The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia

[james bond]

Here I thought it was a olive branch to show that creationists had a sense of humor. They are serious? Too funny!

You want to know something new I learned today? I'm part of a study group on AI. Of course, the first thing that came out of my mouth was AI material or immaterial? My first approach is materialism because well, a computer is material. Thus, I took the US medical position first on AI is the brain. That lead to torture is materialism. That is, I can retrieve something from your brain that you do not want to give up through torture. That shows determinism, memory and brain. Nice experiment. Mwahahaha.

 

[columbus]

First, I'm sure if the atheists had any decent scientists, then you would be parading them around.

I couldn't care less about the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, by a scientist. It is not any more important than their race or gender or orientation or any other totally irrelevant characteristics.
What matters is the quality and originality of their work. Nothing else.
Tom

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

james bond said: ↑
If you still believe that, then creationists have to do a better job using science to show God's work again.

"Again"?
When did they do it the first time?

The scopes monkey trial in July of 1925. The fundamentalists won the battle but lost the war. ; )

 

[Sapiens]

I couldn't care less about the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, by a scientist. It is not any more important than their race or gender or orientation or any other totally irrelevant characteristics.
What matters is the quality and originality of their work. Nothing else.
Tom

But interestingly enough, scientists are much more likely than other professions to be atheists, scientists at top tier institutions are much more likely than those from lower tier institutions to be atheists, and members of the National Academy of Sciences are more likely than even scientists from top tier institutions to be atheists. Hm ...

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

non-science shock effect is not convincing.

Even some science sometimes accepts non-science, the early years of string theory was a good example, it was the darling of the science establishment even before it had zero predictive power. If the establishment likes a 'theory' it doesn't really matter if it meets their criteria or not. However switch that around a bit and let a scientist suggest a theory that even hints of an ID for example and the hapless chap will be crucified.

As far as 'winning debates' and the arguments of Creationists like Behe for intelligent design are highly questionable.

Not when its in black and white, a win is a win even if Trump wins it.

As far as the debates Napoleon did not win the Battle of Waterloo. Behe is a qualified scientist, and accurate in 'some' of his descriptions of problems with a natural evolution, but it remains he is 'arguing from ignorance,' claiming science cannot currently explain this and that therefore . . .

I do not agree even though I am not a big fan of Behe. Behe suggests answers that science rejects out of hand. Most of secular science would not admit there is a double standard if they were a guest of the inquisition. There is and its hobbled discovery since the vienna circle last met in the 1930's. Empirical science is of course needed, but I would argue metaphysics is as well, this is especially true as our traditional physics are near worthless in some areas of theoretical physics.

Well, at least you acknowledge a range of how atheists argue their belief, but I still detect a bias and overstatement as to the 'toxic and harmful' nature of some atheist apologists. To me the most 'toxic and harmful' are most definitely 'Young Earth Creationists' that trash science...

Yes well I try to give credit where credit is due. I attempt to be fair even though I feel atheism although having no evil agenda is a dangerous worldview. Still that does not mean atheists are evil or bad people, they are simply lost/wrong in their worldview. Just as atheists are steadfast in their beliefs that the world/universe is godless, Christians, and those that embrace most major religions, including eastern religions are just as steadfast in their beliefs of the supernatural/metaphysical world view. So the best we can hope for is to learn and apply a mutual respect for each others beliefs.

As far as the actual science goes there is not much difference, if any at all, in the science of atheists, agnostics and the diversity of Theist scientists.

That is true.

I am not a fan of emotional trashing of atheist and agnostics, such as using terms like 'notorious.' Anthony Flew is too often cited as a converted 'atheist,' when in reality he did not so to speak convert until he was quite elderly, and Deism is hardly a conversion to anything close to Theism.

I was simply repeating what was published many times and in his hey day Flew would of been proud of that title. Despite your maneuvering flew is indeed a converted atheist, and old age should not effect ones worldview. I also disagree with the Deism comment. Its far closer to theism than atheism too! Why its acceptable for a deist to accept God exists, just not a religion type God. Here is the definition I think is accurate.
de·ism

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Actually I would be a strong agnostic/weak atheist if it not were for the Baha'i Faith offering a more inclusive universal relationship with Creation and Revelation with humanity. Agnosticism is the most rational logical position. Beyond agnosticism there is atheism which makes the philosophical assumption that nothing exists beyond our physical existence, because there is no objective verifiable evidence. Atheism is no more illogical nor irrational than Theistic worldviews making the assumption that other worlds and God(s) exist beyond our physical existence.

Hmm' some of those of your faith might disagree with that last statement. Actually the theistic world views do not say there are other worlds, even heaven will be here on earth according to the bible. But if you know of where other worlds are mentioned in the bible I would like to read it. And of course I am speaking of other worlds. That said I think the Baha faith is good if a questionable having even less evidence of being true than most other religions claims. And instead of critiquing Christians and Christianity your own faith ask its adherents to accept and promote harmony in the religions and of religion and science!

Baha’is believe in peace, justice, love, altruism and unity. The Baha’i teachings promote the agreement of science and religion The Baha’i Faith, the world’s newest independent global belief system, teaches the oneness of God, the unity of humanity and the essential harmony of religion.

Btw I have said in many posts here and other forums that I don't claim Christianity is the only true religion, I claim its the religion I must choose out of all the rest as being the most believable. I will do my Evangelical bit to everyone I meet but its usually a thirty second sound byte. In fact I hold a Baha teaching in that I feel there is only one God but many religions. Its up to the individual to educate himself or steel themselves with faith and choose.

The problem of the Theist perspective is the inconsistency on the belief in God(s) and other worlds often justified by ancient mythology, which gives those that do not believe more ammunition to seriously question Theism, as Flew still objected to until he died.

I can not help those with a closed mind accept Christianity or even God. I accept Christianity for many reasons. The bible has been ridiculed many times of its claims only to have archeological evidence emerge to support its claims. I could write a page of font of why I accept the existence of God as true, and why I choose Christianity as the most probable and most true religion. All that font would not convince even ONE hardened soul as per scripture. Even if God rode a lightening bolt to a hardened non believer and tattooed ' I AM THE HEBREW GOD' on their foreheads with laser eyes they still would not believe in God. So instead of wasting my time I evangelize in ways other than preaching or witnessing by talk, but that's another thread! In closing I will say your religion is a fine choice and since I do not believe in hell I will probably be able to say see I told you I was right!

Sorry for the length of this reply but I haven't learned the economy of words yet.....

; { >

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Baraminology, the new creation science of plants and animals.

How convenient that an approach based on the Bible is going to make claims to prove god, etc.

Now, all baraminologists need to do, is prove that the Bible came from God.

And demonstrate how "created kinds" better accounts for the similarities and diversity we see in nature, how baraminology fits in with the fossil record, and why a pig's internal organs and a human's internal organs look so damn similar to point of some parts and pieces being interchangeable if we are supposed to be of different created kinds? The same goes for horses and their heart's valve, something else that can go into humans. That doesn't suggest a different "created kinds" to me, but rather that somewhere down the line we are related.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was simply repeating what was published many times and in his hey day Flew would of been proud of that title. Despite your maneuvering flew is indeed a converted atheist, and old age should not effect ones worldview. I also disagree with the Deism comment. Its far closer to theism than atheism too! Why its acceptable for a deist to accept God exists, just not a religion type God. Here is the definition I think is accurate.
de·ism

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Deism really sounds like a step towards atheism/agnosticism. It removes a big part of what god is supposed to be in a traditional sense, and it puts us in a position of more power and control over our own lives rather than if we believe that everything that happens is god's will.

Actually the theistic world views do not say there are other worlds

Many of them do, or have, and sometimes things get moved around. Such as, it used to be thought that Heaven was literally up in the sky and Hell was literally deep in the ground underneath us. But our advancing knowledge evicted God and Satan from the Earth and now many believe you "wake up" somewhere not of this world but in front of the Pearly Gates, God, or whatever to be judged (or whatever: It's not like there is any universal approaches to these things in Christianity).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is, I can retrieve something from your brain that you do not want to give up through torture.

Actually, if anything, torture is likely to yield false reports because most people will say anything to make it stop. Torture also doesn't prove or demonstrate determinism, as some are more resilient against it, and some are trained against it, and some would rather eagerly die than give up information.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually the theistic world views do not say there are other worlds.

The world of God is 'another world' in virtually all Christian churches, and Theistic religions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even some science sometimes accepts non-science, the early years of string theory was a good example, it was the darling of the science establishment even before it had zero predictive power.

Totally disagree. The development of the string theories and other related theories were developed based on existing knowledge of physics and quantum mechanics, and not non-science.

From:
The birth of string theory
Paolo Di Vecchia
(Submitted on 1 Apr 2007)
"In this contribution we go through the developments that in the years 1968 to 1974 led from the Veneziano model to the bosonic string.

Summary. In this contribution we go through the developments that in the years from 1968 to about 1974 led from the Veneziano model to the bosonic string theory. They include the construction of the N-point amplitude for scalar particles, its factorization through the introduction of an infinite number of oscillators and the proof that the physical subspace was a positive definite Hilbert space. We also discuss the zero slope limit and the calculation of loop diagrams. Lastly, we describe how it finally was recognized that a quantum relativistic string theory was the theory underlying the Veneziano model."

]quote] If the establishment likes a 'theory' it doesn't really matter if it meets their criteria or not. [/quote]

Not true. You are proposing a ridiculous conspiracy theory in science.

However switch that around a bit and let a scientist suggest a theory that even hints of an ID for example and the hapless chap will be crucified.

Dembski and the Discovery Institute have had many years to come up with a falsifiable theory or hypothesis to support ID and they have produced nothing,

 

[james bond]

viole, I wanted to wrap and explain my thinking with Britannica. Britannica is a very valid source, unlike Wikipedia (yuck). Maybe the atheist scientists have the upper hand right now with people like Francisco Ayala and Donald Johanson writing articles. However, this is part of academia. The questions and arguments brought up here aren't that different from that which in academia. Sure, the people are smarter, and that's why it's my belief that creation scientists will eventually get their articles published. They're familiar with these people.

I didn't check if it's the same Ayala who wrote the Britannica article, but whomever WLC debates here probably has great credentials, as well.

EDIT: Back during Jesus' times, he had access to all of the Kings and their academics and scholars, too. He was comfortable freely mingling with those in every part of society.

Thus, I'm confident one day I can say Britannica will be updated to say one can't have descent with modification, i.e. "common descent" across holobarins and not have to go through a smorgasbord of arguments as it is presently being done.

 

[james bond]

So here's where the torture and naturalistic and materialistic thinking has led me I remember enjoying this movie. It was something to talk about. It also reminded me how much my Psych professor loved BF Skinner and behavior modification. The school had all these animals they could test with. I can see this behavior modification for the atheists here. In the end, they'll all be going, yup God exists with no free will at all ha ha.

Love that, "Please, God," at the end.

 

[Revoltingest]

So here's where the torture and naturalistic and materialistic thinking has led me I remember enjoying this movie. It was something to talk about. It also reminded me how much my Psych professor loved BF Skinner and behavior modification. The school had all these animals they could test with. I can see this behavior modification for the atheists here. In the end, they'll all be going, yup God exists with no free will at all ha ha.

Love that, "Please, God," at the end.

Do I understand you to support that which Burgess opposed in A Clockwork Orange?
That is, you favor government imposed conditioning for our betterment?

 

[james bond]

Do I understand you to support that which Burgess opposed in A Clockwork Orange?
That is, you favor government imposed conditioning for our betterment?

Actually, quite the opposite. Just when did conservatives favor government anything? Basically, they're in favor of less or small government. Government imposed conditioning for the betterment is for the liberals, atheists and Communists. The same with Nazism which Darwin influenced greatly.

 

[james bond]

I heard something director Stanley Kubrick said about Zombism, but couldn't find the exact quote. He probably was referring to lack of free will as in the following:

"Although the word zombie has been applied to different types of creatures, they generally share a few defining characteristics, perhaps most importantly a lack of free will. Zombies are usually wholly subordinate, either to an outside force, such as a sorcerer, or to an overwhelming desire, such as the need for human flesh or revenge or simply to do violence. Another important distinction made by some is that a zombie is the animated corpse of a single being, usually a human. Zombies are frequently depicted as shambling and rotting, although in some instances their bodies may be preserved, especially when magic is involved, and they may sometimes display superhuman characteristics, such as increased strength and speed."

zombie | fictional creature

More food for thought on just who's being manipulated into thinking you have no free will.

When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.
- Stanley Kubrick

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, quite the opposite. Just when did conservatives favor government anything? Basically, they're in favor of less or small government. Government imposed conditioning for the betterment is for the liberals, atheists and Communists. The same with Nazism which Darwin influenced greatly.

I had to ask, since you were unclear.
Hmmm.....libertarians (the greatest opponents to government conditioning) tend to be
more atheistic. But Xians are the ones with gay conversion therapy, regular indoctrination
(church service), & demands for their scripture in public schools & places.
It seems that we heathens are better at minding our own spiritual business.

 

[james bond]

I had to ask, since you were unclear.
Hmmm.....libertarians (the greatest opponents to government conditioning) tend to be
more atheistic. But Xians are the ones with gay conversion therapy, regular indoctrination
(church service), & demands for their scripture in public schools & places.
It seems that we heathens are better at minding our own spiritual business.

Ha ha. I'm not sure what libertarianism leads to? It doesn't lead to populism for sure. It doesn't lead to loyalty either. In other words, if a libertarian says that you can count on his vote, then you can't know for sure. What I'm more against is zombism, and we have an example of those people here who believe in naturalism and there is no free will philosophy. This is zombism.

As for gay or transgender conversion therapy, I don't know much about it except what I read that there is no gay gene nor any physical mechanism. I'm not so sure about that in regards to those who are only same-sex. However, the ones who are bisexual are doing it out of convenience and choice. They can be converted imo.

In the US, by law we can't have scripture in public schools. We can have it in public places by law under free exercise clause and religion and expression of the first amendment. I would think atheism falls under the same law.

That which you criticize of Christians can be applied to atheists and Muslims, too, as well as all religions.

>>we heathens are better at minding our own spiritual business<<

Cough, cough. Then can I tell anyone who doesn't agree with my views here to mind their own "spiritual" business and get off the forum? Maybe we should have an icon button for it for convenience.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ha ha. I'm not sure what libertarianism leads to?

Unpopularity.

It doesn't lead to populism for sure. It doesn't lead to loyalty either. In other words, if a libertarian says that you can count on his vote, then you can't know for sure. What I'm more against is zombism, and we have an example of those people here who believe in naturalism and there is no free will philosophy. This is zombism.

As for gay or transgender conversion therapy, I don't know much about it except what I read that there is no gay gene nor any physical mechanism. I'm not so sure about that in regards to those who are only same-sex. However, the ones who are bisexual are doing it out of convenience and choice. They can be converted imo.

In the US, by law we can't have scripture in public schools. We can have it in public places by law under free exercise clause and religion and expression of the first amendment. I would think atheism falls under the same law.

That which you criticize of Christians can be applied to atheists and Muslims, too, as well as all religions.

>>we heathens are better at minding our own spiritual business<<

Cough, cough. Then can I tell anyone who doesn't agree with my views here to mind their own "spiritual" business and get off the forum? Maybe we should have an icon button for it for convenience.

A blast from the past......just for you!

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

>>>> PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>

Totally disagree. The development of the string theories and other related theories were developed based on existing knowledge of physics and quantum mechanics, and not non-science.

<<<<<<PARTIAL QUOTE<<<<<

Are you afraid to admit the truth? Develop away, begin with impeccable science, however until it meets sciences own criteria for theory it is a half done non-theory with a good respectable starting point. It was not falsifiable and it did not make even ONE verifiable prediction for years, that is not science my friend that is a half baked speculative idea that looked so good and was worked on so long by so many highly liked very much esteemed good ole (secular) boys that it just had to be an accepted theory. God help that ST mess if it was proposed by the discovery group ! That it was not rejected and was instead accepted as good or important theory is a lovely example of the double standard that still exists in the minds and hearts of the 'secular science establishment' and most of its members.
; { >

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Dembski and the Discovery Institute have had many years to come up with a falsifiable theory or hypothesis to support ID and they have produced nothing,

Yes I agree. My young earth creationist brother and I don't agree. I could kind of be labeled as a progressive creationist meaning I do not accept that the universe was created in seven literal days or that the earth is thousands of years old. However like everything else I believe that is subject to change depending on the evidence or my level of faith. If I were a activist ID person I would attempt to change playing field before I attempted to construct a standard theory that most of my non secular peers would accept. I would also steer the primary argument away from the particulars of evolution which we could adapt or change easily and steer it towards how life itself began. Also I would like to see more creation or ID science aimed towards what happened before or at the moment of T-0 (the instant when the big bang banged). That needs to be done post haste, especially since the atheist and hard agnostics are terrified of the standard big bang model and are feverishly working on theories than has no theistic implications. As it stands now the rules are slanted against us promoting an non secular theory of evolution by theistic selection (lol). Even the judicial system is against us and willing to jail us for mentioning our beliefs ...but again I digress.

Thanks for your reply S.dragon even if you are promoting harmony of religions as per your religion doctrine in a rather strange way!

Peace on earth ~ and among purveyors of all faiths except for those that employ violence as a means to an end ~

; {>