people of god don't concern themselves with science or spelling duh
Bill Nye/Ken Ham religion debate
posted in
Off Topic
http://www.vanillatf2.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/i46-bones.jpg
Hey I'm that guy off to the left of Bones with his amazing sombrero. I don't have any specific, evidence-based reason to believe in religious teachings, so I don't. I also don't piss in other people's cheerios about it. This is my face of atheism I guess? But really, just admire that fucking sombrero. So awesome.
[img]http://www.vanillatf2.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/i46-bones.jpg[/img]
Hey I'm that guy off to the left of Bones with his amazing sombrero. I don't have any specific, evidence-based reason to believe in religious teachings, so I don't. I also don't piss in other people's cheerios about it. This is my face of atheism I guess? But really, just admire that fucking sombrero. So awesome.
Hey I'm that guy off to the left of Bones with his amazing sombrero. I don't have any specific, evidence-based reason to believe in religious teachings, so I don't. I also don't piss in other people's cheerios about it. This is my face of atheism I guess? But really, just admire that fucking sombrero. So awesome.
Snowymy runescape boy... a creationist???
oh the shame
Do you think dingo is a creationist too
[quote=Snowy]my runescape boy... a creationist???
oh the shame[/quote]
Do you think dingo is a creationist too
oh the shame[/quote]
Do you think dingo is a creationist too
lol im not a creationist
sorry jesus
lol im not a creationist
sorry jesus
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Kpl5EJS.jpg[/img]
sorry jesus
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Kpl5EJS.jpg[/img]
defiancepeople of god don't concern themselves with science or spelling duh
I don't agree that we should take one woman's stupidity and apply it to the massive group to which she belongs.
i disliked Ken Ham's logic, where "observable" science was stuff you could plainly see, while "historical" science is somehow incorrect even though it uses the exact same principles (finding evidence and drawing a conclusion from it). "you can't prove whether or not there was water on mars because you weren't there." Then he explains that the evolution of dog breeds supports his idea of noah's ark without explaining why his historical evidence is valid but Bill's isn't. It wasn't thought-provoking like i was expecting it to be. it was just inconsistent and kinda frustrating.
He would have been much more effective if he didn't have to take the Bible literally. There is just so much that disproves individual events or the timeframe of it, and an allegorical approach is more applicable to modern life as well as harder to disprove.
[quote=defiance]people of god don't concern themselves with science or spelling duh[/quote]
I don't agree that we should take one woman's stupidity and apply it to the massive group to which she belongs.
i disliked Ken Ham's logic, where "observable" science was stuff you could plainly see, while "historical" science is somehow incorrect even though it uses the exact same principles (finding evidence and drawing a conclusion from it). "you can't prove whether or not there was water on mars because you weren't there." Then he explains that the evolution of dog breeds supports his idea of noah's ark without explaining why his historical evidence is valid but Bill's isn't. It wasn't thought-provoking like i was expecting it to be. it was just inconsistent and kinda frustrating.
He would have been much more effective if he didn't have to take the Bible literally. There is just so much that disproves individual events or the timeframe of it, and an allegorical approach is more applicable to modern life as well as harder to disprove.
I don't agree that we should take one woman's stupidity and apply it to the massive group to which she belongs.
i disliked Ken Ham's logic, where "observable" science was stuff you could plainly see, while "historical" science is somehow incorrect even though it uses the exact same principles (finding evidence and drawing a conclusion from it). "you can't prove whether or not there was water on mars because you weren't there." Then he explains that the evolution of dog breeds supports his idea of noah's ark without explaining why his historical evidence is valid but Bill's isn't. It wasn't thought-provoking like i was expecting it to be. it was just inconsistent and kinda frustrating.
He would have been much more effective if he didn't have to take the Bible literally. There is just so much that disproves individual events or the timeframe of it, and an allegorical approach is more applicable to modern life as well as harder to disprove.
MarxistTheist type is usually not particularly well educated in theology so they can't even present nuanced arguments beyond "god did it yo the bible said so" nor do they ever really get deep into theological texts because their grasp of theology is usually quite poor.
Agreed.
MarxistThe atheist is usually also pretty crap because, in general, most atheists just substitute theism in form.
Definitely not. It's simply a rejection of the god claims. "God exists." Do you accept this as true or not? (A/theism) If BigFootism was the belief in big foot, and ABigFootism was the rejection of that belief, would Abigfootism be a substitution? No. It's actually in directly opposition. Deism would "qualify" more as a "substitution" for Theism.
MarxistGenerally, most posit that while there isn't some big other figure with unlimited power, there's still a cosmic order of sorts, evolution or chaos theory, and so on blah blah, that provides them with some sort of unique place in the universe - which still utilizes the existence of an, albeit less conscious, "other" which is beyond life and in control. Nor are they ever particularly well versed in theology which makes things even more boring, because there's nothing like a nonbeliever asking theological questions that can't be answered.
Generally, you should never tie Atheism into any other belief or stance on anything else other than what Atheism is, and that is dealing exclusively with the claim of god's existence. Atheism has no dogma or tenants, yet people misdirect Atheism to tie into many other political, moral and scientific stances. Stating you're an Atheist does not mean you are automatically tied to accepting the big bang theory. I've met Atheists who do not accept the big bang or evolution.
Also, overall, nonbelievers are far beyond well versed compared to believers. It is how they became nonbelievers in the first place, because they started to study what they were blindly accepting without question as a child.
[quote=Marxist]Theist type is usually not particularly well educated in theology so they can't even present nuanced arguments beyond "god did it yo the bible said so" nor do they ever really get deep into theological texts because their grasp of theology is usually quite poor.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote=Marxist]The atheist is usually also pretty crap because, in general, most atheists just substitute theism in form.[/quote]
Definitely not. It's simply a rejection of the god claims. "God exists." Do you accept this as true or not? (A/theism) If BigFootism was the belief in big foot, and ABigFootism was the rejection of that belief, would Abigfootism be a substitution? No. It's actually in directly opposition. Deism would "qualify" more as a "substitution" for Theism.
[quote=Marxist]Generally, most posit that while there isn't some big other figure with unlimited power, there's still a cosmic order of sorts, evolution or chaos theory, and so on blah blah, that provides them with some sort of unique place in the universe - which still utilizes the existence of an, albeit less conscious, "other" which is beyond life and in control. Nor are they ever particularly well versed in theology which makes things even more boring, because there's nothing like a nonbeliever asking theological questions that can't be answered.[/quote]
Generally, you should never tie Atheism into any other belief or stance on anything else other than what Atheism is, and that is dealing exclusively with the claim of god's existence. Atheism has no dogma or tenants, yet people misdirect Atheism to tie into many other political, moral and scientific stances. Stating you're an Atheist does not mean you are automatically tied to accepting the big bang theory. I've met Atheists who do not accept the big bang or evolution.
Also, overall, nonbelievers are far beyond well versed compared to believers. It is how they became nonbelievers in the first place, because they started to study what they were blindly accepting without question as a child.
Agreed.
[quote=Marxist]The atheist is usually also pretty crap because, in general, most atheists just substitute theism in form.[/quote]
Definitely not. It's simply a rejection of the god claims. "God exists." Do you accept this as true or not? (A/theism) If BigFootism was the belief in big foot, and ABigFootism was the rejection of that belief, would Abigfootism be a substitution? No. It's actually in directly opposition. Deism would "qualify" more as a "substitution" for Theism.
[quote=Marxist]Generally, most posit that while there isn't some big other figure with unlimited power, there's still a cosmic order of sorts, evolution or chaos theory, and so on blah blah, that provides them with some sort of unique place in the universe - which still utilizes the existence of an, albeit less conscious, "other" which is beyond life and in control. Nor are they ever particularly well versed in theology which makes things even more boring, because there's nothing like a nonbeliever asking theological questions that can't be answered.[/quote]
Generally, you should never tie Atheism into any other belief or stance on anything else other than what Atheism is, and that is dealing exclusively with the claim of god's existence. Atheism has no dogma or tenants, yet people misdirect Atheism to tie into many other political, moral and scientific stances. Stating you're an Atheist does not mean you are automatically tied to accepting the big bang theory. I've met Atheists who do not accept the big bang or evolution.
Also, overall, nonbelievers are far beyond well versed compared to believers. It is how they became nonbelievers in the first place, because they started to study what they were blindly accepting without question as a child.
Smobo the problem is once you concede that they aren't true stories (which the old testament claims they are) you open the door to arguments like the documentary hypothesis and once that death trap gets opened the concept of the "theistic" (omnipotent omniscient all good. elf existent separate, eternal etc) disappears and with it the basis for the new testament and Christianity kind of falls apart. Since the documentary hypothesis can arguably be used to interpret the old testament as a bunch of tales about a plethora of different gods. Some accounts for as high as like 6-7 different gods.
Smobo the problem is once you concede that they aren't true stories (which the old testament claims they are) you open the door to arguments like the documentary hypothesis and once that death trap gets opened the concept of the "theistic" (omnipotent omniscient all good. elf existent separate, eternal etc) disappears and with it the basis for the new testament and Christianity kind of falls apart. Since the documentary hypothesis can arguably be used to interpret the old testament as a bunch of tales about a plethora of different gods. Some accounts for as high as like 6-7 different gods.
[img]http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Furry-Atheism-Inside.jpg[/img]
smoboi disliked Ken Ham's logic, where "observable" science was stuff you could plainly see, while "historical" science is somehow incorrect even though it uses the exact same principles (finding evidence and drawing a conclusion from it). "you can't prove whether or not there was water on mars because you weren't there."
That's because he believes that "God" may of changed said principles. There's no point in arguing against him because you can't convince him otherwise, and there's not much point in trying to do so.
Just let people believe what they want, as long as it's not being forced down the throats of others, I don't think it's a big deal.
Edit: and this goes both ways...
[quote=smobo]
i disliked Ken Ham's logic, where "observable" science was stuff you could plainly see, while "historical" science is somehow incorrect even though it uses the exact same principles (finding evidence and drawing a conclusion from it). "you can't prove whether or not there was water on mars because you weren't there."[/quote]
That's because he believes that "God" may of changed said principles. There's no point in arguing against him because you can't convince him otherwise, and there's not much point in trying to do so.
Just let people believe what they want, as long as it's not being forced down the throats of others, I don't think it's a big deal.
Edit: and this goes both ways...
i disliked Ken Ham's logic, where "observable" science was stuff you could plainly see, while "historical" science is somehow incorrect even though it uses the exact same principles (finding evidence and drawing a conclusion from it). "you can't prove whether or not there was water on mars because you weren't there."[/quote]
That's because he believes that "God" may of changed said principles. There's no point in arguing against him because you can't convince him otherwise, and there's not much point in trying to do so.
Just let people believe what they want, as long as it's not being forced down the throats of others, I don't think it's a big deal.
Edit: and this goes both ways...
hey atheist if god doesnt exist who wrote the bible
hey atheist if god doesnt exist who wrote the bible
GrimJust let people believe what they want, as long as it's not being forced down the throats of others, I don't think it's a big deal.
He's totally allowed to think that way, but it is a debate, not a blog. If he makes a weak or invalid argument, the listener is supposed to criticise it.
[quote=Grim]Just let people believe what they want, as long as it's not being forced down the throats of others, I don't think it's a big deal.[/quote]
He's totally allowed to think that way, but it is a debate, not a blog. If he makes a weak or invalid argument, the listener is supposed to criticise it.
He's totally allowed to think that way, but it is a debate, not a blog. If he makes a weak or invalid argument, the listener is supposed to criticise it.
shocka1MarxistTheist type is usually not particularly well educated in theology so they can't even present nuanced arguments beyond "god did it yo the bible said so" nor do they ever really get deep into theological texts because their grasp of theology is usually quite poor.
Agreed.
MarxistThe atheist is usually also pretty crap because, in general, most atheists just substitute theism in form.
Definitely not. It's simply a rejection of the god claims. "God exists." Do you accept this as true or not? (A/theism) If BigFootism was the belief in big foot, and ABigFootism was the rejection of that belief, would Abigfootism be a substitution? No. It's actually in directly opposition. Deism would "qualify" more as a "substitution" for Theism.
MarxistGenerally, most posit that while there isn't some big other figure with unlimited power, there's still a cosmic order of sorts, evolution or chaos theory, and so on blah blah, that provides them with some sort of unique place in the universe - which still utilizes the existence of an, albeit less conscious, "other" which is beyond life and in control. Nor are they ever particularly well versed in theology which makes things even more boring, because there's nothing like a nonbeliever asking theological questions that can't be answered.
Generally, you should never tie Atheism into any other belief or stance on anything else other than what Atheism is, and that is dealing exclusively with the claim of god's existence. Atheism has no dogma or tenants, yet people misdirect Atheism to tie into many other political, moral and scientific stances. Stating you're an Atheist does not mean you are automatically tied to accepting the big bang theory. I've met Atheists who do not accept the big bang or evolution.
Also, overall, nonbelievers are far beyond well versed compared to believers. It is how they became nonbelievers in the first place, because they started to study what they were blindly accepting without question as a child.
this is all correct in the abstract world where all atheists are 'true' (or people who truly only deny theism, like you said) and adhere to the principles that make an atheist 'true.' or, i guess, a lack of principles. the world is not like that and most people still like to hold their beliefs close to themselves and defend them in stupid ways, regardless of what those beliefs are.
you are right about what an atheist is, and i'm not sure if that was every really in contention, but in practice what marxist said tends to be pretty accurate. most people, regardless of whether or not they're religious, make a choice at some point in their lives to change what they learned and accepted as a child. i think it's a little presumptuous to make the claim that all atheists are somehow inherently smarter and more well informed than people who believe in whatever, plenty of very smart people believed in a god and have still managed to further humanity in some significant way.
[quote=shocka1][quote=Marxist]Theist type is usually not particularly well educated in theology so they can't even present nuanced arguments beyond "god did it yo the bible said so" nor do they ever really get deep into theological texts because their grasp of theology is usually quite poor.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote=Marxist]The atheist is usually also pretty crap because, in general, most atheists just substitute theism in form.[/quote]
Definitely not. It's simply a rejection of the god claims. "God exists." Do you accept this as true or not? (A/theism) If BigFootism was the belief in big foot, and ABigFootism was the rejection of that belief, would Abigfootism be a substitution? No. It's actually in directly opposition. Deism would "qualify" more as a "substitution" for Theism.
[quote=Marxist]Generally, most posit that while there isn't some big other figure with unlimited power, there's still a cosmic order of sorts, evolution or chaos theory, and so on blah blah, that provides them with some sort of unique place in the universe - which still utilizes the existence of an, albeit less conscious, "other" which is beyond life and in control. Nor are they ever particularly well versed in theology which makes things even more boring, because there's nothing like a nonbeliever asking theological questions that can't be answered.[/quote]
Generally, you should never tie Atheism into any other belief or stance on anything else other than what Atheism is, and that is dealing exclusively with the claim of god's existence. Atheism has no dogma or tenants, yet people misdirect Atheism to tie into many other political, moral and scientific stances. Stating you're an Atheist does not mean you are automatically tied to accepting the big bang theory. I've met Atheists who do not accept the big bang or evolution.
Also, overall, nonbelievers are far beyond well versed compared to believers. It is how they became nonbelievers in the first place, because they started to study what they were blindly accepting without question as a child.[/quote]
this is all correct in the abstract world where all atheists are 'true' (or people who truly only deny theism, like you said) and adhere to the principles that make an atheist 'true.' or, i guess, a lack of principles. the world is not like that and most people still like to hold their beliefs close to themselves and defend them in stupid ways, regardless of what those beliefs are.
you are right about what an atheist is, and i'm not sure if that was every really in contention, but in practice what marxist said tends to be pretty accurate. most [i]people[/i], regardless of whether or not they're religious, make a choice at some point in their lives to change what they learned and accepted as a child. i think it's a little presumptuous to make the claim that all atheists are somehow inherently smarter and more well informed than people who believe in whatever, plenty of very smart people believed in a god and have still managed to further humanity in some significant way.
Agreed.
[quote=Marxist]The atheist is usually also pretty crap because, in general, most atheists just substitute theism in form.[/quote]
Definitely not. It's simply a rejection of the god claims. "God exists." Do you accept this as true or not? (A/theism) If BigFootism was the belief in big foot, and ABigFootism was the rejection of that belief, would Abigfootism be a substitution? No. It's actually in directly opposition. Deism would "qualify" more as a "substitution" for Theism.
[quote=Marxist]Generally, most posit that while there isn't some big other figure with unlimited power, there's still a cosmic order of sorts, evolution or chaos theory, and so on blah blah, that provides them with some sort of unique place in the universe - which still utilizes the existence of an, albeit less conscious, "other" which is beyond life and in control. Nor are they ever particularly well versed in theology which makes things even more boring, because there's nothing like a nonbeliever asking theological questions that can't be answered.[/quote]
Generally, you should never tie Atheism into any other belief or stance on anything else other than what Atheism is, and that is dealing exclusively with the claim of god's existence. Atheism has no dogma or tenants, yet people misdirect Atheism to tie into many other political, moral and scientific stances. Stating you're an Atheist does not mean you are automatically tied to accepting the big bang theory. I've met Atheists who do not accept the big bang or evolution.
Also, overall, nonbelievers are far beyond well versed compared to believers. It is how they became nonbelievers in the first place, because they started to study what they were blindly accepting without question as a child.[/quote]
this is all correct in the abstract world where all atheists are 'true' (or people who truly only deny theism, like you said) and adhere to the principles that make an atheist 'true.' or, i guess, a lack of principles. the world is not like that and most people still like to hold their beliefs close to themselves and defend them in stupid ways, regardless of what those beliefs are.
you are right about what an atheist is, and i'm not sure if that was every really in contention, but in practice what marxist said tends to be pretty accurate. most [i]people[/i], regardless of whether or not they're religious, make a choice at some point in their lives to change what they learned and accepted as a child. i think it's a little presumptuous to make the claim that all atheists are somehow inherently smarter and more well informed than people who believe in whatever, plenty of very smart people believed in a god and have still managed to further humanity in some significant way.
@shocka
Interestingly enough I've been an atheist pretty much my whole life - I think I've been physically in a religious building less than 10 times - and almost all of them were for the sake of somebody I was dating encouraging me to "try it" (and I totally gave in because I tend to like women folk enough to suppress some of my convinctions) lol. I started dabbling in theology in college because I would get bored so you may as well do some fun thinking, and also because the head of the theology department was a bad ass.
While I understand perfectly well that atheism is simply a rejection of theistic systems generally, I generalized by saying that, generally, these atheist vs. theist debates, typically boil down to the atheist presenting an ideological system which is, in form, theism, although its substance is different. If a person is to reasonably reject thousands of years of human history and cultural tradition, they will generally justify that rejection by formulating or adopting an ideological system which, in many cases, simply replaces theism with some other sort of system which creates a God-like apparatus in lieu of God.
This theistic atheism is the whole reason "intelligent design" is being pushed by some theists because, in many cases, especially with the way evolution is taught to young people, it is presented as a pervasive and quasi-positive force which exists, for all intents and purposes, beyond time and life. So it is indeed quite simple to substitute a pervasive quasi-benevolent evolutionary force for a divine intelligence because they're, in form, the same thing. I could extrapolate further as to why this is the case (because the desire for God and a "unique place in the universe" or whatever other cliche you like come from the same source ideologically), but I rather not write a small book lol.
Luckily for Bill, most of Ham's arguments were so silly he didn't even have to get into presenting a nontheist viewpoint beyond Kant's "cannot prove or disprove" thesis.
@shocka
Interestingly enough I've been an atheist pretty much my whole life - I think I've been physically in a religious building less than 10 times - and almost all of them were for the sake of somebody I was dating encouraging me to "try it" (and I totally gave in because I tend to like women folk enough to suppress some of my convinctions) lol. I started dabbling in theology in college because I would get bored so you may as well do some fun thinking, and also because the head of the theology department was a bad ass.
While I understand perfectly well that atheism is simply a rejection of theistic systems generally, I generalized by saying that, generally, these atheist vs. theist debates, typically boil down to the atheist presenting an ideological system which is, in form, theism, although its substance is different. If a person is to reasonably reject thousands of years of human history and cultural tradition, they will generally justify that rejection by formulating or adopting an ideological system which, in many cases, simply replaces theism with some other sort of system which creates a God-like apparatus in lieu of God.
This theistic atheism is the whole reason "intelligent design" is being pushed by some theists because, in many cases, especially with the way evolution is taught to young people, it is presented as a pervasive and quasi-positive force which exists, for all intents and purposes, beyond time and life. So it is indeed quite simple to substitute a pervasive quasi-benevolent evolutionary force for a divine intelligence because they're, in form, the same thing. I could extrapolate further as to why this is the case (because the desire for God and a "unique place in the universe" or whatever other cliche you like come from the same source ideologically), but I rather not write a small book lol.
Luckily for Bill, most of Ham's arguments were so silly he didn't even have to get into presenting a nontheist viewpoint beyond Kant's "cannot prove or disprove" thesis.
Interestingly enough I've been an atheist pretty much my whole life - I think I've been physically in a religious building less than 10 times - and almost all of them were for the sake of somebody I was dating encouraging me to "try it" (and I totally gave in because I tend to like women folk enough to suppress some of my convinctions) lol. I started dabbling in theology in college because I would get bored so you may as well do some fun thinking, and also because the head of the theology department was a bad ass.
While I understand perfectly well that atheism is simply a rejection of theistic systems generally, I generalized by saying that, generally, these atheist vs. theist debates, typically boil down to the atheist presenting an ideological system which is, in form, theism, although its substance is different. If a person is to reasonably reject thousands of years of human history and cultural tradition, they will generally justify that rejection by formulating or adopting an ideological system which, in many cases, simply replaces theism with some other sort of system which creates a God-like apparatus in lieu of God.
This theistic atheism is the whole reason "intelligent design" is being pushed by some theists because, in many cases, especially with the way evolution is taught to young people, it is presented as a pervasive and quasi-positive force which exists, for all intents and purposes, beyond time and life. So it is indeed quite simple to substitute a pervasive quasi-benevolent evolutionary force for a divine intelligence because they're, in form, the same thing. I could extrapolate further as to why this is the case (because the desire for God and a "unique place in the universe" or whatever other cliche you like come from the same source ideologically), but I rather not write a small book lol.
Luckily for Bill, most of Ham's arguments were so silly he didn't even have to get into presenting a nontheist viewpoint beyond Kant's "cannot prove or disprove" thesis.
holy shit just live your life and dont force your opinions on people
holy shit just live your life and dont force your opinions on people
So.... There's no objective truth? That's a pretty profound opinion you've got there :p
So.... There's no objective truth? That's a pretty profound opinion you've got there :p
there just needs to be a 30 minute no holds barred debate between the two. that's all i'm asking for. it could even be a tag team match with richard dawkins at bill's side and that fucking lady that "debated" against dawkins.
there just needs to be a 30 minute no holds barred debate between the two. that's all i'm asking for. it could even be a tag team match with richard dawkins at bill's side and that fucking lady that "debated" against dawkins.
Turinholy shit just live your life and dont force your opinions on people
In a perfect world...
[quote=Turin]holy shit just live your life and dont force your opinions on people[/quote]
In a perfect world...
In a perfect world...
MarxistSo.... There's no objective truth? That's a pretty profound opinion you've got there :p
Whats the point in making other people agree with you on that topic. There are 7 BILLION people and the vast majority disagree with you. It's a uphill battle that will never be won.
[quote=Marxist]So.... There's no objective truth? That's a pretty profound opinion you've got there :p[/quote]
Whats the point in making other people agree with you on that topic. There are 7 BILLION people and the vast majority disagree with you. It's a uphill battle that will never be won.
Whats the point in making other people agree with you on that topic. There are 7 BILLION people and the vast majority disagree with you. It's a uphill battle that will never be won.
Turinholy shit just live your life and dont force your opinions on people
Except these people vote and it affects our lives.
[quote=Turin]holy shit just live your life and dont force your opinions on people[/quote]
Except these people vote and it affects our lives.
Except these people vote and it affects our lives.
So? Universal Suffrage is a natural right no matter the persons opinion. I'm not glad that these people vote, but they have the same right as anyone to vote their opinion.
So? Universal Suffrage is a natural right no matter the persons opinion. I'm not glad that these people vote, but they have the same right as anyone to vote their opinion.
Turinholy shit just live your life and dont force your opinions on people
The problem isn't that people like this exist. The problem is that they're on school boards and part of governing bodies that have ultimate control over science education :<
[quote=Turin]holy shit just live your life and dont force your opinions on people[/quote]
The problem isn't that people like this exist. The problem is that they're on school boards and part of governing bodies that have ultimate control over science education :<
The problem isn't that people like this exist. The problem is that they're on school boards and part of governing bodies that have ultimate control over science education :<
mince__you are right about what an atheist is, and i'm not sure if that was every really in contention, but in practice what marxist said tends to be pretty accurate. most people, regardless of whether or not they're religious, make a choice at some point in their lives to change what they learned and accepted as a child. i think it's a little presumptuous to make the claim that all atheists are somehow inherently smarter and more well informed than people who believe in whatever, plenty of very smart people believed in a god and have still managed to further humanity in some significant way.
You must have misunderstood what I said, let me rephrase. I initially stated "Also, overall, nonbelievers are far beyond well versed compared to believers."
"Well versed", concerning the bible. A vast majority of atheists know more about what is in the bible than Theists do. And again, this is what leads to their de-conversion. This has nothing to do with being "inherently smarter". And when people stop believing in god, that does not mean they got "smarter". No, not at all. They simply have gained knowledge and have a better understanding regarding the value of skepticism and critical thinking. This sounds like an insult, sure, but people who are insulted by this are simply insecure with their beliefs. For instance, I don't know much about cars, but there are many people who do. Would you not state that their understanding of cars is much greater than mine? Does this make them smarter than me? No. Am I insulted by this? No. What if I was using the wrong type of oil for my car because I was taught this as a child by a parent who also didn't know about cars. And later on in life I found out from a mechanic that I actually need this other oil instead, and he explained why. I can recognize that people have a greater understanding in different areas of life without taking offense to it.
In addition, it seems religious people apply the same 'atheistic' skepticism throughout every endeavor of their life, (similarly to a court room), but when it comes to their religious beliefs, it goes out the windows. Eyes shut, headphones on.
[quote=mince__]you are right about what an atheist is, and i'm not sure if that was every really in contention, but in practice what marxist said tends to be pretty accurate. most [i]people[/i], regardless of whether or not they're religious, make a choice at some point in their lives to change what they learned and accepted as a child. i think it's a little presumptuous to make the claim that all atheists are somehow inherently smarter and more well informed than people who believe in whatever, plenty of very smart people believed in a god and have still managed to further humanity in some significant way.[/quote]
You must have misunderstood what I said, let me rephrase. I initially stated "[b][i]Also, overall, nonbelievers are far beyond well versed compared to believers.[/i][/b]"
"Well versed", concerning the bible. A vast majority of atheists know more about what is in the bible than Theists do. And again, this is what leads to their de-conversion. This has nothing to do with being "inherently smarter". And when people stop believing in god, that does not mean they got "smarter". No, not at all. They simply have gained knowledge and have a better understanding regarding the value of skepticism and critical thinking. This sounds like an insult, sure, but people who are insulted by this are simply insecure with their beliefs. For instance, I don't know much about cars, but there are many people who do. Would you not state that their understanding of cars is much greater than mine? Does this make them smarter than me? No. Am I insulted by this? No. What if I was using the wrong type of oil for my car because I was taught this as a child by a parent who also didn't know about cars. And later on in life I found out from a mechanic that I actually need this other oil instead, and he explained why. I can recognize that people have a greater understanding in different areas of life without taking offense to it.
In addition, it seems religious people apply the same 'atheistic' skepticism throughout every endeavor of their life, (similarly to a court room), but when it comes to their religious beliefs, it goes out the windows. Eyes shut, headphones on.
You must have misunderstood what I said, let me rephrase. I initially stated "[b][i]Also, overall, nonbelievers are far beyond well versed compared to believers.[/i][/b]"
"Well versed", concerning the bible. A vast majority of atheists know more about what is in the bible than Theists do. And again, this is what leads to their de-conversion. This has nothing to do with being "inherently smarter". And when people stop believing in god, that does not mean they got "smarter". No, not at all. They simply have gained knowledge and have a better understanding regarding the value of skepticism and critical thinking. This sounds like an insult, sure, but people who are insulted by this are simply insecure with their beliefs. For instance, I don't know much about cars, but there are many people who do. Would you not state that their understanding of cars is much greater than mine? Does this make them smarter than me? No. Am I insulted by this? No. What if I was using the wrong type of oil for my car because I was taught this as a child by a parent who also didn't know about cars. And later on in life I found out from a mechanic that I actually need this other oil instead, and he explained why. I can recognize that people have a greater understanding in different areas of life without taking offense to it.
In addition, it seems religious people apply the same 'atheistic' skepticism throughout every endeavor of their life, (similarly to a court room), but when it comes to their religious beliefs, it goes out the windows. Eyes shut, headphones on.
MarxistSo.... There's no objective truth? That's a pretty profound opinion you've got there :p
Would you say there is an objective truth? Belief and truth are not the same thing and religion is all about faith not science. It's the belief that we don't know all and never will. Is that wrong? You can say it's not true because of your own personal beliefs and use as many facts as you like, that doesn't really change anything. The only true understanding is when you accept the fact we only have a very limited understanding of anything. You can't actually change what people believe and you can't tell them what they believe is wrong, because really... Nobody knows better than anyone else, it's a completely a matter of personal interpretation.
[quote=Marxist]So.... There's no objective truth? That's a pretty profound opinion you've got there :p[/quote]
Would you say there is an objective truth? Belief and truth are not the same thing and religion is all about faith not science. It's the belief that we don't know all and never will. Is that wrong? You can say it's not true because of your own personal beliefs and use as many facts as you like, that doesn't really change anything. The only true understanding is when you accept the fact we only have a very limited understanding of anything. You can't actually change what people believe and you can't tell them what they believe is wrong, because really... Nobody knows better than anyone else, it's a completely a matter of personal interpretation.
Would you say there is an objective truth? Belief and truth are not the same thing and religion is all about faith not science. It's the belief that we don't know all and never will. Is that wrong? You can say it's not true because of your own personal beliefs and use as many facts as you like, that doesn't really change anything. The only true understanding is when you accept the fact we only have a very limited understanding of anything. You can't actually change what people believe and you can't tell them what they believe is wrong, because really... Nobody knows better than anyone else, it's a completely a matter of personal interpretation.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.