Science vs Religion - Page 18 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Got cat?
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

 
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-04-08, 05:14 AM   [Ignore Me] #256
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Interesting article I just read regarding Atheism as a religion and having the characteristics of a religion.

http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

Relating to this original discussion, the article has this quote


This is a concise capture of my position and purpose for creating the thread.
Now why would creation.com want to try to paint atheism as a religion? Hmmm...

Humanism is an ideology at least with some more structure to it. However, atheism itself is not humanism as this article tries to argue. Even more so, the article makes some insinuations on some random observations of random atheists and then basically calls it true in general. That's just improper.

It also makes some generalized assertions, such as scientists including evolution when it's not needed... When it's not needed? Who determines what is not needed? And what if the author simply didn't have the research, but for a biologist to have some ideas about the relationship between previous forms and this is quite important. The history of an animal is quite interesting from an educational and general knowledge perspective. Plus linking one species to another can lead to new insights and further research into both species.

The chameleon tongue example he refers to and the explanation HE GIVES himself though... I mean. What the hell?

Created, not evolved

One of the papers5 on the tongue’s design had a curious section, ‘Evolutionary considerations’. The author admitted that the suction cap and the ballistic tongue are both essential to capture prey, i.e. one is useless without the other. Yet he interpreted this as evidence that they must have ‘evolved simultaneously … early in their evolutionary history.’ A far better interpretation is that chameleons have always been chameleons, and were designed with both these mechanisms fully functional.
THIS IS NOT BIASED AT ALL? He doesn't back up this claim at all! He just qualifies it as better and trivialises the other argument while he doesn't even comprehend it. He just deemed it absurd and that's that. He doesn't even look into it at all!

Look, this guy is a fraud with an agenda. Malorn, I don't know why you give him credence at all. Evolved simultaneously does not mean they both happened to come to be at the same time, just that they evolved side by side. The guy doesn't understand what the biologist argued at all, as the guy can only think in spontaneous creation. He cannot consider that mutation on either element over time grew into this. I'll look up some chameleon evolution examples.

The article also seems very circle argumentative. Before establishing it's a religion, it already calls it a religion and then tries to fit in observations. This article is a clear example of induction.

Last edited by Figment; 2012-04-08 at 05:37 AM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-04-08, 05:29 AM   [Ignore Me] #257
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Here's one.

In this paper we adduce new functional data demonstrating that an intermediate form of tongue projection exists among extant taxa. We analyze these data in the context of recent phylogenetic hypotheses of squamate relationships and conclude that this functional intermediate represents the retention of an ancestral state linking generalized lizards to chameleons in the evolution of lingual projection.
http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/pe...amTongue88.pdf
Figment is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-08, 05:50 AM   [Ignore Me] #258
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:46 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-08, 06:24 AM   [Ignore Me] #259
Warborn
Contributor
Major General
 
Warborn's Avatar
 
Re: Science vs Religion


It's actually quite a shitty article, but it comes from a fairly terrible website so hey, what do you expect. Lets take a look at the dumb things its author wrote:

It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
Atheism has nothing to do with science or naturalism. A newborn baby is by definition an atheist, and yet it more than likely holds no strong opinions about naturalism or secularism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, and people who do not believe in gods run the gamut from Luddite naturists to smarmy biologists from England.

Atheism will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings.
No, it won't be defined as this, for the same reason that Christianity won't be defined as the assertion that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. There are atheists who define their opinion toward the divine as a lack of belief in gods without the assertion as to their non-existence. If Daniel Smartt and Creation.com want to turn their detractors into a competing religion, they would be better served making a new term rather than hijacking an existing one.

Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang—nothing exploded and became everything)
Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory, the origin of the Earth, or the origin of life on Earth. Evolution is the change in frequency of inherited characteristics within a population of organisms over time. That's it.

The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in “science” reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel.
There are many Christians who understand evolution and realize it is compatible with their religion.

Atheistic denial of the divine entails denial of an afterlife.
No it doesn't.

If there is no afterlife, then ultimately is no higher purpose in life for Atheists than to be happy.
Atheism is not hedonism. So, no, another stupid assertion!

According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. In the Humanist Manifesto III, this was changed to finding meaning in relationships.
Atheism is not Humanism.

Belief in evolution also causes people to aim for self preservation and to spread their own genes.
And he cites Dawkins' book as a reference. Dawkins has one daughter and no sons. Clearly a man feverishly obsessed with spreading his genes.

On the other hand, Atheism requires “faith” (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.
Atheism has nothing to say about how life arose.


And so on and so on. You seriously thought this article was worth posting? Sorry, man, but it's a hell of a lot of bullshit. The author has no idea what atheism is, no idea what evolution is, and really is just totally out of touch with the subjects he's attempting to write about.

But you made a comment about overall message. Okay, overall message. What the author is saying is that atheism is really Atheism (big A), and is a religion. He's saying the adherents of Atheism share beliefs, ethos, and other qualities which make them effectively a religion despite not believing in a god. He is, of course, wrong. And dumb. Not believing in god says nothing about the person. Being an "atheist" is a meaningless quality, by definition. It simply indicates a lack of a certain category of beliefs. But atheists range from Stalin to Warren Buffett -- a brutal dictator to a modest philanthropist. What do those two men have in common? Do they share ethics? Beliefs? Rituals? And yet they're both atheists.

What this idiot writer means to indicate is that he is disturbed by the ability of Dawkins to rally a tiny fraction of what was once a group of people barely aware of each others existence into a very minor and inconsequential social movement. Where once atheists had no distinct presence, now there are tiny murmurs from within Christian-dominated societies. So, clearly, atheism has become a dangerous new religion called Atheism, and its morally devoid followers are busy waging war against their rival religion, Christianity, in order to impose their Marxist, Darwinist view of spreading their genes and having faith in thermodynamics. Meanwhile, back on Earth, Dawkins is virtually unknown to most people, most people who would call themselves atheists don't care what he has to say, and Christians getting their granny panties in a wad over it is a sign of something much larger.

That is, people aren't so easily indoctrinated when they have easy access to the Internet. Free-flow of information is the death of superstitious garbage. The power of the Christian demographic is waning. Young people are more atheistic, and more liberal than ever. And this, indeed, is a scary thing for the current power base to come to terms with.

Last edited by Warborn; 2012-04-08 at 06:38 AM.
Warborn is offline  
Old 2012-04-08, 07:42 AM   [Ignore Me] #260
MadPenguin
Sergeant
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Originally Posted by Traak View Post
I altered that quote to demonstrate how irrational it is to be mad at God because you choose to go to hell.
Ok, let me post my version and your version.

Mine:
I refuse to even have a shred of respect for, let alone worship and love, a being who punishes with eternal hellfire those who refuse to accept his ultimate authority, this is the ultimate in dictatorship. What can i say, im a man of principles

If a man went round torturing to death people who wouldnt praise him as their master, even someone like you can see this man is evil. But when religion enters the equation, so many people are blinded and cant see the wrong doing there.
Yours:
I refuse to even have a shred of respect for, let alone obey, any parent who punishes with spanking or stern words those who refuse to accept his or her parental authority, this is the ultimate in dictatorship. What can i say, im a man of principles.

If police went round arresting and imprisoning, and subjecting some to the death penalty people who wouldn't obey laws, even someone like me can see police are evil. But when religion enters the equation, so many people such as myself are blinded and cant see the wrong doing there.
Now you dont seem to appreciate when you change so much of a sentence it wont necessarily be the same.

Let me show you what you did

One man says "I dont think its right to arrest people who havent been proven guilty because thats how i was raised"
You change that to "I dont think its right to arrest paedophiles because i was raised a paedophile". You then claim the man who made the original quote is a paedophile.

This just makes no sense. You cant do this. You cant just make changes to a statement and then say it is equivalent to the original statement. See how that works?

Edit: And you have the audacity to imply that since your altered version is clearly nonsense the original must also be nonsense. No one can make me angry like you do Traak, you at least have that.
Edit: I love how you replace an eternal torment in fire with spanking, as if they were even remotely equivalent.

Last edited by MadPenguin; 2012-04-08 at 08:04 AM.
MadPenguin is offline  
Old 2012-04-08, 08:03 AM   [Ignore Me] #261
CutterJohn
Colonel
 
Re: Science vs Religion


No, I buy it. Eternal torture is obviously the equivalent of a spanking.. Yeah..



The heaven vs hell thing is pretty logical though, all things considered.. I can totally understand an army of the 'damned' itching for the chance to bring that colossal monster down. I'd be down for it.

Last edited by CutterJohn; 2012-04-08 at 08:04 AM.
CutterJohn is offline  
Old 2012-04-08, 08:08 AM   [Ignore Me] #262
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
I listed the article because I think it had good arguments. Criticizing the source of an opinion piece is pretty silly, especially since this entire thread is opinion and you're just as biased as anyone else.

Though I have no doubt you will find a few nitpicks and ignore the overall message.
Ugh. I pointed out all the arguments were flawed, correlation was made up and overal placed in a biased, circle argument article.

Yes, I questioned the source as well, which turns out to be very biased (not open to verifying alternative ideas and treat them as he would any other: with proper scrutiny) and therefore untrustworthy. You honestly think a reliable, unbiased source is a bad thing? Can they make good arguments, yes they can, but in this case, no it did not. Not at all. He was clearly making things up to fit his personal theory, rather than deriving a theory from observation.

Really Malorn, what do you want? You want me to say "hey, those are great arguments, even if they're all wrong, misinterpreted and placed in a biased light?".

Last edited by Figment; 2012-04-08 at 08:19 AM.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-04-08, 08:09 AM   [Ignore Me] #263
MadPenguin
Sergeant
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Originally Posted by CutterJohn View Post
No, I buy it. Eternal torture is obviously the equivalent of a spanking.. Yeah..



The heaven vs hell thing is pretty logical though, all things considered.. I can totally understand an army of the 'damned' itching for the chance to bring that colossal monster down. I'd be down for it.
One thing i never got is Satan is this angel who basically despises God. God then decides to send to him all the people who think the same as Satan, agree with him about God. And we are expected to believe Satan tortures these people? All im saying is if I was Satan, damn right I'd build an army. And sure as hell i wouldnt torture these people, I'd hold a party. It really takes an idiot to send to your enemy everyone who would ally with him.

Last edited by MadPenguin; 2012-04-08 at 08:19 AM.
MadPenguin is offline  
Old 2012-04-08, 09:51 AM   [Ignore Me] #264
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: Science vs Religion


A god is only as powerful as those who believe in it.
__________________
Post at me bro.

Baneblade is offline  
Old 2012-04-08, 02:09 PM   [Ignore Me] #265
Warborn
Contributor
Major General
 
Warborn's Avatar
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Originally Posted by MadPenguin View Post
One thing i never got is Satan is this angel who basically despises God. God then decides to send to him all the people who think the same as Satan, agree with him about God. And we are expected to believe Satan tortures these people? All im saying is if I was Satan, damn right I'd build an army. And sure as hell i wouldnt torture these people, I'd hold a party. It really takes an idiot to send to your enemy everyone who would ally with him.
Neither heaven nor hell are really elucidated upon within the Bible. Opinions about what happens to people in hell vary greatly depending upon religious sect. Some view it as a place of actual torture for eternity, others view it as simply being absent of God but that when Judgment Day comes, all souls in hell will be reconciled and allowed into heaven.
Warborn is offline  
Old 2012-04-12, 03:28 PM   [Ignore Me] #266
Vash02
Major
 
Vash02's Avatar
 
Re: Science vs Religion


There are early christian writings that didnt make the cut for the bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...r-roberts.html

21. And there were certain there hanging by the tongue: and these were the blasphemers of the way of righteousness; and under them lay fire, burning and punishing them. 22. And there was a great lake, full of flaming mire, in which were certain men that pervert righteousness, and tormenting angels afflicted them.

23. And there were also others, women, hanged by their hair over that mire that bubbled up: and these were they who adorned themselves for adultery; and the men who mingled with them in the defilement of adultery, were hanging by the feet and their heads in that mire. And I said: I did not believe that I should come into this place.

24. And I saw the murderers and those who conspired with them, cast into a certain strait place, full of evil snakes, and smitten by those beasts, and thus turning to and fro in that punishment; and worms, as it were clouds of darkness, afflicted them. And the souls of the murdered stood and looked upon the punishment of those murderers and said: O God, thy judgment is just.

25. And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion.

26. And other men and women were burning up to the middle and were cast into a dark place and were beaten by evil spirits, and their inwards were eaten by restless worms: and these were they who persecuted the righteous and delivered them up.

27. And near those there were again women and men gnawing their own lips, and being punished and receiving a red-hot iron in their eyes: and these were they who blasphemed and slandered the way of righteousness.

28. And over against these again other men and women gnawing their tongues and having flaming fire in their mouths: and these were the false witnesses.

29. And in a certain other place there were pebbles sharper than swords or any spit, red-hot, and women and men in tattered and filthy raiment rolled about on them in punishment: and these were the rich who trusted in their riches and had no pity for orphans and widows, and despised the commandment of God.

30. And in another great lake, full of pitch and blood and mire bubbling up, there stood men and women up to their knees: and these were the usurers and those who take interest on interest.

31. And other men and women were being hurled down from a great cliff and reached the bottom, and again were driven by those who were set over them to climb up upon the cliff, and thence were hurled down again, and had no rest from this punishment: and these were they who defiled their bodies acting as women; and the women who were with them were those who lay with one another as a man with a woman.

32. And alongside of that cliff there was a place full of much fire, and there stood men who with their own hands had made for themselves carven images instead of God. And alongside of these were other men and women, having rods and striking each other and never ceasing from such punishment.

33. And others again near them, women and men, burning and turning themselves and roasting: and these were they that leaving the way of God
Vash02 is offline  
Old 2012-04-12, 03:33 PM   [Ignore Me] #267
ItsTheSheppy
Second Lieutenant
 
ItsTheSheppy's Avatar
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Boy, nowhere will you find religious documents more specific and creative than when describing 'eternal torments'. They mention heaven like "Oh yeah, it's super nice. There's grass and flowers and stuff. Bunnies. Ice Cream. Whatever." Bring up hell and suddenly it's like, "Here, let me offload my six notebooks of Saw movie ideas."
__________________
Guru
ItsTheSheppy is offline  
Old 2012-04-12, 03:36 PM   [Ignore Me] #268
Vash02
Major
 
Vash02's Avatar
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Ironically, that is the only christian writing that makes note of abortion and they chopped it out of the bible.
Vash02 is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-12, 09:18 PM   [Ignore Me] #269
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Science vs Religion


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:37 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-12, 11:27 PM   [Ignore Me] #270
Effective
First Lieutenant
 
Effective's Avatar
 
Misc Info
Re: Science vs Religion


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
So many secular haters.

Anyone want to criticize the Quran while we're at it? Wouldn't want Muslims to feel left out.
If we're honest, the Quran is just as bad in terms of bronze age morality and using fear as a means of controlling the uneducated.
__________________


My Stream - http://www.twitch.tv/effectivex
Effective is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

Bookmarks

Wiki Activity Read More >
Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.