Finally . . . oh fuck it. You win Mark. Religion is all bullshit. We should all get down on our knees and thank you for helping us see the light of truth that you have bestowed on our blinkered existence. Thank you . . . thank you so much.
Finally . . . oh fuck it. You win Mark. Religion is all bullshit. We should all get down on our knees and thank you for helping us see the light of truth that you have bestowed on our blinkered existence. Thank you . . . thank you so much.
Not minimal or trivial at all . . . if an investigation is going to get the minimal trivial bits wrong, what does that say about the integrity of their research?
Penn and Teller are hilarious . . . and they get a LOT right in their shows. But they are as qualified a pair of documentarians as Michael Moore.
NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, cytosine, and thymine, three key components of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces these essential ingredients of life.
(VI) God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.
In our experience we apprehend moral values and duties which impose themselves as objectively binding and true. For example, we recognize that it’s wrong to walk into an elementary school with an automatic weapon and shoot little boys and girls and their teachers. On a naturalistic view, however, there is nothing really wrong with this: moral values are just the subjective by-products of biological evolution and social conditioning, and have no objective validity.
Alex Rosenberg is brutally honest about the implications of his atheism here too. He declares, “there is no such thing as… morally right or wrong.” (The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, p.145); “Individual human life is meaningless… and without ultimate moral value.” (p.17); “We need to face the fact that nihilism is true.” (p.95). By contrast, the theist grounds objective moral values in God, and our moral duties in His commands. The theist thus has the explanatory resources to ground objective moral values and duties which the atheist lacks.
Hence we may argue:
1. Objective moral values and duties exist.
2. But if God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
This is such a ridiculous argument, I'm embarrassed for the anyone that believes it. Objective moral values are a by-product of a successful society. Society A has rules that maintain order, and they prosper! Society B has no rules, and descends into chaos, and dies out! Todays civilization is simply the descendant of early examples of Society A... Sociological Evolution as it were!!
So point 2 in the above argument is an incorrect assumption.
The entire article is filled with similar narrow minded dribble!
i agree mickey. some of those arguments are just terrible and many make very large assumptions. i'm pretty busy at work lately but if i find some time i'll post some arguments against these points (just because it's fun for me).
So let's modify the way we define God so you atheists can have something to believe in that will give your life meaning...
What a joke. And who is asking people to choose between science and religion... oh snap... that reminds me... i have to go knock on doors to hand out science textbooks... back in a bit!!
And who is asking people to choose between science and religion...
this is a very common argument as many feel that science and religion are necessarily against each other while others think they are simply talking about different things. there are also those that think science and religion have the same ultimate goals but are taking different routes to get there. i actually took an entire university course on this topic called "the encounter of science and religion". i have a couple books at home i can recommend if you're interested.
i was reading an article about the value of knowledge today that referenced the creation story from genesis (specifically the one about adam and eve) and i had a thought that i had never considered before.
so, according to this creation story, god had forbid adam and eve to eat from the tree of knowledge because that would give them the knowledge of good and evil (and literally would be like gods as the bible says). i'm assuming we all know this story.
this story suggests that god created humans (adam and eve), and his original plan was for them to just live in the garden of eden forever. we can surmise this from the fact that the only reason they are kicked out of eden is because they disobeyed god and ate from the tree of knowledge (damn you eve! just blame the snake.)
after eating the apple and gaining the knowledge of good and evil (which as far as we can tell god never actually wanted us to have), humans were cast out of paradise and forced to endure many hardships (that's right ladies, painful childbirth for all!).
so my thought was, according to this story, god never intended humans to have a choice between good and evil. when he first created us, humans were never supposed to make such decisions. however, after adam and eve screwed it for all of us now we must make these decisions all the time. my point is that god literally made us and planned for us to NEVER make moral decisions about good and evil so how can he expect us to make proper decisions after we were cast out of paradise? seems kind of a tall order if you ask me considering he made us to never have to do it.
EDIT: btw, here's the link to the article if anyone is interested
IT is false on the face of it. Plenty of quality science work being done by people of Faith. Probably some shit science being done by atheists. A rigid adherence to the scientific method in one's work does NOT preclude one from practicing their Faith outside the lab.
As much as I don't want to admit it, I kind of agree with Milo. Scientists completely believe in sacred ideas. They believe in the scientific paradigm of the time. For example, before Einstein all scientists worked under the belief of Newtonian physics which happened to be wrong. Even Einstein's theories don't explain everything so it's only a matter of time until the next scientific paradigm is "discovered". Scientists definitely have "faith" in a certain regard.
Scientists function under a zeitgeist of the current understanding. Once it has been proven faulty and/or a more comprehensive one appears / is discovered, they move into the new mindset. Now fair, some take a while to be convinced, but those tend to be the outlier scientists, they are hardly representative of the majority of scientists.
Dismissing the statement outright isn't proof. Your argument that "people of faith" are doing good science, and that some shit science is being done by atheists isn't disproving the statement, it's your opinion on it, show me proof that the statement is false aside from "because I said so". In the same vein, there are many that would argue that science done by a person of faith is invalid, as their critical thinking cannot possibly be adequate because they aren't truly coming from a science-based origin.
Scientists function under a zeitgeist of the current understanding. Once it has been proven faulty and/or a more comprehensive one appears / is discovered, they move into the new mindset. Now fair, some take a while to be convinced, but those tend to be the outlier scientists, they are hardly representative of the majority of scientists.
Dismissing the statement outright isn't proof. Your argument that "people of faith" are doing good science, and that some shit science is being done by atheists isn't disproving the statement, it's your opinion on it, show me proof that the statement is false aside from "because I said so". In the same vein, there are many that would argue that science done by a person of faith is invalid, as their critical thinking cannot possibly be adequate because they aren't truly coming from a science-based origin.
Scientists function under a zeitgeist of the current understanding. Once it has been proven faulty and/or a more comprehensive one appears / is discovered, they move into the new mindset. Now fair, some take a while to be convinced, but those tend to be the outlier scientists, they are hardly representative of the majority of scientists.
Dismissing the statement outright isn't proof. Your argument that "people of faith" are doing good science, and that some shit science is being done by atheists isn't disproving the statement, it's your opinion on it, show me proof that the statement is false aside from "because I said so". In the same vein, there are many that would argue that science done by a person of faith is invalid, as their critical thinking cannot possibly be adequate because they aren't truly coming from a science-based origin.
Mark
Let me turn that around on you. In order for the statement to be true, ALL scientists would, over time, self identify as atheists. So lets say that process takes 10-15 years or so. Extrapolating, ALL scientists over the age of 40 (lets say 45 to be safe) should self identify as atheists if this statement were to be accurate. Do you HONESTLY believe that EVERY scientist over the age of 45 does this? Because, if even one says they are Jewish (or Muslim, Catholic, etc.), then the statement is false.
Let me turn that around on you. In order for the statement to be true, ALL scientists would, over time, self identify as atheists. So lets say that process takes 10-15 years or so. Extrapolating, ALL scientists over the age of 40 (lets say 45 to be safe) should self identify as atheists if this statement were to be accurate. Do you HONESTLY believe that EVERY scientist over the age of 45 does this? Because, if even one says they are Jewish (or Muslim, Catholic, etc.), then the statement is false.
Well no...
Again, show me the evidence. And they have to be legit scientists, not like Dr. Oz is a doctor. You can't prove that with appropriate time, that statement is true. Don't turn it around / try to point out where there is falsities in this quip, show me.
As I said, some take more time to be convinced, but those are (again) not representative of the scientists more representative to what it means to be one - accepting of new knowledge and adapting. The other's aren't really applying the scientific method / thinking.
So . . . you wanty an unlimited time frame for your hypothesis (that all scientists tend toward atheism as a result of their involvement in scientific inquiry)? Now who is taking a lot on "faith"?
Further, as it is HIS hypothesis, should not the burden be on HIM to prove it? Otherwise he is just making a claim with no facts to back it up, right?
Comments
"BBSC" wasn't a comment on religion
Mark
Smartest thing you've ever said of 14k+ posts
Mark
Kinda similar to how you took the minimal / trivial bits of that BS episode?
Kinda fun that
Mark
Penn and Teller are hilarious . . . and they get a LOT right in their shows. But they are as qualified a pair of documentarians as Michael Moore.
Enjoy the Super Bowl tomorrow.
“Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers” premiering tonight On CNN, March 24, at 9:00 EST.
https://www.barna.org/barna-update/culture/713-2015-state-of-atheism-in-america#.VRH_luPYXaM
I think it's little green men (or women) who come to get us when we die..
Gonna read this from the starr... be back in a few day!
https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-ames-reproduces-the-building-blocks-of-life-in-laboratory/
You were saying?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist
This is such a ridiculous argument, I'm embarrassed for the anyone that believes it. Objective moral values are a by-product of a successful society. Society A has rules that maintain order, and they prosper! Society B has no rules, and descends into chaos, and dies out! Todays civilization is simply the descendant of early examples of Society A... Sociological Evolution as it were!!
So point 2 in the above argument is an incorrect assumption.
The entire article is filled with similar narrow minded dribble!
The very possibility that people believe this statement implies that Stupidity exists!
What a joke. And who is asking people to choose between science and religion... oh snap... that reminds me... i have to go knock on doors to hand out science textbooks... back in a bit!!
this is a very common argument as many feel that science and religion are necessarily against each other while others think they are simply talking about different things. there are also those that think science and religion have the same ultimate goals but are taking different routes to get there. i actually took an entire university course on this topic called "the encounter of science and religion". i have a couple books at home i can recommend if you're interested.
so, according to this creation story, god had forbid adam and eve to eat from the tree of knowledge because that would give them the knowledge of good and evil (and literally would be like gods as the bible says). i'm assuming we all know this story.
this story suggests that god created humans (adam and eve), and his original plan was for them to just live in the garden of eden forever. we can surmise this from the fact that the only reason they are kicked out of eden is because they disobeyed god and ate from the tree of knowledge (damn you eve! just blame the snake.)
after eating the apple and gaining the knowledge of good and evil (which as far as we can tell god never actually wanted us to have), humans were cast out of paradise and forced to endure many hardships (that's right ladies, painful childbirth for all!).
so my thought was, according to this story, god never intended humans to have a choice between good and evil. when he first created us, humans were never supposed to make such decisions. however, after adam and eve screwed it for all of us now we must make these decisions all the time. my point is that god literally made us and planned for us to NEVER make moral decisions about good and evil so how can he expect us to make proper decisions after we were cast out of paradise? seems kind of a tall order if you ask me considering he made us to never have to do it.
EDIT: btw, here's the link to the article if anyone is interested
The value of knowledge | OUPblog
All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists - The New Yorker
Reaction from other side has been entertaining....
Lawrence Krauss, Physicist and Fanatic | National Review Online
In <i>The New Yorker</i>, a Rant from Lawrence Krauss Makes "Militant Atheism" Sound Pretty Good - Evolution News & Views
"Because science holds that no idea is sacred, it’s inevitable that it draws people away from religion."
Not sure if it's the first part of the statement, the second part of the statement, or the whole statement you're referring to.
Also, why not make a case for why it's not true.
Mark
Scientists function under a zeitgeist of the current understanding. Once it has been proven faulty and/or a more comprehensive one appears / is discovered, they move into the new mindset. Now fair, some take a while to be convinced, but those tend to be the outlier scientists, they are hardly representative of the majority of scientists.
Dismissing the statement outright isn't proof. Your argument that "people of faith" are doing good science, and that some shit science is being done by atheists isn't disproving the statement, it's your opinion on it, show me proof that the statement is false aside from "because I said so". In the same vein, there are many that would argue that science done by a person of faith is invalid, as their critical thinking cannot possibly be adequate because they aren't truly coming from a science-based origin.
Mark
fair enough.
Let me turn that around on you. In order for the statement to be true, ALL scientists would, over time, self identify as atheists. So lets say that process takes 10-15 years or so. Extrapolating, ALL scientists over the age of 40 (lets say 45 to be safe) should self identify as atheists if this statement were to be accurate. Do you HONESTLY believe that EVERY scientist over the age of 45 does this? Because, if even one says they are Jewish (or Muslim, Catholic, etc.), then the statement is false.
Well no...
Again, show me the evidence. And they have to be legit scientists, not like Dr. Oz is a doctor. You can't prove that with appropriate time, that statement is true. Don't turn it around / try to point out where there is falsities in this quip, show me.
As I said, some take more time to be convinced, but those are (again) not representative of the scientists more representative to what it means to be one - accepting of new knowledge and adapting. The other's aren't really applying the scientific method / thinking.
Mark
Further, as it is HIS hypothesis, should not the burden be on HIM to prove it? Otherwise he is just making a claim with no facts to back it up, right?