index for creationist myths

[will641]

this site is pretty crazy. if anyone has any scientific interest in why creationism is b.s. other than the obvious, this would be a good place to start.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

[wufwugy]

yes talkorigins is awesome.

i would LOOOOOOOOOOVE for somebody to come around here spewing creationist agenda. i would pwn that poor deluded heathen into oblivion with the aid of talkorigins and internet infidels.

[wufwugy]

god please please please have somebody come in here crusading on creationism. that would be sooooooo much fun. they say the stupidest things. like so stupid that you gotta dumb yourself down in order to even see why they're so stupid.

like they come up with some reason they dont like the big bang then say thats evidence against evolution. loooooooooollllllll. CLASSIC example of the supreme silliness of humans to opine on subjects inwhich they know not their terminology. evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. it is biological. now branches of science like cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, etc, have to do with the big bang. another popular one is creationists thinking they refute abiogenesis and thus evolution. just another looooooolllll since abiogeneis again has nothing to do with evolution. these are just examples of things that are soooooooo wrong that its hard to see they're wrong without dumbing yourself.

please please please plzplzplzplz lord let one of your devout minions thump their self-righteous evangelism round here. i need funnnn timeeeeee

p.s. it seems i may be misleading. neither big bang or abiogenesis in any way shape form size source color crater caste or conundrum have creationists refuted either.

[Lukie]

Puh LEEEZE. Everybody knows the earth was created by our lord and father 6000 years ago. All of that "evidence" of yours was planted by our lord to test our faith.

DON'T FALL FOR IT OR YOU WILL SPEND AN ETERNITY BURNING IN HELL!! IT'S A TRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kingnat]

ID is science. Always has been. Always will be. Amen.

[dalecooper]

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...vsreligion.jpg

[zook]

All of that "evidence" of yours was planted by our lord to test our faith.

I absolutely love this argument. One of my favorite things ever. People worship a god that fucks with their heads!

[Thunder]

All of that "evidence" of yours was planted by our lord to test our faith

Anyone who ever says this has obviously been put here to test our faith.

[FlyingSaucy]

wufwugy your posts say ID is wrong but your signature says the opposite. Can you explain?

[Lukie]

All of that "evidence" of yours was planted by our lord to test our faith.

I absolutely love this argument. One of my favorite things ever. People worship a god that fucks with their heads!

I'm sure everyone caught onto this but just to make absolutely sure, my post was meant only to be sarcastically.

[Lukie]

sigh.. I used to hear all kinds of that crazy bible-thumping crap when I was growing up. My favorite one my dad came up was his explanation for dinosaurs... and more specifically that some human bones and dinosaur bones were found in the same fossil once (or someting to that effect), hence my dad's theory that dinosaurs were perfectly explainable in biblical terms.. i.e. that humans and dinosaurs once roamed the earth together.

lots more where that came from

[zook]

I know you're not THAT crazy lukie

[FlyingSaucy]

The grand canyon is a treasure chest of evidence for the Flood with a capital F that took place about 4400 years ago.

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=95

My favorite part
"Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory. I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called. "

[BankItDrew]

dalecooper: nice find re: candle in the dark - carl sagan

The grand canyon is a treasure chest of evidence for the Flood with a capital F that took place about 4400 years ago.

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=95

My favorite part
"Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory. I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called. "

Re: Grand Canyon
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WuSY_lX5tmg
This is part 1 of many videos produced by an excellent poster on YouTube. One of my top three to be sure.

[FlyingSaucy]

nice, djarm67 is awesome. Part 2 is equally good. "Actually the sun is powered by hydrogen being converted to higher elements, by a process called fusion." Didn't we learn that in 8th grade? Can you tell that I have been indoctrinated by government run public schools?

I have no problem with Christians btw. I do have a problem with anyone who intellectually (see Joe McCarthy) or physically (see Hitler or George W Bush) attacks something they have not taken the time to understand.

[Pythonic]

Jesus was actually black

[will641]

Jesus was actually north korean

[wufwugy]

found this cool...

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bull**** sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bull****; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

[wufwugy]

if jesus existed, which we dont know for sure, but i its decently possible, then he was most likely jewish.

[zook]

if jesus existed, which we dont know for sure, but i its decently possible, then he was most likely jewish.

are you saying he couldn't have been black AND jewish? I beg to differ.

[wufwugy]

The grand canyon is a treasure chest of evidence for the Flood with a capital F that took place about 4400 years ago.

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=95

My favorite part
"Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory. I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called. "

funny how you bring up cse and kent hovind. i used to be a huuuudge fan and advocate of his. you know he's in prison right now? unfortunately its for tax evasion, not propaganda.

speaking of grand canyon, here's a short thread on iidb succinctly listing off many reasons why the flood could not have caused it. http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=246337

[wufwugy]

if jesus existed, which we dont know for sure, but i its decently possible, then he was most likely jewish.

are you saying he couldn't have been black AND jewish? I beg to differ.

blewish?

[wufwugy]

ID is science. Always has been. Always will be. Amen.

why lord why are you be leveling? you are cruel. gettin my hopes up...

[CoccoBill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnN92H32jVk

[Lukie]

serious question/speculation time:

A long time ago (whether you define that as 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, whatever) it would seem reasonable to believe in creationism and god or various gods (e.g. god of the son, god of the sea, etc). How else would you explain the world thousands of years ago?

Now that science can explain just about everything we see in our every day life, and discovered so many absolutely amazing things, why do people still cling to beliefs that are thousands of years old that are so blatantly and obviously wrong? Is it really a testament to mankind's stupidity, or is it something else?

[will641]

serious question/speculation time:

A long time ago (whether you define that as 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, whatever) it would seem reasonable to believe in creationism and god or various gods (e.g. god of the son, god of the sea, etc). How else would you explain the world thousands of years ago?

Now that science can explain just about everything we see in our every day life, and discovered so many absolutely amazing things, why do people still cling to beliefs that are thousands of years old that are so blatantly and obviously wrong? Is it really a testament to mankind's stupidity, or is it something else?

its a character shortcoming as far as im concerned. idk, maybe they need some philosophical belief that they are special or something.

[BankItDrew]

Now that science can explain just about everything we see in our every day life, and discovered so many absolutely amazing things, why do people still cling to beliefs that are thousands of years old that are so blatantly and obviously wrong? Is it really a testament to mankind's stupidity, or is it something else?

The answer I am always given is that the answerer dislikes the idea of nothingness after death. Something after death just sounds more pleasant (I'd hate to live under an egomaniac, racist, homophobic tyrant for eternity fwiw). Rather than after death = dust.

[wufwugy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnN92H32jVk

omg ive never seen ali g, they all that funny?

are the guests duped into thinking its legit or what?

[wufwugy]

serious question/speculation time:

A long time ago (whether you define that as 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, whatever) it would seem reasonable to believe in creationism and god or various gods (e.g. god of the son, god of the sea, etc). How else would you explain the world thousands of years ago?

Now that science can explain just about everything we see in our every day life, and discovered so many absolutely amazing things, why do people still cling to beliefs that are thousands of years old that are so blatantly and obviously wrong? Is it really a testament to mankind's stupidity, or is it something else?

its evolutionary. i wish i could find one particular thread i read a few months ago with excellent explanations for why this is, but alas...

it has to do with a ton of little things involved in evolution. things like personal security, many many constructs aiding society, and abstract thought.

personal security: its sort of a phenomenon that the smarter species are the more bleak of outlooks they acknowledge. being able to think about ego and time in the ways we do strongly encourage pursuit of solutions to the emptiness and destruction that we know to be our inevitability.

society: the beneficial constructs of religion on primitive and developing societies are insurmountable. there is togetherness in common transcendent beliefs. common morals and common goals are necessary for society. what likely happened over tens or hundreds of thousands of years is that the strongest societies of peoples had the strongest of common abstract beliefs, and these people survived because they were the strongest.

abstract thought: there was a time when the premier 'scientists' were also premier religionists. back then there wasn't really the 'science' distinction, but was more just philosophy. what we tend to not realize now is that science is philosophy, and religion is philosophy. the smartest of our ancestors may not have understood the scientific method and logic and its fallacies, but they could think abstractly enough to look up at the sky and see a ball of fire.

its curious how it is extreeeemely natural to think illogically, this is because logic depends on scope. to a caveman, it is amazingly logical to think the sun is a ball of fire like the fire he made by rubbing two sticks together. he thinks this due to associations and correlations between the two. this requires amazing intelligence. but what happens is that due to his misunderstanding of scientific method and logic and evidence, he applies these same thoughts to many other things.

developing man likely thought abstractly about some things, and were more correct about them than before. however those thoughts, even though they were more evolved than lesser species, had little correct foundation and ran amok. this is why we see soooooo much human and earthly analogy in religions. since humans used analogical thought to think deeper about one thing they applied that to other things. our understanding of science now shows this to be a big no no. to this day most humans believe that analogy is one of the most accurate and powerful methods of thought. it is simply not, and really the only way we know this is via science. dont get me wrong, there is tremendous value in analogy, but it must be limited to its correct scope, and even then, analogy in no way is evidence, but simply a way of sparking thoughts down a possibly more correct avenue.

we have so much religious thought nowadays because it is in our genes. because your parents and their parents and their parents and their parents......

[CoccoBill]

serious question/speculation time:

A long time ago (whether you define that as 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, whatever) it would seem reasonable to believe in creationism and god or various gods (e.g. god of the son, god of the sea, etc). How else would you explain the world thousands of years ago?

Now that science can explain just about everything we see in our every day life, and discovered so many absolutely amazing things, why do people still cling to beliefs that are thousands of years old that are so blatantly and obviously wrong? Is it really a testament to mankind's stupidity, or is it something else?

I'd recommend reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He's an obnoxiously arrogant prick but the book is good and very thought-provoking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

[CoccoBill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnN92H32jVk

omg ive never seen ali g, they all that funny?

are the guests duped into thinking its legit or what?

I'm afraid you still haven't seen him, this is Ricky Gervais, originally of The Office UK fame. This is pure comedy, I'm sure you'd need to be fundamental christian to think this is legit.

Speaking of Ali G though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8

[WillburForce]

If you saw Di Canio score "the goal" against Wimbledon you'd all be believers.

[MuddyWicket]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKAggapWbAc&NR=1

[Ash256]

I love how some people's agendas involve laughing at people who attempt to answer The Question with absolutely no attempt to answer it themselves.

My opinion - Science/Maths and Higher Religion go hand in hand.

[dalecooper]

I love how some people's agendas involve laughing at people who attempt to answer The Question with absolutely no attempt to answer it themselves.

Camus loves it too.

My opinion - Science/Maths and Higher Religion go hand in hand.

I don't want to hop on the Christian-bashing bandwagon - really I don't, it's too easy and unfair - but that's crazy talk. Science and math have nothing to do with religion. Scientific method <> faith.

[Lukie]

My opinion - Science/Maths and Higher Religion go hand in hand.

I strongly disagree. How would you explain the discrepancy between the scientific theory (i.e. fact) of evolution and the biblical account of creationism? Age of the earth?

What about the parting of the red sea or other nutty stories like the sun stopping in the middle of the sky indefinitely?

I can't possibly see how someone could come to the conclusion that they are compatible. This is a rare issue, in my opinion, that taking the middle road makes little sense, yet a lot of people seem to do it anyway. If your goal is to be as politically correct and offend as few people as possible, that's another thing.

I know I know, you're only supposed to pick and choose stuff from the bible (or other holy books) that suit your agenda and the stuff that makes absolutely no sense is only supposed to be taken metaphorically.

As far as answering "the question" myself, I'm not even going to go there. Many people much smarter than myself have answered, or attempted to answer that question for a long time. Some brilliant minds have devoted their entire lives to researching and explaining it.

[Lukie]

serious question/speculation time:

A long time ago (whether you define that as 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, whatever) it would seem reasonable to believe in creationism and god or various gods (e.g. god of the son, god of the sea, etc). How else would you explain the world thousands of years ago?

Now that science can explain just about everything we see in our every day life, and discovered so many absolutely amazing things, why do people still cling to beliefs that are thousands of years old that are so blatantly and obviously wrong? Is it really a testament to mankind's stupidity, or is it something else?

its evolutionary. i wish i could find one particular thread i read a few months ago with excellent explanations for why this is, but alas...

it has to do with a ton of little things involved in evolution. things like personal security, many many constructs aiding society, and abstract thought.

personal security: its sort of a phenomenon that the smarter species are the more bleak of outlooks they acknowledge. being able to think about ego and time in the ways we do strongly encourage pursuit of solutions to the emptiness and destruction that we know to be our inevitability.

society: the beneficial constructs of religion on primitive and developing societies are insurmountable. there is togetherness in common transcendent beliefs. common morals and common goals are necessary for society. what likely happened over tens or hundreds of thousands of years is that the strongest societies of peoples had the strongest of common abstract beliefs, and these people survived because they were the strongest.

abstract thought: there was a time when the premier 'scientists' were also premier religionists. back then there wasn't really the 'science' distinction, but was more just philosophy. what we tend to not realize now is that science is philosophy, and religion is philosophy. the smartest of our ancestors may not have understood the scientific method and logic and its fallacies, but they could think abstractly enough to look up at the sky and see a ball of fire.

its curious how it is extreeeemely natural to think illogically, this is because logic depends on scope. to a caveman, it is amazingly logical to think the sun is a ball of fire like the fire he made by rubbing two sticks together. he thinks this due to associations and correlations between the two. this requires amazing intelligence. but what happens is that due to his misunderstanding of scientific method and logic and evidence, he applies these same thoughts to many other things.

developing man likely thought abstractly about some things, and were more correct about them than before. however those thoughts, even though they were more evolved than lesser species, had little correct foundation and ran amok. this is why we see soooooo much human and earthly analogy in religions. since humans used analogical thought to think deeper about one thing they applied that to other things. our understanding of science now shows this to be a big no no. to this day most humans believe that analogy is one of the most accurate and powerful methods of thought. it is simply not, and really the only way we know this is via science. dont get me wrong, there is tremendous value in analogy, but it must be limited to its correct scope, and even then, analogy in no way is evidence, but simply a way of sparking thoughts down a possibly more correct avenue.

we have so much religious thought nowadays because it is in our genes. because your parents and their parents and their parents and their parents......

Nice post. I find stuff like this interesting. I definitely agree with the personal security and society part. To take that a step further, society has such an enormous affect on pretty much everything whether it be religion, how people act, how people think, etc.

I need to re-read the rest of your post, but one would think that logical thought would override abstract thought, but as we both know that's often not the case.

[Jack Sawyer]

My opinion - Science/Maths and Higher Religion go hand in hand.

you have to puff, then pass


don't hog all the weed, dammit

[d0zer]

I love how some people's agendas involve laughing at people who attempt to answer The Question with absolutely no attempt to answer it themselves.

There is no answering 'The Question'. That's why it's "THE" question.

agnosticism FTW!

[Jack Sawyer]

The purpose in life is simple.


You are born, grow up a little, learn something, fuck, and then die.

Rinse and repeat over generations.


Oh, but is there something on "the other side"? Is there "an other side"?

Nobody knows. And those who know, can't come back to tell.


I like to think reincarnation is possible, and that we will continue the process over and over. But an interesting wrench is thrown into the equation: if reincarnation is indeed possible, how to explain the ever increasing amount of humans on the planet? where does the matter to fill em up with come from? and why are we special, why do birds and dogs, cockroaches, ants etc. not reincarnate? From where do they get their "soul"?


Many questions, no clear or definite answer. I guess some things are best left unanswered.

[d0zer]

I like to think reincarnation is possible, and that we will continue the process over and over. But an interesting wrench is thrown into the equation: if reincarnation is indeed possible, how to explain the ever increasing amount of humans on the planet? where does the matter to fill em up with come from? and why are we special, why do birds and dogs, cockroaches, ants etc. not reincarnate? From where do they get their "soul"?

Why does your arbitrarily chosen vision of reincarnation differentiate between the human animal and the non-human animal? Are souls tailor fitted to their physical vehicle for some reason, or do you just assume that animals don't have souls while humans do?

Also, why do you assume that divine 'matter' like a soul has a finite quantity like a stack of wood?

[Jack Sawyer]

I think God exists. And, for some reason, I think the Sun is God.

Why? It brings warmth to an otherwise cold place. It keeps the planets nicely rotating. Its gentle, but strict, and as well as giver of life, it erases life too.

Life is dictated around its presence, and has been for ever since man started roaming around (and they found roosters, who knew 6AM was wake up time since before timezones were decided and time itself was measured)

But if the Sun is God, then there are many Gods [Aldebaran, Pollux, Mu, etc.], one bigger than the other, one bluer than the other, one redder, etc. each controlling his or her own region, and nobody even noticing its presence

[Jack Sawyer]

I like to think reincarnation is possible, and that we will continue the process over and over. But an interesting wrench is thrown into the equation: if reincarnation is indeed possible, how to explain the ever increasing amount of humans on the planet? where does the matter to fill em up with come from? and why are we special, why do birds and dogs, cockroaches, ants etc. not reincarnate? From where do they get their "soul"?

Why does your arbitrarily chosen vision of reincarnation differentiate between the human animal and the non-human animal? Are souls tailor fitted to their physical vehicle for some reason, or do you just assume that animals don't have souls while humans do?

Also, why do you assume that divine 'matter' like a soul has a finite quantity like a stack of wood?

Simple assumptions.
People never mention "the other animals" roaming the earth in any way when regarding religion, only in some "evil spirit" context.

Others never assume an animal has a soul, only instinct.
But why stop at "other animals"? There are millions of different creatures alive and kicking running around, and fucking.

My question is: why? Where do they come from? How are they conscious? Why are we different? Are we really different?


Its a theory, and as all theories, its incomplete and full of shit. But I like to think that once we are done here, we get a second run somewhere. Like a big pool of consciousness invisibly roaming the universe, when you are done you return to it in angelical form, waiting until another vessel becomes available for you to habitate.


I think I'm gonna write a book on this shit.

[d0zer]

Simple assumptions.
People never mention "the other animals" roaming the earth in any way when regarding religion, only in some "evil spirit" context.

Others never assume an animal has a soul, only instinct.
But why stop at "other animals"? There are millions of different creatures alive and kicking running around, and fucking.

People? Others?

If you're going by what people or others have said you might as well subscribe to a major religion.

Besides, there are plenty of reincarnation theories that revolve around the idea that as your soul 'evolves', it can handle more and more complicated forms of life. Humans being the 'ultimate', and if you're a bad boy, you get demoted back to a 'lower' form of life in your next life.

When you start to study physiology, particularly that of the brain, you start to see how we're far more similar to many other mammals than we are different. The brain structures responsible for even emotion lie in our primitive brain, and are shared by most other mammals, even down to the measly rat.

Mostly what separates us is our 'higher', cortical brain which gives us the power of complex abstract thought. Our actions, desires, and emotions are still largely driven by the same mechanisms which drove the actions of our evolutionary ancestors, we just now have the ability to ponder them, and assign big words to them. This helps us feel far more different than we actually are.

As for your theory of reincarnation -- why not? It's as good as any other cosmic theory. I personally believe that it's healthy for the subconscious to have some 'faith' about the after-life. Hardly matters which one you pick, as long as it works for you. Its purpose is to quell the cognitive dissonance created by your conscious brain's knowledge that death is inevitable with your subconsciouses' desire to stay alive at all cost.

[CoccoBill]

I personally believe that it's healthy for the subconscious to have some 'faith' about the after-life. Hardly matters which one you pick, as long as it works for you. Its purpose is to quell the cognitive dissonance created by your conscious brain's knowledge that death is inevitable with your subconsciouses' desire to stay alive at all cost.

It's healthy to think that killing infidels and dying in battle will guarantee you'll have a pleasant afterlife? It's healthy to know that however much you "sin", all will be forgiven in the end? How will it make you value life and your surroundings more if you think that this is just a tiny part of it, the "good" eternal part is just about to start?

I completely disagree with you; knowing that this is your only life, you want to make sure you live it to the fullest and try to enjoy every moment of it. Why do you need a crutch when you can take joy in the beauty of life and all the things around you?

A long time ago I was an ignorant indoctrinated protestant kid. It didn't take long for me to start doubting and questioning things, and for the majority of my life I've been an agnostic. For a long time I used to think religion on a personal level is good, that it's just organized religion, fanaticism and mixing church and state that lead to trouble. However, after reading The God Delusion I don't think that way anymore and I've become a stout atheist.

[d0zer]

It's healthy to think that killing infidels and dying in battle will guarantee you'll have a pleasant afterlife? It's healthy to know that however much you "sin", all will be forgiven in the end? How will it make you value life and your surroundings more if you think that this is just a tiny part of it, the "good" eternal part is just about to start?

Well I'll certainly admit that not all afterlife fantasies are good. Maybe the bad ones can be categorized by having an overtly detrimental effect on life on this earth. I don't believe that the two necessarily go hand in hand, though with fundamentalists of any kind, they usually do.

In "The God Delusion", Dawkins admits that he's got shreds of agnosticism in him -- they're just so small that he feels that 'atheist' more accurately sums him up. The book is very convincing, but his target of attack is largely the judeo-Christian image of "God", which isn't really that hard to pick apart. I remain agnostic after reading the book, though certainly atheistic of the biblical God (but I didn't need Dawkins for that).

You remind me of almost every single person I've known who had organized religion crammed down their throats, then came to reject it later in life. You're all left with a very bitter taste of anything even remotely 'spiritual'. I believe this results in what seems to be the natural human tendency to go from one extreme to the other.

[wufwugy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnN92H32jVk

omg ive never seen ali g, they all that funny?

are the guests duped into thinking its legit or what?

I'm afraid you still haven't seen him, this is Ricky Gervais, originally of The Office UK fame. This is pure comedy, I'm sure you'd need to be fundamental christian to think this is legit.

Speaking of Ali G though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8

aw i see what i did. i clicked the link to hovind on the right and thought that was what you linked.

gervais is funny. i personally do not like him a whole lot, but he's an excellent writer. his hbo series extras had some amazing humor in it.

[CoccoBill]

In "The God Delusion", Dawkins admits that he's got shreds of agnosticism in him -- they're just so small that he feels that 'atheist' more accurately sums him up.

I think anything else would be just as irrational and fundamental as being fanatically religious. I'm not an expert, but going back on the topic I suppose a Cambrian rabbit fossil would have to convince me too.

You remind me of almost every single person I've known who had organized religion crammed down their throats, then came to reject it later in life. You're all left with a very bitter taste of anything even remotely 'spiritual'. I believe this results in what seems to be the natural human tendency to go from one extreme to the other.

I don't think that's the case really, my religious journey was quite brief, maybe 3-4 years around the age of maybe 12-15. I don't come from a religious family and I live in a top5 least religious nations on the planet. Indoctrinated was a bit excessive term on my part. I don't have any personal agenda against religion itself, merely on its effects on the world, how its used to oppress and herd people and all the atrocities made in its name.

[wufwugy]

I need to re-read the rest of your post, but one would think that logical thought would override abstract thought, but as we both know that's often not the case.

i would really like to comment on this, but my understanding of logic and the related is not where it should be. the topic is amaaaaazingly complicated.

imo the greatest thing that could happen to the developed nations is to teach logic and their fallacies as mandatory throughout child and teen school years. this is because logic is elusive. many many things that we rationalize seem logical but they're simply not. they're something else. the best word we have is that they're logical fallacies. this can be with certain modes of thought altogether or with application of thought. what makes it so hard to understand is that its not natural for us to think that how we think may be wrong, and its natural for us to see the 'logic' we apply and think its correct.

[d0zer]

I don't have any personal agenda against religion itself, merely on its effects on the world, how its used to oppress and herd people and all the atrocities made in its name.

I agree with you.

...I just don't think there's anything wrong with Jack believing he'll reincarnate. As long as he doesn't go around getting all fundamentalist & dogmatic on everyone, killing people at random cause "hell -- they're gunna reincarnate anyway so what does it matter?"

[CoccoBill]

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
- Albert Einstein

[d0zer]

I've always liked that Einstein quote

[BankItDrew]

agnosticism FTW!

I am agnostic towards God in the same way that I am agnostic towards teapots orbiting Saturn.

[d0zer]

agnosticism FTW!

I am agnostic towards God in the same way that I am agnostic towards teapots orbiting Saturn.

Hook a brovah up with yer god telescope, keep an open mind about teapots orbiting Saturn, and for the love of all things holy, bow down and pray to the flying spaghetti monster

[BankItDrew]

agnosticism FTW!

I am agnostic towards God in the same way that I am agnostic towards teapots orbiting Saturn.

Hook a brovah up with yer god telescope, keep an open mind about teapots orbiting Saturn, and for the love of all things holy, bow down and pray to the flying spaghetti monster

L. R. Hubbard <Bobby Henderson FTW

[d0zer]

L. R. Hubbard <Bobby Henderson FTW

But Hubbard was sooooo much more +EV...

[BankItDrew]

L. R. Hubbard <Bobby Henderson FTW

But Hubbard was sooooo much more +EV...

On entertainment side of things, looking back at his redonkulous creation.

[d0zer]

L. R. Hubbard <Bobby Henderson FTW

But Hubbard was sooooo much more +EV...

On entertainment side of things, looking back at his redonkulous creation.

I meant more in terms of the amount of money and power his 'religion' has amassed since inception.

Bobby Henderson doesn't even charge. He's the linux of the faux religion world. Great idea, well implemented, but where's the EV?

I WANT MY MONIES!

[wufwugy]

fwiw, the word agnostic is misused often. it doens't have anything to do with being unsure, but means that supposed theistic ideologies are unknown or unknowable.

i loathe when people use agnosticism to mean that they're on the fence. like 'im not sure if there's a god. im agnostic' OMGWTFDIE

[BankItDrew]

^^^^^^^

agnosticism FTW!

I am agnostic towards God in the same way that I am agnostic towards teapots orbiting Saturn.

[d0zer]

but means that supposed theistic ideologies are unknown or unknowable.

It's almost like you pulled it off the front page of the wiki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

There are somewhat different types of agnostics though, and some of them do come close to simply being 'unsure'.

I'm some cross between a 'strong' agnostic, and an apathetic one and I blame a 2nd year philosophy course I took "Philosophy of God". That was the last philosophy course I took

[Lukie]

fwiw, the word agnostic is misused often. it doens't have anything to do with being unsure, but means that supposed theistic ideologies are unknown or unknowable.

i loathe when people use agnosticism to mean that they're on the fence. like 'im not sure if there's a god. im agnostic' OMGWTFDIE

I agree with you. I consider myself an agnostic for a couple reasons. I don't feel there is anything to disprove. Were there any credible evidence or reason to believe that a loving, all powerful, omnipotent god existed, there would be something to disprove. In that case, however, I most certainly wouldn't have the viewpoint that I currently do (more on that later). Also, quite honestly, I don't like the label 'athiest' and the connotation that comes with it for most people.

To keep the rest of the post as simple as possible, I'm just going to use the word agnostic as being unsure, aka 'on the fence'.

Possible flaw with this logic/viewpoint: Say you are very skeptical of the christian god and bible, and you think there might be a 10% chance that the bible is accurate and the christian god exists. Were this the case, you should be a DEVOUT christian. 1%, same thing. Unless you think that this god that emcompasses everything and can read everyone's thoughts simultaneously, and will consider logical thought to be a sin punishable by throwing your soul into hell for eternity, then I can't help you. rofl.

The point being is that eternal torture should be weighted much more strongly than anything that's done on earth. The fact that the chance that this is relevant is effectively 0, it doesn't bother me a whole lot.

[d0zer]

oh noez...pascal's wager + weighted probabilities = head asplode

[wufwugy]

but means that supposed theistic ideologies are unknown or unknowable.

It's almost like you pulled it off the front page of the wiki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

which seems to be pulled off of dictionary.com

and thank you, i prefer to reference things accurately.

[wufwugy]

Unless you think that this god that emcompasses everything and can read everyone's thoughts simultaneously, and will consider logical thought to be a sin punishable by throwing your soul into hell for eternity, then I can't help you. rofl.

awesome

[Warpe]

[Jack Sawyer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

[CoccoBill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

Dawkins did a good job of debunking this in the god delusion:

1. There is no way to meet the terms of the wager: one cannot force him or herself to believe, even if it would be beneficial for one to do so. You either believe or not, you can't fake it before an all-knowing entity, right?

2. Isn't believing "just to be safe" an insult to the potential creator?

3. What if you are wrong? There are thousands of gods, which one do you believe in? I'm pretty sure whichever it is it'd be better to not believe in any of them rather than worship The One's rival.

[Lukie]

I know that I'm taking this out of context, but the following quote pretty much sums up why I think organized religion is so laughable:

3. What if you are wrong? There are thousands of gods, which one do you believe in? I'm pretty sure whichever it is it'd be better to not believe in any of them rather than worship The One's rival.

It's funny how many gods humanity has invented. Yet, everyone is so sure that 'their' god is the correct one. They just know.

[Jack Sawyer]

I know that I'm taking this out of context, but the following quote pretty much sums up why I think organized religion is so laughable:

3. What if you are wrong? There are thousands of gods, which one do you believe in? I'm pretty sure whichever it is it'd be better to not believe in any of them rather than worship The One's rival.

It's funny how many gods humanity has invented. Yet, everyone is so sure that 'their' god is the correct one. They just know.

very, very true

[a500lbgorilla]

3. What if you are wrong?

What if I'm wrong? I honestly don't care. Is it because I'm full of vitality and youth right now? If that's how you want to resolve me in your mind, that's fine. Roll tha dice!

[d0zer]

Atheists are as bad as Christians.

They get all defensive when you question their faith, and will go on and on for hours to anyone who'll listen to all their oso important opinions on something they're not even remotely qualified to speak on

[Lukie]

Atheists are as bad as Christians.

They get all defensive when you question their faith, and will go on and on for hours to anyone who'll listen to all their oso important opinions on something they're not even remotely qualified to speak on

Here's the difference, as I see it.

Athiests don't really have a faith. Christians are basing their faith on beliefs that are thousands of years old, of which they have seen nothing in their lives that verify those beliefs. Logical thought also contradicts those beliefts. I guess you can draw your own conclusions from the above statements...

[Lukie]

3. What if you are wrong?

What if I'm wrong? I honestly don't care. Is it because I'm full of vitality and youth right now? If that's how you want to resolve me in your mind, that's fine. Roll tha dice!

IIRC, there's something in the bible thats clearly and adamently against gambling. Hence, Bill Frist. Just sayin'...

[Ragnar4]

Atheists are as bad as Christians.

They get all defensive when you question their faith, and will go on and on for hours to anyone who'll listen to all their oso important opinions on something they're not even remotely qualified to speak on

LoL I think I'm one of the only atheists in the world that doesn't feel like a victim.

It's so odd to hear other atheists put their garbage out there.