Atheist sees image of Big Bang in piece of toast

[Cheese]

[Cheese]

[Cheese]

[Cheese]

[Cheese]

[Cheese]

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by evman150

There's a big difference between not being sure about the Judeo-Christian "God" and not being sure about some deity in general.

The first (believing in the Christian God, or not being sure) is clearly ignorant and can be dismissed out of hand by people with an ounce of critical thought in their brains.

Thanks, dude.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by evman150

UFOs are not something you "believe in" or "don't believe in". We just don't know. But we do know they are not subject to belief or disbelief.

I disagree. The current scientific knowledge makes UFO's, as presented in popular media, pretty close to impossible. Common sense makes it clear that there's just no way UFO's exist, in the way they are presented in popular media.

As to life in outer space, well, that's completely another matter. But there's no reason to believe they're here.

Crystals are not something you "believe in" or "don't believe in". They are 100% bull****. "Believing" in them is not possible

I know several relatively sane people who at least in some ways believe that crystals have some sort of powers. I would actually call some of those people the sanest I've met. "Sane" and "crazy" are such relative terms. And gods are 100% bull****, in a way. Then again, pretty good arguments can be made for the idea that mental constructs are as real as anything, in which sense the whole question of whether of not gods actually exist becomes somewhat irrelevant. It's the belief that counts. And of course religion actually has very little to do with the existence of gods, since culture and rituals surrounding them are real in any case, and they matter to people as such. (I hope I'm making some sense, as I really can't present this much better in English.)

Astronomy is a science. My degree is in astronomy. You are looking for "astrology".

Sorry, I of course meant astrology. It's hard to remember, since in English the terms really make no sense. (Why meteorology, biology, climatology and so on but not astrology?) It's so much simpler in Finnish, we just call astronomy "star science", makes it much easier to remember which is which

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Dion

Gold! That IMO seems to summerise the debates on this thread. Everyone telling the other person that they're worng

Well there's very little to talk about when everyone agrees.
"There's no god."
"Yup."
"True."
"Why did you bring this up?"
"Dunno, let's get some beers?"

Also, debating/arguing is fun!

[Itse]

Originally Posted by evman150

Intelligent people can just have a strong denial complex, which is a sufficient condition for both gambling degeneracy and belief in standard religious doctrine.

Are you even aware that there is a whole bunch of actual scientific research made everyday about Christianity? And that many of those people still believe in God?

I personally know people who study Christianity for a living (I actually live with one), and are quite aware of not only what Christianity is, but constantly try to know more about where did those ideas come from and for example how did the Bible come to be what it is. (Who wrote what, when, where and why, what was excluded and why...) And yes, what they do is actually ranked to be pretty good science.

I really don't see how you could build a case that these people are somehow in denial of... I'm not actually sure what you are saying they are in denial about. They sure as hell know much more about what religion and Christianity are than both of us combined.

Believing is so much more complex than you would like to believe. Personally I think it's you who is in denial about the fact that religious beliefs and critical thought are not mutually exclusive.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Itse

Are you even aware that there is a whole bunch of actual scientific research made everyday about Christianity? And that many of those people still believe in God?

I personally know people who study Christianity for a living (I actually live with one), and are quite aware of not only what Christianity is, but constantly try to know more about where did those ideas come from and for example how did the Bible come to be what it is. (Who wrote what, when, where and why, what was excluded and why...) And yes, what they do is actually ranked to be pretty good science.

I really don't see how you could build a case that these people are somehow in denial of... I'm not actually sure what you are saying they are in denial about. They sure as hell know much more about what religion and Christianity are than both of us combined.

Believing is so much more complex than you would like to believe. Personally I think it's you who is in denial about the fact that religious beliefs and critical thought are not mutually exclusive.

uh huh...Im sure their schooling is at a non theist place of education?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Itse

I disagree. The current scientific knowledge makes UFO's, as presented in popular media, pretty close to impossible. Common sense makes it clear that there's just no way UFO's exist, in the way they are presented in popular media.

As to life in outer space, well, that's completely another matter. But there's no reason to believe they're here.

I know several relatively sane people who at least in some ways believe that crystals have some sort of powers. I would actually call some of those people the sanest I've met. "Sane" and "crazy" are such relative terms. And gods are 100% bull****, in a way. Then again, pretty good arguments can be made for the idea that mental constructs are as real as anything, in which sense the whole question of whether of not gods actually exist becomes somewhat irrelevant. It's the belief that counts. And of course religion actually has very little to do with the existence of gods, since culture and rituals surrounding them are real in any case, and they matter to people as such. (I hope I'm making some sense, as I really can't present this much better in English.)

The UFO issue might be semantical. I take UFOs to refer to the more general "are we being visited" issue, rather than the more specific flying saucer sense. This is not an important point.

Really, there's no reason to believe they (aliens) are not here. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That of course does not imply that they are here, only that we don't know.

The sane people with crystals argument is no more substantive than the the smart people who believe in god argument or the intelligent degenerate gambler. These are just fringe cases not indicative of the global trend.

And, for what it's worth, epistemic arguments don't really belong in this thread. Leave the mental constructs as reality to another thread.

Your English is fine. Better than a lot of the native speakers on this forum.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

uh huh...Im sure their schooling is at a non theist place of education?

For once Cheese you are right!

http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_sci_faq/

[Cheese]

So you want to be a Creation Scientist?

There aren’t courses that train you to become a creation scientist. Rather a creation scientist is just a scientist who views the world from a “big picture” biblical perspective. I.e., the universe was originally created “very good” by God in six actual days a few thousand years ago; the world was marred by Adam’s sin, and later suffered the watery judgment of the global Flood, in which all air-breathing, land-dwelling animals (except those representatives on the Ark) died. These scientists use their experiments or research projects to “fill in” the Bible’s “big picture” and further our understanding of the world and universe. For example, some current hot topics are: What were the boundaries of the original created “kinds”? How is it possible that we see light from stars billions of light-years away? What is the creationist understanding of radioisotope dating?

Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
3. Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

Scientific Creationists...

[photon]

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Itse

Are you even aware that there is a whole bunch of actual scientific research made everyday about Christianity? And that many of those people still believe in God?

I personally know people who study Christianity for a living (I actually live with one), and are quite aware of not only what Christianity is, but constantly try to know more about where did those ideas come from and for example how did the Bible come to be what it is. (Who wrote what, when, where and why, what was excluded and why...) And yes, what they do is actually ranked to be pretty good science...

But what they do is a social science, not to be confused with real, tangible, natural science. In my experience, most Christian historians, Biblical scholars and theologians are actually not even very well read in the social sciences. Most are literary critics, literary historians and antiquities experts with little social scientific training.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Your cartoonist should replace the word "conclusion" with with the word "theory".

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your cartoonist should replace the word "conclusion" with with the word "theory".

Wow, how can you post that with a straight face? A conclusion often takes the form of a scientific theory.

You've never answered the question about what a theory is with relation to science.

[photon]

[Cheese]