Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
There is no confusion whilst disscussing creation and or big bang/evolution in my mind. There is one without the other or the melding of both.

There is science of creation. The words and phrases are used all the time. “The universe was [created] by the big bang”

Creation: The act of producing or causing to exist

There are many contexts of creation as a definition, but the one context I was using refered to the above definition. I didnt think I confused that but forgive me for not explaining it better.[/quote]

You are still talking about different things between scientific and religious creation. in science you are talking about the physical cause. the big bang caused space-time-energy. it isn’t talking about initial existence. [/quote]

Its not meant to. Its simple maniplation of english contextual language. Creation used in that form is simply meant as a different word to describe the comings about of the big bang/evolution. You could throw in conception, orgination or begining if it makes you feel more at ease.[/quote]

If you accept that the 2 sides are discussing different things, then why merge them in a science class?

282

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Science=in science classes
Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy=in Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy classes

Creationism has been scientifically disproven. (fossil records don’t indicate a great flood, dating techniques don’t suggest a world that is only a few thousand years old, etc)

Evolution has the possibility of being disproven (give me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian era and the theory is dead), but it has not.

[/quote]

I think it would be fun if Push chimed in here on this one. He certainly has some opinions on this matter.[/quote]

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/anyone_interested_in_a_serious_religious_debate?id=3801324&pageNo=15

Already done for you. Just look down to my post on the page and you’ll see the start of it.[/quote]

I remember a prior debate, but didn’t recall you were involved.

283

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Science=in science classes
Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy=in Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy classes

Creationism has been scientifically disproven. (fossil records don’t indicate a great flood, dating techniques don’t suggest a world that is only a few thousand years old, etc)

Evolution has the possibility of being disproven (give me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian era and the theory is dead), but it has not.

[/quote]

Fossil records indicate many big floods and many mass extinctions of many varieties. Creationism wasn’t meant to be a matter of historical and archeological fact. It’s not a history book. [/quote]

Tell that to the young earth creationists
[/quote]

The existence of any scientifically constructed theory doesn’t reflect in any way on creationism at any point. It is no more scientifically invalid to believe god created the big band and set the events in motion that lead to the present day, or to believe god created the present day. Both are equally scientifically invalid.

284

Because the point of existence is largely debated and frequently thoughts on creationism is conversely related to and logically “debunked” by scientists. Because of the ongoing debate of analytical minds on the subject, it begs a mention. Much more than when the rubber meets the road between the two on a lesser level.

When the two meet up on another scientific disscussion, it will always go back to which one was right as a reason for “creation” or existence if you will in the first place.

It would be erroneous in nature to discuss chapter 15 of a story without CONSIDERING chapter one. Thats why at least in my mind other discussions between the two are less important. It always would go back to origin.

Besides, I think you guys are getting me wrong here. I’m not saying creationism should be examined and taught/preached in science classes. BUT, it should be refuted and factually displayed as another way of thinking. If students want to research or get involved in theology classes to establish teaching thats on their own accord.

285

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Because the point of existence is largely debated and frequently thoughts on creationism is conversely related to and logically “debunked” by scientists. Because of the ongoing debate of analytical minds on the subject, it begs a mention. Much more than when the rubber meets the road between the two on a lesser level.

When the two meet up on another scientific disscussion, it will always go back to which one was right as a reason for “creation” or existence if you will in the first place.

It would be erroneous in nature to discuss chapter 15 of a story without CONSIDERING chapter one. Thats why at least in my mind other discussions between the two are less important. It always would go back to origin.

Besides, I think you guys are getting me wrong here. I’m not saying creationism should be examined and taught/preached in science classes. BUT, it should be refuted and factually displayed as another way of thinking. If students want to research or get involved in theology classes to establish teaching thats on their own accord.[/quote]

Okay I think I agree to an extent. I am okay with teaching that science doesn’t refute creation ideology in the context of the big bang/evolution. Essentially, that science doesn’t have anything to say about initial origin or cause.

286

^

I think that just goes along with properly teaching what science is and isn’t.

287

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

I think that just goes along with properly teaching what science is and isn’t.[/quote]

Exactly.

288

^ Which is why not giving creationism the PROPER nod in a science class is ridonkulous :slight_smile:

289

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
^ Which is why not giving creationism the PROPER nod in a science class is ridonkulous :)[/quote]

It’s really more about setting the true boundaries of science than about creationism.

290

Hey DD, I thought this would be interesting, what is science to you? (Or what definition of science do you adhere to?)

291

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
^ Which is why not giving creationism the PROPER nod in a science class is ridonkulous :)[/quote]

It’s really more about setting the true boundaries of science than about creationism. [/quote]

I mean call it what you want it but it’s not only that. You have to realize although you don’t have to teach creationism, you are presenting concepts to many individuals who might find it offensive. Many people bow out of science class and get lower grades because they refuse to be present when big bang and evolution are presented as scientific conception.

Refuting creationsim by scientific design gives children the facts that yes, a debate is open on this subject but science disproves it/doesn’t try to explain aspects of orgin…etc. You don’t have to teach creationism but you should present refutation of it from scientific findings.

To me, IMO presenting that simple FACT that people choose not to explain existence by science and these are the boundaries of science, you keep the subject on a neutral level and kids in their seats. And I mean creationism as a whole, not just Christianity.

292

^

That reminds me. I once had a biology teacher who stopped giving out suggestion sheets (not the required evaluation sheets) at the end of the quarter because he had too many people telling him he was going to hell for ‘believing in evolution’.

293

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
My favorite is when O’Reilly said that he beat Dawkins in a debate because science can’t explain what came before the Big Band (which is now some “crazy theory”) but he could explain by invoking God, therefore, he wins because he has an explanation. [/quote]

LOL, that was my favorite part too! The first I saw that video and saw that part, I was like “wait what??”.[/quote]

So which is the more reasonable explanation of existence: a creator, or a blank look?

Creation being the ONLY explanation for something does give it more weight.[/quote]

That’s a false dichotomy. The argument against atheism is that the two possible explanations are “a creator did it” vs. “something came from nothing.” That’s not correct. The two explanations are “we don’t know for sure” vs. “a creator did it.” People like to know, and they have trouble saying “I don’t know.” That is part of the appeal of religion - it provides an explanation for virtually everything and allows people to think that they know. I also don’t like not knowing. I would be more comfortable knowing. But I accept the fact that I don’t know and just deal with it.

294

Well if your teacher got fed up with that, he either is very short tempered or doesn’t have a very strong will in what he’s believing. If I was a Theology professor and I got the opposite at the end of every year from various students on how “Creationism is bonkers” it’d just make me laugh.

295

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Hey DD, I thought this would be interesting, what is science to you? (Or what definition of science do you adhere to?)[/quote]

Science is the pursuit of ways to predict natural occurrence. Essentially I think of it as map making for the universe.

It is not, as people incorrectly believe, a pursuit of why things are as they are.

You have to remember, that a map by definition is not a substitute for the thing it maps.

There is a pretty cool Neil Gamin story about an emperor obsessed with map making. He starts out trying to make the perfect paper map then escalates to progressively larger models, with each individual person and hut accounted for, until ultimately, while bankrupting the country, he orders an exact 1 to 1 scale replica of his kingdom built with an actual person and an actual animal to represent every person an animal. (In the end his advisor kills him to save the kingdom).

Sometimes I think, even really smart people start down the same path as this emperor. A map can be useful, but it cannot be perfected. The only perfect map is reality. I think scientific pursuit of the perfect map of the universe is ultimately futile and can be wasteful and ignorant.

There isnâ??t a perfect equation for the motion of a specific ball and a specific distance drop. According to quantum theory initial conditions are never exactly knowable anyway. Itâ??s a map. It can help you get to a desired destination. Itâ??s useful to help build a stronger building. That is all.

296

I don’t believe in a “God”. I don’t believe anyone has talked to him/her or is his/her son. I do believe in an Energy that started all of the universe and made the physical laws that govern everything. All life and the different forms are just how things ended up. Furthermore I believe in life outside of our galaxy. It’s preposterous to think we’re the only intelligent life. There are parts of the universe millions of years older than ours.

I only believe in the golden rule to keep humanity, well human. Animals don’t have rules and they kill each other without blinking an eye. It’s survival of the fittest, we just have mercy and a conscious. Well, some of us do.

297

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
My favorite is when O’Reilly said that he beat Dawkins in a debate because science can’t explain what came before the Big Band (which is now some “crazy theory”) but he could explain by invoking God, therefore, he wins because he has an explanation. [/quote]

LOL, that was my favorite part too! The first I saw that video and saw that part, I was like “wait what??”.[/quote]

So which is the more reasonable explanation of existence: a creator, or a blank look?

Creation being the ONLY explanation for something does give it more weight.[/quote]

That’s a false dichotomy. The argument against atheism is that the two possible explanations are “a creator did it” vs. “something came from nothing.” That’s not correct. The two explanations are “we don’t know for sure” vs. “a creator did it.” People like to know, and they have trouble saying “I don’t know.” That is part of the appeal of religion - it provides an explanation for virtually everything and allows people to think that they know. I also don’t like not knowing. I would be more comfortable knowing. But I accept the fact that I don’t know and just deal with it.
[/quote]

I don’t agree. Science is about accepting the most logic assumptions and working from there. I accept the big bang theory, but that doesn’t mean that a discovery couldn’t change that view tomorrow. It’s the most reasonable explanation. So is evolution. BUT we don’t know either of those things for sure (especially the big bang). BUT I still currently believe them because they are the most reasonable explanations to date. Heck the fundamental axioms of science aren’t known for sure, it’s why they are axioms.

“we don’t know for sure” is a non-answer, it isn’t an opposing view.

NOW, in terms of reasonable. Causation for the universe is reasonable (the most reasonable in my view) and not only is religion the most reasonable answer to causation, it’s the only one. So, I accept it as such. Doesn’t mean that I claim to know anything absolutely.

“we don’t know for sure” is an intellectually lazy cop out instead of an answer. And one you don’t seem to apply evenly to other fields on inquiry.

298

I’m surprised no one’s made mention of the scientific method and that ideas have to disprovable through experiments to be called science.

299

It’s well known that Martian’s all carb cycle and follow a strict paleo diet. This proves it’s the best way to go :wink:

300

Ha! Well the aliens on Uranus eat alota shit so I guess your’re right! lol