Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Professor Slams Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design Science Education

  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#121 SilverNeonASH

SilverNeonASH
  • Islander
  • 387 posts

Posted 15 October 2005 - 02:41 AM

Solar Wind, on Oct 14 2005, 05:26 PM, said:

Eskaminzim, the short-tusked elephants already existed. A new type of elephant has not arisen. Hence, no evidence of evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what I was trying to say. An external force might become a catalist, but it still takes time for a species change. With hominids and possibly some pongids, it becomes complicated because something called thought goes on. Neither genus is totally ruled by instinct. If the life form can make a choice, even a choice based on something silly ( I just love that thing you do) the gene pool changes. If the choice becomes popular, then evolution escalates into something resembling eugenics. Our hands are well formed. Is it a pretty hand? Will it drive the boys mad? Then pretty hands suddenly make it into the pool. Our feet perfectly suited to walking and running. Many people have a foot fetish. Is the sprinter's foot attractive? long legs are conducive to running. Are they more attractive than short round legs? What gets into the pool? Who does the choosing? When women choose, they go for something tall; when men choose, they go for the doll. After Neanderthals, the human race has been becoming more delicate. ID? Except, we're the ones doing the choosing.

#122 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 15 October 2005 - 09:52 AM

As many people had said, if it is a science class, it should teach science, and science has specific criteria before something that can be considered science, which ID does not currently meet. That is a fact. To include ID would open the science class to anything should be taught. If some kid pulled up his own theory out of his head from no where, that no one believe in but him, should he be allowed to present his theory in the science class? Should we open discussion for every kid to say what they believe in their science class, so all theories of the class are presented? What about the beliefs people who don't go to that class?

I'm not saying unscientific origin of universe/life theories don't belong in school, just no in the science classroom.
In social studies we did a project on all the world major religions I recall. I don't remember if we did their creation stories or not, but I don't see why they can't all be discussed there with respect. Is that so hard? Social Studies, or some religion class, heck even language class (make an assignment for everyone to do their own creation story :) or study how religion affects language), would work a lot better.

SOME people (not all) who want to put ID or Creationism in the science classroom want to do it because they want it on equal footing, thinking everyone looks down on it, and they want everyone taught it. (Or they don't understand science theory, or something else)
Its not science, doesn't make it less important or on less footing. Of course some people (atheist/etc) may feel that way, but what do their beliefs matter to whether you feel its important or not? Inserting it into the science class won't change that.
One has to already be insecure in their beliefs to feel all that.

Put it in social studies, religion studies, or leave it up to the parents, but by no means put it in a science class until it is accepted by the science community.

Edited by sierraleone, 15 October 2005 - 09:53 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#123 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 15 October 2005 - 10:53 AM

Quote

Alright, then explain What or who caused that one horse to be born with long legs? Surely the horse didn't have a say in how he was born? And if both of the parents had small legs why would their offspring have long legs?


I have a better idea Lots, let ID explain it for you. More to the point, let the IDer's explain (with evidence and examples) exactly HOW it happens. This is the problem with ID, they will claim intelligent Design and call it a day. I could say Bug Bunny was the Intelligent Designer and call it a day too, would you except that answer? Would that explain the process? No it wouldn't and nothing in ID does either, hense why it ISN'T science and doesn't belong in science class. Do we know all the workings of the evolutionary process, NO but we know creatures evolve and we see the mutations on a regular basis, many with tragic results. Once upon a time children born with genetic mutations were chalked up to "God's Will" which is where we'd still be if not for science. Babies born with an attached twin, under ID would just be God's will but tell me, what Intelligent Designer would create such a thing, to what end? We now know that this happens when to fertilized eggs combine. We have some people born carrying two sets of DNA (a women almost had her children taken away from here because they claimed these children couldn't be hers, the DNA didn't match but thanks to REAL SCIENCE they discovered that there are people who at conception had a twin whom for whatever reason never formed and was absorbed by the surviving fetus.

As to your question about why two short legged horses would have a long legged foal...two possiblities, a recessive gene (some horse in the genetic family tree that the foal and it's parents share DNA segments with) had long legs or a genetic mutation. If you subscribe to ID the reason would be "And God created said foal and it was Good". No does that really explain ANYTHING? No, it doesn't. My daughter is almost 5 foot 9 at 15 years old, there's not a woman on either side of our family with that height, her dad is barely 6 feet even, my dad was 5 feet 10, my grandfather was only 5 feet 4 inches but my husband's grandfather was 6 foot 5...Now where would YOU assume my daughters height came from, God or the fact that she had a great grandfather that was 6 feet 5?

My dad had hazel eyes, my mom's were blue. I have green eyes, am I not there child because I have a different eye color or has REAL SCIENCE taught us that dominate traits and combinations of traits lead to these variations?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#124 SilverNeonASH

SilverNeonASH
  • Islander
  • 387 posts

Posted 15 October 2005 - 11:40 AM

In order to understand evolution you have to understand genetics. That was the trouble with Darwin, initially. They could not explain how. At the same time, there was a clergyman, named Mendel who was doing experiments with plants, but he was largely ignored.

In genetics, things tend toward the mean. I supposed this is how things are kept stable. If the resulting offspring is getting genes from all the genotypes as opposed to phenotypes, the offspring might be recognised as completely foreign and spontaneously aborted. If unusual offspring are being born, we have better nutrition and medical care, that allows them to be born. All I'm saying, is that if the embryo is seen as too unusual, it may not develop. I don't know, really, but other input would be appreciated.

#125 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 15 October 2005 - 12:06 PM

Lin731, on Oct 15 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

Quote

Alright, then explain What or who caused that one horse to be born with long legs? Surely the horse didn't have a say in how he was born? And if both of the parents had small legs why would their offspring have long legs?

I have a better idea Lots, let ID explain it for you. More to the point, let the IDer's explain (with evidence and examples) exactly HOW it happens. This is the problem with ID, they will claim intelligent Design and call it a day. I could say Bug Bunny was the Intelligent Designer and call it a day too, would you except that answer? Would that explain the process? No it wouldn't and nothing in ID does either, hense why it ISN'T science and doesn't belong in science class. Do we know all the workings of the evolutionary process, NO but we know creatures evolve and we see the mutations on a regular basis, many with tragic results. Once upon a time children born with genetic mutations were chalked up to "God's Will" which is where we'd still be if not for science. Babies born with an attached twin, under ID would just be God's will but tell me, what Intelligent Designer would create such a thing, to what end? We now know that this happens when to fertilized eggs combine. We have some people born carrying two sets of DNA (a women almost had her children taken away from here because they claimed these children couldn't be hers, the DNA didn't match but thanks to REAL SCIENCE they discovered that there are people who at conception had a twin whom for whatever reason never formed and was absorbed by the surviving fetus.

As to your question about why two short legged horses would have a long legged foal...two possiblities, a recessive gene (some horse in the genetic family tree that the foal and it's parents share DNA segments with) had long legs or a genetic mutation. If you subscribe to ID the reason would be "And God created said foal and it was Good". No does that really explain ANYTHING? No, it doesn't. My daughter is almost 5 foot 9 at 15 years old, there's not a woman on either side of our family with that height, her dad is barely 6 feet even, my dad was 5 feet 10, my grandfather was only 5 feet 4 inches but my husband's grandfather was 6 foot 5...Now where would YOU assume my daughters height came from, God or the fact that she had a great grandfather that was 6 feet 5?

My dad had hazel eyes, my mom's were blue. I have green eyes, am I not there child because I have a different eye color or has REAL SCIENCE taught us that dominate traits and combinations of traits lead to these variations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well technically, the story about some women almost having her children taken away because the DNA didn't match... isn't DNA science as well? Before knowlegde of DNA, the fact she gave birth to the kids would prove maternity.
But I'm just being difficult ;)

Do you have any links to that story? Sounds fascinating :)
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#126 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 15 October 2005 - 12:12 PM

Jid, on Oct 13 2005, 07:32 PM, said:

enTranced, on Oct 13 2005, 11:56 AM, said:

Jid!!!

Thank you for linking to that site!

Best! Site! Ever!  :cool:

enTranced

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcomes.  I do enjoy it.


Nonny, on Oct 13 2005, 05:52 PM, said:

I am so ordering the FSM thingee for my car.  I'm ordering a bunch, cuz I know they'll get stolen.  :rolleyes: 

:ninjadeath: 

Nonny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought they were decals?  Or is there a chrome one now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll have to go back to the site and take another look.  The ones I'm ordering are made of the same stuff that the fish and Darwin fish are made of.  

Jid, on Oct 13 2005, 07:32 PM, said:

waterpanther, on Oct 13 2005, 09:19 PM, said:

May all be touched by his noodly appendage.   :angel:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RAmen. ;)

Seriously, I linked the site because it strikes me as a valid (if satirical) criticism of ID and its proponents.  I just don't think faith ought to be instructed in a science class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RAmen.  :)  

And seriously, I agree that it is valid criticism of ID.  


Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#127 WildChildCait

WildChildCait

    And from the ashes of fire, she is reborn

  • Islander
  • 3,416 posts

Posted 15 October 2005 - 02:53 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Oct 14 2005, 11:58 PM, said:

Eskaminzim, on Oct 14 2005, 02:17 PM, said:

One day, a horse with longer legs is born. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Alright, then explain What or who caused that one horse to be born with long legs? Surely the horse didn't have a say in how he was born? And if both of the parents had small legs why would their offspring have long legs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Random mutation, usually. And if it survives longer, then it would be more viable and more likely to produce offspring, hence evolution. There's always a small chance of a random mutation being beneficial.
RIP Ruby Medallion: 31-10-1999/21-05-2007
one gender-reassigned, world travelling, world class snake.

FKA Chaddee, amongst other things.
http://scentedalchemy.webs.com Custom handmade bath and body products

#128 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 15 October 2005 - 04:15 PM

Quote

Do you have any links to that story? Sounds fascinating


It really IS a fascinating subject and I'd love to give you links for it but I watched it on Cable (TLC I beleive). Now they may run the show again or perhaps you can order it from their website, I beleive the name of the program was" I Am My Own Twin". It looked at 2 or 3 cases of this and went through the whole process of how they discovered the answer to it. In the mother's case, they took samples from all these different parts of her and nothing...until they took samples from the uterine wall I beleive and there they found the DNA from the absorbed twin.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#129 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 15 October 2005 - 10:53 PM

Lin731, on Oct 15 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

Once upon a time children born with genetic mutations were chalked up to "God's Will" which is where we'd still be if not for science. Babies born with an attached twin, under ID would just be God's will but tell me, what Intelligent Designer would create such a thing, to what end?

The One who expects us to grow and evolve and learn from the mysteries life present us... to meet the challenges that are inherent in our existence, and to avoid allowing superstition stand in the way of understanding... that One is the one who would allow such a thing, because such a thing gives us opportunity to learn compassion, gratitude, and to develop the will to change it....

Human beings are meant to evolve.  Our brains are part of our humanness - our inquisitiveness part of what makes us us.  The Tower of Babel fell not because we wanted to reach God - but because we wanted to displace God.  God most certainly wants us to reach God - the Mormon interpretation I take as allegorical - but representative of the same thing that every religion teaches - that we are ourselves divine - children of God.  We can learn, and we don't have to be afraid of learning - ID represents fear - fear that God isn't who we thing God is.  But honestly - if God was only what we think God is - how could He be God?

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#130 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 16 October 2005 - 12:04 AM

Sierraleone, Lin731, What you are searching for is called Chimeric DNA Here's more info

Quote

Chimera (chimaera)
An organism which contains cells or tissues with a different genotype. This can result from mutated cells within the developing embryo of a single organism. It can also result from mixing cells from different individuals of the same species, or of individuals from different species. Fusion of embryos or insertion of cells from one embryo or from stem cells into another organism can be used to create chimeras. For example, laboratory mice have been created with human immune systems for the purpose of understanding various aspects of immune response. Chimeras can also result from grafting of tissue from one plant type onto another such as is done in agriculture (graft hybrid). Chimeras are also said to represent "genetic mosaics". Organisms which express both male and female characteristics by virtue of being a mosaic of male and female cells are referred to as "gyandromorphs'. The mythological chimera had the head of a lion, the body of a goat, and the tail of a serpent.
Source : PhRMA Genomics

Edited by Gefiltefishmon, 16 October 2005 - 12:06 AM.

"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#131 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,093 posts

Posted 16 October 2005 - 12:27 AM

I've noticed the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" used a number of times.

Let's just be clear on what they are:

(these entries are excerpts from The Sceptic's Dictionary- http://skepdic.com/ )

Agnosticism:

Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism. Understood this way, agnosticism is skepticism regarding all things theological. The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural. Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist. The former is called a fideist, one who believes in God purely on faith. The latter is sometimes accused by theists of having faith in the non-existence of God, but the accusation is absurd and the expression meaningless. The agnostic atheist simply finds no compelling reason to believe in God.

The term 'agnostic' was created by T. H. Huxley (1825-1895), who took his cue from David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Huxley says that he invented the term to describe what he thought made him unique among his fellow thinkers:  

They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

'Agnostic' came to mind, he says, because the term was "suggestively antithetic to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant...." Huxley seems to have intended the term to mean that metaphysics is, more or less, bunk. In short, he seems to have agreed with Hume's conclusion at the end of  An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.*

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason resolved some of the main epistemological issues raised by Hume, but at the expense of rejecting the possibility of knowing anything beyond appearances of phenomena. We can't know God but the idea of God is a practical necessity, according to Kant.

Atheism:

Atheism is the disbelief in God. An atheist must believe that humans created God rather than the other way around. To say that man created or invented God is to say that the vast majority of humans are deluded. It should go without saying that being deluded is not the same as being mentally unbalanced, but since some defenders of belief in God (e.g., D.E. Trueblood in The Trustworthiness of Religious Experience) do not seem to know this, we mention it.

How do atheists explain the origin of this delusion and its persistence? It has been argued by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677) that belief in God originated in fear and superstition. And it has been argued by the likes of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx that the delusion persists because belief in God satisfies the wishes for a protective father and for immortality, or it acts as an opiate against the misery and suffering of human existence. This world can't be all there is, says the theist. It's too awful. There must be an afterlife where the evil are punished and the good are rewarded. Life would be meaningless otherwise. Nonsense, says the atheist. We make our own meaning. But there would be no good or evil without God, says the theist. Nonsense, says the atheist. As Bertrand Russell put it: if things are good only because of God's fiat, then God is not Good by nature. If God is good by nature and doesn't create goodness by fiat, then goodness exists independently and prior to God; thus, we don't need God for goodness to exist. I think it goes without saying that we don't need God for evil to exist.

Believers in God either think that there is evidence to support their belief or they think that there is no reason not to believe in God. The former often find the arguments of atheists to be inept, fraudulent, deceptive, weak, insubstantial or ludicrous. The latter see atheists as stubborn and unwilling to risk error for the sake of a possible, sublime truth. Neither seems to apply the same scrutiny to their own arguments and beliefs that they do to their opponents.

The two types of believers share one thing in common: they want to believe in their delusion so badly that they deceive themselves into thinking they are being perfectly rational and reasonable in the pursuit of their delusion or that atheists are irrational and unreasonable in rejecting the same. Many also share a common motive: their belief gives them a sense of power and superiority, often leading them to destroy anything or anyone who opposes them, and to hurl benedictions over the miseries of the world, including miseries they themselves have caused. Believers feel they have the power of esoteric knowledge, which seems to the atheist to be the ultimate ego trip. Being so special doesn't just spice life up; it gives it a meaning and significance it would not otherwise have and dooms atheists to meaningless and insignificant lives.

For most believers, however, the belief in God is just something they have taken for granted all their lives. They learned belief at their mother's knee, as Russell put it. The belief gives order and meaning to their lives. It joins them to a community of believers, giving them confidence in themselves and their beliefs. The theist's belief is validated by all the important people in his or her life. If you grow up with the fairies, you'll be a candidate for fairy belief. If you grow up with God, if everyone important in your life reinforces the belief in God, you'll see proofs everywhere for what you know in your heart is true. Communal reinforcement of the belief in God may be the main force behind its seeming so reasonable to believers. For not only is one's belief constantly reinforced, so too are the arguments one makes. The reinforcement of belief is finalized by the authority of a few respectable, intelligent, kindred spirits. People may not come to believe in God just because some saint or scientist or Nobel Prize winner in literature gives his or her seal of approval to it, but people are made to feel more comfortable in their belief if they think they are in good company.

Millions of children grow up in a world of angels, holy communion, God the Father-Son-&-Holy Ghost, and Jesus the Divine Savior. The lack of logic or rationality to any of it isn't even noticed. For such children, it seems as natural to believe in transubstantiation as it does to believe in electricity. They are taught mathematics side-by-side with the catechism. The absurdity of the juxtaposition is not noticed. For many people, it is as natural to believe in fairies and witches and evil eyes, etc., as it is to believe that fire is warm. But this is all irrelevant to whether there are fairies or witches, or gods, etc.

An atheist on the other hand, will most likely have to develop and defend his or her belief in an antagonistic community. If John Stuart Mill is right about the value of dissent, then there is little danger of atheism becoming a mere prejudice, as theism is for many people. Being forced to defend a belief gives it strength and vitality. Having a belief constantly reinforced, or worse, not allowing challenges to it, leads to prejudice: beliefs held without really knowing why or whether they are worthy of maintenance.

Design or blind mechanism?

The theist thinks that life only makes sense if God exists. Why then does it seem obvious to atheists that everything makes just as much if not more sense if there is no God? Why does the universe seem perfectly intelligible to the atheist as an undesigned mechanism governed solely by natural, impersonal forces?

An atheist looks at the universe and what is known about it and sees that its alleged perfect order and design is pretty imperfect. They look at individual items which are wonderful in function but ridiculous in design and are led to think no omniscient being would design it this way. As Russell put it: who couldn't come up with a better world if given omnipotence, omniscience and billions of years to do it? An omniscient, omnipotent being might well be expected to use a much simpler and more effective design for the universe and most of the things in it. The very complexity and inherent defects of structures indicate, as Clarence Darrow noted, the lack of design and the result of natural forces working with no particular purpose in mind. You can use a complicated clamp to hold a few sheets of paper, but a paper clip is a much more elegant device for such a purpose. The orbits of the planets around our sun are a wonder to behold, but the asteroid belt, meteors, and comets crashing into planets is a strange touch for an omnipotent, all-good Creator. A healthy child has no match for exultation and hopefulness, but conjoined twins and other "freaks" of nature, as well as myriad genetic birth defects, seem unworthy of benevolent design. The atheist sees a woman with a 200 pound tumor and thinks such a grotesque evil can't be allowed by an omnipotent, all-Good God. But the patient and her parents think God helped the surgeons remove it and save her life. They don't blame God for the tumor but credit Him with its removal. They may even maintain that God had some fine and noble purpose in causing such suffering. The atheist finds such rationalization to be little more than ad hoc hypothesizing.

The typical theistic response to the previous line of reasoning is to consider it impertinent. God is not bound by human conceptions of perfection or adequate design. What may appear inelegant, inefficient or imperfect to us may be just right according to God. But if one takes this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then we can safely say nothing about God at all. I maintain that the minimum standard God should be held to is what a reasonably competent group of intelligent humans could come up with. If this God can't do any better than that, then "perfection" has no meaning when applied to this being. If one maintains that the ways of God are essentially inscrutable, then anything goes. God could be anything, even pure evil, in that case.

Of course, some things are complex by their very nature or are necessarily complex given the purposes they are to accomplish. And some good arises from violent collisions and eruptions, and from facing challenges created by natural defects such as blindness and cerebral palsy. The atheist does not maintain that only a universe immediately comprehensible and pleasurable to a six-year old would be worthy of an Almighty Creator. The stealth bomber, for example, is very complex, but necessarily so. However, to complicate a design beyond necessity is to ask for trouble. Whomever wrote the computer code for the browser you are using to read this should have written code that is as simple as possible to accomplish its goals. Another browser could accomplish the same goals but be filled with unnecessary complexity. An impartial programmer could look at the two codes and tell you who was the more competent programmer. The rest of us use the programs and perhaps can't tell the difference between the two. Nevertheless, the simpler program will be judged to be the better designed by those who create computer programs.

The concept of a magnificent being who is responsible for everything but who is playing a cosmic game of hide and seek leads the atheist to ask: Why would such a being as God be so frivolous? The whole idea of creation, commands, required worship, rewards and punishments, etc., clears up nothing. Many children are asked to memorize the answer to the question "Why did God make me?" and the answer is "To know, love, honor, serve and obey Him." To a child, this might sound good. He or she has a solemn, mysterious duty towards a being who only reveals Himself or His wishes on special occasions and only to specially selected persons. How many children memorizing their catechisms are hoping that God will pick them for a special revelation?

When an atheist hears of people having visions or hearing voices the recipients think are of divine origin, or of people performing magical or miraculous feats, many ask, following David Hume (1711-1776), which is more likely? that God spoke to this person or that they are deluded or perpetrating a fraud? Which is more likely, that the laws of nature have been violated by special powers or that there has been illusion, delusion, fraud, and/or error? Hume maintained that any reasonable person, maintaining the most basic principles of reasonableness, cannot believe in divine visions, voices or miracles on the basis of testimony, even firsthand testimony, without abandoning those very principles. Atheists find Hume's reasoning to be elegant and reasonable.

According to the atheist, God was invented not once, of course, but many times in many cultures. The similarities of invention may be due to the similarities of human nature and experience. Birth, sex, illness, injury, overcoming Nature, death, etc. are universal experiences. The images of God and God-experiences, as well as the utility of the invention, are reflected in such universally shared experiences as the need for protection against Nature and one's enemies, and the fear of death.

Or the similarities of religious experience and belief may be due to the similarity of neurophysiology in humans of different cultures. Michael Persinger, for example, has been able to duplicate the sense of presence, the sense of leaving the body, and other feelings associated with mysticism by electrically stimulating the brain. Many people have duplicated religious experiences by using drugs such as LSD and mescaline. It is probably no accident that many primitive religions used drugs, frenetic dancing and chanting, fasting, etc., and other means of neurochemically altering their consciousness, in order to make contact with the world of spirits. Hallucinations and dreams have often been seen as links to the divine. However, the link that holds these experiences together may not be an objectively experienced God, but a subjective set of perceptions triggered in the same way in the same parts of the brain causing similar experiences and feelings.


Now, to my mind, these terms are really terms used by people who who either believe in God, or who acknowldge a possibility of a creator.

But what if you're a person like me, who not only does not hold with the notion of God, but belief itself?

In this instance, I prefer to use the terms credulous and incredulous.

Credulous means "Disposed to believe on little evidence."

Incredulous means "Not disposed or willing to believe; unbelieving, or unbelief."

The terms "agnosticism" and "atheism" do not describe my mind-set- not by a long shot- and I suspect do not describe the mind-set of several people on this site who style themselves "agnostics" or "atheists".
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#132 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 16 October 2005 - 03:00 AM

Gsmonks. I just wanted to add to your post that many non-believers don't like the term 'atheist' because it doesn't describe what they are, it solely describes what they are not. Many have taken on the word 'secular' as an alternative to 'Atheist'

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#133 Anastashia

Anastashia

    Tyrant Matriarch and Pegan Too!

  • Islander
  • 11,777 posts

Posted 16 October 2005 - 08:33 PM

Probably not the best choice Gode as the use of that term as a noun refers to:
1. A member of the secular clergy, or
2. A layperson.
http://dictionary.re...earch?q=secular

It's used by those of us who are members of religious orders but not clergy or religious in the monastic tradition. I for instance am a member of the Secular Franciscan Order (SFO).

Edited by Anastashia, 16 October 2005 - 08:34 PM.

The Science Fiction Examiner

In the quiet of Midden a young child grows.
Does the salvation of his people grow with him?
"Everything we do now is for the child"

"I made a mistake,
just follow along,
isn't that what tyranny is all about?"
Sheila M---my Praise Band Director

For as long as I shall live
I will testify to love
I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough
Testify to Love

Posted Image


#134 woody000

woody000
  • Islander
  • 1,181 posts

Posted 21 October 2005 - 06:47 AM

Intelligent design should be a footnote in science and then relegated (so to speak) to RE. It's not factually based, however they like to pretend it is. It's religion, belief. Evolution is belief, and that is why it should be taught as a "theory", but it is also factually based and that puts it into the realm of science. Much I've been taught at uni (physics with astronomy) will actually be wrong, science learns and improves its ideas over time, but it still has no relation to religious beliefs, and shouldn't do.

And from a personal point of view I think it cheapens the whole religion of Christianity. It irritates me no end.

This is coming from a Christian, for those of you that don't know.

#135 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 21 October 2005 - 07:30 AM

this is in no way to be taken seriously, but I saw this and thought I should share

http://abstractfacto...esign-that.html

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#136 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 21 October 2005 - 08:19 AM

^ :D
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#137 Grandtheftcow

Grandtheftcow

    Imploder

  • Dead account
  • 532 posts

Posted 21 October 2005 - 09:29 AM

Awesome link Godeskian.

Posted Image


#138 Hawkeye

Hawkeye

    I regret I have but one life to waste infront of videogames.

  • Islander
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 21 October 2005 - 09:46 AM

:lol:
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits, and Are melted into air, into thin air; And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind.

Posted Image

#139 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 23 October 2005 - 11:19 PM

:howling:  :howling:  :howling:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Intelligent Design, Science, Education

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users