creation myths.


edit: But what comic boy said also applies. Who knows, maybe one can justify treating a small group of humans as something less than everyone else if it advances our culture far enough.

[thegreekdog]

Whoa whoa whoa


You want to talk about "tolerating" creationists? You tolerate a noisy child at a grocery store. You tolerate a couple making out in the park. But don't ever you suffer a creationist!!!
These people believe that their personal version of their holy book is the definition of true reality. This same book says that they should smite the blood of homosexuals upon the pillows of which they lie. It's only a matter of time before they realize how hypocritical they are being and they start doing this too. These people do wield some political power and are more than willing to use it in horrible manners. They want to add the ten commandments to the Constitution and remove Evolution from our public schools teaching curriculum. How much more want should I have in tolerating a creationist than in tolerating a racist?
All disciplines of science agree on the earth's age. This isn't a matter of debate among professional fact-checkers. It's only an issue to these Bible thumping retards. They pollute the minds of children, they pollute political issues, and they're generally just jerks. Here they are science's chief enemy, above politicians, and so they are mine enemy. As they should be your enemy as well. They won't listen to reason, like a couple in the park may, because they have already rejected all reason in favor of creationism.

Yes, they are very horrible people and should be put in jail.

How about they stop being horrible people instead?

Clearly they need jailtime before that happens. Why would we have jails if not for that?

To satisfy a bronze-age notion of vengeance still prevalent among some less developed groups in society. They feel that those who do harm, either to another individual or to society as a whole, must have a similar wrong inflicted upon themselves in turn. Jails fulfill this function by ostracizing those perceived as wrong-doers from society, dehumanising them, and finally stigmatising them and making it very difficult for them to re-integrate and become productive members of society.

Exactly what can be considered "harm" is not defined since a person can go to jail not just for inflicting physical injury or pain on another, but also for smoking the wrong kind of plant. Defining the latter as "harm" is a stretch by any standard. To make things even odder, you are more likely to go to jail if you harm one person than if you impair the health of millions by polluting a source for water supply.

Incidentally there is a fairly large overlap between the groups of those adhering to the aforementioned bronze-age notion and idiots who believe in creation myths.


edit: But what comic boy said also applies. Who knows, maybe one can justify treating a small group of humans as something less than everyone else if it advances our culture far enough.

It appears that you've thought about this in some detail. Since my initial comment and subsequent comment were sarcastic, I'll refrain from further responses (other than this one). Suffice it to say, there are a number of other, bigger fish to fry than the danger of people that push creation myths. Alternatively, we can concentrate on that red herring and the "YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR ABORTIOSN" red herring and see how much our lives change.

[BigBallinStalin]

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

According to Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society,

During the 1930s Bertrand Russell was advocating for the "unilateral disarmament" of Britain. He called for "disbanding the army and navy and air force." (p.11)
-Bertrand Russel, Which Way to Peace? (1937), p.146

In pages 140 and 144 of Which Way to Peace, Bertrand figured that if you offered no resistance, the others wouldn't fear you, would stop hating you, and would lose all incentive to attack you. (paraphrased, p226).

Bertrand then becomes a nuclear war mongerer after WW2, then he shifts back to disarmament and Communist conquest, which we would have to weather out--it would be an acceptable price for disarmament. (paraphrased, p243-244)


It's funny because Bertrand Russel has no credentials in economics, foreign policy, war, or anything like that. Yet there he was, blathering on about this and that. I guess he doesn't fit his criterion of wise, but he does fit the "fool and fanatical" part, for sure.

[tkr4lf]

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.

What battle? I didn't realize there was a battle, nor am I a part of any battle.

And look, bottom line, the issue has nothing to do with level of intellect. It's all a matter of belief. Theists believe in a god, atheist believe that there is no god. I say believe, because there is no way to know. You can fool yourself into thinking that you "know" that there is no god, but you don't. It's unknowable. You believe that there isn't a god. And that belief is no different from somebody else's belief that there is a god.

And just because there isn't any evidence that there is a god, doesn't mean that your or my beliefs are correct. There isn't any evidence against there being a god either. For all we know there really is a god, and evolution is simply the mechanism he created to deal with life. We just don't know.

I guess my main point here, is that you have no right to be a total dick to anybody who believes in a god. You quoted Bertrand Russel with this:

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

Which category do you fit into? Do you truly have any doubt that there isn't a god? Because you act as if you are certain of yourself, which would place you firmly within the realm of fools and fanatics.