Spreading evolution, science, and reason efficiently

robindch

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Fact spreading is next to useless in opening minds and changing opinions.

Relevant talk happening Wednesday night, next week:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056235812

MonkeyBalls

Cheers robindch

HavingCrack

Out of interest, am I one of the few on this board who did not need science to make me believe god is not real? A lot of militant atheists are always going on about evolution proving god doesn't exist etc (quite simplistic I know but roll with it) but I never needed science to tell me this. I just thought it was relevant to this thread.

MagicMarker

HavingCrack wrote: »

Out of interest, am I one of the few on this board who did not need science to make me believe god is not real? A lot of militant atheists are always going on about evolution proving god doesn't exist etc (quite simplistic I know but roll with it) but I never needed science to tell me this. I just thought it was relevant to this thread.

You'll find very few atheists on here who think evolution disproves god's existence. And I doubt many needed science to reach the conclusion that god probably didn't exist.

HavingCrack

MagicMarker wrote: »

You'll find very few atheists on here who think evolution disproves god's existence. And I doubt many needed science to reach the conclusion that god probably didn't exist.

Sorry I realised I phrased my first post extremely poorly. I'll just leave aside evolution and all (I am not a scientist so I'm well out of my league here ). Anyway, the core of my point is that science....ah I can't put what I want to say into words.:mad:

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

You'll find very few atheists on here who think evolution disproves god's existence. And I doubt many needed science to reach the conclusion that god probably didn't exist.

Interesting, so how else did you determine this?

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting, so how else did you determine this?

Common sense.

pH

MagicMarker wrote: »

You'll find very few atheists on here who think evolution disproves god's existence.

For most (all?) proposed gods, then yes it does. It's certainly not compatible with the major monotheistic religions. Now I guess you could invent a god that's compatible with evolution, but in doing so, remember that you just invented him.

And I doubt many needed science to reach the conclusion that god probably didn't exist.

On the contrary, with little or no scientific understanding of the world, believing in God makes tremendous sense. However believing in God in 2011, based on claims from a bronze age middle-eastern tribe to be God's chosen people is entirely another matter.

CerebralCortex

pH I couldn't agree more. When you see how poorly evolution came up with a body for the housing of a concious entity and to add to that in a purely brute force and random way the idea of a creator is nonsense.

oldrnwisr

MagicMarker wrote: »

And I doubt many needed science to reach the conclusion that god probably didn't exist.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Common sense.

But that's what science is.

Thomas Huxley wrote:

Science is common sense at its best, rigidly accurate in observation and merciless to fallacy in logic.

Dades

I also agree with pH, but still agree with MagicMarker that it's not the primary reason people here are atheists.

The understanding of evolution is more a nail in the coffin than anything else.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

Common sense.

Funny how this leads me in the opposite direction :pac:

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Funny how this leads me in the opposite direction :pac:

No it's not, it's blatantly obvious what leads you in your direction, and it's not funny, it's rather sad.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No it's not, it's blatantly obvious what leads you in your direction, and it's not funny, it's rather sad.

From a personal perspective I believe I made the right decision based on what seemed more reasonable, and more sensible to me according to common sense. I'm in a good situation in life, and I'm looking forward to a challenging / exciting future. What's so sad about this?

dead one

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that science and reason should be spread as far as possible and particularly by engaging people's emotions.

You aren't new in this game, every one is spreading same science and same reason to torch his conscience. Worship at the materialist/atheist altar isn't a prerequisite for good science or good reason. The atheist allegation that science depends on and authenticate atheism is historically unmindful and psychologically incoherent.

oldrnwisr

dead one wrote: »

You aren't new in this game, every one is spreading same science and same reason to torch his conscience. Worship at the materialist/atheist altar isn't a prerequisite for good science or good reason. The atheist allegation that science depends on and authenticate atheism is historically unmindful and psychologically incoherent.

dead one, Do you actually have anything useful or intelligible to contribute? I don't mind proselytizing anymore, it's not annoying just pathetic. However, if you have some kind of discussion point to make then out with it.

fatmammycat

oldrnwisr wrote: »

dead one, Do you actually have anything useful or intelligible to contribute? I don't mind proselytizing anymore, it's not annoying just pathetic. However, if you have some kind of discussion point to make then out with it.

He doesn't. He's a troll and best consigned to the JC bin of illogical time-wastage.

dead one

oldrnwisr wrote: »

dead one, Do you actually have anything useful or intelligible to contribute?

Good friend, if you look at my contribution with prism of hatred than You won't able to see anything good/useful/intelligible.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I don't mind proselytizing anymore,

Mind you. I have beliefs but it doesn't mean i am here to convert someone. There is knowedlge behind my beliefs. I haven't ask anyone to accept what i believe

oldrnwisr wrote: »

it's not annoying just pathetic. However, if you have some kind of discussion point to make then out with it.

The point is simple for atheist, science and reason is in atheism. For Christian it is in Christianity. For Muslim it is in islam, for jew it is in Judaism etc
So where is the difference.

Deadone wrote: »

every one is spreading same science and same reason to torch his conscience

and you are here to prove your science and reason is valid coz it is based on atheism,?...... and you are saying it should be spread. What is difference between you and religious freaks

Canis Lupus

Dead one, can you clarify what country are you from? Are you a native English speaker?

dead one

fatmammycat wrote: »

He doesn't. He's a troll and best consigned to the JC bin of illogical time-wastage.

"Hatreds are the cinders of affection". JC is good in his knowledge what if you had learn something from him.

“We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.”

The religion behind your hate is evolution/atheism/ materialism. Good for you and good for those who are hated. I don't submit to that religion which teaches hate to others.

fatmammycat

dead one wrote: »

"Hatreds are the cinders of affection". JC is good in his knowledge what if you had learn something from him.

The religion behind your hate is evolution/atheism/ materialism. Good for you and good for those who are hated. I don't submit to that religion which teaches hate to others.

JC offers nothing but trite creationist arguments that have been disproven time and time again.
You, on the other hand, don't offer anything.

robindch

dead one wrote: »

I don't submit to that religion which teaches hate to others.

Unless, of course, they belong to other religions or no religion :rolleyes:

dead one

robindch wrote: »

Unless, of course, they belong to other religions or no religion :rolleyes:

An intellectual hatred is the worst.

fatmammycat wrote: »

JC offers nothing but trite creationist arguments that have been disproven time and time again.

Who created laws of gravity? There is no question but that a God will always be needed. JC creationist argements has some reason. You need some wisdom.

fatmammycat wrote: »

You, on the other hand, don't offer anything.

Perhaps it requires wisdom to understand wisdom.

fatmammycat

You don't offer any of that either, just tedious meaningless phrases and God of the Gaps woo.

smokingman

fatmammycat wrote: »

You don't offer any of that either, just tedious meaningless phrases and God of the Gaps woo.

The Polyfilla argument is the most popular one out there for them - makes me laugh ever time

fatmammycat

Polyfilla, heh.

Turtwig

dead one wrote: »

Who created laws of gravity?

We did.

JimiTime

smokingman wrote: »

The Polyfilla argument is the most popular one out there for them - makes me laugh ever time

Have to say, I'm neither creationist or evolutionist, but the whole 'It takes billions of years', is quite the polyfilla argument.

Dades

Why? It's what happened, rather than just a quick solution to fill in those scary gaps.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Why? It's what happened, rather than just a quick solution to fill in those scary gaps.

I think this is where the contentious micro and macro come into play. Adaptation is shown to be so, and those micro details etc that can change and adapt a species (fruit flies with smaller wings etc). Its quite the leap as far as I can see, to posit that over billions of years, that this can transform a specious from an amoeba to a human being. It seems that the 'billions of years' is required to square the rather big leaps in the theory. That does not mean that it is not true of course, but if someone is going to point the finger at a 'polyfilla' arguement, I think one must look at the polyfilla in their own.