• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
articulett said:
There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

Scientific ignorance is correlated with social dysfunction which may account for some of our forums more "socially dysfunctional" members. :)
Click to expand...


Your premise is the vast majority of humanity; excluding of course the small group of which you are a member, is socially dysfunctional. Do you have any idea how insane this sounds?
 
skeptical said:
Actually that's not quite an accurate description of spontaneous generation, which is what I assume you are talking about. Current understanding simply says that complex life cannot simply "poof" into existence from non living materials. i.e. flies don't spontaneously appear from dead animal tissue. SG doesn't specifically address the question of abiogenesis, its focus is much more narrow.
Click to expand...

There has to be a "poof" somewhere.

The critical questions are how one defines life, e.g. what is the simplest organism that can be characterized as "life", and what one means by "spontaneous". I would not characterize a slow progression from organic molecules to the simplest entity that could be characterized as life over numerous steps as "spontaneous".
Click to expand...

Science ingeniously does not define life succinctly, it's definition is pliant.

But again, I am explaining my position. I am much more interested in yours. I will repeat my question: What is your preferred explanation for the processes that bridged the gap from simple organic molecules (which we know arise naturally) to the simplest life forms? Or perhaps just give your explanation for the origin of life on Earth and your evidence. I am interested in your preferred explanation and not just repeating my own over and over.
Click to expand...

I prefer not to make unsubstantiated guesses to which the evidence does not point. I certainly understand why humans want to have answers, but I will not accept answers which are nothing more than beliefs based upon desire.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Your premise is the vast majority of humanity; excluding of course the small group of which you are a member, is socially dysfunctional. Do you have any idea how insane this sounds?
Click to expand...

I was actually about to agree with you, but then I thought about it.

What percentage of the world lives in societies free from oppression; with a distribution of resources so that everyone has basic needs met; and with equal rights for all people regards of sex, gender, or race?

I'd say that percentage could arguably be on under 50%.

So even if you can't pin it on religion, "the vast majority of humanity ... is socially dysfunctional" doesn't seem that far fetched.
 
skeptical said:
Pluto takes 247.7 years to orbit the Sun. Pluto was discovered in 1930, so we do not have direct evidence that Pluto has in fact, ever orbited the Sun.

Would you say that believing that Pluto will in fact complete an orbit around the Sun is:

1) a reasonable expectation based on evidence
2) faith
3) both
4) neither

If your answer is anything other than 1, please explain.
Click to expand...

1 and 2.

Faith should be a reasonable expectation based on evidence.
 
articulett said:
There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, ....
Click to expand...


JEROME DA GNOME said:
Your premise is the vast majority of humanity; excluding of course the small group of which you are a member, is socially dysfunctional. Do you have any idea how insane this sounds?
Click to expand...

You might want to bone up a bit on your demographics, Jerome. Then maybe we can deal with explanations of "correlated" and "similarly varying rates".
 
quixotecoyote said:
I was actually about to agree with you, but then I thought about it.

What percentage of the world lives in societies free from oppression; with a distribution of resources so that everyone has basic needs met; and with equal rights for all people regards of sex, gender, or race?

I'd say that percentage could arguably be on under 50%.

So even if you can't pin it on religion, "the vast majority of humanity ... is socially dysfunctional" doesn't seem that far fetched.
Click to expand...

You are just defining social dysfunction based upon your beliefs. By this argument I could define social dysfunction which encompasses every human outside of my imitate family.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are just defining social dysfunction based upon your beliefs. By this argument I could define social dysfunction which encompasses every human outside of my imitate family.
Click to expand...

You just tried to apply the concept of social dysfunction to humanity and find it laughable. You really think the majority of the world are well functioning societies?
 
Let me guess...
Jerome received his education in a "red state"...

I have Jerome on ignore... if he's talking to me, I'm defining social dysfunction by rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, homicide, abortion, and crime as measured by statistics... I am backing it up with a study done by the Journal for Religion and Society... a source that would have no reason to be biased against religion or religiosity.

People seem to believe that religiosity and belief in creationism are associated with moral behavior and societal health when, in fact, the statistics show the opposite is true. The more religious a society is-- particularly in the bible belt of the US-- the worse their societal health. The lower the acceptance of evolution, the more red-necky and backwards and socially hypocritical the populace-- it appears. This is not to say that one "causes" the other. But whatever benefits one imagines coming from religiosity and believing in fairytale versions of humanity... aren't born out by the statistics.

Of course, the faithful don't care about silly things like "evidence". Jerome denies believing in a creator... but like many theists, I suspect he is a liar for Jesus. He thinks he's smarter than everyone else because he has access to "divine truths" that he's very nebulous about mentioning. Evolution is wrong to him... but he sure is cagey about what alternative explanation he's covering for.
 
Last edited:
Your premise is the vast majority of humanity; excluding of course the small group of which you are a member, is socially dysfunctional.
Click to expand...
No. What she's saying is that religious belief goes up when you reduce education and wealth. Which probably means nothing more than that people in financial troubles are more likely to lean on religion for support.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I prefer not to make unsubstantiated guesses to which the evidence does not point. I certainly understand why humans want to have answers, but I will not accept answers which are nothing more than beliefs based upon desire.
Click to expand...
So, you claim that a mechanistic hypothesis for life's origin is as equally invalid as saying a creator did it?
 
joobz said:
So, you claim that a mechanistic hypothesis for life's origin is as equally invalid as saying a creator did it?
Click to expand...

You are asking what is my preferred answer. I am stating now and have stated previously that I have zero preference and that the evidence does not support either, in addition both have the possibility of being incorrect.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are asking what is my preferred answer. I am stating now and have stated previously that I have zero preference and that the evidence does not support either
Click to expand...
I would agree if there was at least one example of a creator's involvment in this world. However, that evidence fails to creep up.
And you are correct. No direct evidence for any one single mechanistic discription. However, the notion that a mechanism doesn't exist is simply unsubstantiated. We have never seen anything occur without a mechanism for action. As such, equating creation with mechanistic abiogenesis as being equal in thier unkowns is simply wrong.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
, in addition both have the possibility of being incorrect.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
When you are poor and uneducated you use witch doctors and primitive forms of social bonding and group "insurance"... religion thrives where it's the best thing going... but evidence based practices trump religion for every measurable means to any end.

Ugh... and that "faith in the sun rise" thing is the oldest apologetics ever... do all the religionists read the same book? Does this sound like a credible argument to them? The sun rises whether I have faith that it does or not. I believe that it will based on evidence. Moreover, I know via science that it is not really "rising" at all-- that's an illusion produced by my planet rotating towards the sun each morning and away from it in the evening. The bible's full account of this event is: "god said, let there be light... and there was; and it was good".

It's a nice story when you have nothing else to go on. But facts trump faith every time. I have evidence that scientists know what the hell they are talking about and if the world were to stop turning for some reason we would be able to predict such an event in advance... and we'd all know that the sun would not be rising because the lack of turning of our planet would make us all fly off into space....

Geez.

But religious people are so daft that they think this "scientists have faith the sun will rise" is a good argument... it's just their inane way of putting faith-based knowledge on par with actual knowledge-- the evidence based kind... the kind that is true whether you "believe in it" or not. The kind of stuff that no invisible omniscient guy thought to mention when he was inspiring mortals to write his "divine truths".

Faith based thinking can lead to such arrogance coupled with such ignorance...

'tis a shame, really. And the afflicted people imagine themselves smarter and more humble than everyone else. They think they have something to teach and nothing to learn and so they perpetuate their own ignorance.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Then we are on the same page. :)
Click to expand...
yes, but do you agree that missunderstanding can arise from such widely varying usage of a word.

A christian takes something on faith when there is no evidence.
A scientist takes something on faith when the evidence suggests it is extremely probable. These concepts are almost polar opposites. But it doesn't stop people from use that common term to equate scientific faith and religious faith. That is what quixotecoyote meant by doublespeak.
 
articulett said:
Faith based thinking can lead to such arrogance coupled with such ignorance...

'tis a shame, really. And the afflicted people imagine themselves smarter and more humble than everyone else. They think they have something to teach and nothing to learn and so they perpetuate their own ignorance.
Click to expand...



Your diatribe has little to do with the current talk, and in light of this your final statements are exceedingly telling.

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom