Creationists Are Dumb.

Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Although I don't agree with rudeness, I think Pads attitude is shared by a number of skeptics.

From Skeptiod
I have concluded that it is not only useless for science to debate pseudoscience, it is actually counterproductive to science. Today I'm going to argue that no scientist should ever agree to debate a pseudoscientist about a scientific question.

The primary reason I oppose debates is that a debate, by definition, allows two competing views to be explored and compared, and arguments presented for each. The very nature of a debate presents science as if it is merely a competing opinion. When we agree to a debate, we are agreeing to drag science down to the level of a view that competes with pseudoscience. Simply by agreeing to the debate, we present the scientific method as being vulnerable to disassembly by fallacious pseudoscientific arguments. That's the message we send: Science is not fact, science is merely opinion; and it's as weak as any other.

It has been argued that scientists have a huge advantage in debates because we have the facts on our side. Well, so we do, but that's not an advantage at all. Rather, it's a limitation. The audience members who are not scientists can rarely discriminate between facts and pseudofacts. The pseudoscientist has an unlimited supply of sources and claims and validations. He can say whatever he wants.
Click to expand...
It's also worth pointing out that, the big bang and evolution are two completely different theories that attempt to explain very different things. The question of 'what happened before the big bang' has nothing to do with life evolving.
 
IAm5toned

IAm5toned

Well-Known Member
all religions are a form of political control, that allows mankind to live somewhat in harmony with each other, to raise civilization out of the dust.... without control, there is chaos.

a man can be argued against... but what is a mans argument vs a god?

there is no argument...

how do you get the masses to toil in your fields?

you make them believe it is god will ;)

it's actually pretty simple when you look @ it out of context.

keep on believing, if you want to.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Sorry I forgot I said I would come back to this bit...

If they did not do it in the name of religion than they would have found some other social means to motivate people to war. Let me guess every war was based on religion. Vietnam was not a war based on religion. We did not fight the Japanese because of religion. The Korean war was not due to religion. People want to conquer other people and thats the way it has always been. Your attempt to characterize all religious people as war mongers is pathetic. You can not blame all of the worlds problems on religion. Grow up and quit blame shifting all of your life problems onto religion.

My point the whole time was that religions give people a false justification for war, not in all instances, but definitely in most.

"besides justifying the transfer or wealth to kleptocrats, institutionalized religion brings two other important benefits to centralized societies. First, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other - by providing them with a bond not based on kinship. Second, it gives people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks." -Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel, p. 278

So you see, without this sense of false justification organized religion provides, people would still have war, but it's my opinion, and I believe it's supported by facts from current conflicts around the globe - that is, the more religiously occupied nations tend to be those that have the most conflict - they would have an extremely difficult time justifying it. You simply couldn't get people of one nation to kill people of another nation on the scale we see today without it. Think of it like getting an army of atheists to fight for a deity - impossible task.

That's how you win hearts and minds and change the way we solve problems.
 
GreatwhiteNorth

GreatwhiteNorth

Global Moderator
Staff member
Padawanbater2 said:
Sorry I forgot I said I would come back to this bit...

If they did not do it in the name of religion than they would have found some other social means to motivate people to war. Let me guess every war was based on religion. Vietnam was not a war based on religion. We did not fight the Japanese because of religion. The Korean war was not due to religion. People want to conquer other people and thats the way it has always been. Your attempt to characterize all religious people as war mongers is pathetic. You can not blame all of the worlds problems on religion. Grow up and quit blame shifting all of your life problems onto religion.

My point the whole time was that religions give people a false justification for war, not in all instances, but definitely in most.

"besides justifying the transfer or wealth to kleptocrats, institutionalized religion brings two other important benefits to centralized societies. First, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other - by providing them with a bond not based on kinship. Second, it gives people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks." -Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel, p. 278

So you see, without this sense of false justification organized religion provides, people would still have war, but it's my opinion, and I believe it's supported by facts from current conflicts around the globe - that is, the more religiously occupied nations tend to be those that have the most conflict - they would have an extremely difficult time justifying it. You simply couldn't get people of one nation to kill people of another nation on the scale we see today without it. Think of it like getting an army of atheists to fight for a deity - impossible task.

That's how you win hearts and minds and change the way we solve problems.
Click to expand...
Pad, I believe I understand your position but you didn't really address the specifics brought up by Crackerboy (I believe). For instance, how has religion cause the current escalation of tensions in the Korean Peninsula or as brought up earlier, Vietnam, the 1st Korean war, the 1st & 2nd world wars?
Understand, not bashing, just interested in your thoughts.
GWN
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
GreatwhiteNorth said:
Pad, I believe I understand your position but you didn't really address the specifics brought up by Crackerboy (I believe). For instance, how has religion cause the current escalation of tensions in the Korean Peninsula or as brought up earlier, Vietnam, the 1st Korean war, the 1st & 2nd world wars?
Understand, not bashing, just interested in your thoughts.
GWN
Click to expand...
Please link to the post where Pad said that all wars are caused by religion. I'm having trouble finding it and doubt that he said any such thing.
 
GreatwhiteNorth

GreatwhiteNorth

Global Moderator
Staff member
mindphuk said:
Please link to the post where Pad said that all wars are caused by religion. I'm having trouble finding it and doubt that he said any such thing.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that, I was referring to his statement "My point the whole time was that religions give people a false justification for war, not in all instances, but definitely in most."
I assumed that the "Most" inferred most wars and I'd like to hear what connections he sees in those conflicts.
Some of these issues are pretty emotional & that is not my aim. I'm interested in a civil exchange of ideas, not looking for an E-fight.
Peace
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
GreatwhiteNorth said:
I didn't say that, I was referring to his statement "My point the whole time was that religions give people a false justification for war, not in all instances, but definitely in most."
I assumed that the "Most" inferred most wars and I'd like to hear what connections he sees in those conflicts.
Some of these issues are pretty emotional & that is not my aim. I'm interested in a civil exchange of ideas, not looking for an E-fight.
Peace
Click to expand...
No fight. I seriously was looking for what he said to make you ask that. If you read anything different into my post it was not there by intention. I didn't think that sentence implied that the wars you spoke of had anything to do with religion and since crackerboy also said something about this, I thought you were referring to something earlier in this thread.

I honestly think that he is only referring to the wars that ARE being done in the name of religion such as Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, Congo, Iraq, Iran, Kosovo, Afghanistan, India, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Pakistan, Phillipines, Nigeria and Cyprus to name a few which are much more recent than the few you elected to ask about. So yes, I do think he meant most wars and I think history will show that the vast minority of wars fought are done so for purely secular reasons such as stopping the spread fascism in WWII and communism in Korea and Vietnam. Even border conflicts such as the Iraq Iran War occur because of religious undertones (fear of Shia rebellion).

In fact, I challenge you to present more 20th century wars that are primarily secular in nature. You've listed 3 so far. I have $10 here that says I can name 5 religious wars for each one of yours.

(Am I being civil enough? :) )
 
GreatwhiteNorth

GreatwhiteNorth

Global Moderator
Staff member
mindphuk said:
(Am I being civil enough? :) )
Click to expand...
Very much so, thank you.
I don't have a semblance of an educated comment atm, I tend to be a bit lazy after dinner & a doob.
I really haven't thought about the religion/conflict connection in the past & am just looking for informed opinions.
And, hopefully we will be laughing (in relief) about the present Korean tension soon.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
GreatwhiteNorth said:
Pad, I believe I understand your position but you didn't really address the specifics brought up by Crackerboy (I believe). For instance, how has religion cause the current escalation of tensions in the Korean Peninsula or as brought up earlier, Vietnam, the 1st Korean war, the 1st & 2nd world wars?
Understand, not bashing, just interested in your thoughts.
GWN
Click to expand...
First I want to make it clear, I don't think organized religion is the cause of every war humanity has ever fought. I think it serves as a scapegoat for people to use to justify war. Every one of us realizes murder is wrong, yet we do it every single day in the name of war.

That little excerpt from Diamonds book explained it pretty well when I first read it.

From an atheists perspective, I believe very strongly that killing another person is wrong, I believe it's wrong while simultaneously having a lack of a belief in a God. It's not the fear of eternal damnation that is keeping me from killing other people, it's the knowledge of things like empathy, pain, successful human relationships, etc. that keep me from harming other people. I hear religious people say things like "well without believing in God there wouldn't be any point, I'd just do what I wanted without any regard to anyone else, I'd be out for myself [by proxy, family, friends, etc.]" pretty frequently, alarmingly frequent actually...

So with believers, and UTI pointed this out earlier, could have been in a different thread, they act moral out of fear, not out of the knowledge of what's actually "right and wrong".

When it clicked in my head that without this scapegoat, there is no justification for killing thousands and often times millions of people, that was just another step on the way toward atheism.

Religion itself is responsible for it's fair share of death and destruction throughout the ages too though. Crusades, Witch trials, etc.

So yeah, in total, it's very clear that our world could really do without religion for a few centuries... that's actually all we might have left...


 
I

Illumination

New Member
A question...why is it assumed that if one accepts a creator scenario they must be religious? All religions are false fake and self serving which in no way promotes anything but bs....but just becasue one accepts a creator they must be religious??

Namaste':leaf:
 
I

Illumination

New Member
In all that mankind has observed never has anything or anyone produced something from nothing....since this has never been observed ever

Then how is it logical to believe that everything came from nothing?

This is a much more leaping an act of faith as we have not a shred of evidence that this is possible....yet supposed logic states that that only applies to everything even though it has never been observed to occur with anything

So given this info you are believing that everything came from nothing

Well that is just a major flaw in logic, isn't it?

Namaste':leaf:

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law" :twisted:
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Illumination said:
In all that mankind has observed never has anything or anyone produced something from nothing....since this has never been observed ever

Then how is it logical to believe that everything came from nothing?

This is a much more leaping an act of faith as we have not a shred of evidence that this is possible....yet supposed logic states that that only applies to everything even though it has never been observed to occur with anything

So given this info you are believing that everything came from nothing

Well that is just a major flaw in logic, isn't it?

Namaste':leaf:

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law" :twisted:
Click to expand...
I believe the flaw in logic is yours. You are attributing things to people that have not been claimed by them. This is called a strawman argument. No one is saying that 'everything came from nothing.'
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Illumination said:
In all that mankind has observed never has anything or anyone produced something from nothing....since this has never been observed ever

Then how is it logical to believe that everything came from nothing?

This is a much more leaping an act of faith as we have not a shred of evidence that this is possible....yet supposed logic states that that only applies to everything even though it has never been observed to occur with anything

So given this info you are believing that everything came from nothing

Well that is just a major flaw in logic, isn't it?

Namaste':leaf:

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law" :twisted:
Click to expand...
Casimir effect and virtual particles.

Also, do you have a better, more logical explanation of where everything came from? The idea of a supreme creator to explain where "everything" came from just raises even more questions.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
Casimir effect and virtual particles.
Click to expand...
However, ever virtual particles obey conservation of mass-energy. I think he is talking about something that violates conservation law.
This, however is a creationist/ID canard. It is nonsense to talk about anything outside of the known universe as anything, let alone nothing. "What is the universe expanding into?" is a meaningless question as spacetime itself is expanding. The big bang theory states that at one point in time, the universe was extremely small, hot and dense. Nowhere is the claim made that it came from nowhere or that nothing preceded it. Our universe could merely be a bubble formed from another universe. It could have 'always' existed and only expanded due to something we don't yet know. The things is, what occurred before a few units of planck time is unknown and open to a lot of speculation but that doesn't mean that physicists are claiming that nothing created everything.

Also, do you have a better, more logical explanation of where everything came from? The idea of a supreme creator to explain where "everything" came from just raises even more questions.
Click to expand...
Every time science investigates nature, it is found that even things that appear complex, when we look at their parts, the parts are simpler. Now if we imagine some sort of creator, that assumes that there is something more complicated than the thing that got created. To me that's a step backwards in explaining a philosophically satisfying model.
- Garrett Lisi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exce..._of_Everything​
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
However, ever virtual particles obey conservation of mass-energy. I think he is talking about something that violates conservation law.
This, however is a creationist/ID canard. It is nonsense to talk about anything outside of the known universe as anything, let alone nothing. "What is the universe expanding into?" is a meaningless question as spacetime itself is expanding. The big bang theory states that at one point in time, the universe was extremely small, hot and dense. Nowhere is the claim made that it came from nowhere or that nothing preceded it. Our universe could merely be a bubble formed from another universe. It could have 'always' existed and only expanded due to something we don't yet know. The things is, what occurred before a few units of planck time is unknown and open to a lot of speculation but that doesn't mean that physicists are claiming that nothing created everything.

Every time science investigates nature, it is found that even things that appear complex, when we look at their parts, the parts are simpler. Now if we imagine some sort of creator, that assumes that there is something more complicated than the thing that got created. To me that's a step backwards in explaining a philosophically satisfying model.
- Garrett Lisi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exce..._of_Everything​
Click to expand...
My point was that we don't know everything in the universe. There very well could be some reasonable explanation of where all the matter in the universe came from that doesn't violate the conservation of mass-energy as demonstrated by virtual particles popping into and out of "nothing" all the time.

And yea that was my second point too. Saying "you can't create something from NOTHING that's illogical" doesn't make the idea of creation any less illogical.
 
420God

420God

Well-Known Member
Some things always were and some things always will be.

Searching for the beginning is like trying to find god.

It will never happen and every explanation will only and always be theory.

The idea that everything came to be 6,000 years ago is just fucking retarded.

Just my opinion.:blsmoke:
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
420God said:
Some things always were and some things always will be.

Searching for the beginning is like trying to find god.

It will never happen and every explanation will only and always be theory.

The idea that everything came to be 6,000 years ago is just fucking retarded.

Just my opinion.:blsmoke:
Click to expand...
Except the beginning actually exists and we might figure it out some day. Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's useless. Evolution is a theory. A damn good one.
 
I

Illumination

New Member
guy incognito said:
Except the beginning actually exists and we might figure it out some day. Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's useless. Evolution is a theory. A damn good one.
Click to expand...
I can see that I have been misunderstood...so FUCK GOD...but you cant just dismiss it because you dont like it...I dont like it, God that is, and I accept evolution....but as I have no proof either way it remains an option to be considered...anyway my point is made and it was only meant to do what it did....demonstrate that no explanation to an unknown can be dismissed as ludicrous and some more banter to masturbate my mind

Namaste'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top