Will the Internet Kill Religion?

Posted in the Somerset Forum

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 120 of323
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 4

Since: Nov 08

Corbin Ky.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Some scientists have religious beliefs, and allow those religious beliefs to cloud their judgement. They choose to ignore their scientific training and instead follow ancient ignorant dogma, because they have been conditioned to do so.
The jury isn't out for anyone that can accept the Theory of Evolution. If you are invested in not accepting it, it doesn't matter how well supported it is. And it is extremely well supported by evidence. It's one of the best supported scientific theories out there.
This thread is getting crazy. If scientists let religious beliefs interfere with their job then they are not very good scientists.

I agree with the poster that evolution is used along with intelligent design. Does this make me a nut case?

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Level 6

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bull Durham wrote:
Never said I didn't believe in evolution, just that its part of the creators plan for life in the physical realm. Evolution by intelligent design makes more sense to me than any scientists explanation of big bangs and primordial soup.
Well yeah, it's certainly easier to say goddidit. It's just incredibly lazy.

Evolution is a scientific fact, and the Theory of Evolution explains that fact. Intelligent Design is religious myth, wrapped in scientific jargon.

It makes sense to you because you are heavily investing in believing it. Calling it science is just ignorance. It is not science. It looks like science to people who do not know what science is. It's purpose has been fulfilled, because ignorant people are STILL demanding that ID be taken seriously by the scientific community, and people are STILL trying to get it taught in school as if it is a valid alternative to real science.

If you could actually see what a huge failure ID is, you'd be ashamed to associate yourself with it. You already had a popular religion before this crap came along. You don't need it. It's dead weight at this point.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Level 6

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

wowed wrote:
This thread is getting crazy. If scientists let religious beliefs interfere with their job then they are not very good scientists.
That is what the Intelligent Design proponents have done. They are not very good scientists, as far as their work on ID. In fact, they are fraudulent in that respect. Behe's school is embarrassed by his work on ID, and make a public show of it. They'd fire him if they could.
wowed wrote:
I agree with the poster that evolution is used along with intelligent design. Does this make me a nut case?
You might just be ignorant. That's not a crime. It's a little intellectually dishonest to assert any authority at all if you're going to express ignorant opinions, but that alone doesn't make you a nut case. Willful ignorance and adherence to a delusion would make you a nut case.

Intelligent Design is not science. The scientific community does not recognize it as such. It does not follow the scientific method. It is an agenda driven political maneuver masquerading as science. You don't need it to support a god belief, so it's just something that makes a person lose credibility.

“Smokin”

Level 3

Since: May 12

Strawberry Fields of Dreams

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Well yeah, it's certainly easier to say goddidit. It's just incredibly lazy.
Evolution is a scientific fact, and the Theory of Evolution explains that fact. Intelligent Design is religious myth, wrapped in scientific jargon.
It makes sense to you because you are heavily investing in believing it. Calling it science is just ignorance. It is not science. It looks like science to people who do not know what science is. It's purpose has been fulfilled, because ignorant people are STILL demanding that ID be taken seriously by the scientific community, and people are STILL trying to get it taught in school as if it is a valid alternative to real science.
If you could actually see what a huge failure ID is, you'd be ashamed to associate yourself with it. You already had a popular religion before this crap came along. You don't need it. It's dead weight at this point.
I don't think you can say that everyone that believes in intelligent design does so because of religion.

Here you go calling people ignorant because their views don't allign with yours. You are getting to the point that it disturbs me to even converse with you. BTW, I don't have a "popular religion" as you say I do, stop trying to define who I am, you have no clue.

Level 4

Since: Nov 08

Corbin Ky.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
That is what the Intelligent Design proponents have done. They are not very good scientists, as far as their work on ID. In fact, they are fraudulent in that respect. Behe's school is embarrassed by his work on ID, and make a public show of it. They'd fire him if they could.
<quoted text>
You might just be ignorant. That's not a crime. It's a little intellectually dishonest to assert any authority at all if you're going to express ignorant opinions, but that alone doesn't make you a nut case. Willful ignorance and adherence to a delusion would make you a nut case.
Intelligent Design is not science. The scientific community does not recognize it as such. It does not follow the scientific method. It is an agenda driven political maneuver masquerading as science. You don't need it to support a god belief, so it's just something that makes a person lose credibility.
So, "Willful ignorance and adherence to a delusion would make you a nut case."??? Labeling ID as delusional is your opinion and I guess your adherance to it makes you a nut case by your own definition.

How did the Maple tree know how to put that little airplane wing on its seed that allows it to be lofted in the wind and carried away? How did the Dandelion know how much fluffy stuff to attach to its seed to cause it to be lofted by a gentle breeze? Why do so many plants supply an abundance of food for human consumption filled with vital nutrients and vitamins, not to mention the medicines made available to mankind through plants? Everything that mankind needs to survive and remain healthy is supplied on this planet, what a coincidence huh?

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I don't think that religion will ever be "killed" because many people are born with fearful, irrational tendencies. However the internet, in its current form, makes it impossible for the religious to censor descenting opinions. Keep spreading reason and logic wherever you can. Religion can and must be reduced to the mockery of astrology.
Old

Clay City, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you using religion as an insult?
No, it simply the definition. Religion is the system of beliefs that you use to deal with a deity. Your religion is that there is no deity. It takes just as much faith to be determined that there is no as as it does to insist that there is one or more.
Old

Clay City, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You are assuming that there is a creator, souls, and a place called Heaven.
Why?
I died and came back. It took all the magic out of religion and now I see them as all lacking. None of them are the right religion. They are all anthropocentric instead of theocentric.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"Your religion is that there is no deity."

That is ridiculous. Is not believing in Athena a religion? How about pink unicorns? According to your logic, everything you don't believe is a religion.

Is "off" a channel? Is "bald" a hair color?
Old wrote:
<quoted text>No, it simply the definition. Religion is the system of beliefs that you use to deal with a deity. Your religion is that there is no deity. It takes just as much faith to be determined that there is no as as it does to insist that there is one or more.
Old

Clay City, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Anti-theist wrote:
"Your religion is that there is no deity."
That is ridiculous. Is not believing in Athena a religion? How about pink unicorns? According to your logic, everything you don't believe is a religion.
Is "off" a channel? Is "bald" a hair color?
<quoted text>
bald is a hair style,but not a color.

"off" effectively is a channel since switching to it does not make the tv cease to exist.

Read the dictionary, not the lousy webster, but the oxford unabridged. The vast majority of philosphers and logicians also agree that atheism is simply another religion as well. You not liking it doesn't make it ridiculous. You operate purely on faith that there is no God, just like the average church goer believes by faith that there is one.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

"bald is a hair style,but not a color." There is no hair to style. LOL, and tell that to the many people who are bald against their will.

"Read the dictionary, not the lousy webster, but the oxford unabridged. The vast majority of philosphers and logicians also agree that atheism is simply another religion as well." Give us the quote from that dictionary where it makes that claim.

"You operate purely on faith that there is no God" Do you operate on faith that there is no Tooth Fairy?
Old wrote:
<quoted text>
bald is a hair style,but not a color.
"off" effectively is a channel since switching to it does not make the tv cease to exist.
Read the dictionary, not the lousy webster, but the oxford unabridged. The vast majority of philosphers and logicians also agree that atheism is simply another religion as well. You not liking it doesn't make it ridiculous. You operate purely on faith that there is no God, just like the average church goer believes by faith that there is one.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Old wrote:
<quoted text>You are assuming that people are the core reason for creation. We aren't. We are only one tiny species on a single rock off in a far corner of only one galaxy. We are only part of a plan and probably only a back up plan. If we want to survive and evolve into a better role and our souls to get to Heaven we need to get our sh!t together and use the brains that were given us.
If you are Christian then you don't understand your own religion. The entire purpose of creation is for human beings to worship God. Everything else is just details.

Still, if we went with your take on it, you would have an enormous problem. It is already damning to Christianity that the Bible makes no mention of things like germs and galaxies but if we are a "back up plan" then it means the Bible doesn't even talk about the main plan. Is that an epic fail or what?

Truth is Christianity is 100% about Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for humanity. That's it. Everything else really is just background noise.

It's kind of a goofy religion but that's what it is all about if you buy into it.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Jan 28, 2013
 
Old wrote:
<quoted text>because atheism is itself a religion
Atheism is not believing in any gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

How is that a religion?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bull Durham wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong on all accounts. This is my problem with armchair athiests, they rant without any evidence to back their claims. Intelligent design is becoming so popular now that some schools will soon be teaching the concept in its classrooms. Scientists simply do not agree because of lack of evidence for Darwins theory so don't try to pull this off in the information age.
The internet allows for the truth and let the chips fall where they may.
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/4332-montan...
This is bunk.

ID is popular with Creationists and that's about it. It is being shopped to schools by Creationists and it always gets booted out by reason.

Scientists really don't spend much time on ID. It is not science, so why would they? They find it annoying that they even have to deal with it at all.

On the surface, if you don't have a good working understanding of the methodological naturalism that underpins science, ID sounds at least passingly reasonable. But spend five minutes digging into it and you realize it is just a sort of folksy witticism with some fancy language thrown on.

"This looks pretty...God must have done it."

That's ID in it's entirety. Meanwhile actual scientists are devoting their lives to figuring out this place we live in. Creationism is a slap in the face to their efforts and to reason itself.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Old wrote:
<quoted text>No, it simply the definition. Religion is the system of beliefs that you use to deal with a deity. Your religion is that there is no deity. It takes just as much faith to be determined that there is no as as it does to insist that there is one or more.
I'm sure someone else got you on this, but you misunderstand what atheism is. As I said in the other post, atheism is not believing in gods. Period.

To put it more accurately, it is the rejection of the hypothesis that a god or gods exist. That does not mean an atheist *believes that there is no god*. You see the way it works?

The classic example is the way our criminal system works. A defendant must be proven guilty to be punished for a crime. The jury that makes the decision is judging whether or not there is enough evidence to accept that the defendant is guilty. If they return a verdict of "not guilty" it does *not* mean the defendant is innocent. It just means he was not found to be guilty.

With God, atheism is like the jury finding that there is not enough evidence to find God guilty of existing. It does not mean atheists have found that god does NOT exist.

See how it works?

You claim that god exists. I do not find the evidence compelling. I reject your claim. That is atheism.

Nothing more.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Jan 28, 2013
 
Of course, an atheist can make a positive claim that there is no god. Some atheists do that. Others do not. But that is an entirely different thing.

Whoever makes the positive claim is the one that is responsible for providing evidence to support that claim.
walt

Huntsville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
Jan 28, 2013
 
wowed wrote:
<quoted text>
So, "Willful ignorance and adherence to a delusion would make you a nut case."??? Labeling ID as delusional is your opinion and I guess your adherance to it makes you a nut case by your own definition.
How did the Maple tree know how to put that little airplane wing on its seed that allows it to be lofted in the wind and carried away? How did the Dandelion know how much fluffy stuff to attach to its seed to cause it to be lofted by a gentle breeze? Why do so many plants supply an abundance of food for human consumption filled with vital nutrients and vitamins, not to mention the medicines made available to mankind through plants? Everything that mankind needs to survive and remain healthy is supplied on this planet, what a coincidence huh?
That make more sense than anything on here. I notice you didn't get any response from the ungodly. LOL

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

"Labeling ID as delusional is your opinion" Yeah, that is my opinion. Who else's opinion would it be? Are you going to offer your opinion now?

"I guess your adherance to it makes you a nut case by your own definition." Not at all. Using reason and examining evidence is the way to weed out the dumb opinions from the correct ones.

Your remaining questions are answered by Evolution via natural selection. You need a basic science education.
wowed wrote:
<quoted text>
So, "Willful ignorance and adherence to a delusion would make you a nut case."??? Labeling ID as delusional is your opinion and I guess your adherance to it makes you a nut case by your own definition.
How did the Maple tree know how to put that little airplane wing on its seed that allows it to be lofted in the wind and carried away? How did the Dandelion know how much fluffy stuff to attach to its seed to cause it to be lofted by a gentle breeze? Why do so many plants supply an abundance of food for human consumption filled with vital nutrients and vitamins, not to mention the medicines made available to mankind through plants? Everything that mankind needs to survive and remain healthy is supplied on this planet, what a coincidence huh?

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Level 6

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bull Durham wrote:
I don't think you can say that everyone that believes in intelligent design does so because of religion.
I can't account for every person, no, but I've never seen anyone who supports Intelligent Design that didn't already believe in a Designer, except for those that were being compensated by believers. Some of the "scientists" working on ID were and are making money off the idea. They wouldn't need to be believers to cash in.
Bull Durham wrote:
Here you go calling people ignorant because their views don't allign with yours.
I call people ignorant because they are ignorant. If you knew how to evaluate science, you'd reject ID too. It's not science. There's no way around that. You can call it sophisticated Creationism if you like, but it fails at being science.
Bull Durham wrote:
You are getting to the point that it disturbs me to even converse with you. BTW, I don't have a "popular religion" as you say I do, stop trying to define who I am, you have no clue.
I don't care what you are. You tell me. What kind of designer do you believe in, if any, and where does your description come from, if you have one?

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Level 6

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

wowed wrote:
So, "Willful ignorance and adherence to a delusion would make you a nut case."??? Labeling ID as delusional is your opinion and I guess your adherance to it makes you a nut case by your own definition.
The vast majority of biological scientists reject ID, putting it, not in the category of failed scientific theories, but in the category of fraudulent hoaxes.
wowed wrote:
How did the Maple tree know how to put that little airplane wing on its seed that allows it to be lofted in the wind and carried away? How did the Dandelion know how much fluffy stuff to attach to its seed to cause it to be lofted by a gentle breeze? Why do so many plants supply an abundance of food for human consumption filled with vital nutrients and vitamins, not to mention the medicines made available to mankind through plants? Everything that mankind needs to survive and remain healthy is supplied on this planet, what a coincidence huh?
That's evolution. We all grew up together, making do with what is available, making tiny changes over deep time to cope with ever changing conditions. Most species go extinct, and I mean the vast vast majority. If that's according to a plan, it looks very much like a hands off approach. We've never found anything in science that demands a creator to explain it. All answers so far have been naturalistic.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 120 of323
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

107 Users are viewing the Somerset Forum right now

Search the Somerset Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 10 min Mike Duquette 128,062
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 25 min Trouser Cough 19,842
dcbs (Jun '09) 1 hr Blessed 31
Court for ticket 1 hr mike 14
Word Association (Feb '09) 1 hr Jennifer Renee 11,353
KY Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 1 hr BIG_STEVIE 26,171
This just in 3 hr Gary 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

Somerset Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Somerset People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Somerset News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Somerset
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••