Evolutionists, atheists,scientists Insist On Facts, Yet Live By Faith

[The Voice of Reason]

apparently I can't say ********... but... can I say bullpoop?

You can say anything you please. The software will mask any words that are on the "censored" list, but your ideas and opinions will still get through.

 

[lamplighter]

The irony is staggering of some people who insist and depend on the facts for evidence to support their particular positions, yet live the greater portion of their lives on the premise of faith. It's blatant hypocricy in my view.

Well you can have faith in anything really can't you? I mean I can have a unwavering faith that the sky is going to be purple at noon but is it going to really be purple at noon? Most would say no, and may the IRS audit them for such blasphemy! But I can also have faith that when I add cane sugar to my tea it's going make it sweeter, but who knows maybe I have bad tea and it's going to taste horrible anyway, but from observation from before adding the sugar usually sweetens my tea, and that's what science is about, observing the world around us to establish practical faith and tell us what's most likely going to happen or has happened.

 

[Autodidact]

The irony is staggering of some people who continue to post messages on the internet, but cannot be bothered to learn the conventions of the English language so that other people can understand them.

As far as I can grasp the OP, which is questionable, it seems to be saying that science is a religion because it's based on faith? Is that your point, roli, more anti-science ranting? If you don't like science, don't use it. For a start, stop typing right now.

 

[Autodidact]

And you hear this often?

Not since the Enlightenment, thank goodness.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

As far as I can grasp the OP, which is questionable, it seems to be saying that science is a religion because it's based on faith? Is that your point, roli, more anti-science ranting? If you don't like science, don't use it. For a start, stop typing right now.

My dearest Auto -

You dream of a world where people take the time to learn about a subject, prior to formulating opinions. Where giving voice to those opinions is considered to be a glimpse into one's mind, and thought processes. A world where well informed people exchange ideas, and listen with an open mind to dissenting points of view, as merited by the speaker.

Unfortunately, this forum functions on the intertnet, where anyone with $20 a month, access to a computer, and a grudge against knowledge, can (and will) post their thoughts (or, more correctly, what passes for thoughts).

Never the twain shall meet.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., roli, andin a never-ending and apparently fruitless quest to rectify your ignorance, let's start at square one. 1. There is no such thing as an Evolutionist. The word you are looking for is Biologist. An evolutionist, if anything, is a Biologist who advocates Darwin's theory of evolution. At last count, that was about 99.9% of all working Biologists. 2. "Evolutionists," scientists and atheists are not the same thing. Most atheists are not scientists, and most scientists are not atheists. There is some overlap between the two groups. The same is true for evolutionary biologists.

It is true that many atheists believe that science is the best way to learn about the natural world. I am one of them. If you wish to debate that proposition, I am open to doing so. However, to do so, you would need to use a computer, which would require you to accept science to at least the extent necessary to invent and produce a computer, which is a heck of a lot of science. In any case, even granting you science's computer, I don't think you have a very good chance of establishing that there is any better way than the scientific method to learn about the world. Give it a shot, if you like.

I do ask that you try to write in coherent sentences, so we don't have to exert ourselves too hard to figure out what you intended to say--that would be your job.

 

[Random]

Dawkins, I think it was, said that the ToE makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist.

If Dawkins did say that, you've gotta laugh - the ToE has done more to weaken arguments for the existence of any kind of immutable "natural Law" than any creationist theory new or old ever did. Buffoons frequently have easily satisfied "intellects"...

I guess I would counter that it also makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied theist.

Well, that's not hard after all - "God did it" boils the whole thing down nicely and lets most get on with dinner.

 

[fantome profane]

Well, that's not hard after all - "God did it" boils the whole thing down nicely and lets most get on with dinner.

Perhaps after dinner you might ponder the question of “how God did it?”. Or perhaps not.

 

[doppelganger]

Perhaps after dinner you might ponder the question of “how God did it?”. Or perhaps not.

But then you wouldn't have time for dessert.

 

[Random]

Perhaps after dinner you might ponder the question of “how God did it?”. Or perhaps not.

Some theists may be intellectually satisfied with the conceit that Evolution is the "how?" of how God-Did-It. A few burps after dinner in the chair by the fire might add to the profundity of such a conclusion...

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Some theists may be intellectually satisfied with the conceit that Evolution is the "how?" of how God-Did-It. A few burps after dinner in the chair by the fire might add to the profundity of such a conclusion...

Just to be sure that I get your drift, are you saying that theists are full of hot air, and pass large amounts of gas from their bloated gullets? Is that what you are portraying?

 

[Halcyon]

What's the difference? Both are relgions

You know what, you've convinced me.

It's so obvious now that you've said it - clearly the observation that selective pressures can force changes in gene frequency within a population that overtime may separate that population phenotypically enough from related populations that it becomes reproductively isolated and thus a new species is exactly as likely as a spontaneously generated, super-intelligent, non-corporeal deity creating all species in the forms we currently see them from mud, there's no way any reasoning person can choose to believe one theory over the other unless they do so on faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know what, you've convinced me.

It's so obvious now that you've said it - clearly the observation that selective pressures can force changes in gene frequency within a population that overtime may separate that population phenotypically enough from related populations that it becomes reproductively isolated and thus a new species is exactly as likely as a spontaneously generated, super-intelligent, non-corporeal deity creating all species in the forms we currently see them from mud, there's no way any reasoning person can choose to believe one theory over the other unless they do so on faith.

Does that mean that scientific research can now be funded as "faith-based initiatives"? 'Cause more money for science would be cool.

 

[doppelganger]

Does that mean that scientific research can now be funded as "faith-based initiatives"? 'Cause more money for science would be cool.

I hear some funny hats may be in the works, too.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You know what, you've convinced me.

It's so obvious now that you've said it - clearly the observation that selective pressures can force changes in gene frequency within a population that overtime may separate that population phenotypically enough from related populations that it becomes reproductively isolated and thus a new species is exactly as likely as a spontaneously generated, super-intelligent, non-corporeal deity creating all species in the forms we currently see them from mud, there's no way any reasoning person can choose to believe one theory over the other unless they do so on faith.

Did you have to use the phrase "non-corporeal"? I was with you up until then, and you lost me.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to dismiss your position out of hand, because I don't want to have to look up a new word - lest I learn something today.

 

[rojse]

I hear some funny hats may be in the works, too.

Big paper Dunce hats? Hats with propellors on top? Or the hats with the white gloved hands on top, with the strings you pull together to make them clap?

I want a funny hat, too.

 

[doppelganger]

Or the hats with the white gloved hands on top, with the strings you pull together to make them clap?

I want a funny hat, too.

How about hats shaped like a dodecahedron covered in lavender colored rabbit fur? I don't know . . . that just says "science" to me . . .

 

[fantome profane]

How about hats shaped like a dodecahedron covered in lavender colored rabbit fur? I don't know . . . that just says "science" to me . . .

The only things that should be covered with rabbit fur are rabbits.:bunny: Lavender optional.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I have found the hat that just screams "Intelligent Design".




And it's functional, too!!

 

[rojse]

How about hats shaped like a dodecahedron covered in lavender colored rabbit fur? I don't know . . . that just says "science" to me . . .

I would like to consider myself a purist, and have no truck with such... preposterous designs.:cover: