Boston Marathon explosions......

[Siro]

I find the assumption behind that statement as really ignorant. The majority of God believers love real science. There are a ton of Christian scientists. Colton simultaneously has faith in the Joseph Smith vision and teaches physics. 2 of my gynos were Christian women. Even God-believing me enjoys learning about interesting or useful real scientific discoveries. I simply hate "scientism"/consensus "science"/Darwinism and the like for its corruption of real science.

I actually find you and I share many common interests.

Why eliminate identifying with your fellow human beings simply because they believe in God?

Colton also accepts evolution as the correct explanation for the diversity of life that we see today, given the overwhelming evidence. You however, pick and choose what "real" science is, even though you barely know a thing about science, on the basis of how well it fits with your childhood-acquired ideology. So no, there was nothing ignorant about his statement.

 

[PearlWatson]

Colton also accepts evolution as the correct explanation for the diversity of life that we see today, given the overwhelming evidence. You however, pick and choose what "real" science is, even though you barely know a thing about science, on the basis of how well it fits with your childhood-acquired ideology. So no, there was nothing ignorant about his statement.

I don't know if that is the case. I've heard him express a belief in a God-driven common ancestry, which is part of ID theory, but none of that matters since he was simply a current example of a God-believing scientist. There are plenty of others.

Yes, I pick out the real science from the fake science.

I was actually perfectly happy "accepting" Darwin's theory up until 5 years ago when I delved more into it and learned that it was disproved and the only thing remaining was Atheist driven dogma.

 

[Siro]

I don't know if that is the case. I've heard him express a belief in a God-driven common ancestry, which is part of ID theory, but none of that matters since he was simply a current example of a God-believing scientist. There are plenty of others.

Yes, I pick out the real science from the fake science.

I was actually perfectly happy "accepting" Darwin's theory up until 5 years ago when I delved more into it and learned that it was disproved and the only thing remaining was Atheist driven dogma.

There is a difference between someone choosing to believe some kind of divine plan driving evolution, and complete denialism, which you fall into. And since the last time we discussed the subject you kept talking about "Darwinism" and "scientism" and how all the theories you don't like are conspiracies to steal your money, I have serious doubts that any of it is based on even a rudimentary analysis of actual evidence.

 

[PearlWatson]

There is a difference between someone choosing to believe some kind of divine plan driving evolution, and complete denialism, which you fall into. And since the last time we discussed the subject you kept talking about "Darwinism" and "scientism" and how all the theories you don't like are conspiracies to steal your money, I have serious doubts that any of it is based on even a rudimentary analysis of actual evidence.

Bolded: Complete denialism of what? I vaguely remember saying I don't have to choose between uncommon ancestry and intelligence driven common ancestry to reject Darwin's theory.
Underlined: don't know what you are talking about.

Am I supposed to care about your doubts?

 

[MVP]

I was actually perfectly happy "accepting" Darwin's theory up until 5 years ago when I delved more into it and learned that it was disproved

I would be interested to find out how it was disproved and by who?

 

[One Brow]

I'm trying to avoid this thread nowadays but very clear appeal to authority man :/

Yes, it is. I appeal to physicists on physics questions, to biologists on biology questions, and to philosophers on philosophy questions. Do you think that is an error?

 

[One Brow]

Claim: There is no God.
Fact: Some people recognize there is a God.

Unless you care to demonstrate the error of the fact that some people recognize there is a God, your claim is disproved.

Fun fun fun.

Yes, indeed. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss different spheres of knowledge.

Moral value systems are, essentially, formal constructs, built from a few basic principles using logic. Thus, any demonstration of how to construct one is sufficient to show one exists. In particular, to demonstrate than an atheist can have objective value, one need only start with a few positions consistent with ateism and construct an objective value system from them.

Existence claims are based on what is discovered, not constructed. If you claim there are snakes living in a specific holes, you would be expected to provide evidence particular to snakes (scat, track marks, etc.). If you claim there are fairies living in that hole, you would be expected to provide evidence for fairies. Evidence for snakes is commonplace, evidence for fairies (or God) is non-existent.

 

[One Brow]

Every single sex education curriculum teaches abstinence, including that abstinence is safest. Every. Single. One. Some also teach the usage of condoms, for teens that are unwilling to wait. Using a condom is much safer than not using one.

I mean this claim alone demonstrates what religious people have to deal with when we come up against the Liberals who run and teach in our schools.

You disagree with the bolded part? You don't think abstinence is the safest course?

 

[One Brow]

I find the assumption behind that statement as really ignorant. The majority of God believers love real science.

You only bolded half the relevant clause.

"the people who accept science/evidence because there is nothing better".

There are a ton of Christian scientists. Colton simultaneously has faith in the Joseph Smith vision and teaches physics.

I have a great deal of respect for colton in many areas, but when he finds discord between science and his faith, colton regularly chooses his faith, and adapts his understanding of the science in accord with that. With regard to physics, I don't think that's ever really an issue. For example, even thought there is no good archaeological evidence for the cities of the Book of Mormon, despite extensive searching, typically colton will respond that the evidence has just not surfaced, or been covered over by other activity.

I simply hate "scientism"/consensus "science"/Darwinism and the like for its corruption of real science.

Yet, when attempting to support your position, you turn to people who corrupted the science themselves as "Darwinists".

Why eliminate identifying with your fellow human beings simply because they believe in God?

I was talking about which atheists I hang out with (as in, not all of them), not which non-atheists.

 

[One Brow]

I was actually perfectly happy "accepting" Darwin's theory up until 5 years ago when I delved more into it and learned that it was disproved and the only thing remaining was Atheist driven dogma.

Disproven? By whom, and how?

 

[PearlWatson]

You only bolded half the relevant clause.

"the people who accept science/evidence because there is nothing better".

I actually bolded the relevant part to make my point, but I do have a problem with 2 other assumptions you make.

1-That Christians or other God believers don't accept science. (Even that term makes the different fields of science sound too homogenized.)
2-That the Darwiniac Dogma is science.
3-That what you accept as "evidence" for your dogma is somehow better than the "evidence" someone else accepts for their dogma.

I have a great deal of respect for colton in many areas, but when he finds discord between science and his faith, colton regularly chooses his faith, and adapts his understanding of the science in accord with that. With regard to physics, I don't think that's ever really an issue. For example, even thought there is no good archaeological evidence for the cities of the Book of Mormon, despite extensive searching, typically colton will respond that the evidence has just not surfaced, or been covered over by other activity.

What you say about Colton applies to you and other Darwiniacs, especially the bolded parts.

Yet, when attempting to support your position, you turn to people who corrupted the science themselves as "Darwinists".

I don't understand what you are trying to say with this.

[I was talking about which atheists I hang out with (as in, not all of them), not which non-atheists.[/QUOTE]

My question involved "identifying with" not "hanging out with." As in you felt a kinship with other atheists, but not one with Christians who believed in Darwinism, or God believing scientists.

Just curious, but do you hang out with non-theists (excluding internet)?

 

[One Brow]

I actually bolded the relevant part to make my point, but I do have a problem with 2 other assumptions you make.

1-That Christians or other God believers don't accept science. (Even that term makes the different fields of science sound too homogenized.)

Since I didn't make that point, I don't particularly care that you didn't accept it.

2-That the Darwiniac Dogma is science.

Since there is no Darwiniac dogma, a declartion that it is not science has no meaning.

3-That what you accept as "evidence" for your dogma is somehow better than the "evidence" someone else accepts for their dogma.

I accept that evidence found by observation and investigation is superior to evidence by revelation. If you did not mean that, what you said has no relevance to me.

What you say about Colton applies to you and other Darwiniacs, especially the bolded parts.

Since I have no idea what Darwiniacs are supposed to believe, I can't really comment on whether evidence for it is even possible, much less present.

I don't understand what you are trying to say with this.

I was talking about which atheists I hang out with (as in, not all of them), not which non-atheists.

My question involved "identifying with" not "hanging out with." As in you felt a kinship with other atheists, but not one with Christians who believed in Darwinism, or God believing scientists.

Whichever phrase you prefer. I feel far less intellectual kinship with anti-vaxxers than with colton, for example. Many atheists are very poor thinkers.

Just curious, but do you hang out with non-theists (excluding internet)?

Of course. My main recreational activity is board gaming, the organizers of both groups I'm in are religious.

Even if I preferred otherwise (and I don't), an atheist can no more avoid religious people than a black person can avoid white people.