Dinosaurs are not real :(

bhavv · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:02

RDM said:
Why is it that you only seem to know evangelicals? My wife is Catholic and has no issue with evolution. Her priest has no issue with evolution. The catholic science teacher in the school she went to has no issue with evolution. I know three or four literalist Christians but many, many more ordinary Christians who have no issue with evolution.

My advice would be to get to know some more people, but then if you are as aggressive against religion as you come across on this board it is no wonder that many moderate people would avoid you!

Moderate religious people are a minority that do not even exist as far as I am concerned. Any claim that these people make up the majority of believers is a fallacy for me, and I dont care how many cases or opinions you or anyone else want to throw at me, my life has taught me otherwise and I know better through my own experiences.

Castiel said:
As for the example you quoted regarding the position of the Eskimo. The way I would see it is that the Eskimo is neither a Theist, an Agnostic or an Atheist. Basically each of those positions requires definitive decision to be made based on the proposition of whether their is a God, if the Eskimo is completely ignorant of any such proposition then then he cannot take any definitive decision and as such the Eskimo simply has no philosophical opinion on the matter at all.

The Eskimo in that case would clearly be an Atheist.

Castiel said:
Eskimo simply has no philosophical opinion on the matter at all.

And if the Eskimo was presented with the idea of God for the first time and he / she refused to believe it, you would consider this to be a faith based decision correct?

Castiel · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:16

bhavv said:
The Eskimo in that case would clearly be an Atheist.

Not from the Eskimo perspective, he would have no perception of the proposition and as such would not have made an judgement on the proposition. So attributing any philosophical postion to him would be totally meaningless.

bhavv said:
And if the Eskimo was presented with the idea of God for the first time and he / she refused to believe it, you would consider this to be a faith based decision correct?

That would entirely depend on how the idea was presented and by what criteria. The likelihood of an irreligious Eskimo is so remote in reality that the question is a philosophical one and the answer is largely based on the position of the third party and not on the perception of the Eskimo.

Anyway this is going around in circles and I have wasted pretty much half a day on this. I have other things to do so I will bid you adieu and allow you to continue in your fundamentalism in peace, which I am sure will please you no end...

Castiel · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:21

Gilly said:
Intelligence will lead towards agnosticism in the main, simply because it is needed to know the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven.

Going either way requires faith.

Precisely.

bhavv · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:22

Theres no such thing as atheist fundamentalism, it is an impossibility.

RDM · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:23

bhavv said:
Moderate religious people are a minority that do not even exist as far as I am concerned. Any claim that these people make up the majority of believers is a fallacy for me, and I dont care how many cases or opinions you or anyone else want to throw at me, my life has taught me otherwise and I know better through my own experiences.

I find it quiet amusing that you are pretty much taking a non fact based approach to arguing against a non fact based approach.

Gilly · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:24

bhavv said:
Theres no such thing as atheist fundamentalism, it is an impossibility.

Wrong again. Bad day for you

bhavv · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:24

RDM said:
I find it quiet amusing that you are pretty much taking a non fact based approach to arguing against a non fact based approach.

Apples to apples.

Gilly said:
Wrong again. Bad day for you

Im not wrong on atheism, you are just reading incorrect sources or definitions.

Fundamentalism requires a Theological doctrine to enforce. I am not doing this, in fact Im not even enforcing atheism upon anyone else, therefore two seperate reasons for why I am not being fundamental in any way.

RDM · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:26

bhavv said:
Apples to apples.

Or hypocrisy, your choice.

bhavv · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:28

RDM said:
Or hypocrisy, your choice.

Not unless I state that there is a problem with other people thinking the same way that I do but towards their own beliefs, which I havnt done.

Castiel · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:37

Fundamentalism can also refer to the strict adherence to any set of ideas, beliefs or basic principles.

It need not have any theological context.

D.P. · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:39

Gilly said:
Intelligence will lead towards agnosticism in the main, simply because it is needed to know the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven.

Going either way requires faith.

Not really, you can't proove that there is not a giant pink elephant hiding in the asteroid belt. Does this make it wise to assume the possibilty that one exists means it should eb taken seriously? Not really. One can make an the educated estimate that ginat pink elephant is not floating around our solarsyste, but accewpts there is no definitive proof eitherway.

and this is what most scientists beleieve, at least the one I know. I did a PhD, worked with maybe 50 other people, met hundred more at conferences. As far as I know not a single one is in anyway religious or beleives in any form of God, just like they don't beleive in space going pink elephants, and don't beleive a giant flying spagetti monster is the true god.

Not being able to disprove something doesn't mean it is true, or has any chance of being true.

Gilly · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:40

bhavv said:
Apples to apples.

Im not wrong on atheism, you are just reading incorrect sources or definitions.

Fundamentalism requires a Theological doctrine to enforce. I am not doing this, in fact Im not even enforcing atheism upon anyone else, therefore two seperate reasons for why I am not being fundamental in any way.

You've got more wrong than just atheism. You have got atheism wrong though. Believing anything without evidence is faith. You have faith that there is no god.

Fundamentalism isn't as clear cut. You are fundamental in your stance. You are displaying fundamental tendencies.

D.P. · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:46

Castiel said:
Again it is not, as Vonhelmet has pointed out the link you gave has a very limited sample and this refutes the findings somewhat:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/03/u...ty-of-faith-in-god.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

also for a more up to date and far wider survey(as in the American Association for the Advancement of Science) this one counters what you claim is a majority atheist viewpoint:

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

All these Stats are for Americans, which is very different to the rest of the world. Secondly, you have to be very careful with the term scientist. I'm not sure why a poltical scientist has any great insight into the understanding of the universe.

As I said above, I know a lot of scientists and not one beleives in God to the ebst of my knowledge. Quite the contrary, they are mostly very outspoken against religion, the church, and beleifs in deities. While one might technically define them as agnostics because they all ccept thee is no proof eitherway, they have a strong understanding that there is no God. Just like you can't proove there is no flying pink elephants in space but can make the assumption that they don't exist but remain open to the infinitesimally small chance that theoreticaly they could because there is no definitive disproof.

D.P. · 15 Dec 2011 at 20:50

Gilly said:
You've got more wrong than just atheism. You have got atheism wrong though. Believing anything without evidence is faith. You have faith that there is no god.

Fundamentalism isn't as clear cut. You are fundamental in your stance. You are displaying fundamental tendencies.

You can beleive things without evidence without it being a faith in the true sene of the word. Do you beleieve or not tht the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster? There is no evience eitherway but I don't beleive a flying spaghetti monster was the great creator. I don't call that a faith, maybe you do.

Gilly · 15 Dec 2011 at 21:13

D.P. said:
You can beleive things without evidence without it being a faith in the true sene of the word. Do you beleieve or not tht the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster? There is no evience eitherway but I don't beleive a flying spaghetti monster was the great creator. I don't call that a faith, maybe you do.

A very simplistic approach but we'll go with it.

Doesn't matter whether it was the FSM or God or Shiva or Sonic the hedgehog that did or didn't create the earth. Believing or disbelieving either without evidence is religious or atheist. Agnostic is understanding that neither can be proven, therefore a decision cannot rationally be made.

My own belief is more towards soft atheism, but with an agnostic approach.

bhavv · 15 Dec 2011 at 21:21

So the Universe could have been created by Sonic the Hedgehog. If you dont believe this, then you have faith!

TBH this is a much more fundamentalist idea than anything that I believe.

Castiel said:
Fundamentalism can also refer to the strict adherence to any set of ideas, beliefs or basic principles.

Cool story bro. That excludes Atheism then, because that includes none of those things.

D.P. said:
As I said above, I know a lot of scientists and not one beleives in God to the ebst of my knowledge. Quite the contrary, they are mostly very outspoken against religion, the church, and beleifs in deities. While one might technically define them as agnostics because they all ccept thee is no proof eitherway, they have a strong understanding that there is no God. Just like you can't proove there is no flying pink elephants in space but can make the assumption that they don't exist but remain open to the infinitesimally small chance that theoreticaly they could because there is no definitive disproof.

Exactly. In the real world, intelligence leads to Atheism, as is the case with Scientists.

People who think that agnositicism is the only conclusion for intelligent people are delusional. Theism is most definitely not an intelligent belief.

Gilly · 15 Dec 2011 at 21:29

bhavv said:
So the Universe could have been created by Sonic the Hedgehog. If you dont believe this, then you have faith!

Active disbelief in any deity is faith-led.

bhavv said:
Cool story bro. That excludes Atheism then, because that includes none of those things.

Wrong again! I think you just like being wrong!

You are sticking to your beliefs and principles of your faith as fervently as any Christian

bhavv · 15 Dec 2011 at 21:31

Gilly said:
Active disbelief in any deity is faith-led.

Wrong again! I think you just like being wrong! Absolutely NOTHING in Atheism 'adheres to any set of ideas, beliefs or basic principles'.

How do you know Sonic the Hedgehog isnt a deity?

Atheism is simply 'Not believing in God'. This is not a faith based belief.

The be all, end all proof of intelligence and belief in God:

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence & religion.htm

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.

Gilly said:
You are sticking to your beliefs and principles of your faith as fervently as any Christian

Please do describe to me what those beliefs are. Whatever you say they are, they would be the same as yours as you also dont believe in any gods!

Gilly · 15 Dec 2011 at 22:20

I don't believe in god/gods, but I am primarily agnostic not atheist.

You have belief in the principle of random creation, rather than a creator. That's inherently faith.

[edit]ignoring the mistakes in your quotes, it says there that the majority showed agnostic thoughts, not atheistic. You really need to go study the difference. You also need to learn the difference between the atheistic beliefs, rather than just rejecting the existence of multiple atheistic viewpoints.

Scougar · 15 Dec 2011 at 22:57

bhavv said:
The be all, end all proof of intelligence and belief in God:

I never thought you would be that conceted.