The dumbing down of America continues...

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I didn't see anyone suggesting that. I called you yellow (nee gutless) for taking the easy way out and hedging your bets, believing that God exists strictly because of lack of contradicting proof rather than demanding some proof as you likely would in other circumstances.....

You suggested that I was hedging my bets, which implied that I'm trying to get something out of it. I'm curious what you think I'm trying to win here...

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Wow, you offended everyone equally in that sentence. If your an athiest, you're a moron. If you're a God fearing person, or sheep as you called them, you're identical to the athiests, which makes you an ignorant moron. What is rich about this, you lumped yourself in as an ignorant moron! Gotta love it!

Took me out of context and are trying to make me sound like an ass. Really, it just looks bad to attack someone like this, even if you happen to be well respected around here.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, lots of lashing out going on in regards to "scientific theory". Exactly how many wars have been fought through the ages over "religious beliefs or affiliations" and how many have been fought over "scientific theory"?

Well, I can definitely make a case for WW2 (think "Social Darwinism") and once could also argue that most of the wars in the twentieth century were were science based. Also, the French Revolution and the establishment of the first French Republic did not do much to endear secularism back in the day. But if you want to blame all war on "religious beliefs or affliations" [sic], go right ahead. I can tell here that you actually don't understand much about what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Uh huh, and just how many athiests do you think are going to be picketting the opening of this museum? How many athiests knock on your door asking you if you'd like to talk about their lack of belief in God? How many atheists go on pilgrimages and missions to convert others to become non-believers in developing countries? How many athiests will picket a church, or a Christian family planning center? How many athiests will assassinate those who work there or bomb the facility itself? How many athiests will force their beliefs (evolution for example) on those educational institutions that are Christian or home schoolers? Yup, them athiests are a real pushy bunch.

heh, Mao Tsung was an athiest. He was fairly pushy from what I read.

Oh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV-a1vmZ6y8

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Maybe your friends consider you to be their "religious" acquaintance who is the American Osteopathic College of Proctology poster boy, which accounts for their commitment to being atheist? Funny how that edge cuts both ways?

And maybe your religious friends think your an aggrogant ass. But then, I can't say, I don't know you.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I don't believe that have any comprehension of what peter12 was saying. Try reading it again. Then post your thoughts on what he said. I'm interested as hell to find out what your intepretation of his comment is, and just how eloquently you can state it, because I think you missed his meaning all together.

Or maybe I understood his question to highlight exactly what I meant. You can't describe a god using science. Or am I just an idiot like you are suggesting.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Again, in this whole thread I don't see anyone arguing the non-existence of God, like you are trying to suggest. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone deny the existence of God at all. Religion and the extreme Christians are taking a beating, but the existence of God has not really been debated.

I wasn't the one to derail it. Perhaps I went off track trying to explain why I think athiests can be guilty of the exact same behavior as originally described in the article you linked, but it was only to back up my point.

Sorry I crashed your Christian bashing party. I'll take my leave now. Usually CP tends to be a little more open to discussion, but I guess that's not the case today.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by llama64

Sorry I crashed your Christian bashing party. I'll take my leave now. Usually CP tends to be a little more open to discussion, but I guess that's not the case today.

You really see it that way?

Because you jumped into this thread saying "Aethiests continuously prove that they are nothing but ignorant fools" and "Only morons allow themselves to get locked into one mode of thinking"

That doesn't look like you were ever open to discussion.

Funny thing is, most of this thread was talking about creationism, not specifically Christianity as a whole. Go back and read textcritic's posts. Do you believe he is "bashing" Christianity?

You talk about how "everything demands belief" but can't seem to accept that other people have different beliefs than you. You belittle them by calling them morons, fools or jerks; but they are the ones doing the "bashing"?

It just looks to me like you decided you wanted to jump into this thread and come off as righteously indignant. That didn't work. You should go back to your friends where you fit in.

[photon]

Wait... so the only way a person is able to believe in god is because of upbringing? Then how did we get in this mess in the first place? I think you're being a little too limiting in your argument here.

No, I said the reasons were different, and gave a few examples with an "etc" which means there are more reasons. I'm trying to say you don't simply believe there's a God because it hasn't been proven there isn't one, which you agree with:

You're right, that doesn't make logical sense. But... I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth and then trying to shoot me down with them.

No, I didn't put any words in your mouth, I was only trying to clarify what other posters were saying in response to your statement " Until someone can definitively prove that God does not exist, I think I'll choose to belive that there is something out there greater then myself." and why they responded that way. I see the "choose" in there.

You don't understand what "belief" is then. The moment knowledge is transformed from physical sensation into cognitive thought, something has to be accepted blindly in order to "trust" the validity of the conclusion. So, I still insist that even scientific understanding requires a person to take a blind leap of acceptance at some point along the chain.

If my child has an infection, I'll take them to a doctor (one who is trained in human medicine) and consider their advice. If the advice is reasonable to me, I'll follow it. If not, I'll seek other recommendations. But I'm not sure what all this has to do with the topic at hand...

Belief is a psychological state where an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition. Science is outside belief since the truth of a proposition can be proven regardless of any individual's belief.

Your estimation of the reasonableness of a doctor's recommendation is based on what? Belief that the doctor knows what he's talking about? That's a pretty poor reason. Rather it should be based on a body of evidence that demonstrates the efficacy of the remedy, something that exists outside belief.

I'm trying to illustrate my point with an example. Your point is that there is always still a blind trust, what would the example be in this case, where from going to the doctor to accepting treatment you think is reasonable is the blind leap of acceptance.

I don't see the difference. In arguing that there is no evidence for God, people are actively trying to deny the existence of god. I agree though that most atheists would change their mind with the presence of undeniable proof... but by the very concept of a god, that is impossible to attain.

But the two are different. Arguing that there's no evidence is simply trying to describe the observed reality (which by your admission is that there is no God). They're not saying there is no God, they're just agreeing with you that by definition of the concept of God there is no undeniable proof; any belief in God is by faith, not evidence.

(Which as an aside is again part of the point of contention of this thread; people are trying to take things that are in the realm of faith and bring them into the realm of science, but not abiding by the "rules" of science)

My point, again, was that atheists are nothing more then a different "religious" group trying to stake territory for their own belief system.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Whether a person tries to justify their conception of reality using a religious text or scientific proofs makes no difference to the behavior of the people involved.

The difference between a religious text and a scientific proof is one is actually an accurate description of physical reality, the other attempts to make an accurate description of the "inner" reality (the mind, the soul, the human condition, whatever you want to call it). The two talk about different things, and using one to describe the other will result in things like this creation museum, something that fails at either task.

What behaviour specifically are you talking about?

A proper education involves exposure to any and all contradictory opinions and theories.

BS. So people who go to learn about the weather should not only be taught about weather patterns and water and all that stuff, but they should also be taught that some women are witches and can change the weather, and if they are then they should be burned at the stake? Because that was a theory, a very popular one for quite a long time. It may not be popular now, but that could be a contradictory opinion and theory about weather.

A proper education involves exposure to pertinent contradictory opinions and theories, not any and all.

Atheists are just as guilty as any other group of trying to restrict knowledge to only that of which they approve.

Aside from the fact that "atheists" aren't a group with an agenda, BS. Please post evidence to this.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by llama64

You suggested that I was hedging my bets, which implied that I'm trying to get something out of it. I'm curious what you think I'm trying to win here...

You're attempting to give yourself false comfort that by saying you believe in God that should you face him after your demise you will some how be granted a free pass into His kingdom. It is this false belief that makes me laugh. "Until someone can definitively prove that God does not exist, I think I'll choose to belive that there is something out there greater then myself." Real conviction in your beliefs there. Sounds like a guy hedging his bets and trying to give himself a safety net, just in case.

Took me out of context and are trying to make me sound like an ass. Really, it just looks bad to attack someone like this, even if you happen to be well respected around here.

Didn't take you out of context at all. You attempted to weasel out of your prvious comments by saying, "By ignorant morons I meant that athiests in general are identical to the religious sheep they claim to fight against." Those are your exact words, taken in direct context. You claimed one group were ignorant morons, then followed that up by saying the other side of the coin was the indentical, hence the same. Now you're trying to weasel your way out of your comments for a second time.

Well, I can definitely make a case for WW2 (think "Social Darwinism") and once could also argue that most of the wars in the twentieth century were were science based. Also, the French Revolution and the establishment of the first French Republic did not do much to endear secularism back in the day. But if you want to blame all war on "religious beliefs or affliations" [sic], go right ahead. I can tell here that you actually don't understand much about what you're talking about.

Social Darwinism? Holy reaching Batman. And you say I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Considering that school of thought wasn't developed until the mid 20th century I find it extremely difficult to believe that it had ANYTHING to do with any of the wars in the last century. The wars of the 20th century were primarily geopolitical conflicts. Pick a conflict and you'll find that the root cause was geopolitical, and not the BS Social Darwinism garbage you suggest,

heh, Mao Tsung was an athiest. He was fairly pushy from what I read.

That;s one. The Pope (all 267 of them) was a pretty push guy from what I have read. That's one religion, should I go on.

And maybe your religious friends think your an aggrogant ass. But then, I can't say, I don't know you.

Actually, they think I'm hilarious and enjoy the verbal sparing we have. I highly doubt your friends think the same about you. They probably tolerate you, until the subject of religion comes up, then they want to ship you off to some far off third world nation and let you try to convert the locals.

Or maybe I understood his question to highlight exactly what I meant. You can't describe a god using science. Or am I just an idiot like you are suggesting.

You said it, not me.

I wasn't the one to derail it. Perhaps I went off track trying to explain why I think athiests can be guilty of the exact same behavior as originally described in the article you linked, but it was only to back up my point.

Seems you were the one to derail it, intentional or not. The article is an example of the opposite of what you suggest and proof of exactly what you have done in this thread.

Sorry I crashed your Christian bashing party. I'll take my leave now. Usually CP tends to be a little more open to discussion, but I guess that's not the case today.

And there we have it. The leopard finally shows his spots, only to run away and hide in the forest. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Your postion was completely crushed, so you have to resort to the old "bashing" defense, attempt to shame people into feeling apathy for your position, and then run away. I guess that's Internet Social Darwinism in action.

[llama64]

I appologize if I offended anyone. I still think people who close their mind are morons, but I never once wanted to insinuate that anyone here was as such. My comment, poorly worded, was directed at both sides of the debate.

Lets quite this personal bashing and get back to the topic please:

I think athiests are guilty of the same kind of crap that the fundies are. And it's getting worse. Just listen to the arrogant dork in the youtube video I posted above.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by llama64

I appologize if I offended anyone. I still think people who close their mind are morons, but I never once wanted to insinuate that anyone here was as such. My comment, poorly worded, was directed at both sides of the debate.

Lets quite this personal bashing and get back to the topic please:

I think athiests are guilty of the same kind of crap that the fundies are. And it's getting worse. Just listen to the arrogant dork in the youtube video I posted above.

Zealotry is wrong no matter what side of the debate (any debate) it is on.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by llama64

I think athiests are guilty of the same kind of crap that the fundies are. And it's getting worse. Just listen to the arrogant dork in the youtube video I posted above.

I still don't understand why you think that about atheists. What is this same crap? What about all atheists do you think makes them the same as the religious fundamentalists? You seem to be giving off the attitude that being an atheists is wrong.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I still don't understand why you think that about atheists. What is this same crap? What about all atheists do you think makes them the same as the religious fundamentalists? You seem to be giving off the attitude that being an atheists is wrong.

By crap I mean some athiests take sport in blocking any and all contradictory ideas to the doctrine of science. The creationists have just as much moral and legal authority to create a museum dedicated to teaching their world view. Just because their particular belief is founded on the scientific equvalent to the aether does not give anyone the moral right to mock their belief structure. If you don't like it, don't go.

Unfortunately, *some* athiests love to challenge religious beliefs. They debate them into a logical corner and claim victory because a person cannot justify a belief in the super-human using the methods of science. This is then used to justify the banning of religious material in education. The funny thing with that is most of what we were taught in school is not neccesarily the truth. This is especially true in the "soft" sciences of language arts, history and social studies.

Again, all I'm saying is that there are groups on both sides that take their fight to the wrong place and try to actively destroy one another. This is what I think is wrong.

As Bobblehead said, zealotry is wrong.

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

By crap I mean some athiests take sport in blocking any and all contradictory ideas to the doctrine of science.

That's the second time you claimed that, again I call shenanigans. Proof please.

The creationists have just as much moral and legal authority to create a museum dedicated to teaching their world view. Just because their particular belief is founded on the scientific equvalent to the aether does not give anyone the moral right to mock their belief structure. If you don't like it, don't go.

Few are saying that they shouldn't be allowed to build their museum. And it's not their belief structure that is being mocked, it's their BAD SCIENCE that's being mocked. If someone makes statements they claim are scientific but then do not bring any scientific evidence to the table, they should be mocked (if they've been given the chance to do so and refuse anyway).

And even those that say it shouldn't be allowed aren't doing so because they don't agree, they're doing so because they think it does measurable harm to society. Teaching children to not think about things, just believe some authoritative source. And they tend to argue their points with logic and evidence, not zealotry.

Unfortunately, *some* athiests love to challenge religious beliefs. They debate them into a logical corner and claim victory because a person cannot justify a belief in the super-human using the methods of science.

So religious beliefs should be above challenge? They debate them because some religious people bring their beliefs into the realm of logic and science. If a religious person argues that their beliefs are a description of physical reality, they are subject to the same criticism that any other description of reality is.

This is then used to justify the banning of religious material in education.

Again shenanigans. Show where this has been done or even tried (beyond a small crazy group). If any attempt is made it's not to ban religious material, it's to stop indoctrination in a single specific religion; it's fine to teach about religion (history, analysis, whatever), just not to preach a specific one to be true from the front of the class. Which is fair don't you think, I doubt many Americans would want a Muslim teacher preaching the Quran to their children.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by llama64

By crap I mean some athiests take sport in blocking any and all contradictory ideas to the doctrine of science. The creationists have just as much moral and legal authority to create a museum dedicated to teaching their world view. Just because their particular belief is founded on the scientific equvalent to the aether does not give anyone the moral right to mock their belief structure. If you don't like it, don't go.

Wow, some people just don't get it. They allow their "faith" to get in the way of reason. The problem people are having with this is that the "museum" is filled with information that has been proven to be 100% false. It is also being used to promote an ideology and religious position, not the display of factual data and artifacts. I guess we shouldn't really care when neo-nazis build their "museum" that promotes hate toward Jews, blacks and any other group they have a problem with; they are just teaching their "world view".

Unfortunately, *some* athiests love to challenge religious beliefs. They debate them into a logical corner and claim victory because a person cannot justify a belief in the super-human using the methods of science. This is then used to justify the banning of religious material in education. The funny thing with that is most of what we were taught in school is not neccesarily the truth. This is especially true in the "soft" sciences of language arts, history and social studies.

Language, history and social studies are not sciences, they are liberal arts. No one has said that there is no place for religious material in education, quite the contrary. Religious studies are important to our development and understanding of each other. I personally think that is why there are so many conflicts based on religion; people know very little of religion and think other religions are wrong. If people were required to take a religious studies program, one in which ALL religions are explored, people would get a better understanding of the commonalities between religions and the world would become a better place. There most definitely is a place for religious materials in the education system, and that place is either theoology or religious studies classes. Religious materials have no place in a classroom on science, and that is where the problems lay.

Again, all I'm saying is that there are groups on both sides that take their fight to the wrong place and try to actively destroy one another. This is what I think is wrong.

As Bobblehead said, zealotry is wrong.

Yup, I agree, zealotry is wrong. But again, I have to ask you how many athiests do you think are going to be picketting the opening of this museum? How many athiests knock on your door asking you if you'd like to talk about their lack of belief in God? How many atheists go on pilgrimages and missions to convert others to become non-believers in developing countries? How many athiests will picket a church, or a Christian family planning center? How many athiests will assassinate those who work there or bomb the facility itself? How many athiests will force their beliefs (evolution for example) on those educational institutions that are Christian or home schoolers? Who are the zealots again?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by llama64

The creationists have just as much moral and legal authority to create a museum dedicated to teaching their world view.

Yup. They have every right to do that. Part of free speech is accepting a diversity of ideas into a broader social debate.

The other part is that we have a right to mock them for their pseudoscientific nonsense. And it's not just for fun; we're doing our part in calling them on it in order to show future generations that THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.

When Lanny said you didn't understand peter12's comment, here's what he meant: peter12 was saying that materialist means can't be used to understand non-material truth. That much, I take it, you understood.

But there's a flip side to that equation: non-material means can't be used to understand material truth. Non-science cannot shed light on science. That's the mistake that is made by this museum.

It's by no means a universal problem among Christians--and we all know this. A discussion that has civilly included at least two self-declared Christians, another "person of faith" and a few atheists is hardly a "Christian-bashing party."

The funny thing with that is most of what we were taught in school is not neccesarily the truth. This is especially true in the "soft" sciences of language arts, history and social studies.

As a literature teacher, I'm interested to know what you were taught in language arts that isn't "true."

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yup. They have every right to do that. Part of free speech is accepting a diversity of ideas into a broader social debate.

The other part is that we have a right to mock them for their pseudoscientific nonsense. And it's not just for fun; we're doing our part in calling them on it in order to show future generations that THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.

When Lanny said you didn't understand peter12's comment, here's what he meant: peter12 was saying that materialist means can't be used to understand non-material truth. That much, I take it, you understood.

But there's a flip side to that equation: non-material means can't be used to understand material truth. Non-science cannot shed light on science. That's the mistake that is made by this museum.

It's by no means a universal problem among Christians--and we all know this. A discussion that has civilly included at least two self-declared Christians, another "person of faith" and a few atheists is hardly a "Christian-bashing party."



As a literature teacher, I'm interested to know what you were taught in language arts that isn't "true."

The very nature of literature invites discussion towards it's objectivity. It's the expression of human understanding and by it's own characteristics, it's subjective. That's all I meant. I'm not going to take Tolkien as a literal truth. I was just pointing out the difference between soft and hard sciences (language arts versus mathematics).

I did not misunderstand peter12's comment. Why do you automatically assume that science holds sway over all understanding of reality?

The creationists are presenting evidence advancing their theory towards the origins of life. Their evidence is dismissed outright by many because they are "creationists". To me, this is unscientific, unfair and rude. Judge them by the validity of their arguments. What is wrong is to call them idiots for posing their argument. They are judged on a personal level rathern then as competing scientists.

Or are they not allowed to participate in science because they are religious?

[peter12]

When Lanny said you didn't understand peter12's comment, here's what he meant: peter12 was saying that materialist means can't be used to understand non-material truth. That much, I take it, you understood.

But there's a flip side to that equation: non-material means can't be used to understand material truth. Non-science cannot shed light on science. That's the mistake that is made by this museum.

Yup, I'd say bingo to the second part, especially. It drives me crazy. If you ultimately believe, like I do, that there is something greater than everything in this universe, why would you want to explain it with such tawdry pseudoscience? Evolution and the natural world, in its own right, is beautiful. I think what some people don't realize is that evolution and science make it so easy for EVERYONE to appreciate that beauty.

As for fundamentalist religion and top-down spirituality, they are mostly bunk in my opinion. Several posters have mentioned personal experiences as being central to God. That is so true and it is something which shouldn't be mocked. Organized religion talks down to people a bit too much for my liking and tries to tell them what their experiences should or shouldn't be instead of letting people finding out for themselves. That may be a bit too liberal for some people's tastes. However, I am a firm believer that if most people actually set themselves to a decent moral code and make an honest effort to find the truth, they will be successful.

For my own Christian beliefs, they really started with reading two books that set me off on a journey of self-examination, denial and eventually spiritual peace. Or at least the start of something like that.

The two books were The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Both perfectly and seamlessy described two of the broader generalizations I love about life. Dawkins opened up a world of complexity and beauty, one that can be appreciated in its own right and one that can explain so much of the unknown. In part, that captures half of the essence, I believe makes us human. That is, the continous desire to know more about our natural world and hopefully come to live in some sort of personal peace with it.

What I loved about Lewis is his effort to capture the human search for something Good. I'm not saying this is exclusive to Christians or anybody really. Although I genuinely believe that atheists end up missing part of this, I am no way capable of judging how or why.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by llama64

The creationists are presenting evidence advancing their theory towards the origins of life. Their evidence is dismissed outright by many because they are "creationists". To me, this is unscientific, unfair and rude. Judge them by the validity of their arguments. What is wrong is to call them idiots for posing their argument. They are judged on a personal level rathern then as competing scientists.

Or are they not allowed to participate in science because they are religious?

This thread is more or less directed at the fundamentalist, literalist, creationist Christians who steadfastly advocate their stance of a literally interpreted Bible and literally interpreted Genesis forming their entire world view.

We are not judging them on a personal level but on their absolutely shoddy science that is more akin to apologetics than actual scientific investigation and discourse. Because of their stubborness in rejecting all other rational science, we have no choice but to point out their own lack of objectivity.

I personally take issue with the fact that many of these fundamentalist, literalist, creationists are insinuating that any secular science has a degree of immorality to it.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by llama64

The creationists are presenting evidence advancing their theory towards the origins of life. Their evidence is dismissed outright by many because they are "creationists". To me, this is unscientific, unfair and rude. Judge them by the validity of their arguments. What is wrong is to call them idiots for posing their argument. They are judged on a personal level rathern then as competing scientists.

These people have been judged rightfully in this case, because the evidence they have presented is nothing short of garbage. You need to provide some proof that "creationist evidence" has been dismissed out of hand wrongly.

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

I did not misunderstand peter12's comment. Why do you automatically assume that science holds sway over all understanding of reality?

Science doesn't "hold sway", but it is the best method of understading reality we have (as demonstrated by its success). If there's a better way of knowing, people are welcome to bring it forward.

The creationists are presenting evidence advancing their theory towards the origins of life. Their evidence is dismissed outright by many because they are "creationists". To me, this is unscientific, unfair and rude. Judge them by the validity of their arguments. What is wrong is to call them idiots for posing their argument. They are judged on a personal level rathern then as competing scientists.

Or are they not allowed to participate in science because they are religious?

This is a straw man. Their evidence is dismissed because it is unscientific, because it isn't evidence at all. Evidence is being judged on its merit. I've read tons of their arguments.

Heck I used to argue on the other side, for all the arguments! But I argued on the other side not because they made scientific sense (quite the opposite, there was a lot of cognitive dissonance), but because since I accepted the creation story as literal, the science MUST by definition be wrong.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Language, history and social studies are not sciences, they are liberal arts. No one has said that there is no place for religious material in education, quite the contrary. Religious studies are important to our development and understanding of each other. I personally think that is why there are so many conflicts based on religion; people know very little of religion and think other religions are wrong. If people were required to take a religious studies program, one in which ALL religions are explored, people would get a better understanding of the commonalities between religions and the world would become a better place. There most definitely is a place for religious materials in the education system, and that place is either theoology or religious studies classes. Religious materials have no place in a classroom on science, and that is where the problems lay.

They are very much sciences and form the basis of social understanding for most of the developed world. There are methods towards the positing of theories and arguments and standards towards the collecting and interpretation of data. Sociology in particular relies on mathmatical and statistical models as evidence.

Would you be adverse to presenting creationism as an alternative to evolution? It could be used to highlight the difference of a proper scientific inquiry to one based on "pseudo-science". Or should that be left to parents?

[Hack&Lube]

Something fascinates me about these sorts of threads...just like the geekyness thread, there are just as many closet-Christians or reformed-ex Christians as there are closet or reformed Trekkies

Even as child, I could never stomach most of the hardline stuff they fed me about science or morality in Church. It was simply filled with too many contradictions and held no resonance with what appeared to me to be reality.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by llama64

The very nature of literature invites discussion towards it's objectivity. It's the expression of human understanding and by it's own characteristics, it's subjective. That's all I meant. I'm not going to take Tolkien as a literal truth. I was just pointing out the difference between soft and hard sciences (language arts versus mathematics).

Yet the Bible is to be taken literally, especially the human expression of creation. The Bible was written by many men and intepretted thousands of times, yet it is not to be approached objectively and with the understanding that it is nothing more than a collection of fables and stories. Just love people who trap themselves in their own rudimentary thinking and expression.

I did not misunderstand peter12's comment. Why do you automatically assume that science holds sway over all understanding of reality?

He didn't say that it did. YOU have repeatedly said that it does, and people have challenged you on that. Your interpretation of his comments were weak and that is why his comment did not resonate within you. You did not understand the double meaning of his comments and walked into another trapping of your ignorance.

The creationists are presenting evidence advancing their theory towards the origins of life. Their evidence is dismissed outright by many because they are "creationists". To me, this is unscientific, unfair and rude. Judge them by the validity of their arguments. What is wrong is to call them idiots for posing their argument. They are judged on a personal level rathern then as competing scientists.

The creationists are providing proof of nothing. They present no scientific proof and use wild conjecture to support their claims (the dinosaurs lived on the ark with Noah and the other animals, as example). Sorry, you have to be an idiot to fall for this incredibly deluded line of thought. The body of evidence to debunk these claims is massive and is beyond buttal by the "creationists". The creationists are NOT scientists because they do not use a scientific method to test their theories. If they did test any of their they would quickly come to the understanding that the story is physically impossible and their theory impractical.

Or are they not allowed to participate in science because they are religious?

Most scientists are religious, so your usual defense tactic is useless. Quit trying to use their religiosity as a defense, because it is the science and presentation of the erred data that is the base subject. If the neo-nazis openned up a museum that presented a theory that Hitler was right in his actions and that science proves the Aryan race is superior to all, there would be much outrage and the "science" would be hammered in the same way. Ideology has no place in museum that is attempting to present scientific data as fact.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by photon

Heck I used to argue on the other side, for all the arguments! But I argued on the other side not because they made scientific sense (quite the opposite, there was a lot of cognitive dissonance), but because since I accepted the creation story as literal, the science MUST by definition be wrong.

Wow... that's an awesome summary of of why people will never come to any understanding of each other in this debate. It all stems from a personal choice to believe in the validity of some base root. From there, all truth is determined by it's relativity to our initial understanding of how to determine things.