| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"SmartyPants" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2006 12:13:22 PM |
| Object: |
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
4- You believe that the entire population of this planet, with the
exception of those who share your beliefs, even including large sects
of Christians, will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the
floor speaking in "tongues" is all the evidence you need to prove
Christianity.
2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers. And you consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And
you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
(Which begs the question: If it's all the will of God, why the hell
pray in the first place?)
And the Top Sign that you are a Christian:
1- Most Atheists and Agnostics know a hell of a lot more about the
Bible, Christianity, and church history than you do. (Which might be an
indication of the very reason that you are still a Christian).
I love these sorts of things.
.
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
22 Sep 2006 11:43:52 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
SmartyPants wrote:
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
So then, If women and children, and trees hadn't been included, you
would be allright with it?
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
Formed, you moron, formed. Formed from a gradually coalescing belt of
debris left over from the formation of the sun, drawn together by
gravity.
And what caused all this "gradually coalescing belt of debris left over
from the formation of the sun, drawn together by gravity." to be "left
over"?
And where did the matter that formed the sun, and therefore the earth
come from?
How old is it, oh wise man?
Oh around thirteen billion years old.
Formed in the big bang.
Really? And this Big Bang you talk about, what is it?, what caused it?
Where did the matter that banged come from?
There are a number of theories, they are pretty damn complex physics,
that can't even be easily typed out here.
So now you don't claim you have the facts, only theories?
If so, that's an improvement.
However, where does your god come from, what caused it, how does it
work?
I don't know.
See how easy it is to say you don't know?
Surely, everything must be subject to the same standard of proof?
Absolutely.
If everything is subject to the same standard of proof, scientific
theories, with evidence behind them, triumph over religious
superstition, which has no evidence for it.
Simple as that, Taco
Within Science's domain.
However, there are limits to Science. If you don't believe this, then
all you have done is substitute one religion for another.
Simple as that, Pusyfer.
There are limits to science, indeed. However, creationism, and in fact,
religion in general, are trying to operate in the real world, meaning
that they are subjected to the laws of physics.
They are incompatible with the laws of physics.
I take physics over superstition every day.
Lucifer - Bring the light of reason since the year 666
So what should operate in the area of existence which is beyond
Science?
Don't you think that there are true statements which are unprovable by
Science now?
Don't you think that there are false statements which are not
falsifiable by Science now?
Don't you think that there are true statements which will allways be
unprovable by Science?
Don't you think that there are false statements which will allways not
falsifiable by Science?
You realize that the so-called laws of physics are not perfect, and are
incomple? We can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately, but you
think that we know what happened 10 billion years ago!
Fairly accurately, yes. There's a reason.
Light travels at a set speed - C - when we see things a long way away,
we see the light they emitted a long time ago.
When we look at the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, we see the star 4.2
years ago.
When we look to the furthest, most distant, galaxies, we see the world
many, many billions of years ago.
The laws of physics are pretty damn good, and stand up to experimental
testing.
Does your god stand up to experimental testing?
To answer that question you have to go beyond the limits of Science.
I don't think you even understand what you write. Earlier you agreed
that there are limits to Science. Let's see if you understand: Can
you provide an example of another issue beyond its limits?
Whom I love, who I associate with - I don't decide those with a science
text book. Why poetry is beautiful, I don't decide that with a science
text book. However, I also know that when I am in love, hormones change
etc
Religion, however, wishes to be tested in the physical world. If it
wishes to do this, then it had better stand up to testing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
22 Sep 2006 01:18:03 PM |
|
|
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
SmartyPants wrote:
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
So then, If women and children, and trees hadn't been included, you
would be allright with it?
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
Formed, you moron, formed. Formed from a gradually coalescing belt of
debris left over from the formation of the sun, drawn together by
gravity.
And what caused all this "gradually coalescing belt of debris left over
from the formation of the sun, drawn together by gravity." to be "left
over"?
And where did the matter that formed the sun, and therefore the earth
come from?
How old is it, oh wise man?
Oh around thirteen billion years old.
Formed in the big bang.
Really? And this Big Bang you talk about, what is it?, what caused it?
Where did the matter that banged come from?
There are a number of theories, they are pretty damn complex physics,
that can't even be easily typed out here.
So now you don't claim you have the facts, only theories?
If so, that's an improvement.
However, where does your god come from, what caused it, how does it
work?
I don't know.
See how easy it is to say you don't know?
Surely, everything must be subject to the same standard of proof?
Absolutely.
If everything is subject to the same standard of proof, scientific
theories, with evidence behind them, triumph over religious
superstition, which has no evidence for it.
Simple as that, Taco
Within Science's domain.
However, there are limits to Science. If you don't believe this, then
all you have done is substitute one religion for another.
Simple as that, Pusyfer.
There are limits to science, indeed. However, creationism, and in fact,
religion in general, are trying to operate in the real world, meaning
that they are subjected to the laws of physics.
They are incompatible with the laws of physics.
I take physics over superstition every day.
Lucifer - Bring the light of reason since the year 666
So what should operate in the area of existence which is beyond
Science?
Don't you think that there are true statements which are unprovable by
Science now?
Don't you think that there are false statements which are not
falsifiable by Science now?
Don't you think that there are true statements which will allways be
unprovable by Science?
Don't you think that there are false statements which will allways not
falsifiable by Science?
You realize that the so-called laws of physics are not perfect, and are
incomple? We can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately, but you
think that we know what happened 10 billion years ago!
Fairly accurately, yes. There's a reason.
Light travels at a set speed - C - when we see things a long way away,
we see the light they emitted a long time ago.
When we look at the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, we see the star 4.2
years ago.
When we look to the furthest, most distant, galaxies, we see the world
many, many billions of years ago.
The laws of physics are pretty damn good, and stand up to experimental
testing.
Does your god stand up to experimental testing?
To answer that question you have to go beyond the limits of Science.
I don't think you even understand what you write. Earlier you agreed
that there are limits to Science. Let's see if you understand: Can
you provide an example of another issue beyond its limits?
Whom I love, who I associate with - I don't decide those with a science
text book. Why poetry is beautiful, I don't decide that with a science
text book. However, I also know that when I am in love, hormones change
etc
Religion, however, wishes to be tested in the physical world. If it
wishes to do this, then it had better stand up to testing.
I don't follow the "latest developments" in the different religions,
but if I remember correctly from my Jesuit-school upbringing and from
what I have seen on TV, none of the christian denominations claim to
have explanations for creation, etc. based on some kind of scientific
method. They only claim that it's true because the Bible says so.
Some scientists on the other hand, sometimes makes ridiculous, or
unprovable claims, and pretend (or in some case actually believe) that
they are true, and that anybody who doubts such claims must be some
kind of nonthinking fool. What I am telling you is that if you believe
that the earth was formed 4.55 billion years ago just because some guy
says so (this is one the unprovable ones), then you are even MORE
foolish that the guys who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old
(or whatever it is that the "fundies" claim).
Why? They don't claim to have any proof, other that a book, which they
claim to believe to be the word of God, therefore it would obviously be
true, according to them. So there is some logic behind their belief.
You, on the other hand, would be displaying blind faith in a human,
which you have already agreed, is subject to human weaknesses, in
addition to the fact that there are limits to Science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
22 Sep 2006 02:31:36 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
SmartyPants wrote:
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
So then, If women and children, and trees hadn't been included, you
would be allright with it?
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
Formed, you moron, formed. Formed from a gradually coalescing belt of
debris left over from the formation of the sun, drawn together by
gravity.
And what caused all this "gradually coalescing belt of debris left over
from the formation of the sun, drawn together by gravity." to be "left
over"?
And where did the matter that formed the sun, and therefore the earth
come from?
How old is it, oh wise man?
Oh around thirteen billion years old.
Formed in the big bang.
Really? And this Big Bang you talk about, what is it?, what caused it?
Where did the matter that banged come from?
There are a number of theories, they are pretty damn complex physics,
that can't even be easily typed out here.
So now you don't claim you have the facts, only theories?
If so, that's an improvement.
However, where does your god come from, what caused it, how does it
work?
I don't know.
See how easy it is to say you don't know?
Surely, everything must be subject to the same standard of proof?
Absolutely.
If everything is subject to the same standard of proof, scientific
theories, with evidence behind them, triumph over religious
superstition, which has no evidence for it.
Simple as that, Taco
Within Science's domain.
However, there are limits to Science. If you don't believe this, then
all you have done is substitute one religion for another.
Simple as that, Pusyfer.
There are limits to science, indeed. However, creationism, and in fact,
religion in general, are trying to operate in the real world, meaning
that they are subjected to the laws of physics.
They are incompatible with the laws of physics.
I take physics over superstition every day.
Lucifer - Bring the light of reason since the year 666
So what should operate in the area of existence which is beyond
Science?
Don't you think that there are true statements which are unprovable by
Science now?
Don't you think that there are false statements which are not
falsifiable by Science now?
Don't you think that there are true statements which will allways be
unprovable by Science?
Don't you think that there are false statements which will allways not
falsifiable by Science?
You realize that the so-called laws of physics are not perfect, and are
incomple? We can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately, but you
think that we know what happened 10 billion years ago!
Fairly accurately, yes. There's a reason.
Light travels at a set speed - C - when we see things a long way away,
we see the light they emitted a long time ago.
When we look at the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, we see the star 4.2
years ago.
When we look to the furthest, most distant, galaxies, we see the world
many, many billions of years ago.
The laws of physics are pretty damn good, and stand up to experimental
testing.
Does your god stand up to experimental testing?
To answer that question you have to go beyond the limits of Science.
I don't think you even understand what you write. Earlier you agreed
that there are limits to Science. Let's see if you understand: Can
you provide an example of another issue beyond its limits?
Whom I love, who I associate with - I don't decide those with a science
text book. Why poetry is beautiful, I don't decide that with a science
text book. However, I also know that when I am in love, hormones change
etc
Religion, however, wishes to be tested in the physical world. If it
wishes to do this, then it had better stand up to testing.
I don't follow the "latest developments" in the different religions,
but if I remember correctly from my Jesuit-school upbringing and from
what I have seen on TV, none of the christian denominations claim to
have explanations for creation, etc. based on some kind of scientific
method. They only claim that it's true because the Bible says so.
Some scientists on the other hand, sometimes makes ridiculous, or
unprovable claims, and pretend (or in some case actually believe) that
they are true, and that anybody who doubts such claims must be some
kind of nonthinking fool. What I am telling you is that if you believe
that the earth was formed 4.55 billion years ago just because some guy
says so (this is one the unprovable ones), then you are even MORE
foolish that the guys who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old
(or whatever it is that the "fundies" claim).
Why? They don't claim to have any proof, other that a book, which they
claim to believe to be the word of God, therefore it would obviously be
true, according to them. So there is some logic behind their belief.
You, on the other hand, would be displaying blind faith in a human,
which you have already agreed, is subject to human weaknesses, in
addition to the fact that there are limits to Science.
Theists believe, on the whole, that their belief can affect the real
world, that prayer has effects etc. That therefore becomes open to
testing. When tested, theist beliefs are found wanting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 12:45:35 AM |
|
|
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
SmartyPants wrote:
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
So then, If women and children, and trees hadn't been included, you
would be allright with it?
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
Formed, you moron, formed. Formed from a gradually coalescing belt of
debris left over from the formation of the sun, drawn together by
gravity.
And what caused all this "gradually coalescing belt of debris left over
from the formation of the sun, drawn together by gravity." to be "left
over"?
And where did the matter that formed the sun, and therefore the earth
come from?
How old is it, oh wise man?
Oh around thirteen billion years old.
Formed in the big bang.
Really? And this Big Bang you talk about, what is it?, what caused it?
Where did the matter that banged come from?
There are a number of theories, they are pretty damn complex physics,
that can't even be easily typed out here.
So now you don't claim you have the facts, only theories?
If so, that's an improvement.
However, where does your god come from, what caused it, how does it
work?
I don't know.
See how easy it is to say you don't know?
Surely, everything must be subject to the same standard of proof?
Absolutely.
If everything is subject to the same standard of proof, scientific
theories, with evidence behind them, triumph over religious
superstition, which has no evidence for it.
Simple as that, Taco
Within Science's domain.
However, there are limits to Science. If you don't believe this, then
all you have done is substitute one religion for another.
Simple as that, Pusyfer.
There are limits to science, indeed. However, creationism, and in fact,
religion in general, are trying to operate in the real world, meaning
that they are subjected to the laws of physics.
They are incompatible with the laws of physics.
I take physics over superstition every day.
Lucifer - Bring the light of reason since the year 666
So what should operate in the area of existence which is beyond
Science?
Don't you think that there are true statements which are unprovable by
Science now?
Don't you think that there are false statements which are not
falsifiable by Science now?
Don't you think that there are true statements which will allways be
unprovable by Science?
Don't you think that there are false statements which will allways not
falsifiable by Science?
You realize that the so-called laws of physics are not perfect, and are
incomple? We can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately, but you
think that we know what happened 10 billion years ago!
Fairly accurately, yes. There's a reason.
Light travels at a set speed - C - when we see things a long way away,
we see the light they emitted a long time ago.
When we look at the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, we see the star 4.2
years ago.
When we look to the furthest, most distant, galaxies, we see the world
many, many billions of years ago.
The laws of physics are pretty damn good, and stand up to experimental
testing.
Does your god stand up to experimental testing?
To answer that question you have to go beyond the limits of Science.
I don't think you even understand what you write. Earlier you agreed
that there are limits to Science. Let's see if you understand: Can
you provide an example of another issue beyond its limits?
Whom I love, who I associate with - I don't decide those with a science
text book. Why poetry is beautiful, I don't decide that with a science
text book. However, I also know that when I am in love, hormones change
etc
Religion, however, wishes to be tested in the physical world. If it
wishes to do this, then it had better stand up to testing.
I don't follow the "latest developments" in the different religions,
but if I remember correctly from my Jesuit-school upbringing and from
what I have seen on TV, none of the christian denominations claim to
have explanations for creation, etc. based on some kind of scientific
method. They only claim that it's true because the Bible says so.
Some scientists on the other hand, sometimes makes ridiculous, or
unprovable claims, and pretend (or in some case actually believe) that
they are true, and that anybody who doubts such claims must be some
kind of nonthinking fool. What I am telling you is that if you believe
that the earth was formed 4.55 billion years ago just because some guy
says so (this is one the unprovable ones), then you are even MORE
foolish that the guys who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old
(or whatever it is that the "fundies" claim).
Why? They don't claim to have any proof, other that a book, which they
claim to believe to be the word of God, therefore it would obviously be
true, according to them. So there is some logic behind their belief.
You, on the other hand, would be displaying blind faith in a human,
which you have already agreed, is subject to human weaknesses, in
addition to the fact that there are limits to Science.
Theists believe, on the whole, that their belief can affect the real
world, that prayer has effects etc.
What makes you think that all theists believe that prayer has effect?
Prove it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
22 Sep 2006 11:26:46 PM |
|
|
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
SmartyPants wrote:
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
So then, If women and children, and trees hadn't been included, you
would be allright with it?
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
Formed, you moron, formed. Formed from a gradually coalescing belt of
debris left over from the formation of the sun, drawn together by
gravity.
And what caused all this "gradually coalescing belt of debris left over
from the formation of the sun, drawn together by gravity." to be "left
over"?
And where did the matter that formed the sun, and therefore the earth
come from?
How old is it, oh wise man?
Oh around thirteen billion years old.
Formed in the big bang.
Really? And this Big Bang you talk about, what is it?, what caused it?
Where did the matter that banged come from?
There are a number of theories, they are pretty damn complex physics,
that can't even be easily typed out here.
So now you don't claim you have the facts, only theories?
If so, that's an improvement.
However, where does your god come from, what caused it, how does it
work?
I don't know.
See how easy it is to say you don't know?
Surely, everything must be subject to the same standard of proof?
Absolutely.
If everything is subject to the same standard of proof, scientific
theories, with evidence behind them, triumph over religious
superstition, which has no evidence for it.
Simple as that, Taco
Within Science's domain.
However, there are limits to Science. If you don't believe this, then
all you have done is substitute one religion for another.
Simple as that, Pusyfer.
There are limits to science, indeed. However, creationism, and in fact,
religion in general, are trying to operate in the real world, meaning
that they are subjected to the laws of physics.
They are incompatible with the laws of physics.
I take physics over superstition every day.
Lucifer - Bring the light of reason since the year 666
So what should operate in the area of existence which is beyond
Science?
Don't you think that there are true statements which are unprovable by
Science now?
Don't you think that there are false statements which are not
falsifiable by Science now?
Don't you think that there are true statements which will allways be
unprovable by Science?
Don't you think that there are false statements which will allways not
falsifiable by Science?
You realize that the so-called laws of physics are not perfect, and are
incomple? We can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately, but you
think that we know what happened 10 billion years ago!
Fairly accurately, yes. There's a reason.
Light travels at a set speed - C - when we see things a long way away,
we see the light they emitted a long time ago.
When we look at the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, we see the star 4.2
years ago.
When we look to the furthest, most distant, galaxies, we see the world
many, many billions of years ago.
The laws of physics are pretty damn good, and stand up to experimental
testing.
Does your god stand up to experimental testing?
To answer that question you have to go beyond the limits of Science.
I don't think you even understand what you write. Earlier you agreed
that there are limits to Science. Let's see if you understand: Can
you provide an example of another issue beyond its limits?
Whom I love, who I associate with - I don't decide those with a science
text book. Why poetry is beautiful, I don't decide that with a science
text book. However, I also know that when I am in love, hormones change
etc
Religion, however, wishes to be tested in the physical world. If it
wishes to do this, then it had better stand up to testing.
I don't follow the "latest developments" in the different religions,
but if I remember correctly from my Jesuit-school upbringing and from
what I have seen on TV, none of the christian denominations claim to
have explanations for creation, etc. based on some kind of scientific
method. They only claim that it's true because the Bible says so.
Some scientists on the other hand, sometimes makes ridiculous, or
unprovable claims, and pretend (or in some case actually believe) that
they are true, and that anybody who doubts such claims must be some
kind of nonthinking fool. What I am telling you is that if you believe
that the earth was formed 4.55 billion years ago just because some guy
says so (this is one the unprovable ones), then you are even MORE
foolish that the guys who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old
(or whatever it is that the "fundies" claim).
Why? They don't claim to have any proof, other that a book, which they
claim to believe to be the word of God, therefore it would obviously be
true, according to them. So there is some logic behind their belief.
You, on the other hand, would be displaying blind faith in a human,
which you have already agreed, is subject to human weaknesses, in
addition to the fact that there are limits to Science.
Theists believe, on the whole, that their belief can affect the real
world, that prayer has effects etc. That therefore becomes open to
testing. When tested, theist beliefs are found wanting.
All theists?
And how does this prove the claim that the earth was formed 4.55
billion years ago?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 06:15:11 AM |
|
|
<much needed brevity snip>
Theists believe, on the whole, that their belief can affect the real
world, that prayer has effects etc. That therefore becomes open to
testing. When tested, theist beliefs are found wanting.
All theists?
There is no world other than the material world. If you believe in a
god or gods, they must exist in the material world, or they do not
exist, and are only imaginary. If they cannot exist in the real world
(where, exactly, can a god exist within the laws of physics?) then they
do not exist at all, outside of imagination.
And how does this prove the claim that the earth was formed 4.55
billion years ago?
How do you get all this straw under your bridge, taco? I never said
that theistic delusions proved the age of the earth. Geology does.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 11:55:01 AM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2006 21:26:46 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158985606.046360.138960@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Lucifer wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
....
I don't follow the "latest developments" in the different religions,
but if I remember correctly from my Jesuit-school upbringing and from
what I have seen on TV, none of the christian denominations claim to
have explanations for creation, etc. based on some kind of scientific
method. They only claim that it's true because the Bible says so.
Some scientists on the other hand, sometimes makes ridiculous, or
unprovable claims, and pretend (or in some case actually believe) that
they are true, and that anybody who doubts such claims must be some
kind of nonthinking fool. What I am telling you is that if you believe
that the earth was formed 4.55 billion years ago just because some guy
says so (this is one the unprovable ones), then you are even MORE
foolish that the guys who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old
(or whatever it is that the "fundies" claim).
Why? They don't claim to have any proof, other that a book, which they
claim to believe to be the word of God, therefore it would obviously be
true, according to them. So there is some logic behind their belief.
You, on the other hand, would be displaying blind faith in a human,
which you have already agreed, is subject to human weaknesses, in
addition to the fact that there are limits to Science.
Theists believe, on the whole, that their belief can affect the real
world, that prayer has effects etc. That therefore becomes open to
testing. When tested, theist beliefs are found wanting.
All theists?
And how does this prove the claim that the earth was formed 4.55
billion years ago?
The doctrines of theists have no effect on scientific discoveries. The
evidence gathered by scientists shows that the earth was formed 4.55
billion years ago. You keep quibbling about it, but offer no reason for
your quibble. You have chosen not to learn enough about science to
understand why your ignorance is not a valid objection to the
discoveries of sceince.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
22 Sep 2006 04:59:08 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
I've done some snipping to make this discussion more wieldy. Tuco, I
think some of your doubts about the validity of scientific theories are
based on misconceptions. First of all, let us avoid the debating trick
of conflating the colloquial and scientific meanings of the word
"theory". The word "theory" in the scientific sense traverses a range
of extremely well established theories (e.g. evolution, approximate
validity of Newtonian mechanics, general principles of quantum
mechanics) with more speculative theories (e.g. detailed theories of
quantum gravity, the extent of the contribution of greenhouse gases to
global warming). The colloquial usage of the word "theory" is more or
less equivalent to the word "hypothesis". Even in pure mathematics
(where things can be proven pretty much beyond ALL doubt) the word
theory is used. There is a theory of complex numbers, a theory of
groups, a theory of Euclidean geometry, etc. The logical correctness
of these theories is not in doubt.
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies.
Tuco, I don't know what accuracy scientists currently claim for the
number 4.55 billion years, but the theory that the earth is billions
rather than say thousands of years old is about as well established as
the theory that the earth is approximately a sphere. You are simply
ignorant of the kind and quality of the evidence if you don't see this.
Explore wikipedia a bit and read about carbon dating, etc.
Oh around thirteen billion years old.
Formed in the big bang.
Really? And this Big Bang you talk about, what is it?, what caused it?
Where did the matter that banged come from?
There are a number of theories, they are pretty damn complex physics,
that can't even be easily typed out here.
Careful, Lucifer. In what sense do physicists claim to have
speculative theories as to the CAUSE of the big bang. The concept
CAUSE is quite slippery. Scientists certainly seek a mathematically
accurate description of the big bang, but in physics the word "cause"
sometimes seems to degenerate into metaphysics.
So now you don't claim you have the facts, only theories?
If so, that's an improvement.
As I remarked above, Tuco, this ambiguous use of the word "theory" is a
debating trick that merely obfuscates clear discussion.
However, where does your god come from, what caused it, how does it
work?
I don't know.
See how easy it is to say you don't know?
Surely, everything must be subject to the same standard of proof?
Absolutely.
If everything is subject to the same standard of proof, scientific
theories, with evidence behind them, triumph over religious
superstition, which has no evidence for it.
Simple as that, Taco
Within Science's domain.
Science's domain is physical reality. In what sense is there another
domain? Granted, the nature of the connection between mental phenomena
and physical phenomena is poorly understood (to put it mildly!) but it
seems to me that much of the theist-atheist debate is about whether any
other domain really exists.
However, there are limits to Science. If you don't believe this, then
all you have done is substitute one religion for another.
Simple as that, Pusyfer.
There are limits to science, indeed. However, creationism, and in fact,
religion in general, are trying to operate in the real world, meaning
that they are subjected to the laws of physics.
They are incompatible with the laws of physics.
I take physics over superstition every day.
Lucifer - Bring the light of reason since the year 666
So what should operate in the area of existence which is beyond
Science?
Don't you think that there are true statements which are unprovable by
Science now?
Don't you think that there are false statements which are not
falsifiable by Science now?
Don't you think that there are true statements which will allways be
unprovable by Science?
Don't you think that there are false statements which will allways not
falsifiable by Science?
But who ever claimed that it will ever be possible to know everything?
Strawman alert.
You realize that the so-called laws of physics are not perfect, and are
incomple? We can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately, but you
think that we know what happened 10 billion years ago!
Fairly accurately, yes. There's a reason.
Light travels at a set speed - C - when we see things a long way away,
we see the light they emitted a long time ago.
When we look at the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, we see the star 4.2
years ago.
When we look to the furthest, most distant, galaxies, we see the world
many, many billions of years ago.
The laws of physics are pretty damn good, and stand up to experimental
testing.
Does your god stand up to experimental testing?
To answer that question you have to go beyond the limits of Science.
I don't think you even understand what you write. Earlier you agreed
that there are limits to Science. Let's see if you understand: Can
you provide an example of another issue beyond its limits?
To say that there are questions beyond the limits of science is simply
to say that there are questions that may forever remain unknown. It
does not in the least imply that there is an alternative epistemology
(one based on faith, for example) that would work.
Whom I love, who I associate with - I don't decide those with a science
text book. Why poetry is beautiful, I don't decide that with a science
text book. However, I also know that when I am in love, hormones change
etc
Religion, however, wishes to be tested in the physical world. If it
wishes to do this, then it had better stand up to testing.
I don't follow the "latest developments" in the different religions,
but if I remember correctly from my Jesuit-school upbringing and from
what I have seen on TV, none of the christian denominations claim to
have explanations for creation, etc. based on some kind of scientific
method. They only claim that it's true because the Bible says so.
Some scientists on the other hand, sometimes makes ridiculous, or
unprovable claims, and pretend (or in some case actually believe) that
they are true, and that anybody who doubts such claims must be some
kind of nonthinking fool.
What are your examples of ridiculous claims made by scientists? Tuco,
you must realize that you get much of your "info" from the media. The
media will always distort things to create hype. If a scientist writes
a paper offering evidence and arguments to indicate that Neandertals
MAY have had a fully evolved vocal apparatus, the next day you will see
a banner headline "SCIENTIST PROVES THAT NEANDERTALS COULD TALK".
Surely you realize this. If you want to know what scientists actually
claim to have proved, go look up their original papers. The media will
mislead you every time.
What I am telling you is that if you believe
that the earth was formed 4.55 billion years ago just because some guy
says so (this is one the unprovable ones), then you are even MORE
foolish that the guys who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old
(or whatever it is that the "fundies" claim).
You are ignorant of the kind and quality of the evidence for this
claim.
Why? They don't claim to have any proof, other that a book, which they
claim to believe to be the word of God, therefore it would obviously be
true, according to them. So there is some logic behind their belief.
This is a nonsequitor.
You, on the other hand, would be displaying blind faith in a human,
which you have already agreed, is subject to human weaknesses, in
addition to the fact that there are limits to Science.
Not blind faith. If a scientist asserts that A is a fact I ask for his
arguments and evidence. Theists have no logical arguments (many admit
this and argue for the epistemological efficacy of "faith") nor
evidence in the usually understood meaning of the word "evidence".
Don't pretend you don't see a difference here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 01:45:15 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
I've done some snipping to make this discussion more wieldy. Tuco, I
think some of your doubts about the validity of scientific theories are
based on misconceptions. First of all, let us avoid the debating trick
of conflating the colloquial and scientific meanings of the word
"theory".
There is no "debating trick"; I use theory and hypothesis
interchangeably, clear enough?
The word "theory" in the scientific sense traverses a range
of extremely well established theories (e.g. evolution, approximate
validity of Newtonian mechanics, general principles of quantum
mechanics) with more speculative theories (e.g. detailed theories of
quantum gravity, the extent of the contribution of greenhouse gases to
global warming).
Whether a theory is "well established" or not is irrelevant to me; I am
an equal opportunity skeptic.
We don't need to create a list of previously "well established"
theories that are considered false now, do we?
The colloquial usage of the word "theory" is more or
less equivalent to the word "hypothesis". Even in pure mathematics
(where things can be proven pretty much beyond ALL doubt) the word
theory is used. There is a theory of complex numbers, a theory of
groups, a theory of Euclidean geometry, etc. The logical correctness
of these theories is not in doubt.
Almost beyond all doubt, but with certain axioms and rules of logic. I
am sure that you know this, and also that if you change one or more
axioms or rule of logic, you can get completely different results.
Euclidean vs Non-Euclidean geometry comes to mind.
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies.
Tuco, I don't know what accuracy scientists currently claim for the
number 4.55 billion years, but the theory that the earth is billions
rather than say thousands of years old is about as well established as
the theory that the earth is approximately a sphere. You are simply
ignorant of the kind and quality of the evidence if you don't see this.
Explore wikipedia a bit and read about carbon dating, etc.
They almost allways don't qualify their statements. Here is an
important difference between mathematics and the other lesser sciences.
In mathematics, you have axioms and rules of logic, so theories can be
proved or disproved based on them; everything is "above the table", if
you will. I have seen or read plenty of scientists make claims which
are not proven, or which are unprovable (i.e. the 4.55 billion years
number), WITHOUT qualification; these are the kind of claims which I
may or may not believe, but certainly don't consider sacred truths, or
"proven", or, as you like to say, "well established".
Almost "Pure" science: Mathematics
Lesser science: Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy
Even lesser science: Geology, Economics, Metereology
Practically ***** science: Sociology, Psychology, etc.
Oh around thirteen billion years old.
Formed in the big bang.
Really? And this Big Bang you talk about, what is it?, what caused it?
Where did the matter that banged come from?
There are a number of theories, they are pretty damn complex physics,
that can't even be easily typed out here.
Careful, Lucifer. In what sense do physicists claim to have
speculative theories as to the CAUSE of the big bang. The concept
CAUSE is quite slippery. Scientists certainly seek a mathematically
accurate description of the big bang, but in physics the word "cause"
sometimes seems to degenerate into metaphysics.
So do YOU know the answers? The bottom line, as far as I am concerned,
is nobody knows.
As far as I am concerned, the truth is not subject to popular vote
(hence I am not impressed by "well established" theories).
So now you don't claim you have the facts, only theories?
If so, that's an improvement.
As I remarked above, Tuco, this ambiguous use of the word "theory" is a
debating trick that merely obfuscates clear discussion.
There is no ambiguity.
However, where does your god come from, what caused it, how does it
work?
I don't know.
See how easy it is to say you don't know?
Surely, everything must be subject to the same standard of proof?
Absolutely.
If everything is subject to the same standard of proof, scientific
theories, with evidence behind them, triumph over religious
superstition, which has no evidence for it.
Simple as that, Taco
Within Science's domain.
Science's domain is physical reality. In what sense is there another
domain? Granted, the nature of the connection between mental phenomena
and physical phenomena is poorly understood (to put it mildly!) but it
seems to me that much of the theist-atheist debate is about whether any
other domain really exists.
See below.
However, there are limits to Science. If you don't believe this, then
all you have done is substitute one religion for another.
Simple as that, Pusyfer.
There are limits to science, indeed. However, creationism, and in fact,
religion in general, are trying to operate in the real world, meaning
that they are subjected to the laws of physics.
They are incompatible with the laws of physics.
I take physics over superstition every day.
Lucifer - Bring the light of reason since the year 666
So what should operate in the area of existence which is beyond
Science?
Don't you think that there are true statements which are unprovable by
Science now?
Don't you think that there are false statements which are not
falsifiable by Science now?
Don't you think that there are true statements which will allways be
unprovable by Science?
Don't you think that there are false statements which will allways not
falsifiable by Science?
But who ever claimed that it will ever be possible to know everything?
Strawman alert.
Mr. Free Lunch comes to mind. He appears to be deeply offended that I
would doubt ANYTHING that a "scientist" would say, therefore, I can
safely conclude not only that he believes that it's possible to know
everything, but we ALREADY know everything. Doesn't surprise me, as he
appears to be easily impressed by credentials, authority, etc. So what
else is new in the world?
You realize that the so-called laws of physics are not perfect, and are
incomple? We can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately, but you
think that we know what happened 10 billion years ago!
Fairly accurately, yes. There's a reason.
Light travels at a set speed - C - when we see things a long way away,
we see the light they emitted a long time ago.
When we look at the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, we see the star 4.2
years ago.
When we look to the furthest, most distant, galaxies, we see the world
many, many billions of years ago.
The laws of physics are pretty damn good, and stand up to experimental
testing.
Does your god stand up to experimental testing?
To answer that question you have to go beyond the limits of Science.
I don't think you even understand what you write. Earlier you agreed
that there are limits to Science. Let's see if you understand: Can
you provide an example of another issue beyond its limits?
To say that there are questions beyond the limits of science is simply
to say that there are questions that may forever remain unknown.
Not necessarily, somethings can be reasoned. Don't ask me for a
"proof", but I think it is safe to believe that the most significant
advancements have been achieved through reason, not experimentation.
Experimentation being an "afterthought" to put the theory to the test.
And then there are questions which are beyond science or any other
epistemology, in my opinion.
It
does not in the least imply that there is an alternative epistemology
(one based on faith, for example) that would work.
Whom I love, who I associate with - I don't decide those with a science
text book. Why poetry is beautiful, I don't decide that with a science
text book. However, I also know that when I am in love, hormones change
etc
Religion, however, wishes to be tested in the physical world. If it
wishes to do this, then it had better stand up to testing.
I don't follow the "latest developments" in the different religions,
but if I remember correctly from my Jesuit-school upbringing and from
what I have seen on TV, none of the christian denominations claim to
have explanations for creation, etc. based on some kind of scientific
method. They only claim that it's true because the Bible says so.
Some scientists on the other hand, sometimes makes ridiculous, or
unprovable claims, and pretend (or in some case actually believe) that
they are true, and that anybody who doubts such claims must be some
kind of nonthinking fool.
What are your examples of ridiculous claims made by scientists?
I don't follow the "latest developments" in science, but this 4.55
billion years claim comes to mind, or the Big Bang.
I am not very familiar with this theory, but it is obviously unprovable
by any method you might like, including the Scientific Method. For the
sake of argument, let's say the Big Bang theory "fits" what we
currently know (I assume that's the case, otherwise somebody would have
written a paper and made a name for himself), that doesn't necessarily
mean that it's true.
According to MY laws of reasoning:
Consistency with the facts is a necessary, but not sufficient condition
for a theory to be proven true.
My standard of proof is obviously higher than that of some of your
easily impressed friends. I could start reading up on all these
theories, and maybe I could start thinking that the 4.55 billion years
claim is "reasonable", but I would never believe it, or consider it
proven (as I said before, I consider such a claim to be unprovable).
Tuco,
you must realize that you get much of your "info" from the media. The
media will always distort things to create hype. If a scientist writes
a paper offering evidence and arguments to indicate that Neandertals
MAY have had a fully evolved vocal apparatus, the next day you will see
a banner headline "SCIENTIST PROVES THAT NEANDERTALS COULD TALK".
Surely you realize this. If you want to know what scientists actually
claim to have proved, go look up their original papers. The media will
mislead you every time.
Laughs! ALL the media are evil? Care to prove this?
What I am telling you is that if you believe
that the earth was formed 4.55 billion years ago just because some guy
says so (this is one the unprovable ones), then you are even MORE
foolish that the guys who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old
(or whatever it is that the "fundies" claim).
You are ignorant of the kind and quality of the evidence for this
claim.
True. If I was interested in this question, I would be interested in
finding out when EVERYTHING started, not just when the earth was formed
into its current state.
I gave up on this question, and others, when I was a child. As far as
I am concerned, they are unknowable.
Why? They don't claim to have any proof, other that a book, which they
claim to believe to be the word of God, therefore it would obviously be
true, according to them. So there is some logic behind their belief.
This is a nonsequitor.
Not to them.
You, on the other hand, would be displaying blind faith in a human,
which you have already agreed, is subject to human weaknesses, in
addition to the fact that there are limits to Science.
Not blind faith. If a scientist asserts that A is a fact I ask for his
arguments and evidence. Theists have no logical arguments (many admit
this and argue for the epistemological efficacy of "faith") nor
evidence in the usually understood meaning of the word "evidence".
Don't pretend you don't see a difference here.
As mentioned before, I believe that there are plenty of questions
beyond the limits of Science, and also beyond any other epistemology.
I will assume that by theist you are referring to an "average fundie".
The scientist has a body of accepted knowledge, or as you like to say,
"well established" theories (let's call them his Axioms), and his rules
of logic. The scientist thinks that his claims are very logical.
The theist has his Axioms (the Bible), and his rules of logic. As far
as he is concerned, his claims are very logical.
Don't pretend you don't see a similarity here.
Tuco Benedito Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez,
But you can call me Tuco "The Rat" for short.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 11:29:52 AM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2006 23:45:15 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158993915.648897.82590@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
Mike wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
I've done some snipping to make this discussion more wieldy. Tuco, I
think some of your doubts about the validity of scientific theories are
based on misconceptions. First of all, let us avoid the debating trick
of conflating the colloquial and scientific meanings of the word
"theory".
There is no "debating trick"; I use theory and hypothesis
interchangeably, clear enough?
So you intentionally misuse scientific terms. Clear enough.
The word "theory" in the scientific sense traverses a range
of extremely well established theories (e.g. evolution, approximate
validity of Newtonian mechanics, general principles of quantum
mechanics) with more speculative theories (e.g. detailed theories of
quantum gravity, the extent of the contribution of greenhouse gases to
global warming).
Whether a theory is "well established" or not is irrelevant to me; I am
an equal opportunity skeptic.
So you misuse the word 'skeptic' as well.
We don't need to create a list of previously "well established"
theories that are considered false now, do we?
There are surprisingly few, but each of them was displaced by real
evidence, not whining from religious nuts.
The colloquial usage of the word "theory" is more or
less equivalent to the word "hypothesis". Even in pure mathematics
(where things can be proven pretty much beyond ALL doubt) the word
theory is used. There is a theory of complex numbers, a theory of
groups, a theory of Euclidean geometry, etc. The logical correctness
of these theories is not in doubt.
Almost beyond all doubt, but with certain axioms and rules of logic. I
am sure that you know this, and also that if you change one or more
axioms or rule of logic, you can get completely different results.
Euclidean vs Non-Euclidean geometry comes to mind.
That has nothing to do with science.
Tuco, I don't know what accuracy scientists currently claim for the
number 4.55 billion years, but the theory that the earth is billions
rather than say thousands of years old is about as well established as
the theory that the earth is approximately a sphere. You are simply
ignorant of the kind and quality of the evidence if you don't see this.
Explore wikipedia a bit and read about carbon dating, etc.
They almost allways don't qualify their statements. Here is an
important difference between mathematics and the other lesser sciences.
Mathematics is not science.
In mathematics, you have axioms and rules of logic, so theories can be
proved or disproved based on them; everything is "above the table", if
you will. I have seen or read plenty of scientists make claims which
are not proven, or which are unprovable (i.e. the 4.55 billion years
number), WITHOUT qualification; these are the kind of claims which I
may or may not believe, but certainly don't consider sacred truths, or
"proven", or, as you like to say, "well established".
Which is why math is not science.
Almost "Pure" science: Mathematics
Not science. Learn the meaning of science. Stop acting the idiot.
....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 06:26:48 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Mike wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
I've done some snipping to make this discussion more wieldy. Tuco, I
think some of your doubts about the validity of scientific theories are
based on misconceptions. First of all, let us avoid the debating trick
of conflating the colloquial and scientific meanings of the word
"theory".
There is no "debating trick"; I use theory and hypothesis
interchangeably, clear enough?
That is an incorrect usage of the terminology there.
The word "theory" in the scientific sense traverses a range
of extremely well established theories (e.g. evolution, approximate
validity of Newtonian mechanics, general principles of quantum
mechanics) with more speculative theories (e.g. detailed theories of
quantum gravity, the extent of the contribution of greenhouse gases to
global warming).
Whether a theory is "well established" or not is irrelevant to me; I am
an equal opportunity skeptic.
We don't need to create a list of previously "well established"
theories that are considered false now, do we?
No, but well established AND not successfully challenged means that
they are currently accepted.
The colloquial usage of the word "theory" is more or
less equivalent to the word "hypothesis". Even in pure mathematics
(where things can be proven pretty much beyond ALL doubt) the word
theory is used. There is a theory of complex numbers, a theory of
groups, a theory of Euclidean geometry, etc. The logical correctness
of these theories is not in doubt.
Almost beyond all doubt, but with certain axioms and rules of logic. I
am sure that you know this, and also that if you change one or more
axioms or rule of logic, you can get completely different results.
Euclidean vs Non-Euclidean geometry comes to mind.
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies.
Tuco, I don't know what accuracy scientists currently claim for the
number 4.55 billion years, but the theory that the earth is billions
rather than say thousands of years old is about as well established as
the theory that the earth is approximately a sphere. You are simply
ignorant of the kind and quality of the evidence if you don't see this.
Explore wikipedia a bit and read about carbon dating, etc.
They almost allways don't qualify their statements. Here is an
important difference between mathematics and the other lesser sciences.
In mathematics, you have axioms and rules of logic, so theories can be
proved or disproved based on them; everything is "above the table", if
you will. I have seen or read plenty of scientists make claims which
are not proven, or which are unprovable (i.e. the 4.55 billion years
number),
Usually taught as 4.5, the additional decimal place may be beyond the
accuracy we currently have.
WITHOUT qualification; these are the kind of claims which I
may or may not believe, but certainly don't consider sacred truths, or
"proven", or, as you like to say, "well established".
Without qualification...uhm...K-Ar dating, U-Pb dating etc
Almost "Pure" science: Mathematics
Lesser science: Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy
Even lesser science: Geology, Economics, Metereology
Practically ***** science: Sociology, Psychology, etc.
Uhm...the lowest category are social science, and entirely seperate.
Above that, it would be
"pure" mathematics
applied mathematics
applied sciences such as physics
applied science - chemistry
more applied science - biology, geology, meteorlogy
social sciences, eg economics, sociology etc
Oh around thirteen billion years old.
Formed in the big bang.
Really? And this Big Bang you talk about, what is it?, what caused it?
Where did the matter that banged come from?
There are a number of theories, they are pretty damn complex physics,
that can't even be easily typed out here.
Careful, Lucifer. In what sense do physicists claim to have
speculative theories as to the CAUSE of the big bang. The concept
CAUSE is quite slippery. Scientists certainly seek a mathematically
accurate description of the big bang, but in physics the word "cause"
sometimes seems to degenerate into metaphysics.
So do YOU know the answers? The bottom line, as far as I am concerned,
is nobody knows.
As far as I am concerned, the truth is not subject to popular vote
(hence I am not impressed by "well established" theories).
So now you don't claim you have the facts, only theories?
If so, that's an improvement.
As I remarked above, Tuco, this ambiguous use of the word "theory" is a
debating trick that merely obfuscates clear discussion.
There is no ambiguity.
Theory can mean different things to different people. To deliberately
and wrongfully interpret the word as you see it and then use that to
attack a different usage of it is just strawmen again. How much straw
do you keep under your bridge?
However, where does your god come from, what caused it, how does it
work?
I don't know.
See how easy it is to say you don't know?
Surely, everything must be subject to the same standard of proof?
Absolutely.
If everything is subject to the same standard of proof, scientific
theories, with evidence behind them, triumph over religious
superstition, which has no evidence for it.
Simple as that, Taco
Within Science's domain.
Science's domain is physical reality. In what sense is there another
domain? Granted, the nature of the connection between mental phenomena
and physical phenomena is poorly understood (to put it mildly!) but it
seems to me that much of the theist-atheist debate is about whether any
other domain really exists.
See below.
However, there are limits to Science. If you don't believe this, then
all you have done is substitute one religion for another.
Simple as that, Pusyfer.
There are limits to science, indeed. However, creationism, and in fact,
religion in general, are trying to operate in the real world, meaning
that they are subjected to the laws of physics.
They are incompatible with the laws of physics.
I take physics over superstition every day.
Lucifer - Bring the light of reason since the year 666
So what should operate in the area of existence which is beyond
Science?
Don't you think that there are true statements which are unprovable by
Science now?
Don't you think that there are false statements which are not
falsifiable by Science now?
Don't you think that there are true statements which will allways be
unprovable by Science?
Don't you think that there are false statements which will allways not
falsifiable by Science?
But who ever claimed that it will ever be possible to know everything?
Strawman alert.
Mr. Free Lunch comes to mind. He appears to be deeply offended that I
would doubt ANYTHING that a "scientist" would say, therefore, I can
safely conclude not only that he believes that it's possible to know
everything, but we ALREADY know everything. Doesn't surprise me, as he
appears to be easily impressed by credentials, authority, etc. So what
else is new in the world?
STRAWMEN AGAIN!
You realize that the so-called laws of physics are not perfect, and are
incomple? We can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately, but you
think that we know what happened 10 billion years ago!
Fairly accurately, yes. There's a reason.
Light travels at a set speed - C - when we see things a long way away,
we see the light they emitted a long time ago.
When we look at the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, we see the star 4.2
years ago.
When we look to the furthest, most distant, galaxies, we see the world
many, many billions of years ago.
The laws of physics are pretty damn good, and stand up to experimental
testing.
Does your god stand up to experimental testing?
To answer that question you have to go beyond the limits of Science.
I don't think you even understand what you write. Earlier you agreed
that there are limits to Science. Let's see if you understand: Can
you provide an example of another issue beyond its limits?
To say that there are questions beyond the limits of science is simply
to say that there are questions that may forever remain unknown.
Not necessarily, somethings can be reasoned. Don't ask me for a
"proof", but I think it is safe to believe that the most significant
advancements have been achieved through reason, not experimentation.
Experimentation being an "afterthought" to put the theory to the test.
And then there are questions which are beyond science or any other
epistemology, in my opinion.
It
does not in the least imply that there is an alternative epistemology
(one based on faith, for example) that would work.
Whom I love, who I associate with - I don't decide those with a science
text book. Why poetry is beautiful, I don't decide that with a science
text book. However, I also know that when I am in love, hormones change
etc
Religion, however, wishes to be tested in the physical world. If it
wishes to do this, then it had better stand up to testing.
I don't follow the "latest developments" in the different religions,
but if I remember correctly from my Jesuit-school upbringing and from
what I have seen on TV, none of the christian denominations claim to
have explanations for creation, etc. based on some kind of scientific
method. They only claim that it's true because the Bible says so.
Some scientists on the other hand, sometimes makes ridiculous, or
unprovable claims, and pretend (or in some case actually believe) that
they are true, and that anybody who doubts such claims must be some
kind of nonthinking fool.
What are your examples of ridiculous claims made by scientists?
I don't follow the "latest developments" in science, but this 4.55
billion years claim comes to mind, or the Big Bang.
I am not very familiar with this theory, but it is obviously unprovable
by any method you might like, including the Scientific Method.
Big bang theory comes from scientific method, and is supported by
evidence. It is the best current theory, in terms of evidence and
plausability.
For the
sake of argument, let's say the Big Bang theory "fits" what we
currently know (I assume that's the case, otherwise somebody would have
written a paper and made a name for himself), that doesn't necessarily
mean that it's true.
According to MY laws of reasoning:
Consistency with the facts is a necessary, but not sufficient condition
for a theory to be proven true.
True, but to disprove a theory, it needs to not fit the facts. Sometime
smore facts will have to come to light, but you are happy to undermine
a theory without said facts, to fit your theistic agenda.
My standard of proof is obviously higher than that of some of your
easily impressed friends. I could start reading up on all these
theories, and maybe I could start thinking that the 4.55 billion years
claim is "reasonable", but I would never believe it, or consider it
proven (as I said before, I consider such a claim to be unprovable).
It is fairly well proven, actually. There is plenty of evidence from
cooling patterns, radiometric dating etc.
Tuco,
you must realize that you get much of your "info" from the media. The
media will always distort things to create hype. If a scientist writes
a paper offering evidence and arguments to indicate that Neandertals
MAY have had a fully evolved vocal apparatus, the next day you will see
a banner headline "SCIENTIST PROVES THAT NEANDERTALS COULD TALK".
Surely you realize this. If you want to know what scientists actually
claim to have proved, go look up their original papers. The media will
mislead you every time.
Laughs! ALL the media are evil? Care to prove this?
The media want to sell papers or advertising space. They prefer
sensationalism over accuracy, on the whole. Some specialist media,
however, don't, as they target a more discerning reader
What I am telling you is that if you believe
that the earth was formed 4.55 billion years ago just because some guy
says so (this is one the unprovable ones), then you are even MORE
foolish that the guys who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old
(or whatever it is that the "fundies" claim).
You are ignorant of the kind and quality of the evidence for this
claim.
True. If I was interested in this question, I would be interested in
finding out when EVERYTHING started, not just when the earth was formed
into its current state.
I gave up on this question, and others, when I was a child. As far as
I am concerned, they are unknowable.
Why? They don't claim to have any proof, other that a book, which they
claim to believe to be the word of God, therefore it would obviously be
true, according to them. So there is some logic behind their belief.
This is a nonsequitor.
Not to them.
You, on the other hand, would be displaying blind faith in a human,
which you have already agreed, is subject to human weaknesses, in
addition to the fact that there are limits to Science.
Not blind faith. If a scientist asserts that A is a fact I ask for his
arguments and evidence. Theists have no logical arguments (many admit
this and argue for the epistemological efficacy of "faith") nor
evidence in the usually understood meaning of the word "evidence".
Don't pretend you don't see a difference here.
As mentioned before, I believe that there are plenty of questions
beyond the limits of Science, and also beyond any other epistemology.
I will assume that by theist you are referring to an "average fundie".
The scientist has a body of accepted knowledge, or as you like to say,
"well established" theories (let's call them his Axioms), and his rules
of logic. The scientist thinks that his claims are very logical.
The theist has his Axioms (the Bible), and his rules of logic. As far
as he is concerned, his claims are very logical.
Don't pretend you don't see a similarity here.
There is no similarity when you cut through the spin. Scientific method
is to research, and fit the theories round the facts. Religious method
is to create a dogma, then try to fit the facts round the theory, and
denounce, suppress and even murder those who oppose the dogma with
facts.
Tuco Benedito Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez,
But you can call me Tuco "The Rat" for short.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mass-energy" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 06:27:32 PM |
|
|
SmartyPants wrote:
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
[..]
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
Or you believe that radiometric dating itself is a sham and a farce.
4- You believe that the entire population of this planet, with the
exception of those who share your beliefs, even including large sects
of Christians, will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
Here's a Christian gem: "God is equidistant from believable and
unbelievable. Therefore, in His perfect justice His not pushing anyone
to believe or disbelieve. If He makes himself obvious to you, it would
be the equivalent of force." (lol)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
