Here we go again. Another presumably smart person lashing out, getting together with a bunch of other presumably smart people, all who feel threatened because their primitive superstitious beliefs make them look increasingly like fucking morons rather than...well..."presumably smart people." So, they're going to try to poke a hole or two in Natural Selection, which is then somehow, magically, supposed to make your imaginary friend more real. Either they are fucking morons, or they surely think you are.
Just deal with it (reality) and stop the silly nonsense in dressing up non-science with a nice pink ribbon. Religion is a pig when seen as anything other than fantasy. As fantasy, go ahead and knock yourselves out.
Jesus.
Later: And just to make it clear, the premise of the film, that you can't question Darwinism is a load of bullshit, not to mention a big fat lie. Real scientists are out questioning Darwin's hypothesis every single day. That's how science is done: you form a hypothesis that's falsifiable in the sense that it's formed in a way that allows it to be tested, so that if false, you can actually prove it false, and if true, you can't; in spite of your best efforts. "God" doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis because there is no possible scientific test that could count against it ("well, god just created the Universe that way..." -- see?).
I watch something on Discovery or Science or National Geographic virtually everyday that has real scientists questioning and testing Darwin's hypothesis, trying to prove it wrong. Nobody even comes close, and that is science. It is not the process of trying to confirm, which is precisely how science has gone so awry in fields like nutrition. It is the continual, never-ending process of trying to falsify, and either doing so and moving on, or coming up short, which is what lends more and more credence to the hypothesis, but never complete certainty in a scientific context, i.e., as a discipline of logical procedure.
You might also like
- Laf Laf Laf Laf Laf
-
Did Neanderthals Hunt & Rape Homo Sapiens?
- Thought Exercise
- “Darwin, Evolution and the Paleo Life”
- Confirming a Bias
Please spread the word
You're entitled to your beliefs, but you can no more prove them than I can prove mine. What are mine? Well, I'm a devout Catholic — an adult convert, at that. I also have an IQ over 200 and a Ph.D. in Physics. Unless you're Stephen Hawking, I could probably smoke you at any contest of the intellect. So have a care about your flip dismissals of other people's beliefs. They make you sound contemptuous, not smart — especially given the unprovability of your religion.
Yes, atheism is a religion. It's a doctrine about the supernatural, held without any proof of its veracity. Think about that for a while. It might improve your manners.
"You're entitled to your beliefs, but you can no more prove them than I can prove mine…."
…and then goes on to say…
"I also have an IQ over 200 and a Ph.D. in Physics. Unless you're Stephen Hawking, I could probably smoke you at any contest of the intellect."
Well, I'd never make a blunder that stupid.
I have nothing whatsoever to prove. Hey Francis, does an atheist of Zeus have anything to prove? How about Poseidon?
As far as your Catholicism goes, have at it. I get the value of the church to you and millions of others. Really do. I also get the value of all sorts of organizations and societies to their members.
But we ought to strive to keep it real. I wonder: does the Catholic Church really need a literal personal God, do you think? If so, that really speaks poorly of it, since you must admit that million of members really only participate out of fear, fear the church is more than happy to capitalize upon.
Anyway, I do respect people who can still manage to come and read my stuff even when I can be so ill mannered.
I've lost a lot of respect for Stein lately. He appears to have had a minor stroke recently, thought I don't recall hearing anything about it in the news. That, of course, wouldn't in itself change my respect for him, but he's seemed to change since then, and this is just one aspect of it. For instance, he was on Cavuto last week bashing rich people and proposing higher taxes.
And Fran, I've always enjoyed your writing, and even found benefit in your discussions of religion and the church despite my disagreement with the premises they are based on. But your view of atheism is not among your most redeeming qualities.
And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your IQ braggadocio was more about demonstrating that your beliefs are not idly nor ignorantly arrived at – which I do believe they are not – than about arguing for the authority of your unassailable intellect.
Call it Christian charity.
"Yes, atheism is a religion."
For such a smart guy, Francis, that's a really dumb thing to say. The plain logic of it ought to be embarrassing to any religious believer.
It's tantamount — though not precisely parallel — to claiming that an "anarchist" is someone who believes there is no such thing as the state, rather than one who believes there ought not be and/or that it's unnecessary, logically unsupportable, etc.
The reason it's not parallel is because there's nothing wrong with the "strong atheist" position that there is no god. …Not anymore than there is in stating that there is no Zeus, Poseidon, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, unicorn, or other fantastical assertion.
The god fantasy, in spite of all its billions of adherents, is an arbitrary assertion without a shred of objective, verifiable evidence, and proper epistemology for human beings, who hold all knowledge conceptually, is to reject the non-conceptual (non-knowledge) out of hand.
And Francis, you do understand that IQ, to the extent it's valid, is merely a measure of capacity. Do you suppose there have ever lived savages in jungles with very high IQs, yet lived ignorant lives from the standpoint of modern culture, science, and civilization?
The comparison that I see with the anarchy debate is in those who insist that anarchists are out to "impose" something on those who're busy imposing their government on us. It's hard to think of anything more cynical or dishonest than that. It's a very petulant sort of psychological projection.
What amazes me about the "atheism is religion" fraud, plainly put, is in how it equates something of enormous value to the religious with something of no value at all to them. This, of course, despite every fact at hand.
I should be ashamed to attempt something like that.
No doubt about it, B: that's a much better comparison than what I came up with.
"You're entitled to your beliefs, but you can no more prove them than I can prove mine."
- For a PhD, the author of this quote couldn't manage to read the post! The point is there is far more support and ability to test evolution than there is to support ID. For a reasonable person, proof is supported through testing.
The problem of ID is that adherents can not admit the possibility that they do not understand everything that happens. Where most scientists would attempt to form a new hypothesis and test against it to advance it to theory. With ID, you have to stop forming hypothesis and testing in order for your argument to stand. Any further testing and promotion and knowledge gained pushes ID one step beyond the reach of science.
How someone could get a PhD in Physics and believe in such chicanery is beyond me. The same process used to test evolution is the same to test physics. Physics of any sort relies on basic assumptions derived from – scientific theory which was derived from a tested hypothesis and so on. Mathematics are based largely on observations that required testing. How do we test ID? We don't. We can test claims the ID groups pose but it is a waste of resources testing something providing no basis for advancing our own knowledge.
When I was a Boy Scout, we always used to go out on camping trips. One of the more fun activities we had was a "snipe hunt" where we went hunting for snipe birds in the bushes. It was fun. And every once in a while, one of us would catch one. After my first one I had several questions about the snipe bird. It was a joke played on the young ones. The supposed snipe was actually a bunch of socks that was dropped into the pillow sack as the bag holder moved ahead of everyone and jumped into a bush. He would jump up and beat the bag with a stick wildly while the "bird" was "thrashing" around.
So after the trip I went and looked it up. To my surprise, there were no snipe birds in Iowa, no one in the midwest hunts them and it began to all make sense. It was something to do with a basic possibility of truth as long as you didn't question it (or look in the pillow sack).
ID is nothing more than an elaborate snipe hunt where all the players are required to not question the assertion, rather it only requires that you believe the bird is in the bag….
I'd go on about left-handed smoke shifters but I think you get the point.