Feed on Posts or Comments 21 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 08 Mar 2011 12:17 am

A classic that is well worth repeating – “What if you’re wrong?”

“What if you’re wrong?”

This is a favorite question of Christians and Muslims, but they never ask the questions of themselves:

If Christians and Muslims did ask the question of themselves, they would immediately understand that they are delusional. That is why they cannot ask the question of themselves and think about it with any sort of depth.

If you are a Christian or a Muslim and you are willing to think introspectively, this video can help:

60 Responses to “A classic that is well worth repeating – “What if you’re wrong?””

  1. on 08 Mar 2011 at 5:54 pm 1.Tigerboy said …

    It is amazing how theists are never willing to turn this “What if you’re wrong?” question back on themselves.

    Why is an eagerness to believe in that for which there is zero evidence a sign of nobility and good character? It seems more likely to be a sign of gullibility.

    To return to the “Is atheism a religion?” question:

    Atheism is not a philosophy (or a religion), because is makes no positive, advancing statements about anything! Atheism is no more a philosophy than “I don’t believe in unicorns” is a philosophy. No more than “I don’t believe in Tinkerbell” is a philosophy. No more than “I don’t believe in ghosts” is a philosophy. It makes no advancing statement about what IS one’s philosophy.

    Not believing in FOOLISHNESS is not a philosophy. It’s called having “common sense.” Having common sense is not a philosophy. Dealing in reality is not a philosophy.

    Atheism makes no statement of anything that one DOES believe. It is merely a refusal to believe in a nearly ENDLESS list of possible supernatural foolishness.

    “ALL HAIL THE GREAT JU-JU UNDER THE MOUNTAIN!”

    Believing in supernatural foolishness, based on a COMPLETE LACK of evidence, does NOT make one a good person.

    It makes one a fool.

  2. on 08 Mar 2011 at 6:01 pm 2.Tigerboy said …

    And, given the complete dearth of evidence for gods and goddesses, the “What if you’re wrong?” question is MUCH more appropriately directed at the person making the outrageous claims.

    The burden of proof is not on the atheist.

    The burden of proof is on the person making outrageous, supernatural claims.

  3. on 08 Mar 2011 at 6:03 pm 3.Rostam said …

    “What if you’re wrong?” question back on themselves.”

    Sure we do. If I am wrong, the same thing happens to me that happens to an atheist. It is a great question atheist like to avoid.

    Suppose you are wrong?

  4. on 08 Mar 2011 at 6:20 pm 4.Tigerboy said …

    Show me one scrap of concrete evidence and I will happily admit to being wrong.

  5. on 08 Mar 2011 at 6:28 pm 5.Tigerboy said …

    Again, I am not the one making claims that run contrary to all the concrete evidence.

    There is an assumption that truth follows where 100% of the concrete evidence leads.

    Making supernatural claims? It’s on YOU to show us why.

  6. on 08 Mar 2011 at 6:44 pm 6.Lou said …

    3.Rostam said …

    “It is a great question atheist like to avoid.”

    Except that we don’t. Your statement is a flase premise.

    An atheist has no reason to avoid it because the simple answer is that if a particular version of an imaginary god is true, then the atheists will be subject to whatever fictional consequences are ascribed to that imaginary god.

    And because we don’t believe it, then we don’t have to avoid it, anymore than you avoid the consequences of not believing in all the imaginary gods that you don’t believe in. You don’t avoid the question “what if you’re wrong about [insert name of of the gods you don't believe in]?” do you? Of course not. You most probably laugh and ask “who would be dumb enough to believe that?” and never give it another thought.

  7. on 08 Mar 2011 at 7:09 pm 7.Horatiio said …

    Richard never answered the question. Rather, he went into a state of digression. Poor debating and amazingly with the one question the young lady won the debate.

    Rostam succeeded in answering the question with one sentence from a theist perspective

    Why didn’t he answer? Well, he cannot is why. Like many other question he cannot answer about our very existence. He spins, dodges and turns-a-phrase here and there.

    His answer on creation has been “I know it looks designed but we must remember it is not”? Why must we remember this? If it looks designed perhaps it is Richard.

  8. on 08 Mar 2011 at 7:17 pm 8.Tigerboy said …

    That’s right. As Dawkins says: “What if Christians are wrong about Ju-Ju-Under-the-Mountain?”

    EVERYONE is an atheist regarding the extremely long list of gods they choose to reject.

    Why is Ju-Ju ridiculous, but you have faith in Yahweh? There is zero evidence for either.

    Someone on the other side of the world finds Christian beliefs to be JUST AS BLATANT in their obvious foolishness.

    Talking snakes, virgin births, zombies . . .

    Absurdities.

    Fables. Fiction.

    It’s not real.

  9. on 08 Mar 2011 at 7:23 pm 9.Tigerboy said …

    Horatiio:

    If it sounds like there’s an angry god living under the volcano, perhaps there is.

    Perhaps.

    Or, maybe there’s a better, more logical explanation.

    Maybe we could find out what REALLY causes the rumbling and the lava flows.

  10. on 08 Mar 2011 at 8:50 pm 10.TGHO said …

    @7 Horatiio,

    Nature only looks designed if the designer was a blind, insane moron who didn’t know how to use a blueprint and a set square.

  11. on 08 Mar 2011 at 9:18 pm 11.Rostam said …

    As Horatio pointed out, even Dawkin’s followers fall right back into digression. They can’t answer the question so they change the subject.

    TGHO

    It really too bad you can’t appreciate the intricacies of design in creation. But could it be that is your way of not dealing with the obvious design?

    Tiger,

    I already know what causes the rumbling of volcanoes. Would you like for me to provide a link? Oh wait, this is just more digression.

    Young Lady 1
    Richard 0

  12. on 08 Mar 2011 at 11:16 pm 12.MrQ said …

    Ros

    As Horatio pointed out,

    Hor has already pointed out biologos.org. A site which says that god didn’t have anything to do with evolution. Evolution just happens. BTW, he’s using the double “i” in his name these days.

    Dawkin’s followers

    What the hell is a Dawkins follower? Someone who has read his book(s)?

    the intricacies of design in creation

    Ask Hor. He’ll point you to someone named Francis Collins (biologos.org). Hor believes in the Theory of Evolution and that god had nothing to do with evolution. Evolution created the complexity and intricacies, not some god. Sheesh, get together xtians and figure this one out. Hor, you and Mr Collins should lead the charge.

  13. on 09 Mar 2011 at 12:35 am 13.Lou said …

    7.Horatiio said …

    “Richard never answered the question.”

    Yes he did, you simply didn’t understand it. The answer he gave, by example, was that an atheist can’t be wrong about disbelieving in a god and an afterlife.

    “Rather, he went into a state of digression.”

    Because you can’t understand the answer doesn’t make it a “state of digression.”

    “Poor debating and amazingly with the one question the young lady won the debate.”

    A question and answer is not a debate. No wonder you can’t understand when your arguments have been soundly trounced.

  14. on 09 Mar 2011 at 12:40 am 14.Lou said …

    11.Rostam said …

    “As Horatio pointed out, even Dawkin’s followers fall right back into digression.”

    There is no such thing as Dawkins follower – it’s a fabrication created by theists who can only interpret atheism through theist context. Theists must a have a leader, therefore, theists assume that atheists must have a leader. Atheists don’t require a leader in order to be an atheist. They don’t have to be told how to think, believe, and live. Theists, however, do.

  15. on 09 Mar 2011 at 2:30 am 15.BJE said …

    By the way, this whole argument is pointless because neither side actually listens to each others point, they just try to make a comeback

  16. on 09 Mar 2011 at 2:56 am 16.Mitch said …

    Mr Q writes: “Evolution created the complexity and intricacies, not some god.”

    Really? Evolution created? Interesting, precisely how would evolution “create” the first living organism? Evolution is a process that relies completely on other living organisms. How can one accurately reference this as a creator?
    To carry your fallacy further, which mechanisms would evolution exploit to “create” the cosmos, consciousness, self-awareness, aesthetics, emotions, etc?

    Richard Dawkins clearly did not answer the inquiry. Dawkins is a brilliant biologist however, to answer this question would depict weakness in his position and he is not a man who would tolerate weakness to be exposed. Political meandering was his best out in this circumstance. His expertise as a biologist is moot in the realm of theology.

    Francis Collins is not just “some guy”. Collins was the head of the human genome project under Clinton.

  17. on 09 Mar 2011 at 3:21 am 17.MrQ said …

    Mitch

    Really? Evolution created? Interesting, precisely how would evolution “create” the first living organism?

    Umm, Mitch, you are jumbling things around. Abiogenesis is a separate topic from evolution. Maybe I should have stated that through evolution and without the help of a god, we, humans were created. Happy?

    Evolution is a process that relies completely on other living organisms.

    Very good. You get a star!! My point was that god does NOT guide evolution. Hor, Francis Collins, the poster named TGHO, and myself all agree on this. What’s your problem?

    which mechanisms would evolution exploit to “create” the cosmos, consciousness, self-awareness, aesthetics, emotions, etc?

    Not exactly sure what this means…Sounds confusing and and rather convoluted. Evolution just happens, read biologos.org for further information.

  18. on 09 Mar 2011 at 3:51 am 18.Lou said …

    15.BJE said …

    “By the way, this whole argument is pointless because neither side actually listens to each others point, they just try to make a comeback”

    I basically agree with you. But what usually happens is that the theists will eventually do one of two things. They go away, or they abandon their erroneous argument and simply start a new erroneous argument.

  19. on 09 Mar 2011 at 4:22 am 19.Mitch said …

    Mr Q,

    Thank you for your reply. That was fast. However your explanation was lacking.

    You claim evolution creates therefore we can only assume you have concluded the initial creation was also a part of this process. Can you elucidate your position? Maybe you have concluded abiogenesis is the “creator” in this scenario? Do you have any conclusive data?

    “which mechanisms would evolution exploit to “create” the cosmos, consciousness, self-awareness, aesthetics, emotions, etc?”

    I apologize if I perplexed you with this question. How did the process of evolution “create” (your wording) self-awareness, aesthetics, emotions etc? You maintain evolution “creates” you should be able to offer supporting data.

  20. on 09 Mar 2011 at 5:30 am 20.MrQ said …

    Mitch

    You maintain evolution “creates” you should be able to offer supporting data.

    Ask Hor…and do some research at biologos.org. Evolution can (but does not necessarily) increase complexity of an organisms all without the aid of a god. Pretty amazing, isn’t it?

    BTW, Mitch. Answer me the question: How old is our planet Earth? Hor and I say 4.5 billions years old…and the universe is some 10 billion years older than that. Let’s get the debate started.

  21. on 09 Mar 2011 at 9:48 am 21.TGHO said …

    @11 Rostam,

    There is no design in nature. And no “creation” either. Natural, error prone processes are what made life what it is today. If you’d studied biology at any time throughout high school, this would be obvious to you.

  22. on 09 Mar 2011 at 9:50 am 22.TGHO said …

    @15 BJE,

    Theists in this argument don’t actually have a point to make.

  23. on 09 Mar 2011 at 9:57 am 23.TGHO said …

    @16 Mitch,

    As Mr Q pointed out, evolution didn’t “create the first living organism”, that was a process known as abiogenesis. Furthermore, do not make the same mistake as Ham and Hovind and amalgamate stellar evolution and biological evolution – these are two completely different theories resident in two completely separate arms of science.

    As for “consciousness, self-awareness, aesthetics, emotions, etc”, why shouldn’t evolution help these develop? We see glimmers of all of these traits within apes and monkeys, even dogs, dolphins, whales and other mammals. Strongly suggests that the evolution of the brain leads to these traits arising.

    Dawkins did answer the question. You just didn’t understand the answer.

  24. on 09 Mar 2011 at 2:44 pm 24.Lou said …

    19.Mitch said …

    “I apologize if I perplexed you with this question.”

    Why this time? All of your comments are perplexing, just not in the way you imagine them to be.

  25. on 09 Mar 2011 at 2:50 pm 25.Lou said …

    19.Mitch said …

    “How did the process of evolution “create” (your wording) self-awareness, aesthetics, emotions etc? You maintain evolution “creates” you should be able to offer supporting data.”

    Why do you ask questions here that are easily answered via a little simple research? Proclaiming your ignorance isn’t a very effective method of advance your argument.

  26. on 09 Mar 2011 at 3:21 pm 26.Lou said …

    16.Mitch said …

    “To carry your fallacy further, which mechanisms would evolution exploit to “create” the cosmos, consciousness, self-awareness, aesthetics, emotions, etc?”

    Or pedophilia. Was the creator a pedophile?

    21 priests put on leave after review of suspected child sexual abuse

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/21-priests-put-on-leave-after-review-of-suspected-child-sexual-abuse/?hpt=T2

  27. on 09 Mar 2011 at 4:14 pm 27.MrQ said …

    Mitch,
    I think I see where your confusion lies.
    When I use the word “create” in reference to evolution, it is from the vantage point of me looking back in time and seeing the changes in organisms through time. New creatures arise, almost all are extinct. Ask yourself: why?

    Evolution is not capable of planning for the future. So the use of the word “create” is wrong in the context that you are likely thinking.

    Have you checked out Francis Collins website (biologos.org)? Hor really learned a lot there. Maybe you should give it a go.

  28. on 10 Mar 2011 at 4:54 am 28.Mitch said …

    Mr Q

    I do thank you for the education. Your time and effort are cherished. Nonetheless, Collins believes intelligence is behind creation, you evidently do not. Collins follows a logical path to the end conclusion. You seem to believe intelligence arose from the creating power of evolution/biogenesis? You also have offered no real response to self-awareness, aesthetics, emotions etc.

    Maybe you should check into Collin’s viewpoint more closely. One of his books might be accommodating or maybe a lecture.

  29. on 10 Mar 2011 at 11:18 am 29.MrQ said …

    Mitch,
    Awww, shucks. Disappointing, very disappointing.

    You fail to answer even the most basic of questions….age of the Earth? We could have really had a good discussion and you could have educated me. What happened?

    I take it that you, like Hor, are also a Collins follower? That would be great – this site is becoming populated with more and more wise guys every day. Congrats!!

  30. on 10 Mar 2011 at 12:21 pm 30.Rostam said …

    Mitch

    I hope you can garner answers from the atheist but I doubt it seriously. Just as they conclude the christian makes only the claim “God diddit”, the atheist will claim “evolution diddit” or “you don’t understand evolution” and offer not one shred of evidence.

    I understand evolution quite well. I would be very interested in seeing the data supporting evolution of emotions, self-awareness and consciousness but I know none is forthcoming.

  31. on 10 Mar 2011 at 1:26 pm 31.A said …

    “intelligence arose from the creating power of evolution/biogenesis?”

    No it has always existed in other forms, As cells became molecules they eventually formed the foundation of the brain. The brain then later took on consciousness through natural selection.

  32. on 10 Mar 2011 at 2:22 pm 32.MrQ said …

    Mitch/Ros,

    I hope you can garner answers from the atheist but I doubt it seriously. Just as they conclude the christian makes only the claim “God diddit”, the atheist will claim “evolution diddit”

    Not just the atheist, also theistic evolutionists such as Collins. Evolution occurs without the need or intervention of a god…Hmmmm…Ros, What are you trying to say?

    I would be very interested in seeing the data supporting evolution of emotions, self-awareness and consciousness but I know none is forthcoming.

    Let the festivities begin anew: Mitch/Ros, I ask yet again: what is the age of the planet Earth? I don’t think it’s a tough question. But somehow you’ll both fail to answer.

  33. on 10 Mar 2011 at 7:53 pm 33.TGHO said …

    I find it amusing that Mitch and Rostam keep claiming that they “understand” evolution, when they can’t even answer the most basic questions regarding the science, and it is extremely clear from their conversation that they lack even the most basic education in biology.

    Guys, as I pointed out before, most higher mammals show emotions, self awareness and consciousness. Dogs, monkeys, dolphins, whales, cats of all sorts, horses, etc., etc. Some parrots are as intelligent as 4 year old human children. Thinking that these traits are restricted to humans only simply tells me you’ve not actually had any experience outside a school yard.

  34. on 10 Mar 2011 at 8:42 pm 34.Lou said …

    30.Rostam said

    “I would be very interested in seeing the data supporting evolution of emotions, self-awareness and consciousness but I know none is forthcoming.”

    Let’s start with something very simple – fear. Does the evolution of fear really have to be explained to you? Do you really require any data to support it?

  35. on 11 Mar 2011 at 2:29 am 35.Horatiio said …

    “it has always existed in other forms, As cells became molecules they eventually formed the foundation of the brain. The brain then later took on consciousness through natural selection.”
    _______________________________________

    Really A? LOL, Could you expound upon this “theory”? So you just claim this is what happened and that make is true?

    Can any of the atheist answer any of the questions put to you by Mitch? I didn’t see even one valid attempt, You guys should be able to defend your No God theory.

  36. on 11 Mar 2011 at 4:48 am 36.Lou said …

    35.Horatiio said …

    “Really A? LOL, Could you expound upon this “theory”? So you just claim this is what happened and that make is true?”

    REALLY?!Why is anybody here obligated to educate you? At least perform a simple inet search on +”natural selection” +”consciousness” and start reading.

    “I didn’t see even one valid attempt, You guys should be able to defend your No God theory.”

    (sigh) Will you EVER be able to comprehend the SIMPLE concept that disbelief in something isn’t a theory? There is no No Santa Clause theory. This has been explained here before. If you honestly don’t get it, then you are 100% wasting your time trying to ever understand much of anything that requires rational, logical thought.

  37. on 11 Mar 2011 at 8:14 am 37.TGHO said …

    @35 Horatiio,

    Can you honestly not read? Seriously? Did you not read my posts? Or did you just not understand them?

  38. on 11 Mar 2011 at 11:53 am 38.Xenon said …

    I think the TGHO argument is this. Monkeys have a conscious. We have a conscious. Therefore consciousness evolved. This does not explain how consciousness evolved but that seems to be his attempt. In reality gentlemen, we do not know. It is all speculation.

  39. on 11 Mar 2011 at 2:43 pm 39.MrQ said …

    Xenon,
    Ask Hor about evolution. Hor and MrQ both agree with Francis Collins that evolution occurs WITHOUT the help of a god. Read biologos.org for more info.
    What exactly are you trying to say in post #38?

  40. on 11 Mar 2011 at 4:22 pm 40.MrQ said …

    X,

    In reality gentlemen, we do not know. It is all speculation.

    And if you don’t know or understand something you attribute it to god? Is that the way it works?

  41. on 11 Mar 2011 at 4:32 pm 41.Lou said …

    37.TGHO said …

    “@35 Horatiio,

    Can you honestly not read? Seriously? Did you not read my posts? Or did you just not understand them?”

    Unfortunately, I think he is afflicted with the “religion gene.” His belief is not a conscious decision on his part. It simply occurs in his brain. No matter how much evidence there is for evolution, and evidence and logic that dismisses theism, he will never accept it because he simply can’t. It’s simply beyond his capacity. You might as well attempt to train a paraplegic to compete in a pole vault contest – it’s impossible.

  42. on 11 Mar 2011 at 4:34 pm 42.Lou said …

    38.Xenon said …

    “In reality gentlemen, we do not know. It is all speculation.”

    Except that it isn’t. It’s far more than that. And that is a far, far better thing than simply attributing it to an imaginary god.

  43. on 11 Mar 2011 at 6:39 pm 43.Joshua said …

    I for one like to find the evidence that creationists demand. When it is actually presented I usually see them either change the subject or display clear incompetence at considering it.

    Example number one
    Everyone should remember this url when a creationist demands to see the evidence that they say does not exist, http://www.pubmed.org
    This is the most popular repository of links to information that is used by the biological sciences. You can find papers, sequences, analysis tools, huge amounts of things. The papers is what you want.

    When I go there and type in “evolution emotions” I get more than 800 hits for papers. To get papers that summarize whole fields filter by review. There is even a filter for free full text so you do not have to go to the local university for some things.

    Right on that first page you can see issues like music related emotions and evolution. If you want more general info on evolution of emotions try adding more specific terms. I think that “The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: a synthetic approach.” looks facinating.

  44. on 11 Mar 2011 at 6:48 pm 44.Joshua said …

    Example number two.
    Another website to remember is the tree of life web project, http://tolweb.org/tree/

    This is an attempt to provide accessible information on the attempt to create the most complete tree of life for every living thing on earth, and to show areas where they are still working on figuring out the actual relationships. The best part for me is that it is heavily cited. You want the evidence for evolution? It is right there. Right now the currently accepted scientific explanation for the diversity of life is the theory of evolution. If anyone wants to replace that they will have to provide alternate explanations for the evidence that exists right now. Otherwise scientists will ignore them and just keep on doing what they are doing.

    Just look at the base of the tree, http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1
    over one hundred papers that describe the work that went into this part of the tree. Every part has its own citations. I get pretty annoyed at creationists who constantly talk about lack of evidence. Just this one page shows that they are ignorantly belittling the many thousands of man hours that went into that work.

    Put up or shut up.

  45. on 11 Mar 2011 at 8:02 pm 45.TGHO said …

    @38 Xenon,

    Actually no.

    My argument is that these traits identified by Horatiio, Mitch and Rostam are common across many different types of animals, not just humans. What is it that makes these traits any different to hands or lungs? Why choose those traits as differentiators for humans, when they are clearly not? Reminds me of an old argument put forward by a creationist I debated once, he claimed that humans were the “most evolutionarily advanced” because we had the most chromosomes. An easy argument to refute when some ferns have several hundred chromosomes.

    As for the actual process of evolution for those specific traits – there are literally hundreds of thousands of papers available within PubMed on this topic. Or even across the web. However they won’t help you unless you understand the basics first – and it’s clear that our triumvirate of creationists do not.

  46. on 11 Mar 2011 at 8:06 pm 46.TGHO said …

    @41 Lou,

    Agreed, but arguing is fun. :) Been doing this for a long time, and still enjoy it.

    @43/44 Joshua,

    My experience is similar to yours – when presented with the actual evidence, creationists simply can’t understand what they are reading. I do quite enjoy keeping up to date with the current publications myself.

  47. on 11 Mar 2011 at 8:44 pm 47.Lou said …

    45.TGHO said …

    “- and it’s clear that our triumvirate of creationists do not.”

    What’s so ironic is that they don’t see themselves as the same way we, and perhaps even they, see those who were so sure of their belief that the earth was the center of the universe. We can all look back at them and laugh, but it’s so sad that there are so many theists who haven’t changed over hundreds, if not thousands of years. Yet they exclaim “pull your head out of the sand.”

  48. on 12 Mar 2011 at 12:16 am 48.TGHO said …

    @47 Lou,

    They’re slowly dying out – religiousness is dropping across the majority of countries, which is good to see.

  49. on 12 Mar 2011 at 4:26 pm 49.Mitch said …

    I find secular humanist have no intimation that many Christians deem evolution as a theory and that it is even the possible truth. Origins & Darwinism does not follow the typical scientific model and more than likely 100 years from now, a new and more probable theory will surface. These scientific papers reference above are not truth, they are science searching for truth. What many cannot wrap their hands around is that a majority consider that evolution was directed by an intelligent being, most likely God. This in no way impedes data, facts, hypothesis and theories or even laws.

    It’s is a bit poignant that since the Enlightenment the line between science and truth has been blurred. The Enlightenment narrowed the definition to a ridiculous formula. Many are fond of holding onto science as ultimate truth. It is not. Prove to me you love your wife, children or mother? Prove to me Socrates truly did exit? To think God could be boxed into to some narrow scientific experiment or to the finite mind is derisory.

    In the end we all are searching for the truth, not necessarily science. Sure, many tend to become myopic and interchange the two, but science fails and fails often. That is within the nature of science.

  50. on 12 Mar 2011 at 5:11 pm 50.Anonymous said …

    Mitch,

    Prove to me you love your wife, children or mother?

    If you can use religion to justify this statement, I’d like to know how.
    As a test of love between a mother and her progeny I like to look to the animal kingdom for answers. So, to prove this idea of yours I suggest that you get between a mamma grizzly bear and her cub. You will quickly find out how love works.

  51. on 12 Mar 2011 at 8:26 pm 51.TGHO said …

    @49 Mitch,

    “Origins & Darwinism does not follow the typical scientific model”

    – incorrect. This is a blatently false statement.

    “a majority consider that evolution was directed by an intelligent being, most likely God”

    – majority of christians/theists I think you meant to say here. Amongst scientists and other intelligent people, the majority are atheists.

    “This in no way impedes data, facts, hypothesis and theories or even laws.”

    – incorrect. Postulating the existence of an intelligent force “guiding” evolution most certainly does change the way everything is viewed. Simply look at how creationists interpret the data supporting evolution.

    You whole second paragraph is simply rubbish. All it proves to me is that you’ve never actually sat in a formal science class past about Year 10. And probably didn’t bother with history either.

    “In the end we all are searching for the truth”

    – incorrect. If this was a fact, then there wouldn’t be any theists at all. What theists are “searching” for is comfort. A father figure to guide and control them. Someone to tell them what to do. The simple truth is that there is no need to believe in the supernatural now that we have the tools to explain why phenomena happen.

    “but science fails and fails often. That is within the nature of science.”

    – incorrect. Science is *self-correcting*. This is different to failing, as science will continually improve, go back over older theories and ideas, and bring them into line with new data. As I have previously mentioned, data is the core of science.

    Mitch, you’re failing absymally in your arguments here. I feel like I should go back in time and slap any teacher you actually had from the time you were four years old upwards. Did you actually learn anything at school, or did your parents let you opt out because it was too hard?

  52. on 12 Mar 2011 at 10:22 pm 52.Horatiio said …

    Mitch,

    Not only the Enlightenment but I would argue the Industrial Revolution as well. But other than that, great insights there. Just skip over TGHO’s post. His freshmen biology students fired him for incoherent yammering and cluelessness. He is one of those help-desk guys who tells you to reboot.LOL

    Now for this classic scientific study:

    “I suggest that you get between a mamma grizzly bear and her cub. You will quickly find out how love works.”

    LOL, so this is your idea of science? Wow, you guys who claim to be so savvy in the sciences really have some screwball ideas. I wonder what the pit bull was in love with when he tore half the face of a little 6 year old boy.

    Now this is why I keep coming back!

  53. on 13 Mar 2011 at 12:29 am 53.Lou said …

    49.Mitch said …

    “To think God could be boxed into to some narrow scientific experiment or to the finite mind is derisory.”

    Right, one would think God would simply make himself known to his “children” rather than have them wage war against and kill each other over whether or not he exits. THAT is “derisory.”

  54. on 13 Mar 2011 at 12:43 am 54.Lou said …

    49.Mitch said …

    “Prove to me you love your wife, children or mother?”

    I cannot prove a state of my mind; something that is simply a matter of biochemical reactions happening in my brain. Similarly, it can’t be proven that God exists. God is simply a matter of biochemical reactions that occur in a human brain.

    There is, however, evidence that I love my mother. Similarly, there is only evidence that you believe in God, not that God exits.

  55. on 13 Mar 2011 at 12:46 am 55.Lou said …

    49.Mitch said …

    “What many cannot wrap their hands around is that a majority consider that evolution was directed by an intelligent being, most likely God.”

    There’s no basis in fact for this claim. Furthermore, what the majority believe does not determine what is true. In my opinion, what the majority believe is most probably NOT true.

  56. on 13 Mar 2011 at 12:52 am 56.MrQ said …

    Hor,

    Speaking of enlightenment, did you catch on to Collins idea yet? There’s no god guiding evolution, no HD motorcycles washing up on beaches for him.

    And on the topic of enlightenment, perhaps you should look into what the Kepler program is finding @ http://kepler.nasa.gov/ . Looks like Hawking may be be closer to the truth than either of us. Do some research.

    It is indeed a rare opportunity that one gets to see such a science challenged individual as yourself (HD washing up on a beach, how funny was that?) That said, don’t you even think of quitting with your hilarious posts here. Eventually we may get to see what your grande idea actually is. Hoping it’s not just to keep Jayzus alive on the lips of the masses, but you never know.

  57. on 13 Mar 2011 at 12:58 am 57.TGHO said …

    52 Horatiio,

    I think you like coming back because you enjoy being thumped and stumped by arguments you just can’t understand or counter. Glutton for punishment?

    Mitch can ignore my post if he wants – I understand that it raises some very difficult questions for him to answer. I know you’ve already capitulated on pretty much all of those points, as you simply can’t argue against them.

  58. on 13 Mar 2011 at 1:29 am 58.A said …

    “LOL, so this is your idea of science?”

    Yes, this would be an experiment. You go after a momma bear’s cubs. If the mother bear attacks this proves love in the mother.

  59. on 14 Mar 2011 at 3:05 pm 59.Joshua said …

    @ Mitch 49
    “I find secular humanist … data, facts, hypothesis and theories or even laws.”

    Two points. Me and many atheists and scients know this. However here you are showing a problem that I see a lot of folks make. You confuse reality and truth. I prefer to talk about reality. Is evolution real? Is there evidence that it is directed? These are yes/no questions for which there is only one answer. To find the answer there is no alternative to discussing evidence. When you talk about truth you run into problems like “Is choclate the best icecream?” which has more than one answer depending on the person. Reality yes, truth no.

    “It’s is a bit poignant that since the Enlightenment … scientific experiment or to the finite mind is derisory.”

    Same issue. Issues of truth may not be as good for science true, it is after all a tool for determining REALITY to the best that current technology is capable. Science is not the ultimate truth, it is the best tool for determining reality that we have discovered. It may one day be replaced, but evidence must be the factor that leads to it’s replacement. Also many athiests/scientists reject the notion of proof. I believe that absolute proof is impossible so I rely on convincing accumulations of evidence. If you were to ovserve the interactions between my wife and I you would see behaviors that strongly suggest that I loved her. This is the best that we all have for such things.

    “In the end we all are searching for the truth, not necessarily science. Sure, many tend to become myopic and interchange the two, but science fails and fails often. That is within the nature of science.”

    Again, I am searching for REALITY. Science does fail, but self correction is a feature of the system. We get closer and closer to an accurate picture of reality. Unlike all examples of religion that I have seen so far, which resists correction at every turn.

    @ Horatiio 52

    What are you even talking about?

  60. on 14 Mar 2011 at 8:11 pm 60.Lou said …

    52.Horatiio said …

    “LOL, so this is your idea of science?”

    Are you really that dense? It was a sarcastic reply.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply