Conquer Club

1000th Reply!

unriggable wrote:

Carebian Knight wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Backglass wrote:

Bavarian Raven wrote:

The huge majority of Christians accept evolution and it has not diminished their faith, why will creationists not simply do the same rather than continiously attempt to hinder scientific progress.

because they are stubborn...

The must be steadfast, or else the house of cards falls.

Fucking literalists.

yeah...fucking intolerant religious freaks

Fucking good for nothing French

I'll ne connais pas la verite.

Il ne connaît pas la verité.

Si tu veux raconter des conneries en français, corriges au moins ton ortographe.

Look man, I havent written french in over a decade so I don't remember the spelling specifics.

IPA for the win!

MeDeFe wrote:IPA for the win!

IPA?

unriggable wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:IPA for the win!

IPA?

India Pale Ale!

WidowMakers wrote:To be a Christian one has to believe they are a sinner and that there is nothing that they can do to free themselves of their sin, other than 100% acceptance that Jesus Christ died for them and paid the price to God the Father for their sins, past, present and future.

In other words, to be a Christian one must be completely fatalistic and surrender their free will to a book and the people who purport to know what it means instead of seeking and finding your own meaning in life.

Now do you see why a lot of people have a problem with teaching a concept from a book with this as its central theme in BIOLOGY? The Bible, it's passages, and its various tales are a subject for a world religion, philosophy, or anthropology class.

It has never been, isn't, and will never be a textbook on biological processes. If we use Genesis as a basis to teach biology, next we'll be teaching children that snakes can talk and that fruit is evil. Let's save that sort of thing for Church, eh?

vtmarik wrote:In other words, to be a Christian one must be completely fatalistic and surrender their free will to a book and the people who purport to know what it means instead of seeking and finding your own meaning in life.

To accept God's plan is to acheive true freedom. Fatalism and lack of Free will never come into it. Atheists on the other hand must be determinists.

Now do you see why a lot of people have a problem with teaching a concept from a book with this as its central theme in BIOLOGY? The Bible, it's passages, and its various tales are a subject for a world religion, philosophy, or anthropology class.

It has never been, isn't, and will never be a textbook on biological processes. If we use Genesis as a basis to teach biology, next we'll be teaching children that snakes can talk and that fruit is evil. Let's save that sort of thing for Church, eh?

Very True.

To accept God's plan is to acheive true freedom. Fatalism and lack of Free will never come into it. Atheists on the other hand must be determinists.

I believe Fromm, Durkheim, and Weber would all disagree with this notion.

got tonkaed wrote:

To accept God's plan is to acheive true freedom. Fatalism and lack of Free will never come into it. Atheists on the other hand must be determinists.

I believe Fromm, Durkheim, and Weber would all disagree with this notion.

As well as myself, but I'm not quite as well-read as those people.

Neoteny wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

To accept God's plan is to acheive true freedom. Fatalism and lack of Free will never come into it. Atheists on the other hand must be determinists.

I believe Fromm, Durkheim, and Weber would all disagree with this notion.

As well as myself, but I'm not quite as well-read as those people.

i mean i may disagree with it, but seemingly coming from a social scientists type of perspective it seemed like classic social theorists carried more weight than i did.

got tonkaed wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

To accept God's plan is to acheive true freedom. Fatalism and lack of Free will never come into it. Atheists on the other hand must be determinists.

I believe Fromm, Durkheim, and Weber would all disagree with this notion.

As well as myself, but I'm not quite as well-read as those people.

i mean i may disagree with it, but seemingly coming from a social scientists type of perspective it seemed like classic social theorists carried more weight than i did.

We're talkig philosophy, by Free ill I mean philosophical libertarianism.

i would still argue that each one of those 3 would disagree on that premise. The social integration that occurs as a result of the particular religious integration in a way does inhibit the ability for an individual to be free. Im not saying this is necessarily a bad thing or perhaps even not a productive thing (each one of those 3 would fall differently on the issue i believe) but believing in God certainly does not seem to equate philosophical libertarinism.

got tonkaed wrote:i would still argue that each one of those 3 would disagree on that premise. The social integration that occurs as a result of the particular religious integration in a way does inhibit the ability for an individual to be free. Im not saying this is necessarily a bad thing or perhaps even not a productive thing (each one of those 3 would fall differently on the issue i believe) but believing in God certainly does not seem to equate philosophical libertarinism.

You cannot escape determinism as an atheist.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:i would still argue that each one of those 3 would disagree on that premise. The social integration that occurs as a result of the particular religious integration in a way does inhibit the ability for an individual to be free. Im not saying this is necessarily a bad thing or perhaps even not a productive thing (each one of those 3 would fall differently on the issue i believe) but believing in God certainly does not seem to equate philosophical libertarinism.

You cannot escape determinism as an atheist.

Yes I can. I do it by throwing rocks at it!

But seriously, the problem with free will ofcourse is that it's incompatible with in-determinism. If our actions are not determined by your character - your values, your desires, your preferences- then it would appear that our actions would be completely random. And how could you hold anyone accountable for something that randomly occured?

For more fun stuff, see this page.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:i would still argue that each one of those 3 would disagree on that premise. The social integration that occurs as a result of the particular religious integration in a way does inhibit the ability for an individual to be free. Im not saying this is necessarily a bad thing or perhaps even not a productive thing (each one of those 3 would fall differently on the issue i believe) but believing in God certainly does not seem to equate philosophical libertarinism.

You cannot escape determinism as an atheist.

admittedly going into whatever is your about to say id be willing to say that you could escape determinism, but im not really sure where your trying to go with this.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:i would still argue that each one of those 3 would disagree on that premise. The social integration that occurs as a result of the particular religious integration in a way does inhibit the ability for an individual to be free. Im not saying this is necessarily a bad thing or perhaps even not a productive thing (each one of those 3 would fall differently on the issue i believe) but believing in God certainly does not seem to equate philosophical libertarinism.

You cannot escape determinism as an atheist.

Yes I can. I do it by throwing rocks at it!

But seriously, the problem with free will ofcourse is that it's incompatible with in-determinism. If our actions are not determined by your character - your values, your desires, your preferences- then it would appear that our actions would be completely random. And how could you hold anyone accountable for something that randomly occured?

For more fun stuff, see this page.

A true disciple of Hume

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:i would still argue that each one of those 3 would disagree on that premise. The social integration that occurs as a result of the particular religious integration in a way does inhibit the ability for an individual to be free. Im not saying this is necessarily a bad thing or perhaps even not a productive thing (each one of those 3 would fall differently on the issue i believe) but believing in God certainly does not seem to equate philosophical libertarinism.

You cannot escape determinism as an atheist.

Yes I can. I do it by throwing rocks at it!

But seriously, the problem with free will ofcourse is that it's incompatible with in-determinism. If our actions are not determined by your character - your values, your desires, your preferences- then it would appear that our actions would be completely random. And how could you hold anyone accountable for something that randomly occured?

For more fun stuff, see this page.

A true disciple of Hume

Have you read the page? Because it does bring up some stuff that actually makes the whole concept of free will very much hard to really get an answer on.

But I have a question for you. How do you make a choice if it's not based on your previous experiences and preferences and emotions?

Napoleon Ier wrote:To accept God's plan is to acheive true freedom. Fatalism and lack of Free will never come into it. Atheists on the other hand must be determinists.

Wait...what? I'm most definitely an athiest and most definitely not a determinist. How does the lack of a God imply determinism? Heck, I'd say that the idea of a being that knows the past, present, and future suggests determinism more than a belief that we came into being through random occurences.

Frigidus wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:To accept God's plan is to acheive true freedom. Fatalism and lack of Free will never come into it. Atheists on the other hand must be determinists.

Wait...what? I'm most definitely an athiest and most definitely not a determinist. How does the lack of a God imply determinism? Heck, I'd say that the idea of a being that knows the past, present, and future suggests determinism more than a belief that we came into being through random occurences.

Well naturaly, but the bible says we have free will given by god so it doesn't matter if it's logically inconsistent.

double post, sorry

unriggable wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:IPA for the win!

IPA?

International Phonetic Alphabet

WidowMakers wrote:I am not saying creation is proved by science, I am saying creation does not contradict science. Regardless of the time that the universe has been around, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of gravity, the laws of magnetism, biology, fossils, geology, physics, etc, they do not prove creation wrong. Creation can exist within the realm of science. By saying it is not supported by anything is not correct. You may not agree that it is true but it does not contradict any of the above issues.

I want to bump this thread, but at least do it productively. This just caught my eye. Basic physics proves creation wrong. One of those laws that creationists love quoting: energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Creationism, by definition of course, implies that a creator created our energy. Not possible according to physics. I'm only being slightly facetious.

Moving on, it's still clear to me that you do not grasp the full concept of science. Sure, creationism might be able to exist within the bounds of science (except for what was mentioned above), but so can fairies. And none of us believe in fairies, right?

The goal of science is not to prove anything. It is to disprove alternatives. And we have disproven creation with physics. Yes? Noone has successfully disproven evolution.

Neoteny wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:I am not saying creation is proved by science, I am saying creation does not contradict science. Regardless of the time that the universe has been around, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of gravity, the laws of magnetism, biology, fossils, geology, physics, etc, they do not prove creation wrong. Creation can exist within the realm of science. By saying it is not supported by anything is not correct. You may not agree that it is true but it does not contradict any of the above issues.

I want to bump this thread, but at least do it productively. This just caught my eye. Basic physics proves creation wrong. One of those laws that creationists love quoting: energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Creationism, by definition of course, implies that a creator created our energy. Not possible according to physics. I'm only being slightly facetious.

Moving on, it's still clear to me that you do not grasp the full concept of science. Sure, creationism might be able to exist within the bounds of science (except for what was mentioned above), but so can fairies. And none of us believe in fairies, right?

The goal of science is not to prove anything. It is to disprove alternatives. And we have disproven creation with physics. Yes? Noone has successfully disproven evolution.

I have not forgotten the thread.

Actually the laws of thermodynamics say that matter and energy cannot come into being by themselves. Creation is a supernatural process. Those laws do not apply to supernatural processes since supernatural things cannot be tested or studied with natural laws.

So since these laws are natural laws and evolution is a naturalistic theory (natural made itself), these laws apply and the big bag is in violation of them.

I.E. If there is a creator and he made the universe, matter and energy, he was outside this universe, matter and energy, so the laws that govern this universe, matter and energy do not apply to the creator.

WM

P.S. Neoteny. I should have your response to your post today. I have had a TON of other stuff to do lately.

Laws of thermodynamics "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed" Nothing about what syou said.