Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Burger Time

  Wow let me just clarify something. I always hear the ID people saying the same thing, "well it the Christian religion explains it best for me". Guess what, your not the only fucking person or religion on the planet. Science must speak for all. That is the whole point of it is. We didn't get evolution by people who didn't believe in a god. In fact most of our theories come from those who believe in a deity of some sort, the thing is they know now that religion clouds judgment.

  Having a theory based around something that is religious paints you in to a square. This hinders thought. What happens when something defies religion? What if a half man/ monkey was born? Would you argue for evolution then? All these ID people scream about missing links and such, but what would you guys do if one was found? You know what you would do, just start screaming about something else. The religion would not change or the belief in God because of one thing found through Science. Science however can and does change immediately when something is found out. Suppression does not help science. Religion suppresses Science. It always has.
• 

  hillary_step

  Perry,

  I have read some very amusing 'explanations' by Creationists as to why humans get 'goosebumps'. Perhaps you can enlighten us with your piercing logic as to why this happens.

  ........I can hear the sound of Google firing up. ;)

  HS
• 

  Burger Time

  Perry-So, you are correct in a sense: If there weren't Christians, the I.D. movement might not mean as much . Christians are especially delighted to know God personally and are fascinated by his nature, part of which is inside of them through the process of the re-birth.

  Exactly my point. What of the millions who do not get some personal touch or revelation from God? Are you to force your beliefs upon them? If your Christian like you say you would take Jesus advice and not throw pearls to swine. So even by your own religion you shouldn't be allowed in deciding theories to be thought in schools. After all this is what the argument is about, not the theory it's self but that it should be the main theory everyone in the U.S./Canada/Europe is thought. Please point out some scriptures that say Christians should intervene in such worldly things as Philosophy or Science?
• 

  hamilcarr

  As a student of sociology, I am led to believe that the conflict between evolutionists and creationists is of an entirely different nature than science.

  Interesting thought which I partly agree with (not an entirely different nature than science). Both evolutionists and creationist form far too often separate sociological groups that hardly interact which creates a lot of senseless discussions.

  I am curious though what one thing, in evolution, led you to believe that there is no God. Or, at least to strongly suspect.

  The fact that evolutionary, not necessarily darwinian, principles can at least explain the things we normally attribute to a divine being. The jump to atheism is a leap of faith as Burn once rightly said --- imo less than theism though. The only empirically justified option is the agnostic attitude.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  The jump to atheism is a leap of faith as Burn once rightly said --- imo less than theism though. The only empirically justified option is the agnostic attitude.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/155928/2857792/post.ashx#2857792

  The mind detests not knowing. It wants to know. That is why it exists and restlessly explores all-that-is.

  Burn
• 

  Perry

  Burger Time, Calm down. This is making you seem like you are more than a few fries short of a Happy Meal!

  Wow let me just clarify something. I always hear the ID people saying the same thing, "well it the Christian religion explains it best for me".

  Can you calmly explain exactly what it is that bothers you about people who are different than you coming to a different conclusion than you do based on the same evidence. We all have the same evidence. It's just interpreted differently.

  Guess what, your not the only fucking person or religion on the planet.

  No, but your tantrums make you appear as if you feel that you are.

  Science must speak for all.

  Science is ambivalent as to who it "speaks" to. It speaks to all or it speaks to none depending on how you look at it. The interpreters of it are the ones who in reality do the speaking. Currently, we have freedom of speech and bigotry issues dominating our universities and research institutions.... which is what a lot of what this thread is about.

  We didn't get evolution by people who didn't believe in a god. In fact most of our theories come from those who believe in a deity of some sort, the thing is they know now that religion clouds judgment.

  For every scientist who thinks religion clouds judgement there are those who think that it enhances it. Your statement above falsifies your own conclusion. Read it slowly.

  Having a theory based around something that is religious paints you in to a square.

  Can you give an example of such a theory? Also, do you think that atheist evolutionists create hypotheses based on their world view (no god) and then test them to see if they are true, and repeatable?

  This hinders thought.

  Or, it enhances thought based of the observers' world view....depends on how you look at it.

  What happens when something defies religion?

  Science doesn't defy religion. Real science just is what it is. Religion has more to do with ritual and its emotional ramifications.

  What if a half man/ monkey was born? Would you argue for evolution then? All these ID people scream about missing links and such, but what would you guys do if one was found? You know what you would do, just start screaming about something else.

  You appear to be the only one screaming here. Why are you so afraid of people who are not like you? At any rate, a half monkey and a half human would probably get someone thrown in prison based on current laws. Are you for such type of experimentation? I saw the other day a human ear being grown on the back of a rat. Made me sick...don't know why exactly, it just did. What is your point here? You seem angry all the sudden.

  The religion would not change or the belief in God because of one thing found through Science. Science however can and does change immediately when something is found out. Suppression does not help science. Religion suppresses Science. It always has.

  Earlier, you argued that believers are responsible for much of our known scientific knowledge. Now, here you seem to argue that believers repress science.

  Can you reduce your point down to like one or two sentences?
• 

  Perry

  What of the millions who do not get some personal touch or revelation from God? Are you to force your beliefs upon them?

  Of course not... no one is suggesting that. But, let me ask you a similar question. Should atheists force their religion (belief that there is no God) on teh millions who have personal experience with God?

  If your Christian like you say you would take Jesus advice and not throw pearls to swine. So even by your own religion you shouldn't be allowed in deciding theories to be thought in schools.

  How exactly is fighting for the lifting of a ban on certain words and thoughts, ie. design, designer, God, throwing pearls before swine? Explain.

  After all this is what the argument is about, not the theory it's self but that it should be the main theory everyone in the U.S./Canada/Europe is thought. Please point out some scriptures that say Christians should intervene in such worldly things as Philosophy or Science?

  So you feel that Europe and North America "should" be atheist? I beg to differ in what men "should" be. I'll quote Jefferson here. I think he got this one right.

  "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

  It was the free flow of ideas that made this particular nation great. Ruining careers and threatening people with their jobs for using certain words is inconsistent with FREEDOM....which is not granted by any man, but is inherent in the nature of the human being.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Perry,

  I'm just wondering ... if you accept that evolutionary science is just a perspective on reality (and even then a very poor one, emotionless and cold), why would you (i.e. as a member of the ID "sociological class") try to gain acceptance within the biassed scientific community (i.e. the "evolutionist" sociological class)? Why wouldn't you just say well you got your perspective and that doesn't bother me because I know from my subjective experience that God exists --- like billions of others. I think you say, on the one hand, that science should know its place and shouldn't try to convert people to the atheist church, but on the other hand, you apparently think it's very important to give religious ideas a scientific tint? Isn't there any threat of double standards? Just a question, no attack.

  h
• 

  Burger Time

  OK let me explain my self a little bit better. Religious institutions and theories generally stifle science. One obvious example is that of Galileo. The church contended that scripture could prove that the Earth was firmly situated in it's place. Because the bible is inspired by God surely he/she is the most knowledgeable source for Science on the planet. Remember all the wacky JW thoughts on medical science? How about the Amish with their belief that modern technology is evil? The list goes on and on. What I was trying to point out was that these scientist while believing in God usually had to set aside their pre-conceived religious beliefs to test theory. According to the bible only God can create life, if you believe in the bible then you should not try to "clone" to create life. Religious dogma stifles that, and it is only one example. What if someone figured out a way to be immortal? Would that not defy all that is Christianity since only Christ can give us such a gift? To even attempt these things in Science you must throw out your religious conceptions. That is what I was trying to say.

  The reason I am "yelling" even though I didn't use CAPS at all of this is because the ID people try to mislead and make it some sort of argument of a "theory", when it is only a Christian theory. I would like to ask again, if the theory were taught from a non Christian angle would the ID people still fight for it to be taught? That is the problem this isn't about a "theory" it's about a religious concept.
• 

  Perry

  I think you say, on the one hand, that science should know its place and shouldn't try to convert people to the atheist church,

  Yes, when science chides people's individual beliefs/experiences, it takes on an oppressive militant character reminiscent of totalitarianism. This is what Dawkins does. He's not going to convert any true believers.... he's just going to radicalize those that agree with him. In reality, none should care.

  If one scientist looks at the previous clip of the unimaginable complexity inside of a cell and states that in his professional opinion that he sees no design there, then so be it. If another looks at the same evidence and states that he sees vast design of an unimaginable degree, then so be that.

  Then, 'we the people" get to look at the available evidence ourselves, listen to the peer reviewed papers and decide for ourselves. The problem is that when papers are published and the careers of the scientists are destroyed, it suppresses freedom. The atheists have control of many our universities, and prestigeous scientific institutions and prevent freedom of speech as "Expelled" eloquently catalouges.

  but on the other hand, you apparently think it's very important to give religious ideas a scientific tint? Isn't there any threat of double standards?

  Are you talking about my personal testimony? I'm unclear what you mean here. Can you clarify and expand?