Creationists grow increasingly desperate in feud with Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Retro Rob]

That's a denial, moron. "It doesn't exist here."

Ahh...didn't know that's what you meant...my bad.

Thanks.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is segregated. Methodological naturalism != supernaturalism.

So in this discussion, are you admitting that you're a segregationist?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Ahh...didn't know that's what you meant

It was qualified with, "along the line of study."


So we can continue with this: If your line of study is the age of the Earth, guess what? Your Holy Book doesn't apply.
If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and that within the last few thousand years it was completely covered by water, and this is in complete conflict with thousands upon thousands of observations which you wave away with, "Muh writings are better than your eyes," are you a scientist? No.

So in this discussion, are you admitting that you're a segregationist?

Do you admit that you think that blind religious dogma is the same as sighted examination of the evidence with no preconditions?

 

[PokerGuy]

Science has no issue with religion

Nope, science does not, but a lot of narrow minded scientists do.

it is just that what science uncovers doesn't jive with what is in your religious hand book.

I believe the word you're looking for is "jibe", not "jive". There are plenty of people (including scientists) that have no problem with region and science. They are by no means mutually exclusive.

I've said similar to him in the past, but for all his disbelief in science he, like many millions of other believers, will use science at every opportunity to extend his time here on earth and not go to eternal paradise with the most incredible being in the universe he worships. It doesn't add up.

Just because you don't believe something purported by scientists doesn't mean you disbelieve science in general. That's a logical fallacy.

 

[Retro Rob]

It was qualified with, "along the line of study."

I appreciate that.

So we can continue with this: If your line of study is the age of the Earth, guess what? Your Holy Book doesn't apply.
If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and that within the last few thousand years it was completely covered by water, and this is in complete conflict with thousands upon thousands of observations which you wave away with, "Muh writings are better than your eyes," are you a scientist? No.

Cannot agree more.

But back to my last point and what Tyson said, I had no idea that many scientists were religious. That's a good indicator to our future as far as religious people interested in science; we're in very good company!!

 

[Retro Rob]

Just because you don't believe something purported by scientists doesn't mean you disbelieve science in general. That's a logical fallacy.

Thanks for saying this; cannot agree more.

Slowspider has shown how ignorant he is of the Christian religion -- I've been deliberately ignoring him for that reason.

You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you cannot make him think.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nope, science does not, but a lot of narrow minded scientists do.

Christians started to get upset when early scientists started to tell them things like the earth not being the center of the universe, the earth being round, etc. Science doesn't go out to disprove religion, but that is sort of a side effect of gaining knowledge, we learn that fairy tales aren't real. A lot of people who want to live in a fairy tale, like creationists, don't care to hear that and take it as an attack on their faith. That's what started the whole science being at odds with religion, the truth of the world we live in doesn't jibe with their religious handbook, hence the butthurtedness of many of the faithful.

I believe the word you're looking for is "jibe", not "jive". There are plenty of people (including scientists) that have no problem with region and science. They are by no means mutually exclusive.

Yup, you are right, used the wrong word.

Just because you don't believe something purported by scientists doesn't mean you disbelieve science in general. That's a logical fallacy.

Not believing something science says to be true is fine. But to not believe it in light of mountains of evidence simply because it is at odds with your faith (which provides no evidence), that's the issue.

 

[Retro Rob]

Christians started to get upset when early scientists started to tell them things like the earth not being the center of the universe, the earth being round, etc. Science doesn't go out to disprove religion, but that is sort of a side effect of gaining knowledge, we learn that fairy tales aren't real. A lot of people who want to live in a fairy tale, like creationists, don't care to hear that and take it as an attack on their faith. That's what started the whole science being at odds with religion, the truth of the world we live in doesn't jibe with their religious handbook, hence the butthurtedness of many of the faithful.



Yup, you are right, used the wrong word.




Not believing something science says to be true is fine. But to not believe it in light of mountains of evidence simply because it is at odds with your faith (which provides no evidence), that's the issue.

Its very telling how he pointed out (and rightfully so) narrow-minded scientists, you completely ignore that, and continue to criticize religion instead of remotely addressing the point you quoted.

You're so full of stupid that its almost troubling....

 

[SlowSpyder]

Its very telling how he pointed out (and rightfully so) narrow-minded scientists, you completely ignore that, and continue to criticize religion instead of remotely addressing the point you quoted.

You're so full of stupid that its almost troubling....

And you ignored the points I made to call me 'full of stupid'.

I understand that there are scientists who also have faith in a god, many probably a christian god. So what? There are many (my guess many more) who don't believe in any god. I should be more specific in that I'm talking about the many believers who do have a problem with science... like creationists and people who believe a global flood occurred.

But I think I sort of covered that in my first paragraph when I said that 'many of the faithful' are butthurt over what science finds and scientists say. I didn't say every christian is. Would you say that me stating that many christians' beliefs are at odds with science would be a true statement?


Are you not ignoring me (due to my 'ignorance') now while you dismiss my points just to jump on me because you feel I didn't address the point someone else was trying to make well enough? Or can you just admit that you can't refute much of what I say so you pick and choose which of my posts and what part you want to address, then you happily ignore the other parts... kind of like what you are accusing me of doing. :\

 

[DominionSeraph]

But back to my last point and what Tyson said, I had no idea that many scientists were religious. That's a good indicator to our future as far as religious people interested in science; we're in very good company!!

What's meaningful about the "company"?

Science is atheistic. As long as supernaturalism doesn't invade what is purported to be science, what's the difference?
Analogy:
You have 10 teachers. 5 are pedophiles. But those pedophiles have no interest in having sex with any of their students.
If your goal is to have students taught, what's the relevance of their sexual preference, being that the sexual preference is completely outside anything that has to do with the class? If they rape some other kid that'll be a problem for society at large, but it's not a classroom problem.

The religious are the pedophiles of the science world. They have aberrant beliefs, but as long as they keep them segregated they can still do perfectly good work.

 

[Retro Rob]

And you ignored the points I made to call me 'full of stupid'.

What "points"? You same the same thing... every.single.time....and your points invariably boil down to "bible-believing Christians are stupid for believing the Bible"!!!!...

Saying the same thing a different way is still saying the same thing.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Observation trumps Creation Myths, maggots do not spontaneously generate from rotted meat or mice from stored grain as was believed to happen about two hundred years ago.
My God can beat up your god is something we need to out grow.

 

[JD50]

What "points"? You same the same thing... every.single.time....and your points invariably boil down to "bible-believing Christians are stupid for believing the Bible"!!!!...

Saying the same thing a different way is still saying the same thing.

Atheists say the same thing because you never address or refute what we say.

 

[Retro Rob]

What's meaningful about the "company"?

That you have people like you in the field, it makes you feel welcome.

Same way gay football players feel who are dreaming of playing in the NFL -- having others like you makes you feel welcome and not like an outcast.

The religious are the pedophiles of the science world. They have aberrant beliefs, but as long as they keep them segregated they can still do perfectly good work.

Yep, same as with gays in the workplace. As long as it doesn't interfere with your work, they can do good work.

Michael Sam is a great example of this; as long gay advocacy and such stays segregated and doesn't get into the way, he can play football.

Glad we agree.

 

[PokerGuy]

Science doesn't go out to disprove religion

And thus religious people have no problem with science in general. A lot of scientists on the other hand DO apparently feel the need to attack religion, as if their lack of belief makes them somehow superior. It makes them neither superior nor inferior, it is irrelevant.

Not believing something science says to be true is fine. But to not believe it in light of mountains of evidence simply because it is at odds with your faith (which provides no evidence), that's the issue.

You do realize that many many many things supported by "mountains of evidence" have been proven wrong? Faith is just that - faith. If not, it would simply be a matter of fact. Faith requires believing something without irrefutable scientific evidence, something that does not in any way inhibit someone from also being a scientist and engaging in science.

 

[SlowSpyder]

What "points"? You same the same thing... every.single.time....and your points invariably boil down to "bible-believing Christians are stupid for believing the Bible"!!!!...

Saying the same thing a different way is still saying the same thing.

You did it again. Here is my post:

And you ignored the points I made to call me 'full of stupid'.

I understand that there are scientists who also have faith in a god, many probably a christian god. So what? There are many (my guess many more) who don't believe in any god. I should be more specific in that I'm talking about the many believers who do have a problem with science... like creationists and people who believe a global flood occurred.

But I think I sort of covered that in my first paragraph when I said that 'many of the faithful' are butthurt over what science finds and scientists say. I didn't say every christian is. Would you say that me stating that many christians' beliefs are at odds with science would be a true statement?


Are you not ignoring me (due to my 'ignorance') now while you dismiss my points just to jump on me because you feel I didn't address the point someone else was trying to make well enough? Or can you just admit that you can't refute much of what I say so you pick and choose which of my posts and what part you want to address, then you happily ignore the other parts... kind of like what you are accusing me of doing. :\

Here is what you quoted to address

And you ignored the points I made to call me 'full of stupid'.

And then you address it by saying that I say the same thing, that christians are stupid for believing the bible in every post (every.single.time.) Where do you get that from my post above in it's entirety? You don't see other points being addressed or made?

 

[sunzt]

And thus religious people have no problem with science in general....

Unless the sciences goes against their teachings and beliefs, like when Earth isn't the center of the universe or that evolution thing.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And thus religious people have no problem with science in general. A lot of scientists on the other hand DO apparently feel the need to attack religion, as if their lack of belief makes them somehow superior. It makes them neither superior nor inferior, it is irrelevant.

Yes, Galileo attacked the christians, and scientists burned bibles, that's how this all started.

You do realize that many many many things supported by "mountains of evidence" have been proven wrong? Faith is just that - faith. If not, it would simply be a matter of fact. Faith requires believing something without irrefutable scientific evidence, something that does not in any way inhibit someone from also being a scientist and engaging in science.

Science is self correcting, faith is 'it feels good to me so I choose to believe'. You can have faith, but what happens when that faith is at odds with science? That's what this thread is about...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Are you serious? How could the Bible say anything about evolution when it wasn't understood until the 19th Century? The Bible was completed in 98 C.E.

How could the bible say anything about the 2nd coming of Jesus, the great tribulation and the end of the world? They haven't even happened yet!

Are you actually getting dumber?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Fanatical religious people are responsible for huge contributions to scientific knowledge.

Fanatical religious people are responsible for huge contributions to education.

Adolf Hitler loved his dog. So what?

 

[desy]

I certainly hear more religious extremists attacking science than the other way around.

 

[PokerGuy]

Unless the sciences goes against their teachings and beliefs, like when Earth isn't the center of the universe or that evolution thing.

You do realize that there are a majority of people who are both religious AND believe in evolution, right?

 

[Oldgamer]

Ah, another religious-bashing thread. This is what modern atheism has become.

 

[Vic]

Creationism isn't about God or faith, it's about the maintenance of religious authority.

 

[PokerGuy]

Science is self correcting, faith is 'it feels good to me so I choose to believe'. You can have faith, but what happens when that faith is at odds with science? That's what this thread is about...

Science is not infallible, and yes, it can be self correcting -- but by definition it means that what was accepted at one point as being "scientific fact", was in fact wrong. Thus, if someone believes some particular point is wrong (regardless of the reason; religion, ideology, whatever), it doesn't automatically mean they don't believe in science as a whole or can not be a scientist. Einstein: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. He certainly was not very religious, but understood the two are not mutually exclusive.