To be honest... if half the time spent on arguing which is better was put towards actual research... imagine the possibilities...
Hell we might be living on the moon...
Hell we might be living on the moon...
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,284
- 1,998
- 126
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
I understand your sentiment about the pointless arguing, but you really seem to have very little idea about the amount of scientific research that is carried out day-by-day around the world. It easily dwarfs the small cross-section of people committed to arguing against science.
It's worth noting that virtually nobody researches evolution as though it were a tenuous hypothesis. Rather, evolution is the premise under which the majority of biological research is conducted. As devout Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."
Courage of conviction is the very thing that has lead us astray.
"I know I'm right. Everyone who says otherwise is a coward who doesn't have the courage to say they're right". Because everyone is right aren't they?
Maybe no one has to be right. They only have to spew their particular version of nonsense with "conviction".
Stop drawing lines. The world is not divided between Atheists and Theists. It's divided between people, who are infinitely more difficult to categorize.
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,284
- 1,998
- 126
So wrong it's laughable. Having courage in your convictions IS NOT akin to being 100% sure that all other opinions are wrong. It's having the balls to stand up and say "This is what I believe" even though you can't prove that it's right. The problems with the bible-thumpers and other believers in fairy tales is not that they believe that they are right, it's that they are sure that everyone else is wrong.
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
Nevertheless an agnostic IS NOT an atheist. You have defined the line that you have drawn and it is between atheists and theists. You are grouping those that have questions whith those that claim to know. The hipocracy is strong with this one...
This applies perfectly to most atheists.
"I know no deities exists."
How?
"Because you can't prove they exist!"
Not-proven != Non-existence.
All that you can claim without applying faith is that you choose not to believe in deities because they are not necessary and there is no direct evidence of the existence of supernatural beings in natural law.
You can argue "it's not logical to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster without evidence." That is a valid point. "There is no FSM" is something you can't prove so you have to take it on faith.
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
Yeah, it's a real shame it's only an opinion...
If you choose to believe the Invisible Man in the Sky created the universe about 6000 years ago, based on what you've read in a book that was written about 2000 years ago, you're certainly free to do so as it's not my place to dissuade you.
I'll go with both. I believe in God and the Bible, but I believe it was 6 creative periods, not days.
Meaning?
Last I recalled, there was more to a literal day than just a morning and an evening. So why should I believe that to be a literal 24 hour period? Evening to morning is really only about 12 hours, not 24. It's often even used to refer to the beginning and end, such as the morning and evening of one's life. That sure seems to make a lot more sense to me, meaning the beginning and end of a creative period.
grrl
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2001
- 6,204
- 1
- 0
Meaning, as you just demonstrated, when the "literal word" doesn't match the facts, the meaning of the words are changed. One of the problems of discussing whether there is a creator or not is the discussion can only go around in circles. The existence of a creator hasn't been proven, in fact it probably can't be proven, nor can it be disproven. So, one is left with faith, which is fine, but personally, I don't find it any more comforting or necessary to believe in a supernatural creative power than an incomplete and 'unanimated' scientific theory.
BrokenVisage
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2005
- 24,771
- 14
- 81
I understand your point, but when has a day (24-hour period) ever been defined as being from evening to morning? A day is nothing more or less than a period of time. We eventually ascribed the definition of a 24-hour period being a day, but I don't see that being the case here. The period referenced is defining a day, not the other way around.
"..the evening and the morning were called the *th day". That's a definition of day and has no bearing on it's length. I'm sorry, but I'd have to disagree on the meaning of the word being changed. I do however agree with the rest of your comment.
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
?Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons.? -Michael Shermer
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Science is the proof of hypothesis through experimentation and the repeatable observations therein. It has very little to do with origin theory.
Your stupid false dilema makes it sound like if you believe in Creationism you can't also believe that penicilin will cure an infection. It seems to me, given the intelligence level of your false argument, that you WISH that was true so you could look smarter than you are by siding with the smart-sounding guys.
As far as science, there is nothing to believe....it's simply a process. Origin theory, on the other hand is still wide open. To hear scientists proposing that something came out of nothing as a plasubile explanation is actually pretty funny.
Your stupid false dilema makes it sound like if you believe in Creationism you can't also believe that penicilin will cure an infection. It seems to me, given the intelligence level of your false argument, that you WISH that was true so you could look smarter than you are by siding with the smart-sounding guys.
As far as science, there is nothing to believe....it's simply a process. Origin theory, on the other hand is still wide open. To hear scientists proposing that something came out of nothing as a plasubile explanation is actually pretty funny.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter