Religion, what's the point?

Ubik said:
Why do they always bang on about thermodynamics though?
Click to expand...

yeah I was wondering that myself after reading those silly placards. I looked it up and they're saying that the growing complexity of life from evolution flies in the face of the 2nd law. I think it's just them not understanding the law applies within a closed system (not one with a sun shining on it).
 
brad-dyrak said:
yeah I was wondering that myself after reading those silly placards. I looked it up and they're saying that the growing complexity of life from evolution flies in the face of the 2nd law. I think it's just them not understanding the law applies within a closed system (not one with a sun shining on it).
Click to expand...
Aha. I actually remember seeing something about it now, it was a Dave Gorman live show funnily enough and he was talking about a scientist/creationist guy claiming to disprove evolution by quoting that law. He'd purposefully omitted the "closed system" part. Gotta love intellectual dishonesty.
 
I don't get it, creationsim isn't even the only creation myth in this world. If we have to put creationism in science, then that means we'd have to teach the Hindu creation myth or the Sikh one ffs. Its such a vague term, even though it is meant to mean the christian creation myth. Keep it in Religious Studies, it has always had a place there, not science. It is not a scientific subject, I just can't get my head around these people who think they know more than the actual qualified scientists and teachers.
 
Cheers, I'll catch that. The links you posted are a lesson in themselves. The US News and NY Times present it as a sober, nuanced look at creationism and it sounds interesting. The Slate "review" doesn't read like one at all. More of an excuse to editorialize.

Anyway, I'll give it a look, despite the Slate article.
 
I suppose I need to spend more time thinking about this, but doesn't there have to be a point in time where the universe is "created", obviously not created as it is today but some prior state being that is something more than nothing?

That aside, the notion that an intelligent being created this planet 6,000 years ago or whatever the Bible claims should never be taught as science of any kind. It can be taught as a creation myth, one of many that compete for the allegiance of human beings. That's an important part of our history that educated citizens should be conversant in.
 
Gannicus said:
I suppose I need to spend more time thinking about this, but doesn't there have to be a point in time where the universe is "created", obviously not created as it is today but some prior state being that is something more than nothing?

That aside, the notion that an intelligent being created this planet 6,000 years ago or whatever the Bible claims should never be taught as science of any kind. It can be taught as a creation myth, one of many that compete for the allegiance of human beings. That's an important part of our history that educated citizens should be conversant in.
Click to expand...

iJQLV.jpg
 
When did we realise the planet was a sphere? Science only proved it recently due to technological advances.
 
Last edited:
And my point was that scientists worked it out thousands of years ago. It doesn't really matter that public opinion might have been wrong. You don't need technology to put two sticks on a piece of paper and do what Carl Cagan does here:



Not to mention Galieleo's contribution centuries ago as well.
 
scientists might have had an opinion, as they would have of everything but they could not have proved it. It was impossible to prove back in those days. It would have just been a theory that would have been dubbed as insane as the general consensus i.e. 99% of the world would have thought the earth was flat.
 
Creationists/religulous persons want to point out to a scripture that reads "circle of the Earth" and yet ignore other contradictions within, not to mention that circular is incorrect.

  1. The ancient Mesopotamian view of the world was as a flat, circular disc with land in the center and water extending out to the edges. The Bible does not refer to the heliocentric spherical globe we accept today, but rather it refers to the "circle of the earth." In so far as early Hebrew mythology owes much to Babylonian cultural advances makes its at the very least plausible that the writers of the Old Testament, who were not speaking to the 21st Century's educated, were evoking imagery of local customs.
  2. Revelation 7:1 states that the Earth has four corners, thus indicating that the Earth isn't round and certainly isn't spherical. There is no in-text reason to consider one of these mere literary turn of phrase that wouldn't also indicate the other wasn't meant literally. Thus, the Bible either contradicts itself on the shape of the Earth, or is not meant for every sentence to be taken literally. Either is incompatible with creationist literalism.
  3. Matthew 4:8 states "the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;" indicating the Earth is flat; on a sphere, it is impossible to see all surfaces from any single point regardless of height.
 
This is one of those pages, going around facebook that makes people post things like, "Wow, we're so tiny" and stuff. But when you look at it, it must be hard for even the most religious to think, "yeah, I know there are trillions upon trillions of planets, around trillions upon trillions of stars, but God cares about me, here, on this planet".

I mean, If there was a being big enough to have created the Universe, we would be too small to be noticed. It would be like us caring about bacteria on a piece of dirt under our fingernail. Although we're even smaller than that.

http://themetapicture.com/proof-that-we-are-really-insignificant/
 
Yes, I'm sure that is one of the biggest problems facing religious people today...
 
Raoul said:
Still arguing about religion ? Do we need to bring Saliph back to interject some sense ? :)
Click to expand...
It hasn't been the same, since he went. Whenever I argue with anyone else, a part of me always wishes we could all just get along and have friendly chats about which of David Beckham's hairstyles was our favourite. Arguing with Saliph always felt like a public service, though.
 
RexHamilton said:
This is one of those pages, going around facebook that makes people post things like, "Wow, we're so tiny" and stuff. But when you look at it, it must be hard for even the most religious to think, "yeah, I know there are trillions upon trillions of planets, around trillions upon trillions of stars, but God cares about me, here, on this planet".

I mean, If there was a being big enough to have created the Universe, we would be too small to be noticed. It would be like us caring about bacteria on a piece of dirt under our fingernail. Although we're even smaller than that.

http://themetapicture.com/proof-that-we-are-really-insignificant/
Click to expand...
In fairness, that's where the omniscience part comes in.

Definitely a forbear of the Total Perspective Vortex though, is the Deep Field.
 
"If the bible told me to jump out of an airplane, I would"

That tells you all you need to know about this Jinnet. I just wish i had gotten a hold of his bible with some tipp-ex and a pen before the snake bit him.
1. Thou shalt rob a bank and give RexHamilton all of the money
2. Jump out of a plane ya big eejit.

Also, if your bible has any mention of an airplane, you should alert the relevant personnel. The Wright Brothers having been taking credit for inventing them for years. The cnuts.
 
Young child's body found, cue the religulous with ludicrous comments (I won't post the ridiculous "kill him" and "stab him in the ribs" and other tripe, such a hypocritical bunch). Even when I was once religious, I was often dumbfounded why people would pray after an incident. It's pointless. Those prayers in advance should have protected all. Unless (gasp) prayer is useless. Ding ding!

"This is an example of where this country places their priorities. This country needs prayers, not thoughts." (words fail me)
"Thank God for the couple that got the description and license plate number for his truck!" (how about thanking god that he didn't stop the abduction)
"The Lord has called one of his littlest angels back home into HIS arms." (that will comfort the family)
"Maybe you need to pick up the bible and read it and it will make you understand more about God and how he works!" (he allows children to be murdered, don't need a book to see this)

Religious people, why the call for prayers when god already allowed the child's murder?
 
MrMarcello said:
Young child's body found, cue the religulous with ludicrous comments (I won't post the ridiculous "kill him" and "stab him in the ribs" and other tripe, such a hypocritical bunch). Even when I was once religious, I was often dumbfounded why people would pray after an incident. It's pointless. Those prayers in advance should have protected all. Unless (gasp) prayer is useless. Ding ding!

"This is an example of where this country places their priorities. This country needs prayers, not thoughts." (words fail me)
"Thank God for the couple that got the description and license plate number for his truck!" (how about thanking god that he didn't stop the abduction)
"The Lord has called one of his littlest angels back home into HIS arms." (that will comfort the family)
"Maybe you need to pick up the bible and read it and it will make you understand more about God and how he works!" (he allows children to be murdered, don't need a book to see this)

Religious people, why the call for prayers when god already allowed the child's murder?
Click to expand...
Are you sure you were religious?

Death for atheists = the end of everything. For religious people it's not. Ding ding ding ding.
 
Danny1982 said:
Are you sure you were religious?

Death for atheists = the end of everything. For religious people it's not. Ding ding ding ding.
Click to expand...

Umm, yes I was religious as some on this Caf can attest to my early posting years, but unlike many religious persons, I didn't cloud over my intellect to accept bullshit at face value. I internalized various conflicting beliefs and often never received the appropriate answers despite my still continued belief in religion. So years of empty answers that didn't satisfy my internal quest, lots of education, meeting many others from various beliefs and backgrounds, and mental awareness led me to realize there is no god.

Cognitive dissonance. Religious people, my former self included, chose my core belief (i.e. religion/religious teaching) when conflicted with other beliefs as it made me feel better about the choice, or perhaps about myself. I couldn't comprehend (or handle) a belief that, despite it's prevailing evidence/fact/nature, clashed with my core belief. Over time, I allowed my cognitive dissonance to take on more evidence/fact while questioning my prior beliefs (almost all of which were learned through my environment and indoctrination).

Most people will never allow their cognitive dissonance to accept overwhelming evidence/fact from beliefs that clash with their view of religion, nature, the world, etc. Case in point: idiots that wholeheartedly deny evolution because of a personally held creationism belief.
 
Last edited:
MrMarcello said:
And yet another pointless retort from Caf wonderkid, Danny.

Umm, yes I was religious as some on this Caf can attest to my early posting years, but unlike many religious persons, I didn't cloud over my intellect to accept bullshit at face value. I internalized various conflicting beliefs and often never received the appropriate answers despite my still continued belief in religion. So years of empty answers that didn't satisfy my internal quest, lots of education, meeting many others from various beliefs and backgrounds, and mental awareness led me to realize there is no god.

Cognitive dissonance. Religious people, my former self included, chose my core belief (i.e. religion/religious teaching) when conflicted with other beliefs as it made me feel better about the choice, or perhaps about myself. I couldn't comprehend (or handle) a belief that, despite it's prevailing evidence/fact/nature, clashed with my core belief. Over time, I allowed my cognitive dissonance to take on more evidence/fact while questioning my prior beliefs (almost all of which were learned through my environment and indoctrination).

Most people will never allow their cognitive dissonance to accept overwhelming evidence/fact from beliefs that clash with their view of religion, nature, the world, etc. Case in point: idiots that wholeheartedly deny evolution because of a personally held creationism belief.
Click to expand...
If all this were true you wouldn't have asked a silly and easy question like the one you asked in your previous post.

Also your posts don't give the impression that you're as well-educated, level-headed and intellectually superior as you're trying to suggest.
 
Danny1982 said:
If all this were true you wouldn't have asked a silly and easy question like the one you asked in your previous post.

Also your posts don't give the impression that you're as well-educated, level-headed and intellectually superior as you're trying to suggest.
Click to expand...


Ermahgerd, an internet poster has a distinctive view of me. Ermahgerd!!!

Danny, your belittling attempt is rather poor, just so you know. It's ok if my posts went right over your head. I don't think any less of you (can't speak for others).
 
MrMarcello said:
Ermahgerd, an internet poster has a distinctive view of me. Ermahgerd!!!

Danny, your belittling attempt is rather poor, just so you know. It's ok if my posts went right over your head. I don't think any less of you (can't speak for others).
Click to expand...

Just like you put across that you were better than many other 'religious persons', by not accepting bullshit at face value in your previous post? :lol:
 
fishfingers15 said:
Just like you put across that you were better than many other 'religious persons', by not accepting bullshit at face value in your previous post? :lol:
Click to expand...

A spade is a spade.

I struggled to believe in the man inside a fish/whale fable, the ark & flood story, etc. Bullshit in my view but apparently not in the views of many religious persons I have met over the years. "But unlike many religious persons," was strictly from my experiences with family members, friends, and acquaintances accepting at face value what was peddled to us.

If you want to read between the lines to somehow correlate my post illustrates that I feel I'm a better a person than others, that's your reasoning. Whatever helps you make a case against my post, so be it. Perhaps you'll sleep better now (I could add a smilie here to further patronize...).
 
MrMarcello said:
A spade is a spade.

I struggled to believe in the man inside a fish/whale fable, the ark & flood story, etc. Bullshit in my view but apparently not in the views of many religious persons I have met over the years. "But unlike many religious persons," was strictly from my experiences with family members, friends, and acquaintances accepting at face value what was peddled to us.

If you want to read between the lines to somehow correlate my post illustrates that I feel I'm a better a person than others, that's your reasoning. Whatever helps you make a case against my post, so be it. Perhaps you'll sleep better now (I could add a smilie here to further patronize...).
Click to expand...

I have no problems with your views and what you think of others Marcello, I just thought it was a bit funny that you made a post saying 'I don't accept bullshit unlike some other religious people I know and I don't cloud my intellect', but took offence to someone saying your intellect may not be that much after all. It sounded ironic.
 
Last edited:
Maroon Lucifer said:
Has anyone watched the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate yet? I'll watch it tonight. Can't wait.
Click to expand...

Finally watched (replay on CSPAN1). Boring. Creationists will not alter their mindset, and the other side will maintain their collective view (myself included).

But that didn't stop Eric Hovind from chiming in following the debate. Gibberish to start then around 5:00 the "panel of experts" digs in.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.