How to refute creationists with merely a bucket of feces

[Narvi]

I disapprove of the notion of a god-like being creating the universe because it's such a non-sequitor. It's possible, yes, but so is the idea that everything we do is a computer simulation. It's an inherently wasteful idea.

Oh, and Moonraker, I believe Asimov said this, though I'm paraphrasing a bit.

A thousand years ago people believed that the earth was flat, and now we know it is round, but if you believe and state that the earth is flat, then you are about as wrong as you can be.

 

[Saturos]

I disapprove of the notion of a god-like being creating the universe because it's such a non-sequitor. It's possible, yes, but so is the idea that everything we do is a computer simulation. It's an inherently wasteful idea.

So are you saying that the, "computer simulation" idea is more plausible? :| How can we really tell?

 

[Narvi]

So are you saying that the, "computer simulation" idea is more plausible? :| How can we really tell?

No, I'm saying they are equally possible. There's no proof for either.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

in the end NOBODY knows what went on long ago or where we came from, we theorize and try to make sense of minute clues but we DONT KNOW nither creationist or evolutionist.

Actually, evolution has stack loads of evidence. Not just minute clues. Whereas creationism has no evidence.

I have studied so called "creation science" btw, so I know what I'm talking about. Its complete bolloks and makes a mokery of thousands of years of progress.

 

[Narvi]

Piggy, you should really get Firefox. It has an in-built spell-checker. That would prevent you from making a mokery of yourself.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

I STILL don't get how believing in God and Evolution together is bad.

 

[delusional]

I STILL don't get how believing in God and Evolution together is bad.

It's not. It's the people who define God who have a problem with believing in God and evolution together.

 

[Eejit]

Strangely, the ultra-progressive Catholics don't!

 

[Spoonoop]

Just curious, but if the notion that humans could possibly possess a technological level to possibly claim "god-hood" in like a hundred billion years or so, then why is it so hard to believe that some other entity created the universe in the first place? I don't get it. Is it the intelligent part of the design that's impossible, or is there some beef against the thought of, "a god" or, "God himself"? :| Maybe God's technology is so advanced that he could just simply speak the universe into exsistence you know? It's not that crazy considering that people used to think the world was flat about 600 years ago. Not very long ago really. We are still a very young race with much to learn.

I don't see why it's so hard to believe something is responsible for creating the universe as well. We are a young race and far from knowing everything. When you look at the geologic time scale it is pretty amazing. Earth beeing around for 14 billion years or so, humans only around for like 2 million (might wanna check on that). Civilization only existed for like 10,000 years. And before you know it we will destroy ourselves and life will continue without us, with apes ruling the world once again!

Really, I love science, but tell me... why the f*** do we live on a giant floating sphere?

 

[Rapstah]

Why would we live on anything else than a giant floating sphere?

 

[MJ12]

As long as you're not a fundi I don't have a problem with someone's beliefs

 

[Narvi]

Because atoms tend to accrete into spherical shapes. Next question.

 

[Gray Fox]

Religion isn't so much weather you believe or don't that we were created
it's using those and other made up and unproven ideas, as the basis for
morality, for law, for historical vision, for basically ones whole life.
Thats a very important thing to remember.

It's true we cannot say for certain that we weren't created, and it isn't
even that hard to imagine that we were, but how does that give credence to
the idea of a catholic or budhist god, for all we know we might have been
created by rotten cheese. Our lack of knowledge about a subject doesn't make
it any less rational to make up an explanation.

Concerning Intelligent Design, I know it's creationisms in disguise, but I
do not see what they hope to achieve. Again like others have said, so what if
we were created? What then? Can you say by who? Can you make laws based on
that? Does that say if I'm allowed to steal or rape. And this is assuming we
proved trough scientific methods that we were created, which ID doesn't.
It's still a bad and irresponsible thing to be a religious person.

I say that because you as a human have impact on the people around you, on
what laws are made, how people perceive things. And therefore have a
responsibility to the human race to be honest, to be rational, to take time to
educate yourself, and to have a well founded opinion.

 

[Rapstah]

You really like posting in lyric form. I'd sing your post right now.

 

[[Dragoon]]

...


If someone is elected to represent the will of the people surely his personal beliefs shouldn't figure into it at all if he/she is doing their job correctly no? I mean I might oppose the Death Penalty because I think it cruel, but if the majority of people believe it just, shouldn't I as their representative support their position? Also belief is one thing, acting on those beliefs is an entirely different matter surely? Bill Clinton was a bold faced liar (I did not inhale, I did not have sex ...) and an adulterer when he was in office, but he ran the Country pretty well for two terms so no one really gave a shit what he did on/thought on his own time, even when Ken Starr was trying his damnest to get him impeached. Kennedy as well, the man couldn't help himself when it came to sticking his cock in anything that moved, but he's hailed as a great president. Sure I'd be wary of any man claiming that he is a creationist, but as long as he isn't going to impose those beliefs on society through legal measures I wouldn't worry about it.

Ideally, yes, they would keep their personal and political beliefs separate, but in most cases they don't. Things like banning gay marriage and abortion, teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools, etc are getting far more attention than they really deserve.

(for the record, I'm for gay marriage, no stance on abortion, and the thought of creationism being taught in public schools makes me sad)

 

[Gray Fox]

I post that way because I think my text is easier to read that way.
I have a 1680 resolution, so if I do not do that the words get
stretched and whole paragraphs looks like one long sentence.

Also, lol you actually read my posts.

 

[jverne]

If you're into RPG games, then you should play Star Ocean:Till The End Of Time for the PS2, like, right now.:thumbs: Has a very similar plot/scenario that I think you'll find interesting. Plus, it's one of the better RPG's out there for PS2.

Heh, I never thought about that, but he does say that in TF:the movie.:E My subconscious response perhaps?

damn i don't have a PS? are the emulators any good?

Religion isn't so much weather you believe or don't that we were created
it's using those and other made up and unproven ideas, as the basis for
morality, for law, for historical vision, for basically ones whole life.
Thats a very important thing to remember.

It's true we cannot say for certain that we weren't created, and it isn't
even that hard to imagine that we were, but how does that give credence to
the idea of a catholic or budhist god, for all we know we might have been
created by rotten cheese. Our lack of knowledge about a subject doesn't make
it any less rational to make up an explanation.

Concerning Intelligent Design, I know it's creationisms in disguise, but I
do not see what they hope to achieve. Again like others have said, so what if
we were created? What then? Can you say by who? Can you make laws based on
that? Does that say if I'm allowed to steal or rape. And this is assuming we
proved trough scientific methods that we were created, which ID doesn't.
It's still a bad and irresponsible thing to be a religious person.

I say that because you as a human have impact on the people around you, on
what laws are made, how people perceive things. And therefore have a
responsibility to the human race to be honest, to be rational, to take time to
educate yourself, and to have a well founded opinion.

i like you

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Well if there is such a thing as multiple universes, couldn't an intelligent being make a universe from scratch, using tools and resources from another?

The real question is though is, if this was the case would conservation of energy apply, or is it possible to replicate resources and laws?

 

[Absinthe]

The fundamental question is whether or not belief in an idea is warranted. If there is evidence or reasoning to support a belief.

You can come up with as many hypotheses as you want. Consciousness is a computer simulation, a godlike entity created human evolution, et cetera... What's important is a rationale that justifies accepting them.

 

[Stigmata]

Our lack of knowledge about a subject doesn't make it any less rational to make up an explanation.

Really.

 

[Godron]

I draw a line between bashing Christianity and bashing Christians. Except fundies, natrually. This is because I know how easy it is to believe something completely irrational and stupid. You don't have to be stupid yourself, nearly anyone can do it. Hitler turning all the Germans into Nazis is a good example. Most things that we believe, we believe because they make us feel good, because they're familiar or because it's our own idea, or whatever. To side with the logical option when there are others which feel so much better takes guts. The reason I became an atheist was because I saw loads of bad stuff happening because of religion, and so I focused on it, ignoring all the good stuff. God had never really meant much to me, so it wasn't difficult. I found it very satisfying to be cynical back then, so I stuck with it.
I know a lot of people here have turned because they saw how illogical religion is. These are mostly people who didn't draw happiness from religion, but had stuck with it despite their doubts. Most seasoned believers associate God with everything good and beautiful in the world, for them, to deny God would be to deny hope and... I dunno, general goodness.

I think there was other stuff I was going to say, but I can hardly even think right now, on accound of it being midnight.

 

[Stigmata]

I don't "bash" Christians, but I tend to let them know when they start going off about some belief or opinion that has no logical merit whatsoever. It just so happens that Christians believe in a whole lot of shit that makes no sense.

 

[Kadayi]

In my country we have state funded Christianity with the queen as the head of the church for which the funding comes straight out of my taxes. We also have christian based religious programs shown on the BBC every Sunday funded once again from my own pocket via the TV licence fee. Although the anglican church is a relatively benign for of christianity compared to whats prevalent in the US I still think i have a right to complain

Weird your details suggest you live in the UK, but your post suggests you live in a very different UK from the one I live in. In the UK I reside in the Queen is the Head of State and amongst her many roles she is supreme governor of the Church of England, but in no way is she paid by the state specifically for that role. Likewise the BBC I know certainly does broadcast religious programs, but it broadcasts religious programs for a range of beliefs and cultures, throughout it's various channels & radio stations. I have to say though in my experience I don't find the number of religious shows particularly intrusive, especially given the wide range of alternative programming that is available.

And complaining about Dawkins bothering only with Christianity is silly. He's focusing on the big fish. I haven't seen his arguments, but never have I heard that he puts the problems of Christianity down to it exclusively. Besides which his intention appears to be not to change the minds of the extremists, but to present his arguments before the moderates, and eventually have atheism gain acceptance as a valid option, instead of the socially stigmatic one it is currently.

If he went to Saudi Arabia he'd just get shot and burned and killed, and people there would be happy about it.

And it's not a socially viable option to actually admit to atheism. You could say that you are an agnostic and "just confused about it" and get away with it, but if you say that you're an atheist, people get offended.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but in the UK hardly anyone gives much of a shit whether your religious or not. The only reason anyone here would care what you believe in is to establish whether it's acceptable to serve you Pork/seafood or not if you were coming around for dinner. There is no stigma relating to Atheism here. Sure there are Christians (a few of my friends are), but they aren't exactly in your face with it, and certainly not the fundamentalist creationist types you find in the states. I've suffered more grief for being 'a filthy murdering meat eater' from pro-active Vegans (I kid you not on that one) than people wailing on my lack of religion beliefs (Note: never go out with a Vegan unless your a Vegan also). Dawkins beating the drum about atheism here in the UK, where religious conviction isn't remotely strong is akin to going to a dinner party and after a fabulous evening of being wined & dined, making an overt pass at the hosts wife at the table, it's vulgar, unnecessary & just plain bad form tbh.

Anyhows I don't want to get dragged off into a Dawkins bashing debate (it only riles up his supporters). I think it's fair to say that people should be entitled to believe whatever they wish to believe, if it provides them with emotional/moral succor to see out their days however outlandish their beliefs (that includes you Tom Cruise). Where I draw the line is when they aggressively foist their beliefs upon others (including the idea of atheism), through fear or indoctrination. In my view creationists are complete wack jobs, but unless they actually start dismantling the entire education system and wholesale throw out the sciences in favour of intelligent design, let them have their Museums I say. Schools should be state funded and independent of any religious or political control, if they are not then there in lies the real problem that needs addressing.

Ideally, yes, they would keep their personal and political beliefs separate, but in most cases they don't. Things like banning gay marriage and abortion, teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools, etc are getting far more attention than they really deserve.

Well to put it simply if a politician isn't going to represent the public, don't vote him or her in, in fact if you know they aren't likely to carry out your wishes, vote for the opposition, but make it abundantly clear to both why you did. It will make both sides far more likely actually listen to you in future.