I am sceptical of the Skeptics. Is it wrong?

[cambridge79]

I appreciate your honesty. Now, do you see the danger associated with believing dogmatically when it comes to God's rules for us? That frauds have the capability of "fooling" us with what they claim to be God's will when it's really just their will?

The other day he claimed one has the right to kill in the name of god if god prescribe it, just to let you know in case you dont want to waste your time

 

[Magic Man]

From a certain perspective as I said, and maybe that's just a personal one since I was born and raised atheist, and became skeptical of it later.

But I don't agree with your premise, I don't think many people believe in God just because they were told to- that sounds more like science to me. Religion, Christianity at least, usually heavily stresses the personal journey/ discovery/ faith/ relationship..

A child may profess belief in God as they would Santa, but they continually evaluate both beliefs more objective as they age yes?, and hence many become more religious with age do they not?

You seem to have a bias against science for some reason. Let's clear that up first. People don't accept what science tells them because they're told to (well, I'm sure some do, but I digress). People accept science because it backs up its claims with evidence that anyone can see for themselves without having to already believe something.

Christianity pays lip service to the personal journey/discovery, but the reality is that journey, when taken in a fully honest fashion, usually leads away from religion. The reason it doesn't lead more people away from religion is that they have trouble doing it in a truly honest way, because of the indoctrination from birth. It's all fine and good to say "Oh, well, now that you're of age, you should find your own way" giving the option to leave it all behind, but it's a little dishonest when you've already set the person up to stay Christian. When I started to really question around age 17 and I actually considered the idea of no longer believing in God, I got a pit in my stomach and was nervous, even scared. I didn't know anything other than being a Christian. It took me a long time after that to come to terms with what I really believed. It wasn't until years later when I came to this site that I realized I really didn't believe anymore and I was OK with it.

As people grow out of childhood, they might evaluate their beliefs more objectively, but still not objectively. You will find a lot of Christians who don't actually know much about the Bible. You will find many more who haven't truly thought about their beliefs. My parents are pretty religious. They go to church every Sunday, say grace before meals, make sure to celebrate Jesus on Christmas, etc. When I started to have serious doubts, I went to my mom with some questions, nothing groundbreaking or new, things like the problem of evil and the like. We talked about it briefly, but her main response was to suggest I talk to her pastor.

This seems to be a common reaction from religious people. Even those who are dedicated and go through all the rituals don't seem to put in a lot of thought on the subject. They have their beliefs, and they don't think too hard on them. It's understandable because that's the power of indoctrination, but they definitely believe because that's what they were taught, and they don't later truly question those beliefs objectively. Why do you think where you're born has so much to do with your religion? If people truly objectively evaluated their beliefs upon adulthood, why would so many children of Muslims become Muslims and so many children of Christians become Christian, etc.?

 

[paarsurrey]

@ Magic Man "science because it backs up its claims with evidence"
(coloured in magenta is referred)
Is scientific Method scientific one? What is its back up evidence? Please
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

The main supporto f scientific method is the need for falsifiability and independent verification.

 

[paarsurrey]

The main support of scientific method is the need for falsifiability and independent verification.

You mean to start with it was not scientific? Do I get one correctly?
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Knowledge is not to be pressuposed scientific, certainly. It must be verified in order to establish, among other things, that it is not dependent on personal bias.

 

[Parsimony]

Do you have a problem with science, paarsurrey? Do you think we should get rid of it or change it or what?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You seem to have a bias against science for some reason. Let's clear that up first. People don't accept what science tells them because they're told to (well, I'm sure some do, but I digress). People accept science because it backs up its claims with evidence that anyone can see for themselves without having to already believe something.

So we can observe a single cell accidentally morphing into a man through millions of lucky random mutations? We can chose to believe it of course, model it in computer simulations, fill in the gaps with drawings. But we certainly cannot directly observe, measure, repeat experimentally- quaint old fashioned scientific principles like that!

"It's as if they [fossils] were just planted there, with no evolutionary history" Dawkins

"[science]: such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain

Christianity pays lip service to the personal journey/discovery, but the reality is that journey, when taken in a fully honest fashion, usually leads away from religion. The reason it doesn't lead more people away from religion is that they have trouble doing it in a truly honest way, because of the indoctrination from birth. It's all fine and good to say "Oh, well, now that you're of age, you should find your own way" giving the option to leave it all behind, but it's a little dishonest when you've already set the person up to stay Christian. When I started to really question around age 17 and I actually considered the idea of no longer believing in God, I got a pit in my stomach and was nervous, even scared. I didn't know anything other than being a Christian. It took me a long time after that to come to terms with what I really believed. It wasn't until years later when I came to this site that I realized I really didn't believe anymore and I was OK with it.

As people grow out of childhood, they might evaluate their beliefs more objectively, but still not objectively. You will find a lot of Christians who don't actually know much about the Bible. You will find many more who haven't truly thought about their beliefs. My parents are pretty religious. They go to church every Sunday, say grace before meals, make sure to celebrate Jesus on Christmas, etc. When I started to have serious doubts, I went to my mom with some questions, nothing groundbreaking or new, things like the problem of evil and the like. We talked about it briefly, but her main response was to suggest I talk to her pastor.



This seems to be a common reaction from religious people. Even those who are dedicated and go through all the rituals don't seem to put in a lot of thought on the subject. They have their beliefs, and they don't think too hard on them. It's understandable because that's the power of indoctrination, but they definitely believe because that's what they were taught, and they don't later truly question those beliefs objectively. Why do you think where you're born has so much to do with your religion? If people truly objectively evaluated their beliefs upon adulthood, why would so many children of Muslims become Muslims and so many children of Christians become Christian, etc.?

That's interesting, I has the opposite experience, born and raised atheist and only began to question those beliefs later. I generally assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, we all want to know the truth- whatever we were brought up with, and we'll probably never prove anything to each other!- although since we both changed our minds- I suppose something we can prove here, is that our opinions are entirely unreliable

On varying beliefs, the vast majority of free thinking humanity has deduced a creator of some kind. And the Bible is the most widely read, influential book in the history of humanity, across millennia, cultures and continents. I don't think that is inconsistent with a divine creation.

 

[leibowde84]

@ Magic Man "science because it backs up its claims with evidence"
(coloured in magenta is referred)
Is scientific Method scientific one? What is its back up evidence? Please
Regards

The scientific method is a method, not a claim. And, the scientific method requires that theories be confirmed through experiments, observation and available evidence.

 

[prometheus11]

So we can observe a single cell accidentally morphing into a man through millions of lucky random mutations? We can chose to believe it of course, model it in computer simulations, fill in the gaps with drawings. But we certainly cannot directly observe, measure, repeat experimentally- quaint old fashioned scientific principles like that!

"It's as if they [fossils] were just planted there, with no evolutionary history" Dawkins

"[science]: such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain




That's interesting, I has the opposite experience, born and raised atheist and only began to question those beliefs later. I generally assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, we all want to know the truth- whatever we were brought up with, and we'll probably never prove anything to each other!- although since we both changed our minds- I suppose something we can prove here, is that our opinions are entirely unreliable

On varying beliefs, the vast majority of free thinking humanity has deduced a creator of some kind. And the Bible is the most widely read, influential book in the history of humanity, across millennia, cultures and continents. I don't think that is inconsistent with a divine creation.

While you were an atheist, what did you consider to be your best rationale for unbelief?

 

[Magic Man]

So we can observe a single cell accidentally morphing into a man through millions of lucky random mutations?

Literally? No. We do see that something like that happened, though, through mounds and mounds of evidence.

We can chose to believe it of course, model it in computer simulations, fill in the gaps with drawings. But we certainly cannot directly observe, measure, repeat experimentally- quaint old fashioned scientific principles like that!

Yes, we can. We can observe evolution taking place. We can observe the fossil record. We can observe the fruits of the discoveries made through theories created by evolution. Tell me, do you have to actually watch someone shoot and kill someone else to prove to yourself it's true? Or is there a way to have it proven without directly observing the act yourself? Hint: yes, there is a way to have it proven without directly observing it.

"It's as if they [fossils] were just planted there, with no evolutionary history" Dawkins

"[science]: such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain

Wow, I'm sorry, I didn't realize what I was dealing with here. Quote-mining is bad enough when it's at least someone relevant to the topic, but what does Mark Twain's opinion have to do with anything? And maybe do a little more than pick a quote from Dawkins completely out of context.

That's interesting, I has the opposite experience, born and raised atheist and only began to question those beliefs later.

What beliefs? Atheism isn't "beliefs".

I generally assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, we all want to know the truth- whatever we were brought up with, and we'll probably never prove anything to each other!- although since we both changed our minds- I suppose something we can prove here, is that our opinions are entirely unreliable

Some opinions are more unreliable than others. For instance, an opinion based on a careful, rational consideration of all the evidence is much more reliable and useful than an opinion based on irrational thought and ignorance of the evidence.

On varying beliefs, the vast majority of free thinking humanity has deduced a creator of some kind. And the Bible is the most widely read, influential book in the history of humanity, across millennia, cultures and continents. I don't think that is inconsistent with a divine creation.

It's also not much use when determining reality or facts. I'm not really interested in what most people have believed throughout history, and even assuming it's true, the Bible being that popular and influential does nothing toward determining whether it's true or a god exists.

 

[Shad]

So we can observe a single cell accidentally morphing into a man through millions of lucky random mutations? We can chose to believe it of course, model it in computer simulations, fill in the gaps with drawings. But we certainly cannot directly observe, measure, repeat experimentally- quaint old fashioned scientific principles like that!

Strawman since this is not what happened.

"It's as if they [fossils] were just planted there, with no evolutionary history" Dawkins

It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."

This was directed at Gould and Eldredge yet both still agree with Dawkins. However creationist quote-mine leaving the rest of the quote out.

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

Which is what you did when you copied and pastes from your apologist site rather than reading the book.

"[science]: such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain

"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

Supports science yet your quote-mining removes key parts of the quote in order to create a false comment. Willful deception and dishonestly followed by your willful ignorance not to fact check what you copy and paste.

On varying beliefs, the vast majority of free thinking humanity has deduced a creator of some kind. And the Bible is the most widely read, influential book in the history of humanity, across millennia, cultures and continents. I don't think that is inconsistent with a divine creation.

Ad populum fallacy. People "deduced" a lot of things such as lightning is caused by a god(s). Yet they were wrong. All you do is show that the average human is horrible at logic, nothing more.

 

[paarsurrey]

The scientific method is a method, not a claim. And, the scientific method requires that theories be confirmed through experiments, observation and available evidence.

In other worlds you agree that it was no scientific to start with, it was a philosophical method or a technique. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Literally? No. We do see that something like that happened, though, through mounds and mounds of evidence.

so not directly, empirically, it's inferred- aka speculation, conjecture?

Yes, we can. We can observe evolution taking place. We can observe the fossil record. We can observe the fruits of the discoveries made through theories created by evolution. Tell me, do you have to actually watch someone shoot and kill someone else to prove to yourself it's true? Or is there a way to have it proven without directly observing the act yourself? Hint: yes, there is a way to have it proven without directly observing it.

We can observe an apple falling from a tree, and conclude that the physics involved in this superficial observation, adequately accounts for all physical reality- as scientists did for a long time with classical physics.
Only that was far more directly observable, repeatable, measurable than evolution, and was held to be so conclusive as to be 'immutable' for longer than the theory of evolution has been around.

Wow, I'm sorry, I didn't realize what I was dealing with here. Quote-mining is bad enough when it's at least someone relevant to the topic, but what does Mark Twain's opinion have to do with anything? And maybe do a little more than pick a quote from Dawkins completely out of context.

You said I had a bias against science, and I agree in this sense, I share Twain's opinion.

The Dawkins quote in larger context:

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

What beliefs? Atheism isn't "beliefs".

blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself.

Some opinions are more unreliable than others. For instance, an opinion based on a careful, rational consideration of all the evidence is much more reliable and useful than an opinion based on irrational thought and ignorance of the evidence.

we agree on something here!

It's also not much use when determining reality or facts. I'm not really interested in what most people have believed throughout history, and even assuming it's true, the Bible being that popular and influential does nothing toward determining whether it's true or a god exists.

Credit where it's due, regarding arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time: the Bible determined that the universe began in a specific creation event.

When priest George Lemaitre first introduced his primeval atom theory, it was mocked as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'Big Bang' by atheist academia at the time- for what they complained of as the overt religious implications of such a specific creation event

They overwhelmingly preferred static, eternal, steady state models explicitly for the exact opposite rationale "No creation = no creator"

 

[Shad]

The Dawkins quote in larger context:

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

You are still quote-mining. Your dishonesty and inability to do otherwise has been noted.

Here is the source for anyone to read in the context Guy refuses to include.

http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

 

[Magic Man]

so not directly, empirically, it's inferred- aka speculation, conjecture?

No, not speculation or conjecture. Solid conclusions based on mounds of evidence. As I said in the last post, you don't have to observer something directly to know it happened.

We can observe an apple falling from a tree, and conclude that the physics involved in this superficial observation, adequately accounts for all physical reality- as scientists did for a long time with classical physics.
Only that was far more directly observable, repeatable, measurable than evolution, and was held to be so conclusive as to be 'immutable' for longer than the theory of evolution has been around.

Not really sure what your point is here, but evolution is directly observable, just like gravity.

You said I had a bias against science, and I agree in this sense, I share Twain's opinion.

I'm glad you can at least admit your bias against science.

The Dawkins quote in larger context:

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

And yet that's still not the larger context. Try again. This is a truly dishonest tactic, and it's sad to see anyone attempting to use it legitimately.

blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself.

Again, not sure what your point is here. I'll respond to what it seems like the point is.

1) Blind faith is just another term for faith. Some like to throw the "blind" before it to try to differentiate, so that they can continue to proclaim faith to be a good thing.

2) There is no blind faith or faith involved in atheism.

3) I'm still waiting to hear what these beliefs are you're referring to.

we agree on something here!

Great! So we agree that science is much more reliable than any other form of gathering facts and information about the universe!

Credit where it's due, regarding arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time: the Bible determined that the universe began in a specific creation event.

The Bible didn't determine that. All ancient cultures had creation myths similar to the Bible's. There was nothing special about the Bible's account. There was nothing scientific about the myths in the Bible.

When priest George Lemaitre first introduced his primeval atom theory, it was mocked as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'Big Bang' by atheist academia at the time- for what they complained of as the overt religious implications of such a specific creation event

They overwhelmingly preferred static, eternal, steady state models explicitly for the exact opposite rationale "No creation = no creator"

You're misinterpreting this entire situation, and I'm starting to see the pattern. There was no "atheist academia", and this whole bias of yours against science is nothing more than a branch of the "Christian victim" syndrome. There is no atheist conspiracy in science, and no bias against religion in academia. The Big Bang Theory wasn't mocked as "religious pseudoscience". It was rejected by a lot of scientists early on because it seemed crazy, and it went against everyone's thinking. That has nothing to do with religion or atheism, but it does have to do with humans' distaste for change and new things.

The steady state model had been accepted by everyone, especially religious people. There was no desire to keep it because it meant no god; there was desire to keep it - by religious and nonreligious alike - because it was what had been accepted forever.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Literally? No. We do see that something like that happened, though, through mounds and mounds of evidence.

Actually, we observe human beings formed from single cells all the time: through pregnancy and childbirth. I find it weird how so many creationists constantly exclaim how absurd it is that human beings can grow from unicellular life over millions of years, but have no trouble believing that a couple of cells can produce a human being over a period of just nine months. It's one of the many necessary contradictions required of the intellectually dishonest.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, not speculation or conjecture. Solid conclusions based on mounds of evidence. As I said in the last post, you don't have to observer something directly to know it happened.



Not really sure what your point is here, but evolution is directly observable, just like gravity.

Point being we can observe the superficial observations of classical physics in every day life, but extrapolating these simple laws to account for all the complexity of reality was an error-
The simplest explanation is certainly usually the most tempting, but the universe doesn't seem to pay much attention to Occam's razor

And yet that's still not the larger context. Try again. This is a truly dishonest tactic, and it's sad to see anyone attempting to use it legitimately.

I don't think you are dishonest, I think we have different opinions. Dawkins goes on to give his personal opinion on an explanation for the observation, and you may have your own, and I have another,
none of these change the observation itself, and nowhere does Dawkins retract it.

Again, not sure what your point is here. I'll respond to what it seems like the point is.

1) Blind faith is just another term for faith. Some like to throw the "blind" before it to try to differentiate, so that they can continue to proclaim faith to be a good thing.

2) There is no blind faith or faith involved in atheism.

3) I'm still waiting to hear what these beliefs are you're referring to.

unacknowledged belief, superstition, blind faith- adhering to a set of beliefs without questioning them as such,
acknowledging personal faith is acknowledging belief, that we can't prove it.

Great! So we agree that science is much more reliable than any other form of gathering facts and information about the universe!

I'd make a distinction between science the method and science the academic institution, they are often diametrically opposed as we have seen historically.

One involves direct observation, accurate measurement, repeatable experiment,
The other involves institutionalized consensus of opinion

as above- which does the evolution of man from a single cell fall under?

The Bible didn't determine that. All ancient cultures had creation myths similar to the Bible's. There was nothing special about the Bible's account. There was nothing scientific about the myths in the Bible.

True, many religious beliefs, including what is written in Genesis, involved a specific creation event, it was the atheists who predicted various eternal/static models.
who turned out to be right?

You're misinterpreting this entire situation, and I'm starting to see the pattern. There was no "atheist academia", and this whole bias of yours against science is nothing more than a branch of the "Christian victim" syndrome. There is no atheist conspiracy in science, and no bias against religion in academia. The Big Bang Theory wasn't mocked as "religious pseudoscience". It was rejected by a lot of scientists early on because it seemed crazy, and it went against everyone's thinking. That has nothing to do with religion or atheism, but it does have to do with humans' distaste for change and new things.

The steady state model had been accepted by everyone, especially religious people. There was no desire to keep it because it meant no god; there was desire to keep it - by religious and nonreligious alike - because it was what had been accepted forever.

You'd have to have argued this assertion with Hoyle, and many other self professed atheists

IT was THEY who complained absolutely specifically, explicitly of the religious implications of the primeval atom, that's why 'Big Bang' (pejorative at the time) was adopted instead of the much better term it's founder coined.
they were the ones basing their science on their personal preferences, as above, because they never acknowledged they had any.

Similarly, Hawking touted his 'Big Crunch' theory as making 'God redundant' in his words. I agree with you, this should not be a guiding principle of any impartial scientific investigation.

And Dawkins' , the most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was titled 'The God Delusion'- no nothing to do with personal beliefs!

I say follow the evidence where it leads, academically fashionable or not


Lemaitre in stark contrast, went out of his way to disassociate his theory from it's implications, even writing to the Pope to tell him to knock it off with the gloating.

This is the more scientific approach of acknowledging one's own faith and separating it from your work

Similarly, it's no coincidence that it took another skeptic of atheism, Max Planck, to progress past classical physics, so beloved to atheists for leaving no room for 'mysterious unpredictable guiding forces..'

i.e. the greatest scientific advances of all time have been a struggle of science v atheism, and still are today.

 

[prometheus11]

i.e. the greatest scientific advances of all time have been a struggle of science v atheism, and still are today.

This is just patently false.

Guy, do you believe God forgives lies if they are "for him?"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is just patently false.

Guy, do you believe God forgives lies if they are "for him?"

science v atheism
Lemaitre v Hoyle

I assume you and everyone here are honest people

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'