Science has much better answers than "God did it" (miracle, morals)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe people will respond with a high degree of truthfulness when they are anonymous and have nothing to gain by lying, or lose by telling the truth. This is statistical fact.
With that statement you ignore the psychology of the pathological liar and the criminal mind.
Somewhat related: an article that came out yesterday in Slate.com:
Those of you that do not believe in G-d will never be able to use science to prove that there is no Creator, because The Great I AM is The Eternal One who gave man and his kind knowledge (science) to learn about G-d and His creation. The backward view that all life on earth, especially human life is currently in the process of continuous natural change from a lower, simpler or worse to a higher more complex or better state has never been, nor will it ever be proven as true. Many of you believe it, because the only alternative is special creation, which many of you find unthinkable. The time is now arrived that many of you refuse to endure sound doctrine, and according to your own desires have heaped to yourselves like-minded teachers to scratch your itching ears, which have turned you away from the truth to receive a cunningly devised fable called "evolution." The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you His Holy Spirit...
I'll point out my own error since you didn't catch it: the scripture is On the Origin of Species.
I am aware of that, but it seemed trivial to make an issue of it. I do not do trivial point - scoring
Quote:
"Orangutan" is the spelling from the American dictionary, Merriam-Webster. Is it different in London?
Just hyphenated and then not always. The Malay term was, as i said, a bit of interesting trivia for use in quizzes.
Quote:
It may need explanation that my post was tongue-in-cheek. I was not suggesting there was more than "a passing similarity" here. Only a brain stultified by atheism would miss the humor.
Not so much stultified, but made very acute by years of hearing theist apologists make cheap snide points or simply talking nonsense and then weasling out of it by whining 'I was only joking - lighten up!'. If your tongue is in your cheek, fine, but please, out of consideration for a lot of goddless sorely tried by decades of Theist dissembling, make it perfectly clear, ok?
Quote:
But really, some folks have this overweening deference toward scientists, placing them on pedestals and acting as though they should be arbiters of everything. I respect scientists, they have their place in society, but I'm more in awe of poets, violinists, opera singers, interpreters, pole-vaulters, marathoners, beekeepers... you get the picture. Or maybe you don't.
I do indeed. And to take the point, T Kramer made a very interesting analogy of someone pounding on a piano being as good as someone being taught to play. There's a right way and a wrong way in music as there is in bee - keeping, stone - cutting and everything else including scientific research. The reason we keep holding up science is because:
Axiom. Learn this. The methods of science are the soundest methods of finding things out.
If a claim is made which conflicts with science, science should be given the credit. If that were accepted by those who roll up here with various claims, it would not be neccessary to labour the point, but, instead, they argue that 'science doesn't know everything', 'they are always changing their minds', 'a lot of scientists are religious' (alternating, oddly, with 'scientists invented the Bomb') and, of course, 'faith based guesswork gives answers that science can't.'
It is this constant attempt to decry and dissmiss science Where It Conflicts With Faith which has us constantly needing to argue the case for the validity of the corpus of scientifically verified knowledge.
Since theists have brought the situation on themselves don't come crying to us about 'why do atheists keep banging on about science?'
A "religion" can be any tenet you hold onto strongly. Jingoism is a religion.
No it isn't. For one thing, it doesn't have tax - exempt status.
One can nearly always find exceptions to call the rule into question. That doesn't mean that the rule doesn't exist any more than it means that there is no such thing as birds because bats and beetles can fly too.
The fact is that we all have a universally acepted general concept for the term 'religion' and semantic dickering about terms is merely water- muddying.
Look mate, this attempt to have the semantic tail wag the conceptual dog is not at all helpful. You may think that setting verbal trip - wires is making you look very smart but it isn't. It is unhelpful, tiresome and makes you look a bit of a nitwit. I believe you can do better.
Well, there a possibility that you exist in a state of being wherein you had dismantled and exposed Harris; and there's possibility that you exist in state of being wherein you had not dismantled and exposed Harris.
In another thread I was reading about a suggestion that present day man is actually a composition of at least two species and possibly more.
I find a good deal of consolation in this. It seems to EXPLAIN things that would otherwise be
difficult to endure, in my fellow human being.
So it goes. As an instructor of advanced composition in pianoforte ,the variance in comprehension
in intended dynamic is interesting ,( an intellectual mutation in qualification) & cannot be told or explained.
In spite of sheer logic, (explained and understood dynamic...(relative understanding)
the performance is without.
Without in ignorance, regardless of understanding as association through perception in experience ....is not in keeping with necessary
colour....
in trueness to colour, in ultimate reality.
When an audience...explodes, after a Chopin Etude, preformed with magnificence, its not the music that erupts in the listener. Its the consolation , understanding and joy, that indeed
beauty in life is apparent as well profound . Intelligence cannot operate properly under ill- perceived notion and repugnance to life itself.
try...Chopin Etude...on good system.. op 25 #12 this is a "general post" to topic
With that statement you ignore the psychology of the pathological liar and the criminal mind.
So, every single person in prison is a pathological liar. Got it. Personally, I'm an atheist and I find it nearly impossible to choke out a lie under any circumstances. FFS I can't even lie on my taxes.
Quote:
You atheists are withholding perks from prisoners in order to skew the surveys.
So tell me, with a blind survey that has no benefits and no negatives associated with it in any way, and had no effect on the living conditions nor the parole conditions of the inmates involved...
...just how is anyone "withholding perks" from any other prisoner by lying?
You're just ashamed to admit that believers aren't as intelligent or educated as atheists, and commit far more criminal acts than atheists. God sure did a good job there. He's such a failure that he has to be found in prison.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Truth
with 'scientists invented the Bomb') and, of course, 'faith based guesswork gives answers that science can't.'
