View Full Version : Way of the Master vs. "Rational Thought", old ABC's Nightline Debate
Today I was happening upon TCT showing a kid's program named "Bible Man". It was fairly unique so I watched it all.
Then a show came on called "Way of the Master" which had an agenda for debunking evolution, and proving the Bible is correct. It has the famous child actor Kirk Cameron and a guy named Ray Comfort as hosts. It was pretty interesting about how when they questioned people on the street most of them believed in evolution, but when they started presenting questions like about how a creature could leave the sea with either lungs or gills, and still survive the transition from sea to land, that tripped all of them up. It goes to show that most evolutionists are made that way merely by accepting the brainwashing they receive in schools to be told "this is true", not because they have analyzed the idea for themselves.
After watching that, I noticed via going to their website and then youtube, that there had been a debate between this group and an atheist/evolutionist group calling themselves (very pompously) "Rational Thought". It's also pretty shady that "Kelly" from this group won't give her last name like both of the members from the other group do. This group also has a website encouraging people to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which the Bible says is the one unforgivable sin. Is this "rational"? Seems like hate-based vendetta rather than rationality to me.
I watched the whole debate on youtube. What I realized is that neither side was able to come anywhere close to proving their case. Both groups were just as faith-based and had the exact same lack of proof as each other.
The Way of the Master group waffled on the question: "If there must be an artist to make a painting, then who created God himself?"
The atheist/evolutionist group waffled on the point raised by the other group that no transitional forms exist.
The atheist/evolution group also waffled on the question: "If evolution evolved higher species to prey on lower species, what's wrong with more powerful nations preying on less powerful nations?"
On a side note relating to this, I have also watched another debate from another show where the host presented the question to an atheist/evolutionist guest: "If we are just a product of natural instinct then why would you help someone who's car is stuck at the side of the road?"
Then the atheist/evolutionist waffled on that question too. He said: "Because he needs it", which was a non-answer. Then the host replied: "I don't see why you shouldn't just eat him if you are hungry instead of helping him if everything is just based on evolution and natural laws." The atheist/evolutionist just waffled some more, unable to provide a sensible & non-evasive response to that question.
I also notice a general trend of atheists/evolutionists to think of themselves as logical and rational. But are they really?
At the end of the Nightline program debate one of the atheists/evolutionists said: "If you abandon your religion you will feel a lot better and I promise you you won't go to Hell."
That is not the least bit rational. That guy has no way whatsoever to know that anyone won't go to Hell. So why does he get a "free pass" to make illogical, irrational statements like that while (mis)representing the banner of "Rational Thought" and logic?
I found the "cancer lady" who was in the audience, given the opportunity to ask a question, and then once asked, kept interrupting the answer like a scary psychopath, to be very very disturbing. Are people with this kind of scary, psychopathic zeal typical of the atheist/evolutionist movement? She seemed to be getting a lot of audience support which would make it seem that that is the case. :no: So much for the stereotype of only hardcore religous people being scary!
I know this board has many evolutionists on it, do you think this "Rational Thought" group makes a good presentation for how evolutionists should behave?
Here is a link to the debate clips which are broken down into parts. It starts with Episode 1 Part 1, then continues on from there.
https://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=wayofthemaster2&p=r
Are debates like this one ultimately always pointless because really neither side will ever have any concrete proof?
There is a good comic on the Way of the Master site, I think lots of you who like Chick Tracts will like this one too.
http://intelligentdesignversusevolution.com/comics/CaptainZero_013007.html
Shall we start the evolution, debate again, Nav? I'd be more than happy to prove you and all other fundamental creationists wrong for about the 1000th time.
Shall we start the evolution, debate again, Nav?
I tried to give this thread a broader scope than "proving creation or evolution wrong or right."
My intention of this thread was to see the points & questions I've raised in the OP be addressed, which have a broader scope than simply which of evolution or creation is correct.
I tried to give this thread a broader scope than "proving creation or evolution wrong or right."
My intention of this thread was to see the points & questions I've raised in the OP be addressed, which have a broader scope than simply which of evolution or creation is correct.
Reasonable answer. I'll let others have a crack at this then.
OK. Problem with the Creationist: Why the Bible version?:inquisitive:
Why they just don’t observe:
Evolution in foxes, badgers feeding in your streets…
“a creature could leave the sea with either lungs or gills, and still survive the transition from sea to land, that tripped all of them up.” Crabs do it. They live in the sea. Go on the ground to reproduce, some even climb on the trees.
Not speaking of a fish with lungs, I don’t remember its name, leave in the mud. And the mammals in the sea, whales you know these big things with lungs…
no transitional forms exist: See the fish with lungs.
The problem is creationist think that human is the ultimate goal.
Nature is an anthromorphic representation (like death) of a force which has no will, no final design…
There is not justice in this world BECAUSE there is no God, Nature, Entities… The sea doesn’t WANT to kill a sailor… The sea doesn’t care if you live or died, the sea has no brain, no feeling, just energy…
“If evolution evolved higher species to prey on lower species, what's wrong with more powerful nations preying on less powerful nations?" Again, WE decide there are higher species and lower ones. We decided than the one which ea the others are the highest. I fear it is again a representation…
It is wrong for nations to pray on others because humans are not only animals. A lion has no remorse to kill the puppies of a former rival to speed a little bit his own genes. We decided it is bad for moral purpose…
“If we are just a product of natural instinct then why would you help someone who's car is stuck at the side of the road?" The question is biased: we don’t react ONLY on natural instinct. We developed intelligence…
More, it could be the same instinct to protect the weak which push buffalo to attack a lion attacking a weak member of the herd, or a lioness to attack a more powerful male lion.
Wrong question and wrong interpretation… Most of the drivers would just ignore the demoiselle in distress, under heavy rain, on a motorway…
“I don't see why you shouldn't just eat him if you are hungry instead of helping him if everything is just based on evolution and natural laws” No, there are no reasons at all, and that is why some populations just did that: lightening fire to lure boats on rocks, then kill and loot what was left… Never heard of ritual cannibalism or even some for survival?
The initial proposal is biased in pretending that we ALWAYS help. Because everything is based on evolution and natural laws, we, humans, do bad things to each others.:sweatdrop:
But, because we are thinking animals, we decided it is bad. We still do it, time to time, without fearing big flashes coming from the sky to torch us…
“But are they really?” No, not all of them, but it is a good start…
“If you abandon your religion you will feel a lot better and I promise you, you won't go to Hell." No, if you abandon your Religion you won’t feel better. You will probably feel lost… People would prefer to go to hell than to think there is no other place where they will live forever…
I am atheist, born atheist. I’ve got a lot of friends who are not –even family, now. Sometimes I envy them for their faith. But sorry, I don’t buy it. Not the 6 days then resting (why resting any way), the guy walking on the water, or the other one who get a arch-angel dictating his book. Must have gone in the desert without hat, that is it…
“I know this board has many evolutionists on it, do you think this "Rational Thought" group makes a good presentation for how evolutionists should behave?”
No, but they accepted the discussion with wrong questions.:beam:
They are not completely out of the wish/hope that something exists instead of a god…:balloon2:
Marshal Murat
09-30-2007, 00:56
We developed intelligence…
How did we develop intelligence or morals?
CountArach
09-30-2007, 02:29
Are debates like this one ultimately always pointless because really neither side will ever have any concrete proof?
Yes, because if they weren't, then they would have already been solved. :wink:
Anyway, Religion isn't my favourite topic to discuss online, so I shall give this topic a wide bearth.
“How did we develop intelligence or morals?” Intelligence: The same way we developed an opposable thumb or heaps allowing to stand-up: multiplication of cells in adaptation to resolve problems concerning survival when you are not the faster runner, the heaviest fighter, and you are not agile enough to stay on a tree.
Moral: we discuss around fire camps. “Ok guys, considering it is fun to attack, kidnap and rape the others tribes women, but considering that they do the same to us, we reach the balance. We think it is not worth the effort, and now, they got equipped with the new model of the flint arrow, so better to stop to it…What do think?”
And I do agree that the topic is still not clearly cut…
Do not confuse intelligence and moral. Intelligence is given by genetic, Moral is acquired by culture.
InsaneApache
09-30-2007, 09:08
It goes to show that most evolutionists religionistas are made that way merely by accepting the brainwashing they receive in schools to be told "this is true", not because they have analyzed the idea for themselves.
There, fixed it for you. :wink:
AntiochusIII
09-30-2007, 09:34
I refuse to debate with anyone who use the term "evolutionist." :no:
It shouldn't even be on Merriam-Webster, and guess what, it doesn't!
..Moral is acquired by culture.
I'd certainly say that is debatable. Controversial or not, sociobiology is trying to explain social behavior through evolution. Or do you have something else in mind when using the word moral?
CBR
“How did we develop intelligence or morals?” Intelligence: The same way we developed an opposable thumb or heaps allowing to stand-up: multiplication of cells in adaptation to resolve problems concerning survival when you are not the faster runner, the heaviest fighter, and you are not agile enough to stay on a tree.
Why not develop into a faster runner or better fighter?
Sounds like a much more obvious choice to me and how can intelligence develop itself? If it's some random development, then we are only intelligent according to our own definition, not in a universal sense.
Also I'm still mad that my predecessors never developed a 360° ultrasound scanning organ.:furious3:
I refuse to debate with anyone who use the term "evolutionist." :no:
It shouldn't even be on Merriam-Webster, and guess what, it doesn't!
Yes it does.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolutionist
It says right on that page,
evo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective
Websters definitely acknowledges "evolutionist" as a valid word.
Although Websters in particular it seems doesn't define that word specifically, but most/all of other credible dictionaries do. Websters in particular is not very credible ever since they started removing words from the dictionary to appease extremist leftwing lobby groups.
Geoffrey S
09-30-2007, 15:54
Representing either side of the serious debate as what the 'groundtroops' think is a fundamentally flawed way to approach the issue. This kind of program, with an agenda, actively seeks people who believe something and are unable to reason why what they believe must be true. It's the arrogance of trying to fit a complicated problem with many possible approaches and a long pedigree of distinguished theologians and scientists on both sides into a tv-show marketed to people who barely know the ins and outs of the debate, and for me doesn't raise any profound questions at all.
“Or do you have something else in mind when using the word moral?” Yes, I did. I have problem with vocabulary this morning… Let’s say the human behaviour which isn’t the instinctive part of us, the part of intellectual, reasoning bit which teach as to be more cautious, even if it goes against instinct… The learning process including the individual one, but all societies as well to live in the same space, the process where we decided rules we named moral then and we believed universal…
“Why not develop into a faster runner or better fighter?
Sounds like a much more obvious choice to me and how can intelligence develop itself? If it's some random development, then we are only intelligent according to our own definition, not in a universal sense.”
I don’t know. It is not my problem, it was like that. Again, it is not a choice or a decision, it is an evolution… I don’t know what the triggers are, I don’t why. But the ones who failed (Neanderthals) just vanished…
To try to give a sense to evolution is like to try to find a pattern in snow crystals.
The fact is we survived the fastest, the strongest, the heaviest and the killers.
Until we discover others intelligent species we can compare with, there is no possibility to define an other kind of intelligence, sorry…
Why not develop into a faster runner or better fighter?
But someone did do that. Patas monkeys are the fastest primates and gorillas are the heaviest so I guess they can be classed as the best fighters. We evolved from someone who combined smartz with opposable thumbs to rely on tools. The use of hunting tools enabled them to take in more energy(meat and fats) and without that energy a large brain would never have developed.
Also I'm still mad that my predecessors never developed a 360° ultrasound scanning organ.:furious3
Since bats and primates are considered to share a common ancestor you could indeed say some did develop it. Well ok maybe not 360° but cant have everything.
CBR
Geoffrey S
09-30-2007, 16:06
If it's some random development, then we are only intelligent according to our own definition, not in a universal sense.
Funnily enough, that's probably entirely true. Intelligence isn't a universal feature: it's simply the major advantage which allowed humans to dominate earth. Intelligence isn't something absolute, but relative to its usefulness in a particular environment; in other environments, quick reflexes or a resilient skin may be more advantageous. Not only that, but intelligence can take many forms and our views on intelligence may be limited due to our only perception being of the forms present in mankind.
(Thing is, intelligence to some degree allows man to overcome such obstacles through technology. Whether that is a universal, time will tell)
Tribesman
09-30-2007, 16:06
Eels:yes: so much for your "question" Nav .
But this made me laugh
At the end of the Nightline program debate one of the atheists/evolutionists said: "If you abandon your religion you will feel a lot better and I promise you you won't go to Hell."
That is not the least bit rational. That guy has no way whatsoever to know that anyone won't go to Hell. So why does he get a "free pass" to make illogical, irrational statements like that while (mis)representing the banner of "Rational Thought" and logic?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Prove that hell exists then come back and talk about rationality.
But this made me laugh:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Prove that hell exists then come back and talk about rationality.
Granted, I can't prove Hell exists. However, neither can the atheist/evolutionist guy prove it doesn't exist. Nor promise other people they won't be going there. He doesn't know what happens when anyone dies, including them possibly going to Hell. Therefore him "promising" everyone that they won't go to Hell is not rational - it's just wild speculation on his part. And that statement is an insult to the dignity of the words in his lobby group's name.
Nobody can proof he or she or anything exists because we are only there in the eyes of others. You try proving you exist, you can't.
Well Fragony, you forgot we can hear you, feel you and smell you but ultimately you're right and we are dependant on our senses, which, as can be proven, can be tricked or are not that accurate at all times. They can't even sense everything that exists, like ultrasound, radar waves etc.
That's why I believe that all of you only exist in my imagination. ~D
Marshal Murat
09-30-2007, 18:07
Wait, Frag, isn't this one of those
'I think therefore I am' deals?
As C.S. Lewis states in 'Mere Christianity'
I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different mortality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle...But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later...but if you try breaking one (promise) on him he will complain 'it's not fair'...if we do not believe in decent behavior, why should be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently?
The next chapter, which I will paraphrase and quote goes something like this.
'Supposing you you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires - one a desire to give help (due to herd instinct) and the other to not help (self-preservation). Now, what makes you decide between the two? That third impulse that forces you to at least attempt to help the man in danger. How do we measure this impulse, and what makes one morality better than another? Why are Christian morals more acceptable than Nazi morality? Because there is a standard that promotes morality and goodness, that allows you to tell the difference between the two.
[author rant]
So, if morals are a 'balancing issue' then why are there morals that spread over every human and situation, even in the modern environment? Where do morals come from, and why are they all the same? We have the same intelligence, but why is it only our intelligence that provided us with the shutzpa to take fire, instead of running away? Centuries of animal intelligence proves that fire is a dangerous element, and any intelligent person would run away from fire, rather than approach it and pick it up. Apes and horses run from fire, but they also have 'herd instincts', and they often try to save a struggling brethren in the river or in danger, rather than let it drown.
Now, that isn't self-preservation, since they risk their lives, and you could try to peg it to herd instinct, but what is the use of a drowning foal? It is a burden, and it's obviously weak, so why save it? Because of some other impulse inside us that says "We should try to help them." Where does that third impulse originate? It often advises moving to action, and an action that is often more dangerous than the self-preservation impulse. So why do we do it? It could potentially kill more than preserve, and dangerous to the herd, so why do we indulge in it? Because of an internal compass that says 'help' rather than 'forget', and this internal compass can be seen from Thailand to Toledo. While you may try to dissuade yourself from agreeing, it doesn't change the basic fact that in movies we applaud the 'heroic man' who saves the town from danger, especially if he is threatened, than the 'dastardly villain' who seeks to destroy the hero and town. We obviously have a meter to compare the two by, and the villain is always at the bottom.
He is a human just as much as 'heroic man', but his actions are deplorable, no matter what culture. So why do we always go for the heroic man, rather than the villain, even if the town may be beyond help or in imminent danger. We should be applauding the man who passes the town by, who preserves himself and lets the weak die. But we don't.
This internal impulse clearly results in actions that might save the many, despite the instinct of self-preservation, and I ask you, can this internal impulse be the result of evolution, a dangerous evolution? One that could just as easily destroy the race, rather than preserve it? I say it's the hand of a Creator.
Stag hunt dillema, same guy ~;)
editno it isn't, well at least I have heard about it
The Celtic Viking
09-30-2007, 19:59
Where do morals come from, and why are they all the same?
That's where you make your mistake. If we all had the same morals, why are things like abortion being so disputed, or in fact disputed at all? Why are some saying that it's fine, while others claim it's murder? There at least has been cannibals in the world. What is your moral standpoint on that, and what do you think their's was (or is, if it still exist)? There are slaves still today. Do you think it's morally right to own slaves? Do you think the slaveowners don't think so?
Can you see now? All morals are absolutely not the same. There are those who thinks that if someone calls for help, it's their problem. You can walk away, ignoring them, watching them die, and still think you acted morally correct.
As a sidenote, when I was a kid and I watched Aladdin, I actually rooted for Jafar. Doesn't go well with your "fact", does it?
Marshal Murat
09-30-2007, 20:31
Maybe I need to re-phrase.
If we all had the same morals, why are things like abortion being so disputed, or in fact disputed at all?
There are some morals and standards that encompass the entire human spectrum. For example, running away from battle. There is no culture in this world or the next that holds cowardice as a virtue. Not a one. There are pacifists, there are war-mongers, but no cowardists. There is a 'standard' that we all hold. If you read
Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later...but if you try breaking one (promise) on him he will complain 'it's not fair'...if we do not believe in decent behavior, why should be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently?
Those who break promises still expect promises to be kept, despite having broken a promise. Universal moral. They compare their actions to some standard of human morality that is universal and all-encompassing. Society 'mors' and expectations are different than morals, as I define it.
Also,
As a sidenote, when I was a kid and I watched Aladdin, I actually rooted for Jafar. Doesn't go well with your "fact", does it?
Quite an opinion, that you could have stated just to deny my statement. Can you prove this, or are we only to rely on your statement at hand?
“I say it's the hand of a Creator.” Why? Because a human decide to do what WE define as human?
“can this internal impulse be the result of evolution, a dangerous evolution?” Nothing in what you describe is not human; the construction of a code of conduct so deeply in us than it defies instinct… Well, basically what a good training does to a good soldier like running under machine gun fire, rescuing injured comrades etc…
Give hardship to a bunch men, make them tired to death, suffering incredible pain, pushing them far away from what they believed was possible, give them a Green, Red, Blue berets, a metallic insigne, give them pride and arrogance, and you’ve get what you just describe. No need of a god, a good sergeant-major will do… So it is cultural, learned…
It is in fact in the Army you can see how evolution works. The NCO don’t hate the recruits but some recruits will failed because bad luck, accident, not fit enough, no adaptation skills…
I see nothing more human than this feeling which will lead 300 Spartans to fight to death, or the Imperial French Guards refusing to surrender in Waterloo, firemen climbing the stairs to rescue people trapped by the fire in New York, the step by step heroism…
Marshal Murat
09-30-2007, 22:46
Nothing in what you describe is not human; the construction of a code of conduct so deeply in us than it defies instinct
I'm glad that monkeys have NCOs to scream at them, driving them down from the canopy to the forest to retrieve their fallen comrades.
More importantly, how did that code of conduct get there? Was it another evolutionary trait that appeared when we decided that centuries of animal experience sent us towards flame, instead of away from it?
Otherwise I support evolution in a Deist way. I guess.
See next poster.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-30-2007, 23:19
I think it's important to realise that Atheism is a state of belief just like theism.
I believe in God, these days you'd call me a Pauline/Nicene Christian but at the same time evolution makes a lot of sense and we have certainly seen transitional fossils, like the one with the nostrils through the gums or something.
Nav makes a good point in that the atheists are making exactly the same claims here as the theists. This isn't even a debate outside America and both groups are equally culpable for the general sillyness.
Evolution is not a make or break issue in religion or faith. That the atheists can't understand that you can believe both is frankly the sillier notion because they aren't supposed to be tied to a dogmatic viewpoint.
I think it's important to realise that Atheism is a state of belief just like theism.
I believe in God, these days you'd call me a Pauline/Nicene Christian but at the same time evolution makes a lot of sense and we have certainly seen transitional fossils, like the one with the nostrils through the gums or something.
Nav makes a good point in that the atheists are making exactly the same claims here as the theists. This isn't even a debate outside America and both groups are equally culpable for the general sillyness.
Evolution is not a make or break issue in religion or faith. That the atheists can't understand that you can believe both is frankly the sillier notion because they aren't supposed to be tied to a dogmatic viewpoint.
You think that only Atheists think that you can't believe in both?
I'm happy to accept the posibility of the whole of existence being started by a higher being of some sort. Since there is no real evidence, then why not however primitive it sounds? Our ancestors explained that which they could not understand or control through tales of gods and spirits. It'll do for me as well.
However, I don't quite get why I should give a damn about this creator spirit or why I should follow the word of religious texts. If I must believe in the works of man then I'll believe in science, thanks.
However, I don't quite get why I should give a damn about this creator spirit or why I should follow the word of religious texts. If I must believe in the works of man then I'll believe in science, thanks.
One reason might be because science is inadequate to even try to explain everything. Like is shown in the debate linked to in the OP. Not that the atheist/evolutionists in that debate were particularly competent. But the same problems occur in more competent atheist/evolutionists also, because a decent answer simply doesn't exist.
Once ya go far back enough, then both science and religion have to resort to something "just being there".
That something "just being there" randomly, and then randomly creating an ordered universe from chaos doesn't make any logical sense.
That something being an intelligent creator spirit makes far more logical sense.
That something being an intelligent creator spirit makes far more logical sense.
How so? Who created the creator spirit?
“I'm glad that monkeys have NCOs to scream at them, driving them down from the canopy to the forest to retrieve their fallen comrades.” They don’t and that is why they still living in the canopy.
Joke apart this kind of reaction is typical of creationists… Refusing the sense for the form…:laugh4:
“More importantly, how did that code of conduct get there? Was it another evolutionary trait that appeared when we decided that centuries of animal experience sent us towards flame, instead of away from it?”
Yes it an evolutionary trait. Due to our physical weakness, the Homo erectus, then sapiens evolution compensated the survival skills named intelligence. This skill allowed our specie to acknowledge faster experience and to react to it. So, all code of conduct came of this ability… No God of the Adjutants came from the Sky stating “You Shall Make Hell to the Recruits by Mud, Work and Tension”. WE discovered all by our own…:yes:
The problem is most anti evolutionists / Darwinist at like the human specie had a clear view that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the goal to reach… Err, sorry guys, but no. Our specie succeeded where others failed (the best known being the Neanderthals) buy shear luck and opportunism…
There is no reason except survival… WE did it, perhaps not in better way it could have been done, but we did it…
So the chimps, the dolphins, and others species which are great and dominant in their environments…
“That the atheists can't understand that you can believe both is frankly the sillier notion because they aren't supposed to be tied to a dogmatic viewpoint.” :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Nice try, the atheist are the ones in the dark…:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
InsaneApache
10-01-2007, 10:34
That something being an intelligent creator spirit makes far more logical sense.
There is no room for logic in religion. In fact it could be said that 'belief' in a supernatural being is illogical.
Pseudo-scientific comments such as this are risible.
ICantSpellDawg
10-01-2007, 15:15
I agree with Navaros here. Most people believe in evolution for the same reason that people used to believe in religion; because other people, who are viewed as intellectually superior to them, told them it is true.
I won't attempt to rebuff evolution. I see certain animals that look like transitions between other animals all the time. I don't believe it though because I have never seen it and, as far as i know, it is still called a theory. If it was so true that it could be considered a law, wouldn't they call it a law?
Anyway, isn't it funny that Religion serves to mock all that we moderns consider to be true because of our inability to prove our own beliefs? also, our inability to disprove ones that are believed to be irrational?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-01-2007, 15:42
You think that only Atheists think that you can't believe in both?
I'm happy to accept the posibility of the whole of existence being started by a higher being of some sort. Since there is no real evidence, then why not however primitive it sounds? Our ancestors explained that which they could not understand or control through tales of gods and spirits. It'll do for me as well.
However, I don't quite get why I should give a damn about this creator spirit or why I should follow the word of religious texts. If I must believe in the works of man then I'll believe in science, thanks.
I said the Atheists were worse because they simply think the religious people a stupid/misguided.
To answer you other points all I can say is that faith has to come before religion, otherwise the latter won't make sense.
My conclusion has been for the longest time that there may indeed be something else out there... but I don't care. The only real type of faith I can respect is people who outwardly admit that there is absolutely no way they can prove/demonstrate what they believe in, that it is in effect blind faith. The other big problem I have is with people who claim that religion and science can coexist peacefully. My response to that is always "Perhaps, when religion stops trying to explain/override scientific territory."
Also, re: morals and intelligence. Both are direct products of our evolution. Intelligence came naturally with our developing brains, and morality seems to be abstracted, advanced views on our residual instinctual behaviors.
:balloon2:
Edit - I also find these evangelical types who love to question years of research as if they remotely had a clue what they were talking about both sad and hilarious. If they were anthropologists, geologists, etc who did it, that might be different. It's like the Mythbusters (who are funny and talented, but not 'experts') hauling off and telling NASA that they're full of crap.
Banquo's Ghost
10-01-2007, 18:54
Edit - I also find these evangelical types who love to question years of research as if they remotely had a clue what they were talking about both sad and hilarious. If they were anthropologists, geologists, etc who did it, that might be different. It's like the Mythbusters (who are funny and talented, but not 'experts') hauling off and telling NASA that they're full of crap.
I'm more amused by the tendency to single out biology (with a few sideswipes at geology) as the Science What is Wrong TM.
Rarely have I seen a fundamentalist question the physics that provides him with the internet to argue about how evolution is bunk. 'Cause the Bible doesn't mention any internets, so they must be fake, surely? :stupido2:
Ironside
10-01-2007, 19:31
I won't attempt to rebuff evolution. I see certain animals that look like transitions between other animals all the time. I don't believe it though because I have never seen it and, as far as i know, it is still called a theory. If it was so true that it could be considered a law, wouldn't they call it a law?
Evolution is rather more of a concept rather than a finely defined law, it's even unlikely that you'll get the same results with the same setup, as the variables are too many and too hard to control to make it fully repeatable.
The weather is fully possibly to predict to 100% for example (aka what the weather will be at your house 12,34 the ninth january 2016), all you need is exact calculations on all the air in the world... And then you opened the window at the wrong time, screwing up the model from 2009 and forward. :furious3:
Guys guys guys… I am atheist. I don’t BELIEVE in evolution. It is a theory which answered better some question. I don’t BELIEVE in combustion, explosions and thunder and lightening. Atheism is not a faith, an ersatz of god. Real atheists just accept to say “I don’t know”. The world is.:inquisitive:
The pseudo-debates proposed by Navaros, all these “if you have code of conduct, morale, etc, it can’t without a God” are just playing in the religious movements grounds…:yes:
Sure science has its limits, but what about religions? How many time did the Apocalypse was predicted? How many time did Noah’s Arch was finally discovered? :beam:
AntiochusIII
10-01-2007, 22:38
Brenus: Give it up. You can't win this one, you know it. :coffeenews:
This thread is following the clichés on a step-by-step basis. Atheism is a religion, check. People believe in science, check. You can't prove evolution, check. God is more logical, check. What else is new to say?
I'm more amused by the tendency to single out biology (with a few sideswipes at geology) as the Science What is Wrong TM.
Rarely have I seen a fundamentalist question the physics that provides him with the internet to argue about how evolution is bunk. 'Cause the Bible doesn't mention any internets, so they must be fake, surely? :stupido2:
That's actually a really good point BG, my best guess would be that very few (if any) of these religious types can remotely keep up with minds like Hawking, Smoot, and Thorne, thus they're giving up on the whole physics arena. Life and biology are indeed very complex, and one could argue that the concept of life is central to their anti-evolution, anti-anti-bible dogma, so there may be more avenues for them to ignorantly pursue.
I'm going to take Navaros' word for it on the movie, but simply going out and questioning random people on the street about evolution or creation does nothing for their case. The average Jane and Joe are not going to know much at all, much less care. The fact that they aren't well informed on this means absolutely nothing. Just because I can't begin to tell you the math behind string theory doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't true.
That's actually a really good point BG, my best guess would be that very few (if any) of these religious types can remotely keep up with minds like Hawking, Smoot, and Thorne, thus they're giving up on the whole physics arena.
Well, that's very interesting but how many atheists can keep up with those guys? Well ,they probably don't need to since Hawking, Smoot and Thorne do all the thinking for them. ~;)
Well ,once one of them can explain to me how an observer affects the double slit experiment when using quantums, maybe I'll give them more credit.
Until then I'll have to file this under not explained by science and not explained in the bible either.:sweatdrop:
If it was so true that it could be considered a law, wouldn't they call it a law?
No they wouldn't. You have to understand the difference on how law and theory is used in science. A theory is "better" than a law since it explains why and when a specific law is true and false.
http://ola4.aacc.edu/jsfreeman/TheoryandLaw.htm
CBR
Soulforged
10-02-2007, 02:40
Brenus: Give it up. You can't win this one, you know it. :coffeenews:
This thread is following the clichés on a step-by-step basis. Atheism is a religion, check. People believe in science, check. You can't prove evolution, check. God is more logical, check. What else is new to say?
But people do believe in science mate. And that's when Brenus also makes a mistake, there cannot be any knowledge without belief, you require that plus the proof. If not, then you really don't know anything, there's no way that you can relate your person to objective knowledge without a subjective element that comes from you and approaches that knowledge...
That said I've my own theory of how life on the Earth came to be, if you wise people of the Backroom don't mind I think I'll make a thunderous revelation here. For me it was like this: It was under the sea, at first for food and later for other purposes, that they (the Old Ones) first created earth life - using available substances according to long-known methods. The more elaborate experiments came after the annihilation of various cosmic enemies. They had done the same thing on other planets, having manufactured not only necessary foods, but certain multicellular protoplasmic masses capable of molding their tissues into all sorts of temporary organs under hypnotic influence and thereby forming ideal slaves to perform the heavy work of the community. These viscous masses were without doubt what Abdul Alhazred whispered about as the "Shoggoths" in his frightful Necronomicon, though even that mad Arab had not hinted that any existed on earth except in the dreams of those who had chewed a certain alkaloidal herb. When the star-headed Old Ones on this planet had synthesized their simple food forms and bred a good supply of Shoggoths, they allowed other cell groups to develop into other forms of animal and vegetable life for sundry purposes, extirpating any whose presence became troublesome.
This is supposed to counter the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with harder evidence than that one. The evidence is here:"...".
EDIT: Spelling.
I'm going to take Navaros' word for it on the movie, but simply going out and questioning random people on the street about evolution or creation does nothing for their case. The average Jane and Joe are not going to know much at all, much less care. The fact that they aren't well informed on this means absolutely nothing. Just because I can't begin to tell you the math behind string theory doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't true.
It does prove something. It proves that they believe in evolution simply because they were told to by school teachers. That was my point.
Brenus: Give it up. You can't win this one, you know it. :coffeenews:
This thread is following the clichés on a step-by-step basis. Atheism is a religion, check. People believe in science, check. You can't prove evolution, check. God is more logical, check. What else is new to say?
This was also a point in my OP in this thread. No one can ever legitimately win this debate because there isn't enough proof either way to win.
The second paragraph quoted above seems to carry some sort of implication that all of those "cliches" are incorrect. Yet no proof is provided for what makes them incorrect. Maybe that's because they are in fact correct and therefore no proof is available? If they are not then it would be good to provide proof for why they are incorrect. By "proof"; I mean proof that proves it irrefutably, and not requiring any sort of faith whatsoever in order to justify any aspect of the proof.
Starting by proving the statement "God does not exist" to be true would be great. :2thumbsup:
“Brenus: Give it up. You can't win this one, you know it”. Yes I do.
However, the values transmitted to me by family and tradition, against all natural instinct and self-preservation, tell me to never give-up… All reasonable people in 1940 said to give-up to Nazi, my grand-parents said to F…orget it…
People who bELIEVE in sciences are not atheist. They just swap a deity for something else.
Again I don’t believe in sciences. I just have to see it works most of the time. It is quite good models which answer most of the questions… A stone always go down the hill, if no energy added to reverse the effect of gravity. No intervention of a god, nothing, pure physical evidence. Yes, some will tell that god crated gravity. Fine for me if they need a God, I have no problem. They want to believe against observation (they can conduct themselves in going to a seaside) that Earth is round: well they will die ignorant…
Of course the tread is following clichés: but Navaros didn’t deny it, it was the rules of engagement
InsaneApache
10-02-2007, 09:46
My belief is that Nav is Dawkins on a wind up mission. :idea2: :laugh4:
One reason might be because science is inadequate to even try to explain everything. Like is shown in the debate linked to in the OP. Not that the atheist/evolutionists in that debate were particularly competent. But the same problems occur in more competent atheist/evolutionists also, because a decent answer simply doesn't exist.
Once ya go far back enough, then both science and religion have to resort to something "just being there".
That something "just being there" randomly, and then randomly creating an ordered universe from chaos doesn't make any logical sense.
That something being an intelligent creator spirit makes far more logical sense.
Err, you didn't actually answer the question. Why should the possible existence of a creator mean that I should worship it or that I should believe in a religion based around it but created by man? Plus since when have any creation myths made logical sense?
Edit:
Philipus, you should go back and read what you wrote. You took a mindset which is present on both sides of the "debate" and applied it to just the side you disagree with. Twice.
In an answer to the question "why believe in a creator figure?" the concepts of faith and religion are essentially the same. Your faith is formed, even defined, by your religion. Since we have no actual proof of a creator figure beyond religious constructs it figures that your faith is based on those constructs (or, usually, one of those constructs).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.