Penn & Teller on Creationism

[Kadayi]

There is no such thing as a moderate or "fundamentalist" atheist. There are only atheists and theists, gnostic and agnostics. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. I doubt that anyone here claims to be a gnostic atheist.

I think what you refer to are active and passive atheists.

I like the way in which you try and tell me what I am, good call on proving yourself wrong there. Where you aggressively force your opinions upon others, whether you are a Muslim, a Christian or an Atheist is fundamentalist behaviour. :dozey:

 

[{tDP}ferrari]

hey I Believe in evolution and that humans, animals, even plants evolve.. But I also believe God created the Universe.. people need to use science and religion..

 

[No Limit]

hey I Believe in evolution and that humans, animals, even plants evolve.. But I also believe God created the Universe.. people need to use science and religion..

There we go, you totally changed my opinion on the matter. You didn't have to explain why you believe what you believe, all you had to do was state it.

 

[delusional]

There we go, you totally changed my opinion on the matter. You didn't have to explain why you believe what you believe, all you had to do was state it.

he convinced me. ;(

 

[theotherguy]

I like the way in which you try and tell me what I am, good call on proving yourself wrong there. Where you aggressively force your opinions upon others, whether you are a Muslim, a Christian or an Atheist is fundamentalist behaviour. :dozey:

Nonsense. A fundamentalist is specifically defined as someone who believes religion should have a fundamental importance in society, not whether or not they force their beliefs on others. Do fundamentalists tend to do this? Yes, but I wouldn't call someone who forces their beliefs on others a "fundamentalist", because that doesn't make any sense. An atheist is the polar opposite of a "fundamentalist" because atheists do not want religion in society.

And in any case, do you feel it is better to have religious debate, or to have "respect" for all other beliefs, in spite of their insanity or extremism?

If I see a belief that I feel to be stupid, I will point it out. Just because an opinion is religious or spiritual in nature doesn't give it some magical immunity to criticism and ridicule. A religious opinion, like any opinion, is open to debate, and I have no obligation to keep quiet about opinions, whether political or religious, which I find to be illogical or baseless.

 

[bbson john]

Another fun video posted before.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[Kyorisu]

There we go, you totally changed my opinion on the matter. You didn't have to explain why you believe what you believe, all you had to do was state it.

I believe this topic isn't going anywhere too quickly.

 

[xcellerate]

World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

see...that stuff obviously explains we were created by God.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

see...that stuff obviously explains we were created by God.

Silly creationists, think they've actually got somewhere!

 

[bbson john]

see...that stuff obviously explains we were created by God.

First of all, let us assume that the evidences there are indeed truthful. That proves that there is mar on big-bang and evolution Science. This doesn't "prove" that creationism is correct. For example, when you and I are doing Maths, you can see my answer is incorrect, but that doesn't mean you are correct. Proving others incorrectness doesn't prove oneself correct.
If we find flaws in present Science, we cannot just replace it with creationism. There are several flaws in Evolution and big-bang Science, however, there are billions flaws in creationism. Replacing a blemished vase with a broken chip of china just won't work.

But are there really such flaw in big-bang/evolution?

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199505-10/1289.html

btw, why would people believe Dr. Thomas Barnes, a guy that is 150 years ago? But that time, their equipment is not inadequate to conduct precise geological observation like this. There is no way a 150 year-old theory can disprove the new one.


p.s. Don't think I don't know you are being sarcasm.

 

[Kadayi]

Nonsense. A fundamentalist is specifically defined as someone who believes religion should have a fundamental importance in society, not whether or not they force their beliefs on others. Do fundamentalists tend to do this? Yes, but I wouldn't call someone who forces their beliefs on others a "fundamentalist", because that doesn't make any sense. An atheist is the polar opposite of a "fundamentalist" because atheists do not want religion in society.

Were you born retarded or did you parents just drop you a lot? 'Nonsense' is you telling me what I am not, what part of that didn't you quite understand SfB? If I class myself as a moderate Atheist, guess what? I am a moderate Atheist.

As for fundamentalism, try looking it up in the dictionary before you open your yap to espouse an opinion in future, as to what something is or isn't:-

Fundamentalism:- A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

There is no separation between definition & behaviour, and the term isn't exclusive to religion alone. Would The Dawkins fit the profile of a Fundamentalist? Damn right he does. He has a fixed view point (God doesn't exist) and no tolerance for others who think otherwise, and he actively challenges them at every given opportunity.

And in any case, do you feel it is better to have religious debate, or to have "respect" for all other beliefs, in spite of their insanity or extremism?

Unless their beliefs directly impact upon your day to day existence in some negative manner what right do you have, and under whose authority to question them?

If I see a belief that I feel to be stupid, I will point it out. Just because an opinion is religious or spiritual in nature doesn't give it some magical immunity to criticism and ridicule. A religious opinion, like any opinion, is open to debate, and I have no obligation to keep quiet about opinions, whether political or religious, which I find to be illogical or baseless.

Then when it comes to the subject of religion you are by definition a Fundamentalist Atheist, by your own admission. Case closed, proceed directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200. :dozey:

 

[[Matt]]

Well, "hardline" atheist would be a far better term. Atheism has one fundamental belief, and that is that there is no god. So technically every atheist is a fundamentalist.

So yeah, hardline would be better.

Atheists that are 100% certain of gods non existence are a rare breed indeed even amongst atheists. If you ask an atheist the question of whether they believe in god most will say 'probably not' simply because we're an open minded bunch.

 

[[Matt]]

Damn right he does. He has a fixed view point (God doesn't exist) and no tolerance for others who think otherwise, and he actively challenges them at every given opportunity.

You've obviously not read the god delusion :/

 

[Tyguy]

If you ask an atheist the question of whether they believe in god most will say 'probably not' simply because we're an open minded bunch.

Thats agnosticism...the belief that god probably doesn't exist but they can say for sure. I like to think of atheism as a person who gets more sleep on sundays though, not as someone who "doesnt believe in god". Going back to what I said earlier, there isnt a word for someone who doesnt believe in zeus....

When you think about it, everyone is an atheist...if you are catholic, you are atheist towards islam, and vice versa. So what if you believe in 1 less god?

Religion has tried relentlessly to re-define the word into something negative, whereas the word simply means "rational"

 

[theotherguy]

Thats agnosticism...the belief that god probably doesn't exist but they can say for sure. I like to think of atheism as a person who gets more sleep on sundays though, not as someone who "doesnt believe in god". Going back to what I said earlier, there isnt a word for someone who doesnt believe in zeus....

When you think about it, everyone is an atheist...if you are catholic, you are atheist towards islam, and vice versa. So what if you believe in 1 less god?

Religion has tried relentlessly to re-define the word into something negative, whereas the word simply means "rational"

No. Agnosticism is lacking knowledge of a God or believing that attaining such knowledge is impossible. An agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist. Theism refers to belief, and agnosticism refers to knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive.

Agnostic Atheist (strong)-"It is impossible to know whether god X exists, therefore there can never be any reason to believe in god X."

Agnostic Atheist (weak)- "I don't have enough evidence to say that god X exists, so I see no reason to believe in god X"

Gnostic Atheist- "I have evidence Y proving god X does not exist, so I see no reason to believe in god X"

Agnostic Theist (weak)- "I don't have enough evidence to say that god X exists, but I believe that god X exists anyway"

Agnostic Theist (strong)- "There will never be any evidence for or against god X, but I believe that god X exists anyway"

Gnostic Theist- "I have evidence Y proving god X exists, therefore I believe in god X."

 

[theotherguy]

Fundamentalism:- A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

That is the exact definition I gave. Notice the highlighted part. That does not fit an atheist of any strength at all.

There is no separation between definition & behaviour, and the term isn't exclusive to religion alone. Would The Dawkins fit the profile of a Fundamentalist? Damn right he does. He has a fixed view point (God doesn't exist) and no tolerance for others who think otherwise, and he actively challenges them at every given opportunity.

Yes, it is an exclusively religious term, in the same way 'Marxist' is a philosophical and religious term, but not a culinary term. If Dawkins were citing some holy book and saying that the country should be run by these religious principles, the he would be a fundamentalist. He isn't.

Unless their beliefs directly impact upon your day to day existence in some negative manner what right do you have, and under whose authority to question them?

I have every authority to question all opinions. Everybody does. It doesn't matter what they are. I don't have to give one cent of respect to anyone who believes in a magical sky man any more than I have to give one cent of respect to someone who believes the Earth is flat or that homosexuality is evil or that political policy x is the best policy for the nation. If someone has an opinion, and I have reason and evidence to dispute it, there is nothing preventing me from pointing out the flaws in their logic and the evidence supporting my own. This is the basis of free speech and free thought.

 

[Eejit]

Fundamentalism:- A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

That is the exact definition I gave. Notice the highlighted part. That does not fit an atheist of any strength at all.

You highlighted the wrong part.

 

[Kadayi]

You highlighted the wrong part.

LOL. Rabid fundamentalism got in the way of his thinking there.

I have every authority to question all opinions. Everybody does. It doesn't matter what they are. I don't have to give one cent of respect to anyone who believes in a magical sky man any more than I have to give one cent of respect to someone who believes the Earth is flat or that homosexuality is evil or that political policy x is the best policy for the nation. If someone has an opinion, and I have reason and evidence to dispute it, there is nothing preventing me from pointing out the flaws in their logic and the evidence supporting my own. This is the basis of free speech and free thought.

And exactly how often do people come to this forum to actually promote their religious beliefs? I've seen a lot of Fundamentalist Atheists posting articles/posts throughout the years putting down religions of various kinds (some intelligent, some downright spurious), but can't say I've seen many people coming on to promote their beliefs. It's one thing to question people when they invite debate, it's entirely another to endlessly attack them in their absence like gossips at a knitting circle, or yobbishy jeer them (generally in an uninformed manner) when their supporters attempt to defend their beliefs. I think one of the most telling things in all that you said was arguing about your 'right to ridicule'. Where do you draw the line on that one? What's acceptable? You talk about rights & freedom, what about peoples right to be left alone and allowed to do as they please in peace? I mean if you're not religious, why should it honestly matter to you what others care to believe in in all? Unless they foist their beliefs on you directly it shouldn't matter at all. :dozey:

 

[CptStern]

And exactly how often do people come to this forum to actually promote their religious beliefs? I've seen a lot of Fundamentalist Atheists posting articles/posts throughout the years putting down religions of various kinds (some intelligent, some downright spurious), but can't say I've seen many people coming on to promote their beliefs.

I'll own up to the spurious kind with a smattering of intelligent posts here and there :E ..I fully and unequivocally blame religion for making itself a target of ridicule. If there wasnt anything to laugh at we wouldnt be laughing

that said I dont agree there's a "Fundamentalist Atheist" group within our midst because as you point out:

(I) can't say I've seen many people coming on to promote their beliefs

but also because I dont believe there's such a thing as a "Fundamentalist Atheist". I think some people may be vehemently opposed to religion (due in part to the first part of my (this) post) and they may promote their non-believing in religion views, they may even make it their point to fight religion politically or otherwise ..but to label something that is tradionally a religious label is being disingenous at best. There is no atheist handbook of moral conduct, no philosophy (besides the disbelief of religion), no commonality amongst "practioners of not-believing" except disbelief. And I come back full circle when I reiterate that I completely reject the title/label of atheist for the reasons stated above ..it really should be a non issue

 

[Tyguy]

No. Agnosticism is lacking knowledge of a God or believing that attaining such knowledge is impossible.

Same thing

 

[Pesmerga]

To be fair, Penn and Teller don't make a very compelling argument for evolution. I mean, just hearing them talk from a non-biased point of view, I could see how a Christian listening to them could hear Penn and Teller like we normies hear creationists. They do a lot of talking but they don't really bring up any scientific evidence, which there is boat loads of.

The best fight against creationism is to just teach proper biology. In a few generations time, the Christians will lose much of their creationist strength.

 

[Nemesis6]

Yeah, you're right - They don't go into detail, but I really don't think they need to, since it's been done a thousand times over, and after all - This is to inform people about creationism as an ideology, not to convince the ones practicing it I think. Yep, they actually focused more on what the followers of the ideology are doing, but as it has been brilliantly put: The best way to judge a religion is by the actions of its followers, and that's what it focuses on.

 

[Tyguy]

To be fair, Penn and Teller don't make a very compelling argument for evolution. I mean, just hearing them talk from a non-biased point of view, I could see how a Christian listening to them could hear Penn and Teller like we normies hear creationists. They do a lot of talking but they don't really bring up any scientific evidence, which there is boat loads of.

The best fight against creationism is to just teach proper biology. In a few generations time, the Christians will lose much of their creationist strength.

We all know what happenes when you try and scientifically proves a creationist wrong. Instead of making their show a biology lesson (and less entertaining) they just use logic, which id have to say is the better option.

then again, logic and evidence isn't something in a creationists vocabulary

 

[CptStern]

Penn and Teller are not journalists, even though they pretend to be or at least pretend to have the same credibility ..they dont ..they often use the most basic of ad hominim attacks to put across points that are speculatative at best ...that being said it doesnt take a heck of lot to disprove idiotic fairy tales

 

[Kadayi]

but also because I dont believe there's such a thing as a "Fundamentalist Atheist". I think some people may be vehemently opposed to religion (due in part to the first part of my (this) post) and they may promote their non-believing in religion views, they may even make it their point to fight religion politically or otherwise ..but to label something that is tradionally a religious label is being disingenuous at best. There is no atheist handbook of moral conduct, no philosophy (besides the disbelief of religion), no commonality amongst "practioners of not-believing" except disbelief. And I come back full circle when I reiterate that I completely reject the title/label of atheist for the reasons stated above ..it really should be a non issue

Hardline is no different than fundamentalism tbh Stern, there is nothing disingenuous about that. Sure there might not be a 'Church of Atheism', but there's a wealth of literature out there on the subject for those who care to look and make it their passion in life, it's hardly a fringe subject.

 

[CptStern]

page one of Atheist handbook

"there is no god"

the end

 

[theotherguy]

Hardline is no different than fundamentalism tbh Stern, there is nothing disingenuous about that. Sure there might not be a 'Church of Atheism', but there's a wealth of literature out there on the subject for those who care to look and make it their passion in life, it's hardly a fringe subject.

There is a difference.

Would you call someone who supports and promotes a political ideology a fundamentalist?

How about a baseball fan?

Someone who has any kind of opinion at all, say, they dislike broccoli, and when they see someone else eating it, scold them?

Your definition of fundamentalism is ludicrous because it can be applied to anything, when it is clearly and obviously intended to be a religious term dealing with people who promote religious doctrine and belief.

Calling atheists "fundamentalists" is nothing but a topical attempt to debase our views. It is much the same as calling a Zionist a Nazi, or calling a socialist an anarchist. The labels are exactly opposite, and while you might have the schema "mean and partisan" attached to "fundamentalist", your schema is itself completely false. Call us "radical atheists" or "the new atheists" or "rabid atheists" all you like, but "fundamentalist" is a label which I simply cannot swallow.

 

[Kadayi]

Your definition of fundamentalism is ludicrous because it can be applied to anything, when it is clearly and obviously intended to be a religious term dealing with people who promote religious doctrine and belief.

Calling atheists "fundamentalists" is nothing but a topical attempt to debase our views. It is much the same as calling a Zionist a Nazi, or calling a socialist an anarchist. The labels are exactly opposite, and while you might have the schema "mean and partisan" attached to "fundamentalist", your schema is itself completely false. Call us "radical atheists" or "the new atheists" or "rabid atheists" all you like, but "fundamentalist" is a label which I simply cannot swallow.

Don't like it? Well take it up with dictionary.com, and the OED and lodge your disapproval with them. I'd waste time pointing out the distinct differences between anarchists and socialists, or Zionists & Nazis, but frankly I'm past caring and you're clearly past your bed time. Boo hoo hoo :dozey:

 

[theotherguy]

Don't like it? Well take it up with dictionary.com, and the OED and lodge your disapproval with them. I'd waste time pointing out the distinct differences between anarchists and socialists, or Zionists & Nazis, but frankly I'm past caring and you're clearly past your bed time. Boo hoo hoo :dozey:

Putting a :dozey: doesn't make you right, it just makes you more of an asshole.

Dictionary.com and the OED's definitions support mine, not yours.

 

[theotherguy]

Fundamentalism:- A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Let's go through this definition and point out precisely why I am not a fundamentalist.

A usually religious movement

While Atheism can be characterized as "religious" in nature, it is not a religion.

point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles

There we go, that is the key there. That is why it is called "fundamentalism" in the first place. It's talking about a return to those principles which once defined society in the past. In other words, fundamentalists support a return to religious authority and theocracy. Atheists support no such position.

by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

"Those principles" refers to the fundamental religious principles (ie. the Bible, or the Koran) which once defined society. There are no "fundamental atheist principles" which once ruled society. Atheism is a movement marked by radicalism, not fundamentalism.

"intolerance of other views" refers to intolerance, specifically, to views that run counter to those "fundamental principles". These are principles that atheists do not adhere to.

"opposition to secularism" basically sums up the fundamentalist movement, which seeks to remove all traces of non-religious authority from society.

Does any atheist fit this definition? Absolutely not!

 

[Kadayi]

*yawns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#Atheistic_fundamentalism

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?Fundamentalist

Feel free to debase yourself further :dozey:

 

[jverne]

*yawns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#Atheistic_fundamentalism

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?Fundamentalist

Feel free to debase yourself further :dozey:

you ****ing stupid or something?

it doesn't really matter what some people describe it.

how can you be a fundamentalist atheist? atheists don't have any predefined rules or scripture. atheism is not believing in religion/gods.

like i already mentioned:

in average it would be incomparably better living together with a (like you say) "fundamentalist" atheist than living with a religious fundamentalist.

 

[Mr Stabby]

obnoxious atheist is a far better term than fundamentalist atheist.

 

[Kadayi]

you ****ing stupid or something?

No, I'm literate, what's your excuse? :dozey:

it doesn't really matter what some people describe it.

Then get over it. :dozey:

obnoxious atheist is a far better term than fundamentalist atheist.

Your probably right on that score.

 

[Jintor]

page one of Atheist handbook

"there is no god"

the end

I think Kadayi said this earlier in the thread (might have been someone else) but which God? Are Christians also Athiests because they don't believe in God?

Before Kadayi attacks me for posting another short question, let me state I just want to know the answer, OK?

 

[Solaris]

Kadyi is making an utter fool of himself here.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God.

To be a fundamentalist, you need fundamental principles to subscribe too. It's very possible to be an atheist and HAVE NO principles, at all. Thus, not a fundamentalist. A quote from the archbishop doesnt help your argument at all btw.

 

[Gray Fox]

Kadyi is making an utter fool of himself here.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God.

To be a fundamentalist, you need fundamental principles to subscribe too. It's very possible to be an atheist and HAVE NO principles, at all. Thus, not a fundamentalist. A quote from the archbishop doesnt help your argument at all btw.

Don't be such a dick. How many times have people harassed you for your ideas, you should know better.

 

[Kadayi]

Solaris

I think I already covered the dictionary definitions and cultural precedents that support my position already (Fundamentalist and fundamentalism are as terms, used far more widely than you 'radicals' purport), unless there's been some kind of Star Trek style time fluctuation/reality shift in between then (yesterday) and now, you're pissing in the wind with your hysteric protestations to the contrary. You desperately wanting me to be wrong (honestly, why does it matter so much), does not equate to me actually being wrong, no matter how bullish your behaviour or shill you raise your voices. It's a simple concept and when you grasp it and accept it, you'll be a better person for it. I don't enter a debate or question something someone has written unless I know the subject, and I don't use words blithely as a rule. :dozey:

 

[Solaris]

Solaris

I think I already covered the dictionary definitions and cultural precedents that support my position already (Fundamentalist and fundamentalism are as terms, used far more widely than you 'radicals' purport), unless there's been some kind of Star Trek style time fluctuation/reality shift in between then (yesterday) and now, you're pissing in the wind with your hysteric protestations to the contrary. You desperately wanting me to be wrong (honestly, why does it matter so much), does not equate to me actually being wrong, no matter how bullish your behaviour or shill you raise your voices. It's a simple concept and when you grasp it and accept it, you'll be a better person for it. I don't enter a debate or question something someone has written unless I know the subject, and I don't use words blithely as a rule. :dozey:

That passage is totally devoid of argument there.

I'll restate, the OED states you need to advocate the return to fundamental principles to be a fundamentalist.
Tell me, what principle do all atheist fundamentalists have in common.

 

[Tyguy]

Tell me, what principle do all atheist fundamentalists have in common.

LOGIC