GOD EXISTS

My point is that a scientific idea can lead to just as atrocious behavior as a religious. Survival of the fittest the driving force of evolution was and is still used to back atrocious political theories. I was a little sarcastic when the post replied to said no scientist ever caused hatred. Interpretations by others in Religion and Science can cause bad things to happen. You can't blame God for the inquisition with out blaming Charles Darwin for the Holicost.

Poker

peke wrote:I've read the entire thread from the beginning. Seen agnostics, respectful believers, a single (in my opinion) zealot, the works. But I've not seen a single outspoken atheist.

I read somewhere that in the US, "atheist" was a terrible brand to bear, and most people would avoid it like the plague, even if they considered themselves atheists.

Well now. I'm an atheist myself. Made the choice when I was about 13.

Help me here. Why is atheism treated so? Why is my choice to be and atheist so horrifying to some people? I simply don't get it.

pokermind wrote:Ugh scientific atheism in the USSR of the 1930. Scientific racism of the Nazis in the 1930s. The 'White man's burden' of the late nineteenth century and twentyth century. All based on Charles Darwin's theories.

Poker

Heya Poker. Was this post of yours serious, or were you being sarcastic? Because I can't really tell.

And for the record, Darwin is in my top-ten list of greatest persons in history, right there with Newton, Euclid, Einstein and a few others.

Some history Poker. The Germans first commited mass genocide during the crusades. Long before Darwin.

pokermind wrote:My point is that a scientific idea can lead to just as atrocious behavior as a religious. Survival of the fittest the driving force of evolution was and is still used to back atrocious political theories. I was a little sarcastic when the post replied to said no scientist ever caused hatred. Interpretations by others in Religion and Science can cause bad things to happen. You can't blame God for the inquisition with out blaming Charles Darwin for the Holicost.

Um... no.

Religion is largely prescriptive. It constantly makes statements about what people *should* do. So blaming religion for people then going off and doing things as a result of listening to religious pronouncements is rather appropriate.


Science is descriptive. It makes statements about what *is*.


Evolution doesn't say the fittest SHOULD survive, it just says they do.


Blaming Darwin for the holocaust is like blaming Newton for some guy pushing someone off a cliff, because obviously the guy pushed that person off the cliff so that gravity would proceed to kill them and Newton came up with the Law of Gravity so it's all his fault!

Gravity doesn't say people who go over the edges of cliffs *should* be pulled down to their deaths, it just says that's what will happen if they go over the cliff.

cthia wrote:In the meantime, do you think you can find within you the minimal amount of respect and decency? Or is decency and respect only found within Christians? I only ask the same respect as I give. Is that beyond you?

If you continue. You'll be ignored. I am rather busy. Too much so, for a childish conversation.

Thank You

cthia, I have lots of respect and decency for actual scientists. You, however, are a creationist. Creationism is not science. It is an intellectual cancer. It is a hopeless attempt to reconcile what does not need reconciliation. Go ahead. Submit your theories. Get them peer-reviewed. We'll talk again once they're rejected.

So, you think that the other ninety-five percent of us suffer from mass delusion?

* https://youtu.be/PY8mvjYdsyk

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_516.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Ameri ... e-God.aspx
http://www.christianpost.com/news/globa ... ife-49994/

...


Interesting

In North America and Europe, more people agree that it is possible to be non-religious and still be an upright person. At least half in nearly every country surveyed take this view, including roughly eight-in-ten or more in France, Spain, the Czech Republic and Britain. In these two regions, Americans are unique – 53% say belief in God is necessary to be moral.

These are among the main findings of Pew Research Center surveys conducted among 36,854 people in 39 countries between 2011 and 2013 (see “Survey Methods” for more details). The survey also finds that publics in richer nations tend to place less emphasis on the need to believe in God to have good values than people in poorer countries do. The U.S., however, stands out as a clear exception to this pattern. Americans are much more likely than their economic counterparts to say belief in God is essential to morality

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/03/13/wor ... -morality/

Demographics of atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 8% of the world's population, whereas irreligious individuals represent a further 10% to 20%. One study by Gallup International recorded that 13% of those interviewed said they were "convinced atheists".

In Scandinavia and East Asia, and particularly in China, atheists and the nonreligious are the majority.[4] Globally, atheists and the nonreligious are concentrated in Asia and the Pacific with over 76% of all the irreligious or nonreligious people in the world residing in those regions.[5] In Europe, the nonreligious make up 12.5% of the population and in North America they make up 5% of the population.[5] In Africa and South America, atheists are typically in the single digits.[4]

Historical records of atheist philosophy span several millennia. Atheistic schools are found in early Indian thought and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.[6] Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment.[7]

Discrepancies exist among sources as to how atheist and religious demographics are changing. Social scientific assessment of the extent of "atheism" in various populations is problematic. First, in most of the world outside of East Asia most populations are believers in either a monotheistic or polytheistic system.

Consequently questions to assess non belief often take the form of any negation of the prevailing belief rather than an assertion of positive atheism and these will then be accounted accurately to rising "atheism".[8][9][10] According to the 2012 Gallup International survey, the number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining.[11] However, other global studies have indicated that global atheism may be in decline due to irreligious countries having the lowest birth rates in the world and religious countries having higher birth rates in general.[12]

* Cited for dramatic effect.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:In the meantime, do you think you can find within you the minimal amount of respect and decency? Or is decency and respect only found within Christians? I only ask the same respect as I give. Is that beyond you?

If you continue. You'll be ignored. I am rather busy. Too much so, for a childish conversation.

Thank You

cthia, I have lots of respect and decency for actual scientists. You, however, are a creationist. Creationism is not science. It is an intellectual cancer. It is a hopeless attempt to reconcile what does not need reconciliation. Go ahead. Submit your theories. Get them peer-reviewed. We'll talk again once they're rejected.

What exactly are you saying here?

If I extrapolate from your logic...
- No scientist can be found in the school of Creationism?
- Only those that do not believe in God can be a scientist?

- All scientists are non-religious?



I'd rather you refer to me as a Christian.



****** *

Creationism is not science. It is an intellectual cancer.

Interesting.

Cancer should be eradicated. I often afford myself a certain gedanken of what our Earth would be like if all who believe in God were to suddenly disappear. And it's always the same -- a close encounter of the Stephen King kind.

I wonder how many people would honestly choose to live in a world with no religious conscience. There's no way in hell I would.

"CLOSE AND LOCK THE DOORS. DRAW THE CURTAINS. DON'T YOU DARE GO OUTSIDE!"

Be careful what you ask for.

The Rapture: In Christian eschatology the rapture refers to the belief that either before, or simultaneously with, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to earth, believers who have died will be raised and believers who are still alive and remain shall be caught up together with them (the resurrected dead believers) in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

*My faith says that you will get your wish.

The Tribulation:
During the seven year Tribulation period, following the Rapture of all the Christians to heaven (See our article on the Rapture for more details), the Bible warns that the wrath of God will be poured out on unrepentant sinners. These judgments describe in Revelation include worldwide war (conventional as well as nuclear), famine, plague, wild animals attacking humans, meteor impacts, massive global earthquakes, and more. The start of these terrible judgments commence at the beginning of the seven year Tribulation period which is marked by the signing of a seven year peace treaty between the Antichrist and Israel. There will be a progression of these judgments along with their severity as prophesied by John (Revelation 6-18).
This Tribulation period is divided into two halves, each three and one half years in length. The second half of the seven-year Tribulation period will be even worse than the first half. It is a time period known as the Great Tribulation. This last three and a half years will begin with the Antichrist’s violation of the treaty he signed with Israel. He will break the covenant by stopping the sacrifice and defiling the Holy of Holies in the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. This is the prophesied “abomination of desolation” (Daniel 9:26-27; Matthew 24:15) and it will signal the beginning of the last three and a half years of the seven-year Tribulation period. It will end at the battle of Armageddon with Jesus’ victory.

*I am a Christian. Regardless of any petty cross words between us on this forum or even in public, I wish no man to die a spiritual death. I know which group I pray you will be in.

cthia wrote:

Ninety-six percent of the world's population believe in a Supreme Being of some form.

Ninety-five percent of Americans.

Statistically speak/think (ing), Christians are in the correct group of thinkers.

Statistics is a mathematical body of Science.

gcomeau wrote:Good grief...

I find it difficult to believe that someone who claims to be engaged in advanced scientific research that supposedly entails extremely advanced mathematics does not understand the difference between a popular opinion and a correct one and is under the impression that a majority of random people believing something makes it *statistically correct*.

Someone needs to have 'the talk' with biologists. We learn about the birds and the bees at a fairly young age. And even a kid knows that two rocks don't get together to make people.

No, someone needs to learn biology and organic chemistry themselves before making the assumption that a grade school level understanding of the reproductive process somehow qualifies them to authoritatively declare that every professional scientist in the field they are speaking about somehow knows less about the subject than some 12 year old that just got the birds and the bees talk... based on the fact that what those scientists are saying isn't fully explained by said birds and bees talk.




And on, and on... I'm not going to wade through that entire morass of random nonsense claims when Spacekiwi already took that bullet for us. I'll just make the general observation that it is amazing how many creationists hold unshakable confidence in their understanding of various scientific fields in which they have clearly never received any kind of extensive education. I mean, it's fairly clear you've never studied microbiology and organic chemistry to any extent that gives you a clue what would have been involved in theories that describe the formation of early self replicating molecules... you must know you have not had this education... and yet you proclaim with certainty that any 6th grader who's had a sex ed class can clearly see what an entire field of people with doctorates in this subject matter and decades of research under their belt can't.

And, apparently, you find that plausible primarily because it lines up with your desire to believe a religious text written by an iron age civilization that couldn't dream of grasping half the concepts you're using their little book to declare invalid.

Just.. mind boggling.

Statistics was one copper-plated Cordelia Ransom of a subject to many in my class. But it was because of an arse of a professor whose lineage surely gave way to Ransom, I'm certain.

Yet we all came out of it knowing that 'statistically correct' does not necessarily mean correct - lest skewed data and scattered 'plots.'

-'plots' enjoying a double entendre.

No, the implication was that the five percent of the world's population who think that the other ninety-five percent are delusional are scaling a steep precipice of arrogance.

-snip-
I mean, it's fairly clear you've never studied microbiology and organic chemistry to any extent that gives you a clue what would have been involved in theories that describe the formation of early self replicating molecules... you must know you have not had this education... and yet you proclaim with certainty that any 6th grader who's had a sex ed class can clearly see what an entire field of people with doctorates in this subject matter and decades of research under their belt can't.

I can't argue with you there. Advanced Biology and Chemistry were amongst my curriculum even before college. Though it's safe to say that I didn't exactly adore Biology. I did manage to graduate High School six months in advance (a laughable accomplishment in my family) - so that I'd have several months on hand to travel and see the world. My 13-yr-old niece is about to enter college in the fall and has visited CERN on an invite. But the site of blood turns my stomach, so the labs were a bit... trying for me.

Most of my studies revolved around technical sciences. I'm Lab Manager at a Civil Engineering firm. I received by PH.D in three years and a Masters in Computer Science.

Yet my family members still maintain that my biggest accomplishment was that I had earned over a half-million dollars before I was even fourteen. And that was by accident. I was writing algorithms at the local university just so I could receive time on their mainframe. I came to the attention of a computer professional in that department who asked if I'd like to make a few dollars. I was just a naïve kid, not even a teenager. I offered to write algorithms in exchange for continued time on the mainframe. He agreed. He had a friend in California who had problems with software design in his company. He was referred to me. I offered to write for him as a favor. Really, all I wanted was for his friend to continue to allot me mainframe time. After several algorithms he offered to pay me. I said sure. I had no idea I was going to receive checks at my address for thousands of dollars as a kid. It frightened the heck out of my mother. She thought I was involved in some illegal and dangerous thing. I made over a half-million dollars before I was fourteen. Three quarters of a million before graduating high school. I was worth over two million before my sophomore year at college. When I graduated, I ended up in California - Silicon Valley. I was a multi-millionaire before I was twenty five. I left Silicon Valley for a slower Carolina pace. I have a sister who is a Veterinarian and a Neurosurgeon. She is head of R&D at a pharmaceutical company in Research Triangle Park (RTP) (which boasts the largest concentration of PH.Ds in the world) whose 13-yr-old daughter is a genius, whose entering college this year at 13. Her major, Theoretical Physics. She also owns a Cray.

I didn't have much time for Biology, except for girls.

cthia wrote:What exactly are you saying here?

If I extrapolate from your logic...
- No scientist can be found in the school of Creationism?

Yes. Believing in creationism is fundamentally incompatible with the basic tenets of the scientific method, as creationists do not set out to observe the world and reason about it, but rather to try and find corroborating evidence for what they already know to be true.

For example, you believe in God. You are trying to prove that God exists. But if your proof yields a negative result, does that mean you accept it? No, because obviously your belief is correct, therefore your theory must have been faulty.

That is not how science works. Anyone professing creationist beliefs has an inherently compromised judgment and cannot be trusted to report accurately on their research.

- Only those that do not believe in God can be a scientist?

- All scientists are non-religious?

No. Science and Faith have nothing to do with each other. Applying the methods and thinking of one to the other yields invalid results. Creationism tries its best to rephrase beliefs in scientific language, but fails utterly as a science. Creationist theories are, at best, equal in terms of predictive power than traditional ones. There doesn't seem to be anything that these theories gain by including gods.

I'd rather you refer to me as a Christian.

Why? You are a creationist. You post creationist beliefs. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Creationism is not science. It is an intellectual cancer.

Interesting.

Cancer should be eradicated. I often afford myself a certain gedanken of what our Earth would be like if all who believe in God were to suddenly disappear. And it's always the same -- a close encounter of the Stephen King kind.

Of course, this has nothing to do with what I wrote. I never said that faith should be eradicated or anything. It's creationism that I have issues with, not faith.

I wonder how many people would honestly choose to live in a world with no religious conscience. There's no way in hell I would.

If you believe that conscience can only derive from an invisible sky daddy, why yes, that would be terrible.

Fortunately, that is not the case.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:In the meantime, do you think you can find within you the minimal amount of respect and decency? Or is decency and respect only found within Christians? I only ask the same respect as I give. Is that beyond you?

If you continue. You'll be ignored. I am rather busy. Too much so, for a childish conversation.

Thank You

cthia, I have lots of respect and decency for actual scientists. You, however, are a creationist. Creationism is not science. It is an intellectual cancer. It is a hopeless attempt to reconcile what does not need reconciliation. Go ahead. Submit your theories. Get them peer-reviewed. We'll talk again once they're rejected.

The E,

Do you consider your response an expression of intolerance? I am not trying to be facetious or to goad you in any way. I am really curious.

pokermind wrote:My point is that a scientific idea can lead to just as atrocious behavior as a religious. Survival of the fittest the driving force of evolution was and is still used to back atrocious political theories. I was a little sarcastic when the post replied to said no scientist ever caused hatred. Interpretations by others in Religion and Science can cause bad things to happen. You can't blame God for the inquisition with out blaming Charles Darwin for the Holicost.

Respectfully, Poker, I think you're wrong.

When you speak of atrocious behavior, you're entering the territory of Morals, Ethics, and the concepts of Good and Evil. The comparison between Religion and Science in those fields is not appropriate because Science is not, and has never been (or included), an ethical framework of any kind. Gravity, magnetism, the process of nuclear fission, an asteroid falling and annihilating the big lizards, those things are neither evil nor good. They just are.

OTOH, Religion has always included, at its core, an ethical framework about what is considered "good and moral" behavior from its adherents (you know, the Ten Commandments, and its equivalents in other religions.) And MANY of the atrocious chapters in the history of Religion (any religion) have happened because people believed that, in order to be "good and moral" members of his faith, they should perform atrocious deeds. And still others thought that the atrocities they were committing were "good and moral" because their Holy Scripture said they were (or at least, said they weren't evil).

I do not blame God (even thought I don't believe in his existence) for the Crusades. I blame the Holy Bible, which condoned the invasion of the lands of "the infidels". I blame the corrupt high prelates of the time, who pushed the Christian lords into attacking other kingdoms, so they could plunder their riches. I blame them, because their religion coached the Crusades in terms of "it's the duty of every good and moral Christian lord".

The Theory of Evolution, pioneered by Darwin and Wallace, does not make any judgments on the "good or evil" of what happens. "Survival of the fittest" is neither good or evil. It's simply a descriptive phrase for what Darwin observed in nature. If someone went and created an ethical and moral framework around that phrase, that's something else entirely; since it's an ethical issue, you're more than welcome to agree or disagree with its tenets.

Lastly, Science has an ethics, of sorts. Only, it's not centered around its results being "good or evil", but rather about making sure that the process of scientific inquiry does not cross any ethical or moral lines. To use a fictional example from Nazi Germany: if Josef Mengele, in his horrendous, evil, unethical experiments, had discovered the cure for cancer, would employing that cure be an evil and unethical thing? Nope. The process of discovery may have crossed all moral and ethical lines you may care to mention, but the result, itself, is not morally or ethically suspect. It just is.