Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
861

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The whole “you can’t prove anything” argument is a tired and cowardly copout, a rehashing of ideas that neither useful nor terribly interesting even in the 17th century. One may never be actually sure of anything in a philosophical sense, but you and I both operate under the assumption that we perceive with reasonable accuracy, that we are not mad, and that the basic physical workings of the world will be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.[/quote]

Isn’t this the point of the ‘cowardly copout?’ That we ultimately have to resign ourselves to an ‘assumption.’ I mean, if someone says in a thread that acting on faith is always stupid, then how is it a cowardly copout to point out what you actually ended up saying yourself? That we have to operate on faith that our senses accurately reflect a universe? If you you can begrudgingly say as much, why can’t others simply say it? Why attack people over something you concede (even if angrily)?
[/quote]

Don’t mean to sound angry, and I see that my words come off as such. Apologies.

I agree with you on your general premise–all human activity, all thought requires some degree of faith.

But not all leaps of faith are equal. And the leap of faith that I must make in order to believe that the world around me is real is a far cry from the one a literalist or a Mormon has to take in order to swallow their hefty pills.

I don’t begrudge anyone their personal beliefs, but not all beliefs stand on equally solid ground.

862

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The whole “you can’t prove anything” argument is a tired and cowardly copout, a rehashing of ideas that neither useful nor terribly interesting even in the 17th century. One may never be actually sure of anything in a philosophical sense, but you and I both operate under the assumption that we perceive with reasonable accuracy, that we are not mad, and that the basic physical workings of the world will be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.[/quote]

Isn’t this the point of the ‘cowardly copout?’ That we ultimately have to resign ourselves to an ‘assumption.’ I mean, if someone says in a thread that acting on faith is always stupid, then how is it a cowardly copout to point out what you actually ended up saying yourself? That we have to operate on faith that our senses accurately reflect a universe? If you you can begrudgingly say as much, why can’t others simply say it? Why attack people over something you concede (even if angrily)?
[/quote]

Don’t mean to sound angry, and I see that my words come off as such. Apologies.

I agree with you on your general premise–all human activity, all thought requires some degree of faith.

But not all leaps of faith are equal. And the leap of faith that I must make in order to believe that the world around me is real is a far cry from the one a literalist or a Mormon has to take in order to swallow their hefty pills.

I don’t begrudge anyone their personal beliefs, but not all beliefs stand on equally solid ground.[/quote]

Heh, no hard feelings. Like I said, it’s not my favorite debate. And while the people of this forum may not be able to believe this, I’m not always as soft-spoken as I could be here in PWI. I know, right? Hard to believe!

To me though, when one of the participants seems to be aiming to discount any form of faith as stupid, this line of argument is just going to come up. It’s impossible to avoid. Even a natural response, really. But yeah, again, I get bored with it too.

863

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

But, in any event, let’s have some fun - do you believe that murder is universally wrong? Yes, or no?[/quote]

Nope.

When the US government murdered Bin Laden I didn’t consider it wrong.

In future arguments I suggest you use rape.

864

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

…Atheist websites are not biased…

[/quote]
[/quote]

LOL!!! LOL! LOL! That is what sheeple looks like in real life. “Hey these people with an agnda don’t have an agenda!” WOW!

I have seen many of these sites. The bias is almost embarrassingly bad.

Feel free to bring up any point from any atheist website, and I will gleefully destroy it with one arm tied behind my back[/quote]

Ok I suppose it’s impossible that there are NO unbiased atheists but my point is that the bias within the religious circles is about 10 thousand times worse. And Atheists are generally unbiased. If you think just because they push their agenda that that is bias then you’re wrong because their agenda would have to be biased for them to be biased. Or maybe you don’t know what biased means…

[/quote]

Hahahahaha, this is classic. “I’m not biased, I wear a white coat!!! Anyway, you’re wayyyy more biased than I am, here’s the stats to prove it.”

I’m guessing that this guy is a creationist trying to make atheist’s look stupid.

865

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]

Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]

Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]

All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]

Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]

I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?

I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]

I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.

Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)

[/quote]

We all go to bed every day with the belief/faith that we’re going to wake up in the morning, and live our lives accordingly. We believe. We have no proof.

I think there are plenty of instances in our lives we resort to faith.

[/quote]

WRONGGGG!

The evidence that we will wake up is because we as humans have witnessed/observed animals/people/whatevers going to sleep and waking up over the past thousand of years sleep has been documented and we know a lot about going to sleep there is plenty of evidence out there so that is definitely 100% NOT FAITH![/quote]

If you say so in caps it must be true.

Of course, all those people that die nightly in their sleep must have had some kind of evidence they were going to wake up. And then, they didn’t. So did they have knowledge or faith?[/quote]

They likely had knowledge that when you sleep there is a high percentage chance you wake up and a small percentage chance you die. Deaths in sleep have been observed too yes so what’s your point? There’s no faith involved anywhere…?[/quote]

Probability is not fact. It’s an expectation of likely outcome. no more no less. So you don’t know you’re going to wake up. But you behave and live your life as if it’s a given.

What would you call that?

Does Schrodinger’s cat ring any bells?

[/quote]

You’re right! There is absolutely NO difference between the faith you need to believe you’re going to wake up tomorrow and the faith required to believe a 1st century Jew resurrected 2000 odd years ago.

Faith is faith! Amirite?[/quote]

Feel free to explain the difference in mechanisms between the two faiths. As for ‘what’ you choose to have faith in, that’s up to you.

But don’t be giving the ‘no faith’ bollocks. Unless you have some proof or are a seer and can see the future.

Amirite?

866

[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’re right! There is absolutely NO difference between the faith you need to believe you’re going to wake up tomorrow and the faith required to believe a 1st century Jew resurrected 2000 odd years ago.

Faith is faith! Amirite?[/quote]
lol

867

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The whole “you can’t prove anything” argument is a tired and cowardly copout, a rehashing of ideas that neither useful nor terribly interesting even in the 17th century. One may never be actually sure of anything in a philosophical sense, but you and I both operate under the assumption that we perceive with reasonable accuracy, that we are not mad, and that the basic physical workings of the world will be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.

Evidence for different conclusions exists in different amounts. The evidence, for me, that I myself exist is as near to incontrovertible as evidence can be. The evidence that man evolved from monkeys is less sturdy than that but it is a fuckton sturdier than the talking snake scenario.

Recycled philosophical acrobatics will do nothing to change the fact that the Christian Bible is a collection of fairy tales gathered together by desert-dwelling primitives and lacking anything that could remotely be considered credibility as we understand it today (indeed, it is so full of so much nonsense that it contradicts itself numerous times).

Snakes do not talk, and it takes more than some words on a page to convince a thinking man or woman to believe otherwise. Whether or not that thinking man will ever know for sure that his perception of the world is pure and true, he knows not to mistake the uncertainty inherent in human life with a license to believe in anything at all.[/quote]

Very well said.

868

[quote]groo wrote:
Eh sorry to misinterpret you however

You haven’t paid attention to a single thing I’ve said. I do hereby reserve the right to correct these misrepresentations as we go. The problem is not the universe or it’s reflection. The problem is man’s sin marred perception. You DO see the universe as it truly is and then believe in evolution anyway to escape what you see. I have quoted Romans 1 at least 25 times here where the apostle plainly states that that’s what you, and every other unbeliever does and will continue to do until raised in Christ. I know you do not believe Romans 1 is true. I do though and what you are ascribing to me is NOT what I believe.

If my perception is marred then you believe I am not seeing it as it is. I don’t think my perception is marred. Its not really twisting what you say at least not intentionally. You say your perception is accurate and the non saved have a perception marred by sin. I say my perception is accurate.

I say we’ll both know when we die but that’s a bit of cold comfort there.[/quote]

I don’t think either of you is going to know, when you die.

869

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

…Atheist websites are not biased…

[/quote]
[/quote]

LOL!!! LOL! LOL! That is what sheeple looks like in real life. “Hey these people with an agnda don’t have an agenda!” WOW!

I have seen many of these sites. The bias is almost embarrassingly bad.

Feel free to bring up any point from any atheist website, and I will gleefully destroy it with one arm tied behind my back[/quote]

Ok I suppose it’s impossible that there are NO unbiased atheists but my point is that the bias within the religious circles is about 10 thousand times worse. And Atheists are generally unbiased. If you think just because they push their agenda that that is bias then you’re wrong because their agenda would have to be biased for them to be biased. Or maybe you don’t know what biased means…

[/quote]

Hahahahaha, this is classic. “I’m not biased, I wear a white coat!!! Anyway, you’re wayyyy more biased than I am, here’s the stats to prove it.”

I’m guessing that this guy is a creationist trying to make atheist’s look stupid.

[/quote]

Yeah, that’s much better than your earlier claim of “but we’re honest that we’re biased”, as if admitting bias gives one more credibility. “I’m full of shit, but you can trust me(big smile)”.

870

With respect to having faith in something, one not only needs to “weigh” the consequences and benefits of what they’re choosing to have faith in, but if we’re going to go with the “Am I going wake up tomorrow” faith, then you have a whole body of observational evidence to draw upon, take into consider your health and whatever else would provide pertinent information. So that’s a really bad example to support a ‘faith in X = faith in Z’.

I know someone will lead this to “Well, then having faith that your perceptions are accurate trumps having faith in God theory” or something like that, but to not have faith that your perceptions are true would result in insanity/chronic paranoia/whatever you’d like to call it, and that isn’t a rational way to choose to live your life.

It would be nice to come to an agreement on what premises to operate and debate from.

871

[quote]schmichael wrote:
I’m guessing that this guy is a creationist trying to make atheist’s look stupid.
[/quote]

Says the creationist that for all intents and purposes has come across as if he has a learning disability.

872

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

But, in any event, let’s have some fun - do you believe that murder is universally wrong? Yes, or no?[/quote]

Nope.

When the US government murdered Bin Laden I didn’t consider it wrong.

In future arguments I suggest you use rape.
[/quote]

I think the result of using rape would be that it would come down to “What if Eve didn’t want to have sex with Adam(the two of them either being the first two or the last two humans left on the planet or even within range of the next potential mate(s)), or vice versa(could happen, right?), and that would be the end of the human race?”.
I only used Adam and Eve because it seemed appropriate not only for the thread topic, but also because they’re alleged to be the first two, so it also seemed fitting to use them as the last two.

873

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Feel free to explain the difference in mechanisms between the two faiths. As for ‘what’ you choose to have faith in, that’s up to you. [/quote]

There is no mechanism, faith is a broad term that gets used and abused semi-regularly on PWI.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

But don’t be giving the ‘no faith’ bollocks. Unless you have some proof or are a seer and can see the future.

Amirite?

[/quote]

You know the context in which the word faith is being used when people say they have ‘no faith.’ They are referring to unsubstantiated religious claims. You also know it has nothing to do with the type of faith we all take at the rudimentary level.

So why obfuscate?

874

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
With respect to having faith in something, one not only needs to “weigh” the consequences and benefits of what they’re choosing to have faith in, but if we’re going to go with the “Am I going wake up tomorrow” faith, then you have a whole body of observational evidence to draw upon, take into consider your health and whatever else would provide pertinent information. So that’s a really bad example to support a ‘faith in X = faith in Z’.

I know someone will lead this to “Well, then having faith that your perceptions are accurate trumps having faith in God theory” or something like that, but to not have faith that your perceptions are true would result in insanity/chronic paranoia/whatever you’d like to call it, and that isn’t a rational way to choose to live your life.

It would be nice to come to an agreement on what premises to operate and debate from.
[/quote]

Do you have proof you will awaken tomorrow morning or a belief/faith that you will?

The whole point is that we all live our lives with a fair amount of faith and belief, there is no continuity or going forward without it, and it’s an untenable position to defend that we function without it. You’re left with what you’re doing above…a rather torturous effort.

The ‘what’ you choose to have faith/belief in ,especially looking backwards, is a different kettle of sharks altogether and has nothing to do with my point.

It doesn’t weaken one’s position to admit that certain things we take for granted in the way we lead our lives are really just acts of faith/belief at the bottom of it all.

I’m an agnostic complete non believer in the bible or its divinity, but I believe/have faith I will awaken tomorrow morning and the day after that and lead my life accordingly, even though there is no 100% certainty I won’t have an aneurysm tonight or keel over while reading some of the more moronic posts on T nation from a stupidity induced coronary.

875

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
…there is no 100% certainty I won’t have an aneurysm tonight or keel over while reading some of the more moronic posts on T nation from a stupidity induced coronary.
[/quote]

Hey pal, you could always just ignore me! Sheesh.

876

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Feel free to explain the difference in mechanisms between the two faiths. As for ‘what’ you choose to have faith in, that’s up to you. [/quote]

There is no mechanism, faith is a broad term that gets used and abused semi-regularly on PWI.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

But don’t be giving the ‘no faith’ bollocks. Unless you have some proof or are a seer and can see the future.

Amirite?

[/quote]

You know the context in which the word faith is being used when people say they have ‘no faith.’ They are referring to unsubstantiated religious claims. You also know it has nothing to do with the type of faith we all take at the rudimentary level.

So why obfuscate?
[/quote]

There’s no obfuscation. See my reply to Matty. Try and separate what you’re trying to make it look like I’m saying and read what I’m actually saying. Leave religion at the door.

877
878

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
…there is no 100% certainty I won’t have an aneurysm tonight or keel over while reading some of the more moronic posts on T nation from a stupidity induced coronary.
[/quote]

Hey pal, you could always just ignore me! Sheesh.[/quote]

I have faith it won’t be one of your posts that does me in hehehe

879

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[/quote]

It’s impossible to move forward without them…

Edit: And that will never happen here. It happens occasionally that we get a small perfect storm of polite, quite intelligent back and forth debate and discussion, but mostly it’s just a bunch of “You’re wroooonggggg, I’m rightttt”…I mean even getting a small consensus on some minor point becomes an exercise in circular monotony.

880

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Do you have proof you will awaken tomorrow morning or a belief/faith that you will?

The whole point is that we all live our lives with a fair amount of faith and belief, there is no continuity or going forward without it, and it’s an untenable position to defend that we function without it. You’re left with what you’re doing above…a rather torturous effort.

The ‘what’ you choose to have faith/belief in ,especially looking backwards, is a different kettle of sharks altogether and has nothing to do with my point.

It doesn’t weaken one’s position to admit that certain things we take for granted in the way we lead our lives are really just acts of faith/belief at the bottom of it all.

I’m an agnostic complete non believer in the bible or its divinity, but I believe/have faith I will awaken tomorrow morning and the day after that and lead my life accordingly, even though there is no 100% certainty I won’t have an aneurysm tonight or keel over while reading some of the more moronic posts on T nation from a stupidity induced coronary.
[/quote]

When I use the word ‘faith’, I use it meaning without any evidence.

“strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence”
I think we just use the word differently.
I know it may seem I’m nitpicking here, but it’s important that we understand how one another is using the words so that we don’t run into or at best, limit misunderstandings.