(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/of1nju2kgeah3c20wrbdca.png)
Source (http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx)
Agreement with the creationist view - God created man in its present form - has declined from 38% from the mid-40s, where it was for decades.
Agreement with the theistic evolutionist view - humans evolved, but God guided this process - has increased from 32% to 38%
Agreement with the secular view - humans evolved from lower life forms without any divine intervention - has doubled since 1982.
Unsurprisingly, people who go to church more often and/or have received less formal education are more likely to identify as creationists.
It seems that creationism has sharpy declined in recent years with both alternative views picking up the slack. Good news for those of us who would rather not see our science classrooms turned into churches.
I dunno how closely you guys have been following the creationism/evolution "controversy", but it was all the rage in the early 2000s. Creationists, I mean Intelligent Design advocates, made a big push to alter science curriculum, either to introduce "alternatives" to evolution or expound on the perceived weaknesses of the theory of evolution (like the conundrum of how come there are still apes if we came from apes or why crocoducks remain elusive). But creationists lost court case after court case, culminating in the Kitzmiller decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) in 2005, which was the death knell of the Intelligent Design movement. Though there still is the occasional flare-up, the controversy has died down considerably. Now we know why.
Too Abrahamic. And Americans are increasingly into Asian culture, or are of Asian descent. Per Buddha, creation proceeds moment to moment ... hence a continuing identity is an illusion. Why not a poll on whether Hercules as portrayed by Kevin Sorbo is for real? ;-)
This just proves a point I've made before, that if scientific evidence demonstrates a point of view, the masses will eventually come to accept it even if it contradicts religious belief. The reason no significant dent has been made regarding belief in theism is due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind. If such evidence comes forth the masses will accept it.
That said I distinguish between evolution (which is a fact) and Darwinism the belief that evolution coupled with natural selection accounts for the development of all life including autonomous human beings. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I am skeptical.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 26, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
This just proves a point I've made before, that if scientific evidence demonstrates a point of view, the masses will eventually come to accept it even if it contradicts religious belief. The reason no significant dent has been made regarding belief in theism is due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind. If such evidence comes forth the masses will accept it.
That said I distinguish between evolution (which is a fact) and Darwinism the belief that evolution coupled with natural selection accounts for the development of all life including autonomous human beings. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I am skeptical.
What do you mean by 'autonomous' human beings?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 26, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
This just proves a point I've made before, that if scientific evidence demonstrates a point of view, the masses will eventually come to accept it even if it contradicts religious belief.
After 150 years, a pointless political conflict, and a ton of lawsuits. Dragged kicking and screaming to 19th century science.
QuoteThe reason no significant dent has been made regarding belief in theism
Even this statement is dubious. Worldwide, not much has changed. But in specific countries (mostly western countries), atheist numbers have grown considerably. It just gets balanced out by growing developing country populations and religious resurgences in historically communist countries.
Quoteis due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind.
Utter bollocks. And for the millionth time, no less.
QuoteThat said I distinguish between evolution (which is a fact) and Darwinism the belief that evolution coupled with natural selection accounts for the development of all life including autonomous human beings. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I am skeptical.
That's essentially the creationist position. Not against evolution, just "skeptical" about the finer details of evolution. They've perfected the art of noncommittal denialism.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 26, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
This just proves a point I've made before, that if scientific evidence demonstrates a point of view, the masses will eventually come to accept it even if it contradicts religious belief. The reason no significant dent has been made regarding belief in theism is due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind. If such evidence comes forth the masses will accept it.
That said I distinguish between evolution (which is a fact) and Darwinism the belief that evolution coupled with natural selection accounts for the development of all life including autonomous human beings. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I am skeptical.
Darwin is 19th century scientific evolution theory. We have the 21st century version, we don't need Darwin anymore. This is distinct from 19th century Social Darwinism, which is still around, which states that we are in a life/death competition with the rest of humanity and nature, and we need to kill off any other humans and kill off nature.
And no, the public doesn't accept science. They shouldn't on average accept the world is round or gravity or that the Earth spins or goes around the Sun, since to the naked eye, these ideas are nonsense. My answer is that while these things are factual, their acceptance is the result of national propaganda. With good enough propaganda, and a single voice (no competition between propagandists) you can pretty much get the public to believe anything.
I couldn't accept theism as my POV, unless i had a theism sufficiently advanced, as to match the advance of science, otherwise I would be an atheist. You have a fairly advanced version of theism, but you occasionally slip into children's Bible time. Two people can look at the same thing, and come to different conclusions. This frustrates control freaks. And this is the one thing that theists and atheists can agree on ;-)
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 26, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
That said I distinguish between evolution (which is a fact) and Darwinism the belief that evolution coupled with natural selection accounts for the development of all life including autonomous human beings. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I am skeptical.
There's nothing to stop that from happening by natural means.
That man evolved by the guiding hand of God is apologetics. It says no such thing in the Bible. Instead, it's "Yeah evolution occurs, but God directs it." An attempt to excuse an ancient religious belief by making something new up: "What the Bible really means is bla bla bla. Before it meant that other thing, but we now know that it was referring to evolution all along. In order to really understand what the Bible says, you have to sort of read between the lines."
Quote from: SGOS on May 27, 2017, 10:29:28 AM
That man evolved by the guiding hand of God is apologetics. It says no such thing in the Bible. Instead, it's "Yeah evolution occurs, but God directs it." An attempt to excuse an ancient religious belief by making something new up: "What the Bible really means is bla bla bla. Before it meant that other thing, but we now know that it was referring to evolution all along. In order to really understand what the Bible says, you have to sort of read between the lines."
Yeah. Instead of continuing to fight the overwhelming scientific consensus (a conflict between facts and religion tends not to go very well for religion), they concede that evolution occurs (because of course it does) but frustratingly put a dollop of superstition on top - evolution occurs BUT Goddidit. Well, how very scientific. Theistic evolution makes about as much sense as theistic gravity or theistic heliocentrism (another fight that religion lost). The only reason that bizarre position exists is because of the widespread view (typically promoted by creationists) that evolution falsifies Christianity.
QuoteAfter 150 years, a pointless political conflict, and a ton of lawsuits. Dragged kicking and screaming to 19th century science.
There are scientists today who drag their feet kicking and screaming over big bang theory. The scientist who proposed tectonics was roundly ridiculed as was Gregor Mendel wasn't recognized for his achievements until after death. Accepting new ideas takes time even among scientists.
QuoteEven this statement is dubious [that theism hasn't declined]. Worldwide, not much has changed. But in specific countries (mostly western countries), atheist numbers have grown considerably. It just gets balanced out by growing developing country populations and religious resurgences in historically communist countries.
I think the # of people who identify as non-religious has grown and some count that as being atheist. Secondly it doesn't count how many people are so called weak atheists who don't actually deny God exists they simply decline that belief.
is due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind.QuoteUtter bollocks. And for the millionth time, no less.
I've provided ample opportunity for anyone one who wanted to list the facts and data and make their case. Why don't you start a thread The Case for Naturalism from Facts.
QuoteThat's essentially the creationist position. Not against evolution, just "skeptical" about the finer details of evolution. They've perfected the art of noncommittal denialism.
Sounds like weak atheists doesn't it?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 26, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
The reason no significant dent has been made regarding belief in theism is due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind. If such evidence comes forth the masses will accept it.
Your point, though conceptually correct, cannot happen when the "masses" actively assist in the dismissal of said evidence via religious indoctrination. If parents, like yours, refused to force you into sunday school for "sheeple" training, you too could be a common sense rational non-theological nut job. It matters not a wit what the truth is when the "masses" are trained by the handlers, aka priests, ministers, rabbi's and their ilk, who need the income, to keep their nose to the babble stone so to speak and ignore sound scientific evidence in lieu of a make believe after life where chocolate bunnies sit atop gold fountains where all your ancestors live free from all the encumbrances of human life .
So the real truth is, if your parents were non-believers, you would be a regular member here and laugh, like we do, at minions like you.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 27, 2017, 08:52:46 PMThere are scientists today who drag their feet kicking and screaming over big bang theory. The scientist who proposed tectonics was roundly ridiculed as was Gregor Mendel wasn't recognized for his achievements until after death. Accepting new ideas takes time even among scientists.
The main difference being that these scientific theories became accepted when the evidence came out. For evolution, when the evidence started mounting, the scientific community acceded to the facts while the faithful did not and have not. Their toxic brew of ignorance, zealotry, and prioritizing of faith over reason led them down this idiotic path, fueled in part by opportunistic Republicans who found the issue to be a convenient way to garner votes. This position is dying, but what changed to trigger this shift? Was it new facts? Doubtful. Instead, it's largely due to the declining popularity of biblical literalism in the US and more broadly, the decline of Christianity in the US.
QuoteI think the # of people who identify as non-religious has grown and some count that as being atheist. Secondly it doesn't count how many people are so called weak atheists who don't actually deny God exists they simply decline that belief.
Haven't we gone over this before? Also, I have it on good authority that weak atheists are atheists. Just a hunch.
QuoteI've provided ample opportunity for anyone one who wanted to list the facts and data and make their case. Why don't you start a thread The Case for Naturalism from Facts.
Your pet issue bores me. I have neither the time nor the crayons to fully explain this to you. And besides, it was largely answered by other AF denizens long ago (Hakurei Reimu in particular tore your position a new anal cavity) and the "debate" would be long over if you possessed the capacity to realize your mistakes. Suffice it say that you desperately need to learn the concepts of null hypothesis and burden of proof.
QuoteSounds like weak atheists doesn't it?
A clever retort. Well, it would be if it were clever or accurate.
Quote from: aitm on May 27, 2017, 09:21:05 PM
Your point, though conceptually correct, cannot happen when the "masses" actively assist in the dismissal of said evidence via religious indoctrination. If parents, like yours, refused to force you into sunday school for "sheeple" training, you too could be a common sense rational non-theological nut job. It matters not a wit what the truth is when the "masses" are trained by the handlers, aka priests, ministers, rabbi's and their ilk, who need the income, to keep their nose to the babble stone so to speak and ignore sound scientific evidence in lieu of a make believe after life where chocolate bunnies sit atop gold fountains where all your ancestors live free from all the encumbrances of human life .
So the real truth is, if your parents were non-believers, you would be a regular member here and laugh, like we do, at minions like you.
The word your searching for is factually and historically correct. When the weight of actual facts and data lean on a belief the belief eventually folds like a cheap suit. You can look up 100's if not 1000's of beliefs that have gone the way of the dinosaur due to provable facts and data. Scientists don't have the answers to the big ticket questions that would put the nail in the coffin of theistic belief. Atheists think so because its the preferred answer and in most cases they despise religion.
There is one other reason...who wants to identify as an atheist? A person who by most accounts is rude, arrogant and self-righteous. They're like people with extreme body order only they are unaware of their own offensive fragrance.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 08:14:14 PM
You can look up 100's if not 1000's of beliefs that have gone the way of the dinosaur due to provable facts and data.
uh.......that's just damn funny there.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 08:14:14 PM
There is one other reason...who wants to identify as an atheist? A person who by most accounts is rude, arrogant and self-righteous. They're like people with extreme body order only they are unaware of their own offensive fragrance.
In my experience, the self-labeled atheist tends to be sure of themselves, for the theist likes nothing better than to try and humiliate an atheist. It takes courage to be an atheist. It takes a sheeple attitude to be a theist. You, my friend, is a great example of the typical theist. Your own body odor (for you don't really have any body 'order'--nor mind order either) is so offensive that I can smell it through this screen. As you well know, for you practice it daily, in most religions 'judge not' is supposed to be one of the precepts that is followed. Instead, what is routinely followed is 'judge--always' and judge harshly; as you do. As always, you simply are what most theists are--hypocrites.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 08:14:14 PM
There is one other reason...who wants to identify as an atheist? A person who by most accounts is rude, arrogant and self-righteous. They're like people with extreme body order only they are unaware of their own offensive fragrance.
I've learned to accept my body order. My hands and feet are pretty much where they should be, and my mouth and asshole aren't in the same place.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 29, 2017, 09:26:52 PM
In my experience, the self-labeled atheist tends to be sure of themselves, for the theist likes nothing better than to try and humiliate an atheist. It takes courage to be an atheist. It takes a sheeple attitude to be a theist. You, my friend, is a great example of the typical theist. Your own body odor (for you don't really have any body 'order'--nor mind order either) is so offensive that I can smell it through this screen. As you well know, for you practice it daily, in most religions 'judge not' is supposed to be one of the precepts that is followed. Instead, what is routinely followed is 'judge--always' and judge harshly; as you do. As always, you simply are what most theists are--hypocrites.
I think you have mistaken me for a religious person. I simply have a different philosophical belief about the existence of the universe and humans. What standard of behavior does theism call for? I assume there is no standard for atheists since I get personal attacks just about every other post.
You can look up 100's if not 1000's of beliefs that have gone the way of the dinosaur due to provable facts and data. Quote from: aitm on May 29, 2017, 08:55:04 PM
uh.......that's just damn funny there.
You can't think of many right off the top of your head? Do turtles hold the earth up? Is the earth flat? Does nature abhor a vacuum? Is the moon made of cheese? Are the lights of stars carried by angels? Is there a rain or lightening God? No these once dearly held beliefs have all fallen by the way side due to preponderance of evidence against them.
Most atheists declare their belief God doesn't exist as if its an incontrovertible fact buttressed by an overwhelming preponderance of facts and data and they are justified in mocking and ridiculing anyone who thinks other wise. I have seen lots of mocking and ridiculing but I still have yet to see that overwhelming preponderance of evidence or data. I'm sure its around somewhere.
QuoteThe main difference being that these scientific theories became accepted when the evidence came out.
BS. Some scientists to this day still refuse to accept the data and evidence that leads to the belief the universe came into existence about 17.7 billion years ago from a singularity.
QuoteAnd besides, it was largely answered by other AF denizens long ago (Hakurei Reimu in particular tore your position a new anal cavity) and the "debate" would be long over if you possessed the capacity to realize your mistakes.
Hakurei Reimu like all the atheists on this board has a very low bar but I give credit for the valiant effort. If he (or she) was a theist you'd excoriate Hakurei Reimu for his constant flip flops, back-peddling and self contradictory statements.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 30, 2017, 11:00:34 AM
Most atheists declare their belief God doesn't exist as if its an incontrovertible fact buttressed by an overwhelming preponderance of facts and data
A few atheists do, but if you actually were listening to people here, it's not about a preponderance of facts and data against a god. It's the utter absence of such data that makes belief an empty claim and not easy for atheists to hold. An active belief that there is no god is rather rare among atheists. The ridicule is toward those who can't arrange a logical argument, but instead try to promote a god with thin admonishments, personal testimony, arguments from religious doctrine, or special knowledge of the unknowable. Their method of acquiring such knowledge just cannot hold up to scrutiny. We understand the belief. Many of us had it at one time, but learning that the acquisition of knowledge requires more than special gifts that allow seers and prophets to commune with the spirit world makes faith claims empty.
Quote from: SGOS on May 27, 2017, 10:29:28 AM
That man evolved by the guiding hand of God is apologetics. It says no such thing in the Bible. Instead, it's "Yeah evolution occurs, but God directs it." An attempt to excuse an ancient religious belief by making something new up: "What the Bible really means is bla bla bla. Before it meant that other thing, but we now know that it was referring to evolution all along. In order to really understand what the Bible says, you have to sort of read between the lines."
And more to the point, they never address that if you have to interpret the bible on any point, you can interpret it on
every point -- at which point, why bother with it in the first place? If it needs to be interpreted by humans, there's no functional difference between that and it being a completely human work in the first place.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 30, 2017, 10:51:10 AM
I think you have mistaken me for a religious person. I simply have a different philosophical belief about the existence of the universe and humans. What standard of behavior does theism call for? I assume there is no standard for atheists since I get personal attacks just about every other post.
I suppose that is because you offer only attacks yourself.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 30, 2017, 11:11:25 AM
BS. Some scientists to this day still refuse to accept the data and evidence that leads to the belief the universe came into existence about 17.7 billion years ago from a singularity.
It is OK to be skeptical, even a scientist, about things that can't be repeated under local experimental conditions (I hope).
Quote from: SGOS on May 30, 2017, 12:09:24 PM
A few atheists do, but if you actually were listening to people here, it's not about a preponderance of facts and data against a god.
It would be about the preponderance of evidence and data if there was any! That doesn't stop them from acting as if there is.
QuoteIt's the utter absence of such data that makes belief an empty claim and not easy for atheists to hold. An active belief that there is no god is rather rare among atheists
.
Sure due to the the lack of evidence naturalistic forces could or did cause there own existence, the existence of the universe and subsequently life. If what you say is true why the antagonism towards people who hold a counter belief? Its not a fact claim against a belief claim its a belief claim against a belief claim.
QuoteThe ridicule is toward those who can't arrange a logical argument, but instead try to promote a god with thin admonishments, personal testimony, arguments from religious doctrine, or special knowledge of the unknowable.
I agree with that and those arguments from personal revelation do nothing for me. I also loathe the moralizing such folks tend to do. If they subscribe to such beliefs its for them to follow not everyone else. Apart from that it may still be true we owe our existence to a Creator.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 30, 2017, 11:11:25 AM
BS. Some scientists to this day still refuse to accept the data and evidence that leads to the belief the universe came into existence about 17.7 billion years ago from a singularity.
That's because no one knows that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. It's a ball park figure. In the last 200 years, the age of the universe has been pushed back to much older dates on several occasions. I suspect it will be again as we gain more knowledge. Or maybe it will be pulled back a bit. Scientists disagree on many things, but there is always the caveat that science is tentative. This its major difference from religion which makes iron clad claims of ultimate truth, and the strange part about religion is that it does so without actual evidence.
Sure Catholics have come to accept evolution, and this is a major change, so you can say religion is a least a little like science. But changing claims of ultimate truth calls into question all claims of infallibility from that point on. Religions claim infallibility. Science doesn't do that. Science is not like religion at all. The two are incompatible philosophies.
Those claiming spirituality, rather than religion are incompatible with both science and religion. But much of that depends on what spirituality is. I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand spirituality. I haven't got a clue what people mean when they claim spirituality rather than religion. I think it must feel good to them though. And why not, you can light candles and stuff. But no one has learned to make the spirits blow out the candles, so it doesn't seem to have much practical value.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 30, 2017, 11:11:25 AM
I agree with that and those arguments from personal revelation do nothing for me. I also loathe the moralizing such folks tend to do. If they subscribe to such beliefs its for them to follow not everyone else. Apart from that it may still be true we owe our existence to a Creator.
I have no problem with you believing that, but I do wonder why you talk about it here. We believe different things, you perhaps more adamantly than I do, but I feel no need to tell people of faith about my lack of belief in a creator because I know they aren't interested, or in the worst cases, are obviously bothered by it. What's the point of having such a dialog with them in a theist forum?
If you're just interested in why atheists don't believe, you should certainly have enough information by now, and I don't see what more you could gain here. Take some time to mull it over. You don't have to agree with us anymore than we will agree with you. If you simply can't understand, that's OK too, but I don't believe it should be all that difficult.
Quote from: SGOS on May 27, 2017, 10:29:28 AM
That man evolved by the guiding hand of God is apologetics. It says no such thing in the Bible. Instead, it's "Yeah evolution occurs, but God directs it." An attempt to excuse an ancient religious belief by making something new up: "What the Bible really means is bla bla bla. Before it meant that other thing, but we now know that it was referring to evolution all along. In order to really understand what the Bible says, you have to sort of read between the lines."
Quote from: J.S. Bullion, Jr.Armies of Bible scholars and theologians have for centuries found respected employment devising artful explanations of the Bible not really meaning what it says.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 27, 2017, 12:14:20 PM
The only reason that bizarre position exists is because of the widespread view (typically promoted by creationists) that evolution falsifies Christianity.
Well, if evolution is true, then there was no Adam and Eve, and so no fall of man occurred from which man needs to be redeemed, so no redeemer is needed, so Jesus wasn't our redeemer.
Which seems to me to falsify Christianity.
Not that this is the only way to falsify it, as I'm sure we all know.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 30, 2017, 11:11:25 AM
BS. Some scientists to this day still refuse to accept the data and evidence that leads to the belief the universe came into existence about 17.7 billion years ago from a singularity.
That's because it didn't. It was 13.72 billion years ago, or there about, not 17.7 billion
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 30, 2017, 05:56:26 PM
That's because it didn't. It was 13.72 billion years ago, or there about, not 17.7 billion
I need to proof read my posts better...
QuoteI have no problem with you believing that, but I do wonder why you talk about it here. We believe different things, you perhaps more adamantly than I do, but I feel no need to tell people of faith about my lack of belief in a creator because I know they aren't interested, or in the worst cases, are obviously bothered by it. What's the point of having such a dialog with them in a theist forum?
What other point would there be to have a community of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers other than to discuss our philosophical differences? Its why the forums are set up as they are. Why does an atheist board have a Religion General Discussion forum if not to discuss religion?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 31, 2017, 12:45:41 AM
What other point would there be to have a community of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers other than to discuss our philosophical differences? Its why the forums are set up as they are. Why does an atheist board have a Religion General Discussion forum if not to discuss religion?
I can't answer that. I'm only a guest. But my question was why you are here? You seem to hate the place.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 31, 2017, 12:29:22 AM
I need to proof read my posts better...
Maybe it wasn't you. Stuff changes after you post. I don't think G-d does it, but as an IT guy, I do believe in bit-rot. Users tell me all the time "I didn't input that data". Excuse me while I go sacrifice an old PC to my IT deity, GIGO ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on May 31, 2017, 06:30:28 AM
I can't answer that. I'm only a guest. But my question was why you are here? You seem to hate the place.
I like to challenge others ideas and have my own ideas challenged. What's unique about a discussion board is it forces at least some civility. We can't shout each other down or claim we didn't say something. Its fun to match wits. Hate is a pretty strong word I don't hate this place or anyone in here. I do aggressively defend my position against withering attacks it is an adversarial board.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 31, 2017, 11:57:44 AM
I like to challenge others ideas and have my own ideas challenged. What's unique about a discussion board is it forces at least some civility. We can't shout each other down or claim we didn't say something. Its fun to match wits. Hate is a pretty strong word I don't hate this place or anyone in here. I do aggressively defend my position against withering attacks it is an adversarial board.
I agree, this isn't an adversarial board, the moderators prevent that. And nobody is really convinced enough to change sides ... that is human nature.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 31, 2017, 11:57:44 AM
I like to challenge others ideas and have my own ideas challenged. What's unique about a discussion board is it forces at least some civility. We can't shout each other down or claim we didn't say something. Its fun to match wits. Hate is a pretty strong word I don't hate this place or anyone in here. I do aggressively defend my position against withering attacks it is an adversarial board.
You are a troll.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 31, 2017, 09:17:59 PM
You are a troll.
I wonder if I call you a troll if anyone will 'like' my post?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on June 04, 2017, 03:33:50 PM
I wonder if I call you a troll if anyone will 'like' my post?
Gawdzilla Sama and I may disagree, but he does know WW II history ... and isn't a troll.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 30, 2017, 11:00:34 AM
I have seen lots of mocking and ridiculing but I still have yet to see that overwhelming preponderance of evidence or data.
You've seen it. You refuse it because it dismantles the myths your parents raised you with. You are too emotionally involved now to admit you are wrong. Your ego could not handle the years you have wasted seeking only that which furthers your beliefs and running from that which challenges mythology and superstition. You have nothing that suggests there is a "line of demarcation" which divides such silliness from your silliness other than your ego's refusal to see such. You continue to contort yourself into a pretzel trying to prove you are right when the simplest answers requires the least amount of work.
Quote from: aitm on June 04, 2017, 07:24:09 PM
You've seen it. You refuse it because it dismantles the myths your parents raised you with. You are too emotionally involved now to admit you are wrong. Your ego could not handle the years you have wasted seeking only that which furthers your beliefs and running from that which challenges mythology and superstition. You have nothing that suggests there is a "line of demarcation" which divides such silliness from your silliness other than your ego's refusal to see such. You continue to contort yourself into a pretzel trying to prove you are right when the simplest answers requires the least amount of work.
Yeah, but what could be simpler than "God did it?" Of course you still have to have some credible evidence to support that one. Or maybe from Drew's perspective, if God did it, no evidence at all is actually necessary because, you know, God did it, and that God exists is a universal truth available to anyone willing to open their heart, and that he did it is self evident because you just have to look around and see what he did.
Lazy Mind Syndrome.
Quote from: aitm on June 04, 2017, 07:24:09 PM
You've seen it. You refuse it because it dismantles the myths your parents raised you with. You are too emotionally involved now to admit you are wrong. Your ego could not handle the years you have wasted seeking only that which furthers your beliefs and running from that which challenges mythology and superstition. You have nothing that suggests there is a "line of demarcation" which divides such silliness from your silliness other than your ego's refusal to see such. You continue to contort yourself into a pretzel trying to prove you are right when the simplest answers requires the least amount of work.
This is exactly the point. Earlier I wrote...
Most atheists declare their belief God doesn't exist as if its an incontrovertible fact buttressed by an overwhelming preponderance of facts and data The first response I got from SGOS...
QuoteA few atheists do, but if you actually were listening to people here, it's not about a preponderance of facts and data against a god. It's the utter absence of such data that makes belief an empty claim and not easy for atheists to hold.
Yet you say my belief is silliness which suggests you actually know what happened and how it happened and have the evidence to prove it. Lets do a reality check...
No one knows (for sure) how this universe came about. No one knows what proceeded this universe if anything. No one knows why there is time, why we exist in 3 dimensions, why mindless naturalistic forces without any plan or intent caused the conditions to allow life or why there are laws of physics. No one even knows why or how naturalistic forces came into existence. If anyone is emotionally devoted to his ideology you are. I've never called a belief in naturalism or atheism for that matter silly. I made a case for naturalism as I did for theism. I've written about facts if they came to light would change my mind. Calling an alternative theory silly is what people do to hide the lack of evidence of their own belief.
Someone, I think it was SGOS asked why I bother to post in here. Its not really to change anyone's mind I know that next to never happens and I don't care what you believe anyway. The point of view of theists that we owe our existence to a Creator isn't a silly belief. It may be wrong...but that doesn't make it silly. What would make it silly is if you actually had an overwhelming preponderance of evidence in favor of your point of view but you don't. You just have your faith in it.
Quote from: SGOS on June 04, 2017, 07:53:51 PM
Yeah, but what could be simpler than "God did it?" Of course you still have to have some credible evidence to support that one. Or maybe from Drew's perspective, if God did it, no evidence at all is actually necessary because, you know, God did it, and that God exists is a universal truth available to anyone willing to open their heart, and that he did it is self evident because you just have to look around and see what he did.
The simpler explanation is nature did it. Nature caused it self to exist (or always existed) and eventually turned into a universe that had the right conditions to cause intelligent life. No knowledge needed, no engineering degree required just luck and happenstance. Why would anyone be skeptical of that claim? And we do know nature exists all you have to do is look around and see what nature did.
A more abstract, less time-focused argument please. It is possible to make an argument without presuming to know the early Universe, or what came before the Universe or what might exist outside the Universe (including other universes). This is familiar from mathematical proofs.
A schemata of dependence:
1. Two things are independent ... neither logically depend on each other
2. Two things are unilaterally dependent ... one depends logically on the other, but not in both directions
3. Two things are collaterally dependent ... one depends logically on the other, but in both directions
Where does the idea of Creator and created fit into this schemata? Can you justify your choice?
In what way would a computer simulation depend on the programmer? In Aristotelian teleology (the ends justify the means) .. the program necessarily calls into being, the programmer who writes it. Modern science only allows that the programmer calls the program into being. But I can also imagine that they are just a coincidence (per Descartes) or that they are dialectical (they predicate each other).
Quote from: Drew_2017 on June 10, 2017, 03:40:38 PM
The simpler explanation is nature did it. Nature caused it self to exist (or always existed) and eventually turned into a universe that had the right conditions to cause intelligent life. No knowledge needed, no engineering degree required just luck and happenstance. Why would anyone be skeptical of that claim? And we do know nature exists all you have to do is look around and see what nature did.
This one keeps playing his broken record of incredulity.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on June 10, 2017, 03:40:38 PM
The simpler explanation is nature did it. Nature caused it self to exist (or always existed) and eventually turned into a universe that had the right conditions to cause intelligent life. No knowledge needed, no engineering degree required just luck and happenstance. Why would anyone be skeptical of that claim? And we do know nature exists all you have to do is look around and see what nature did.
Actually, you are correct. Nature is the simple explanation--in fact it is the only explanation. If one could see god(s), we would all be able to point to it; but we can't because god is simply an abstract fiction. I'm glad to see that you finally figured it out.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on June 10, 2017, 03:40:38 PM
The simpler explanation is nature did it. Nature caused it self to exist (or always existed) and eventually turned into a universe that had the right conditions to cause intelligent life. No knowledge needed, no engineering degree required just luck and happenstance. Why would anyone be skeptical of that claim? And we do know nature exists all you have to do is look around and see what nature did.
If nature needs an explanation and knowledge and an engineering degree of some god to exist, then why doesn't the god that supposedly make it (which supposedly have this knowledge and engineering degree) not need an explanation, knowledge and an engineering degree of some other being to exist? This is the obvious elephant in the room for the god question. It's not even a new objection to the god hypothesis. Carl Sagan articulated this a lot more eloquently than I ever could over a quarter century ago:
The way god is proposed leaves him with exactly the same philosophical holes that it seeks to plug in the origin of the universe, does not solve any mysteries it seeks to answer, and thus unnecessary as an explanation. This is what makes him silly as a hypothesis â€" as an explanation, it
fails and
hard, and you people don't seem to realize or acknowledge the fact.
PS, I'm still waiting for a response in the Goddidit vs Naturedidit thread.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on June 09, 2017, 08:41:19 PMThe point of view of theists that we owe our existence to a Creator isn't a silly belief.
Believing some magic dude decided you're the center of the Universe isn't silly, it's just stupid.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 11, 2017, 06:02:42 AM
Believing some magic dude decided you're the center of the Universe isn't silly, it's just stupid.
Ape men do, what ape men gotta do. Got doo doo?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 11, 2017, 06:02:42 AM
Believing some magic dude decided you're the center of the Universe isn't silly, it's just stupid.
It is the epitome of arrogance, brought on by fear of the dark, spearheaded by the feelings of insecurity once ones parents die.
Quote from: SGOS on June 04, 2017, 07:53:51 PM
Yeah, but what could be simpler than "God did it?" Of course you still have to have some credible evidence to support that one. Or maybe from Drew's perspective, if God did it, no evidence at all is actually necessary because, you know, God did it, and that God exists is a universal truth available to anyone willing to open their heart, and that he did it is self evident because you just have to look around and see what he did.
The irony is the same evidence you point to and say "Naturedidit' (the universe, stars, galaxies, planets, life, intelligent life, the laws of physics) I point to and say Goddidit. Which explanation explains best is in the eyes of the beholder. We know that naturalistic forces exist, we know that matter exists and the universe exists. We know the universe was configured in a manner that allows human life to exist and caused intelligent human life to exist. We are scarcely any further along in knowing why these things exist.
What would shock you the most if it turned out we owed our existence to a Creator?
I wrote in the previous post...
No one knows (for sure) how this universe came about. No one knows what proceeded this universe if anything. No one knows why there is time, why we exist in 3 dimensions, why mindless naturalistic forces without any plan or intent caused the conditions to allow life or why there are laws of physics. No one even knows why or how naturalistic forces came into existence.I didn't hear a single person dispute this. No one said no Drew you're wrong again we know how the universe came about. No one said nope, we know why there is time. False! We know why we live in three dimensions. We know why there are laws of physics and why they allowed and caused life to exist. You don't know shit....either do I. What I don't get is how you can be so positive your claim is true. You guys are supposed to be skeptics...start with the beliefs you hold the nearest and dearest and work your way outwards. Barring anyone knowing the answer to the aforementioned questions we should be equally skeptical of either answer and certain of no answer.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on June 12, 2017, 11:49:00 PM
No one knows (for sure) how this universe came about. No one knows what proceeded this universe if anything. No one knows why there is time, why we exist in 3 dimensions, why mindless naturalistic forces without any plan or intent caused the conditions to allow life or why there are laws of physics. No one even knows why or how naturalistic forces came into existence.
I didn't hear a single person dispute this.
And I won't dispute it. But I will say--so what? Why would 'I don't know.' lead to god or a creator? The above sentence only leads to 'I don't know.' It does not lead to a creator. I have not seen a single piece of proof that would lead to a creator. I guess one could posit a creator who mindfully created all we see and experience, but chooses to remain forever invisible. So what? If that is so, then it is still up to humankind to create the societies humans want. That invisible god left no marks whatsoever, and therefore no guidance. Humans would have to guide themselves. But I have not seen any proof even for an invisible creator. There is simply no evidence whatsoever for a god/creator. There is abundant proof that nature exists, for that is what we experience every second of every day. It is evident that nature exists. There is no evidence at all that a creator exists.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 13, 2017, 12:18:59 AM
And I won't dispute it. But I will say--so what? Why would 'I don't know.' lead to god or a creator? The above sentence only leads to 'I don't know.' It does not lead to a creator. I have not seen a single piece of proof that would lead to a creator. I guess one could posit a creator who mindfully created all we see and experience, but chooses to remain forever invisible. So what? If that is so, then it is still up to humankind to create the societies humans want. That invisible god left no marks whatsoever, and therefore no guidance. Humans would have to guide themselves. But I have not seen any proof even for an invisible creator. There is simply no evidence whatsoever for a god/creator. There is abundant proof that nature exists, for that is what we experience every second of every day. It is evident that nature exists. There is no evidence at all that a creator exists.
No one is asking or inquiring if nature exists. Its the fact of its existence that leads us to ask why does it exist? Did nature cause nature to exist? Did nature always exist? Do we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that didn't care if they or we existed? The fact that the universe exists, has laws of physics that caused stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets and ultimately intelligent life are the facts (evidence) that leads many to conclude there is more than just the forces of nature and a Creator may have been necessary. You can say in your opinion the facts I cited don't convince you of a Creator and you believe naturalistic forces alone suffice but its just sloganeering to say there is no evidence of a Creator unless you actually know naturalistic forces alone suffice and you can prove it.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on June 13, 2017, 08:22:23 PM
The fact that the universe exists, has laws of physics that caused stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets and ultimately intelligent life are the facts (evidence) that leads many to conclude there is more than just the forces of nature and a Creator may have been necessary.
Why are these "many" correct in this assessment? Are any of them cosmologists â€" people who make it their life's work to study universal origins? Why do you think that the opinions of these "many" should be considered even of comparable worth to the assessments of the best minds in the field with access to the best data in the field? Why are they forwarding an idea that has failed to explain every other phenomenon it was put to task of explaining, and why they think that this old idea will work this time, with this subject matter?
I've been trying to pry answers to these questions and related ones out of you for a good two months now. However, I've never gotten anything for my trouble but the runaround and accusations of close mindedness. Apparently, I should take seriously an argument involving probabilities when the presenter doesn't even produce a single probability in support of themselves. While Lee Strobel was hopelessly wrong in his own assessment of the fine-tuning of a single universal constant, G, he at least had the guts to present a figure.
As always, what you believe is not as important as why you believe it. I have no idea why you would believe in a creator, even to the point where you think it a possibility in any way comparable to the alternative.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on June 13, 2017, 08:22:23 PM
No one is asking or inquiring if nature exists. Its the fact of its existence that leads us to ask why does it exist? Did nature cause nature to exist? Did nature always exist? Do we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that didn't care if they or we existed? The fact that the universe exists, has laws of physics that caused stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets and ultimately intelligent life are the facts (evidence) that leads many to conclude there is more than just the forces of nature and a Creator may have been necessary. You can say in your opinion the facts I cited don't convince you of a Creator and you believe naturalistic forces alone suffice but its just sloganeering to say there is no evidence of a Creator unless you actually know naturalistic forces alone suffice and you can prove it.
You're making the positive claim, that there is a "creator". Prove it.
Sometimes, I think that the cause of all modern religion (as opposed to the nature-forces fears of our far ancestors) is that "I don't understand the world, it is too complicated, I screwed up this life, I HAVE to hope for a better life after I die".
Sad as that is, many people seem to think that way. They failed this one, they want a 2nd chance. And if they win at THAT one, they are good for eternity.
Millennia past (pre-religion), when you failed, you just died a failure. Today, they want a 2nd go at the game. And their game is "if I follow the rituals and believe hard enough, I'll win".
If believing hard was the way to go, we would all be knee-deep in debris in caves.
The Millennials grew up of video games. All young gamers I met, wanted cheat codes to get additional lives, if the game itself didn't directly provide them. I don't think Millennials will be any less into magical thinking than their predecessors. Recent events on college campuses tend to confirm this.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 14, 2017, 07:12:25 AM
Sometimes, I think that the cause of all modern religion (as opposed to the nature-forces fears of our far ancestors) is that "I don't understand the world, it is too complicated, I screwed up this life, I HAVE to hope for a better life after I die".
Sad as that is, many people seem to think that way. They failed this one, they want a 2nd chance. And if they win at THAT one, they are good for eternity.
Millennia past (pre-religion), when you failed, you just died a failure. Today, they want a 2nd go at the game. And their game is "if I follow the rituals and believe hard enough, I'll win".
If believing hard was the way to go, we would all be knee-deep in debris in caves.
That's an angle I hadn't thought about -- my usual analysis is that it developed out of a need for social control as we evolved from mobile hunter-gatherers to stationary farmers. And also it's useful for a local leader to have a retainer who isn't afraid to promise a better second life to cushion the blow of this life sucking -- at least sucking for everyone who's not the leader and his favored few (almost inevitably including the religious leader, fancy that). But this does rather play into human competitiveness -- and we are a competitive species. Who wouldn't want a do-over?
Well, other than me. Even when I was a believer, the last kind of eternity I wanted was the alabaster city in the clouds forever singing hosannahs. I wanted to cruise the universe unfettered by Einstein's laws and see what all was out there.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 14, 2017, 07:12:25 AM
Sometimes, I think that the cause of all modern religion (as opposed to the nature-forces fears of our far ancestors) is that "I don't understand the world, it is too complicated, I screwed up this life, I HAVE to hope for a better life after I die".
Sad as that is, many people seem to think that way. They failed this one, they want a 2nd chance. And if they win at THAT one, they are good for eternity.
Millennia past (pre-religion), when you failed, you just died a failure. Today, they want a 2nd go at the game. And their game is "if I follow the rituals and believe hard enough, I'll win".
Yeah, I don't understand why people believe that life is about passing and failing. There is no pass or fail, their is only live and die. There's no graduation ceremony at death from which we move on to a higher plane of life. I get that the power-mongers know how to use fear and/or hope of an afterlife to continue filling their bank accounts. I just don't get the mind set that allows them to keep doing it.
Quote from: trdsf on June 14, 2017, 01:06:18 PM
I wanted to cruise the universe unfettered by Einstein's laws and see what all was out there.
I think I've found a soul-mate! I idolize Baron Munchhausen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0p9W47frhI
That's
my idea how to spend an afterlife!
I was absolutely taken with that movie, it was so ... antiquarian ;-) Did you know that Cyrano de Bergerac was the first European to write science fiction? Also it was his idea, about the king and queen of the moon (the king being played by Robin Williams in this movie). Lunacy was never so funny. Also the Baron is the only one who ever solved the problem of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" ... though in fact he did pull himself and his horse out of the mire, by pulling on his own pony tail. The full version of The Travels of Gulliver was wonderful too ... the view of reality in 1700 was so naive and quaint ... so unlike the awful last 200 years.
This version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOFn0eCFV8M
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 14, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
I think I've found a soul-mate! I idolize Baron Munchhausen:
That's my idea how to spend an afterlife!
And if I can't have that kind of afterlife, I'll take oblivion, thanks. :)
Quote from: trdsf on June 15, 2017, 10:28:50 AM
And if I can't have that kind of afterlife, I'll take oblivion, thanks. :)
But being a science demigod is OK?
So you want to be Q?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvVP740Pt3Y
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2017, 09:07:26 PM
I was absolutely taken with that movie, it was so ... antiquarian ;-) Did you know that Cyrano de Bergerac was the first European to write science fiction? Also it was his idea, about the king and queen of the moon (the king being played by Robin Williams in this movie). Lunacy was never so funny. Also the Baron is the only one who ever solved the problem of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" ... though in fact he did pull himself and his horse out of the mire, by pulling on his own pony tail. The full version of The Travels of Gulliver was wonderful too ... the view of reality in 1700 was so naive and quaint ... so unlike the awful last 200 years.
This version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOFn0eCFV8M
Yeah, I remember seeing that, I thought it was a really fun movie! Who'd've thought Ted Danson could be so good?
Quote from: trdsf on June 14, 2017, 01:06:18 PM
That's an angle I hadn't thought about -- my usual analysis is that it developed out of a need for social control as we evolved from mobile hunter-gatherers to stationary farmers. And also it's useful for a local leader to have a retainer who isn't afraid to promise a better second life to cushion the blow of this life sucking -- at least sucking for everyone who's not the leader and his favored few (almost inevitably including the religious leader, fancy that). But this does rather play into human competitiveness -- and we are a competitive species. Who wouldn't want a do-over?
Well, other than me. Even when I was a believer, the last kind of eternity I wanted was the alabaster city in the clouds forever singing hosannahs. I wanted to cruise the universe unfettered by Einstein's laws and see what all was out there.
1. Half of all humans are dumber than average. That makes them more subject to superstitions.
2. Some of the smarter half are psychologically insecure and need a Daddy-figure.
3. Another part of the smarter half commit actions they fear will send them to Hell if they don't "believe" in redemption.
4. Another part of the smarter half act religious for social reasons (think politicians and preachers).
5. The ones left are atheists.