Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
Tink said:
Science was never made to discredit God

Dawkins did that.
Click to expand...

Science is about discovering truths, you can use science to test religious claims. But obviously there is no way to disprove something which people can't provide any evidence which can be tested and which they say exists outside space and time.

When it comes to science Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and evolutionary biology does disprove the biblical creation claims, but it doesn't disprove the god hypothesis in general, Dawkins distain for religion comes from the violence of religion, which we all should distain, and the way fundamentalists are trying to hijack science, which he cares very much about.
 
SirRumpole said:
I wonder if they genuinely believe that or are they just creating a market and playing to it.
Click to expand...

I have watched a bunch of Eric hovind videos, and I have to say, I 100% believe that he is serious, his dad is Kent hovind, so he grew up brain washed. But this is the kind of beliefs that can happen when you are raised to take the bible as a literal truth, they are programmed to throw out anything that doesn't go along with their beliefs.
 
SirRumpole said:
I think you can convince "believers" with appropriate evidence that their belief is unfounded.

Can anyone provide some ?
Click to expand...

Not wanting to rehash things said by others and on the other forum, but appropriate evidence will often be ignored. As I pointed to before, this is from the "Answers In Genesis" website that many creationists use as their information source.....

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
 
Value Collector said:
Science is about discovering truths, you can use science to test religious claims. But obviously there is no way to disprove something which people can't provide any evidence which can be tested and which they say exists outside space and time.

When it comes to science Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and evolutionary biology does disprove the biblical creation claims, but it doesn't disprove the god hypothesis in general, Dawkins distain for religion comes from the violence of religion, which we all should distain, and the way fundamentalists are trying to hijack science, which he cares very much about.
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder if scientists hate the God hypothesis so much because they perceive that religion owns God and religion persecuted scientists like Gallileo.

If scientists thought of God as some super advanced scientist, would that make it any more palatable for them ?

;)
 
SirRumpole said:
I sometimes wonder if scientists hate the God hypothesis so much because they perceive that religion owns God and religion persecuted scientists like Gallileo.

If scientists thought of God as some super advanced scientist, would that make it any more palatable for them ?

;)
Click to expand...

The lack of evidence is what makes it unpalatable, science is not about personal opinion.
 
VC, when bellenuit opened this thread, I said, good on them.
I have always said, you need a balance of both in society, religion and science.
The cold reality of science, with the warmth of religion.
I feel it has held this country well.
The rest is just debated on what we believe, which seems to go round in circles...

Such as -- we have a whole thread on climate change where scientists are debating, there is a war in there.
 
Tink said:
VC, when bellenuit opened this thread, I said, good on them.
I have always said, you need a balance of both in society, religion and science.
The cold reality of science, with the warmth of religion.
I feel it has held this country well.
The rest is just debated on what we believe, which seems to go round in circles...

Such as -- we have a whole thread on climate change where scientists are debating, there is a war in there.
Click to expand...

I was after some examples of extremism based on atheism, I really cant think of any.

Also, I really don't think science is cold, science is amazing, awe inspiring, refreshing.

What is the warmth religion gives, if you mean the sense of community and the joy of helping others, you certainly dont need religion for those. If you mean being told your not really going to die when your afraid of death, well yes i agree some delusions can provide comfort, but i find it very shallow.
 
Atheists are not immune to awe, Beauty and wonder.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VfW7mKnAJOM&list=PLEYkkLXrAD1w8vkLxJq_pw87fjp2z0FQx[/video]
 
bellenuit said:
Catholicism and theistic evolution

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/catholicism-and-theistic-evolution/
Click to expand...

They disserve a bit of credit for at least realising that they can't beat the scientific evidence that we evolved.

It does seem crazy to me how they don't even consider the fact that their ancient myth might be just a made up story, The way they try and twist their little fairy tale to fit the scientific evidence we evolved amazes me.

They can't just say perhaps Adam and eve were made up, they have to try and squish adam and eve and original sin into the evolution theory, saying pehaps they were the first in the line god gave souls to, its crazy.

It's true though that they have a lot of explaining to do, because once they admit adam and eve are not real, then the jesus myth falls apart also,
 
Value Collector said:
They disserve a bit of credit for at least realising that they can't beat the scientific evidence that we evolved.

It does seem crazy to me how they don't even consider the fact that their ancient myth might be just a made up story, The way they try and twist their little fairy tale to fit the scientific evidence we evolved amazes me.

They can't just say perhaps Adam and eve were made up, they have to try and squish adam and eve and original sin into the evolution theory, saying pehaps they were the first in the line god gave souls to, its crazy.

It's true though that they have a lot of explaining to do, because once they admit adam and eve are not real, then the jesus myth falls apart also,
Click to expand...

Not quite. Most historians accept that Jesus actually existed, but we only have the Bible's word for what he actually did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
 
SirRumpole said:
Not quite. Most historians accept that Jesus actually existed, but we only have the Bible's word for what he actually did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Click to expand...

I was talking about the Jesus myth, eg Son of god, Born of a virgin, walks on water, resurrected from the dead etc.

There is debate over whether there was an actual man or men. who the Jesus myth was based on, But even if we take that for granted, and believe there was in fact an original "Jesus", who the stories are based on, It wouldn't mean any of the Mythical stories are true.

For example, Santa is based on a real person called St Nicolas, But that doesn't mean the stories of North pole toy factories, Flying reindeer etc etc are true.

The Christian doctrine says it was necessary for Jesus to be Killed because of the original sin of adam and eve, with out adam and eve, the Jesus myth falls apart.
 
Value Collector said:
They can't just say perhaps Adam and eve were made up, they have to try and squish adam and eve and original sin into the evolution theory, saying pehaps they were the first in the line god gave souls to, its crazy.
Click to expand...

Cardinal Pell said as much when he was on Q&A last year with Dawkins. But unfortunately, even though Dawkins raised the question of where then does Original Sin fit in, I don't think it was ever answered by Pell. The topic moved on to something else I think.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tink said:
Science was never made to discredit God

Dawkins did that.
Click to expand...

Tink, this is another of your frequently illogical and totally unfounded comments!

There have been many authors and philosophers before Richard Dawkins who have refuted the idea of god, and he is only one of many currently expressing the same views. I would be willing to bet you have never read any of his books, so don't realise what an intelligent and erudite man he is, and therefore have no right to dismiss him as you do. You are speaking from ignorance and bias.
 
Top