Support NeoGAF

[Count Dookkake]

It's still a fundamental part of the individual, even if it's purely ideological. There is nothing illogical about religion, just the interpretations by the individual that can be illogical.

Just like racism and homophobia.

 

[WillyFive]

Wow at this thread.

Can you guys even handle stuff like this?

One of these days, they are going to ban talk of religion in here just like they did with other things. It gets dirty here real fast.

 

[a Master Ninja]

Wrapping my mind around the idea of fossilized remains of an organism like that surviving for 2.1 billion years is no easy task.

 

[JBaird]

Just like racism and homophobia.

You are comparing two different forms of ideologies. Racism and Homophobia is a ideology of hate and misunderstanding of an individuals lifestyle where as religion was established an an ideology of understanding how the world works not as a form of suppression.

 

[Mario]

Anyway, I believe in creation, I don't think there is anything wrong with that...

If you are willing to accept that there is no scientific evidence for "creation", and dismiss the massive amount of scientific evidence against creation, then I could understand how you might consider there is nothing wrong with it.

However, hopefully you might understand how others would find it difficult to understand how you can adopt such an irrational position.

besides, these days a person needs to cling to something...the hope that there's something more.

Why does there need to be "more"? And if there does need to be more, why not make that more yourself in the here and now?


Also, this discovery is interesting (as is the Edicara wiki page).

 

[Stinkles]

Anyway, I believe in creation, I don't think there is anything wrong with that...besides, these days a person needs to cling to something...the hope that there's something more.If you don't mind me saying so, that's a terrible assumption, especially if you haven't researched for yourself or with someone who's a member of a specific group. If there are indeed thousands, I have the feeling you haven't done your homework on every one of them.

I don't think you read my post carefully. I said "many" out of thousands. Not all, or most. "Many."

Also, to the previous poster who said religion wasn't illogical, it is illogical, which is why it relies on the concept of faith. Even devoutly religious people will tell you their faith is not based on reason, but on faith.

 

[JBaird]

If you are willing to accept that there is no scientific evidence for "creation", and dismiss the massive amount of scientific evidence against creation, then I could understand how you might consider there is nothing wrong with it.

However, hopefully you might understand how others would find it difficult to understand how you can adopt such an irrational position.

What's the difference between believing in a creator and believing in a group of gasses causing an explosion. They both are beyond comprehension as both are essentially one in the same.

 

[Meesh]

Wow at this thread.

Can you guys even handle stuff like this?

One of these days, they are going to ban talk of religion in here just like they did with other things. It gets dirty here real fast.

I don't see any reason to ban the talk of religion, so long as people are rational.

 

[thelooseteeth]

What's the difference between believing in a creator and believing in a group of gasses causing an explosion. They both are beyond comprehension as both are essentially one in the same.

awwwwwwwwwwww, here it goes!

 

[Snaku]

How do they date these things

 

[JBaird]

I don't see any reason to ban the talk of religion, so long as people are rational.

How are insults rational? I have no problem with people debating religion as I find it a fascinating subject, but even in this thread there is someone saying "creationists are stoopid". If I were to say "Gays are stoopid" I would most likely be banned. I am just pointing out the hypocritical nature of the subject.

 

[Mario]

What's the difference between believing in a creator and believing in a group of gasses causing an explosion. They both are beyond comprehension as both are essentially one in the same.

Because...

There is no scientific evidence for a creator. There is strong scientific evidence which completely contradicts or directly disproves creation claims such as that detailed the Bible. Believing in a creator requires someone to reject the scientific evidence and is a completely faith based position.

There is strong scientific evidence which supports the "Big Bang" theory of the origin of the universe. There are both recognised unknowns and unknowables, plus the process is open to refinement and revision as we learn more and our methods of enquiry improve. Accepting this evidence is a reasonable and rational position.

These two positions are not the same.


You are also mischaracterising the Big Bang. The Big Bang was not an explosion, and it was certainly not an explosion of "gasses". To put it in ridiculously simplified terms, the Big Bang was the creation of time and a rapid expansion of space generated out an infinitely dense point of energy. If you would like some resources to learn more about this process, I'd be happy to point you towards some, though I'd suggest starting with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[Mgoblue201]

How are insults rational? I have no problem with people debating religion as I find it a fascinating subject, but even in this thread there is someone saying "creationists are stoopid". If I were to say "Gays are stoopid" I would most likely be banned. I am just pointing out the hypocritical nature of the subject.

When people mention creationism, they usually mean young Earth creationism, which is clearly and factually wrong. An untruth should not be protected from ridicule, even if it has religion appended to it. And even the ridicule of religion should not necessarily fall into the area of discrimination. It is not a trait. It is a belief. Those are very different things.

 

[Pikelet]

They both are beyond comprehension as both are essentially one in the same.

By definition the theories that we use to explain things about the past are not beyond our comprehension. I would not say that they are the same thing but instead say that there is a fundamental difference between the two. In reality we may be wrong, but it is clearly more logical to believe in things based on evidence and rationality than unsubstantiated belief.

 

[Meesh]

I don't think you read my post carefully. I said "many" out of thousands. Not all, or most. "Many."

Also, to the previous poster who said religion wasn't illogical, it is illogical, which is why it relies on the concept of faith. Even devoutly religious people will tell you their faith is not based on reason, but on faith.

Many appologies Reason comes from biblical knowledge. What I mean is, a person has faith when they have a clear or accurate understanding of the bible, and it's that understanding that gives reason for their faith.(They have reason to believe? lol) If you don't believe in a god, or aren't open to learning the bible, then it seems illogical, depending on your perception of what the bible teaches or better, the interpretation learned, or taught, of what the bible teaches. There are many sound, basic lessons the bible teaches that are usefull in everyday life that are used in so many religions...but as you highlighted for me "many" are illogical.(again, sorry about that) Perhaps I should take back what I said earlier though...religion has been the cause of so many heated conflicts, wars, tragedies, it may be too hard for the collective gaf to talk about.

 

[JBaird]

When people mention creationism, they usually mean young Earth creationism, which is clearly and factually wrong. An untruth should not be protected from ridicule, even if it has religion appended to it. And even the ridicule of religion should not necessarily fall into the area of discrimination. It is not a trait. It is a belief. Those are very different things.

The use of Gay as a derogatory word is not banned because it's of biological nature, but because it's a touchy subject and a bigoted use of the word. Someone insulting a religious person is no less of a touchy subject and just as bigoted. My argument isn't really about the insult of creationism, but just how religion is bashed on GAF.

 

[Meesh]

How are insults rational? I have no problem with people debating religion as I find it a fascinating subject, but even in this thread there is someone saying "creationists are stoopid". If I were to say "Gays are stoopid" I would most likely be banned. I am just pointing out the hypocritical nature of the subject.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, now I'm being misread or understood. I wasn't implying that insults were rational, not by a long shot, it was just a broad statement regarding opposing viewpoints, and those insults. ummm.........sorry?.........

Because...
There is no scientific evidence for a creator. There is strong scientific evidence which completely contradicts or directly disproves creation claims such as that detailed the Bible.

There is no evidence that the world happened by chance, there are only theories. It sounds as though your interpretation of the bible has you incredibly mislead.

 

[noah111]

What's the difference between believing in a creator and believing in a group of gasses causing an explosion. They both are beyond comprehension as both are essentially one in the same.

One is beyond comprehension and beyond explanation, whereas the other has an explanation and can be explained, with time. We may not know everything now, but that shouldn't stop us from saying something is 'beyond comprehension'. Keep in mind that's what has been said throughout history (what keeps the planets afloat is the work of god and cannot be explained etc etc).

I see where you're coming from, but you're wrong, basically.

 

[Presco]

There are many sound, basic lessons the bible teaches that are usefull in everyday life that are used in so many religions...

King James Version, Second Kings 2:23-24
23: And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up that way, there came forth little children of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; Go up, thou bald head.

24: And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood and tare forty and two children of them.

And also, purported discovery is hella cool.

 

[Princess Carl]

Yay. I was hoping for a good thread tonight.

People don't make fun of you, they make fun of Religion you believe in.

If I believed that i had superpowers and you just needed to have faith in me for my powers to work. And all you had to do was donate money to me and worship me; then yes, I would hope people would make fun of the idea that I had superpowers.

 

[Meesh]

King James Version, Second Kings 2:23-24
23: And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up that way, there came forth little children of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; Go up, thou bald head.

24: And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood and tare forty and two children of them.

And also, purported discovery is hella cool.

lol, well sure

 

[Pikelet]

Many appologies Reason comes from biblical knowledge. What I mean is, a person has faith when they have a clear or accurate understanding of the bible, and it's that understanding that gives reason for their faith.(They have reason to believe? lol) If you don't believe in a god, or aren't open to learning the bible, then it seems illogical, depending on your perception of what the bible teaches or better, the interpretation learned, or taught, of what the bible teaches.

Thats a pretty sketchy definition of the word 'reason'
When i say it (and what i assume most people mean when they say it in this thread) i mean rationality, logic and other higher functions. aka things that don't come from biblical knowledge at all.

Also, that last sentence is a train-wreck Cutting down on your use of commas will increase your readability about ten-fold. As it is now, i have no idea what you are saying :lol

 

[JBaird]

One is beyond comprehension and beyond explanation, whereas the other has an explanation and can be explained, with time. We may not know everything now, but that shouldn't stop us from saying something is 'beyond comprehension'. Keep in mind that's what has been said throughout history (what keeps the planets afloat is the work of god and cannot be explained etc etc).

I see where you're coming from, but you're wrong, basically.

I'm not exactly sure how one can be different from the other, especially if I can claim that the gases WERE God. :lol

It's all about interpretation on the subject and it seems most people are too narrow minded stuck on science or established religions.

 

[JBaird]

Yay. I was hoping for a good thread tonight.

People don't make fun of you, they make fun of Religion you believe in.

If I believed that i had superpowers and you just needed to have faith in me for my powers to work. And all you had to do was donate money to me and worship me; then yes, I would hope people would make fun of the idea that I had superpowers.

It would still be bigoted to insult you. I would have no problem debating or laughing at the concept, but I would not insult you.

Edit: opps meant to add it to my above post.

 

[Count Dookkake]

You are comparing two different forms of ideologies. Racism and Homophobia is a ideology of hate and misunderstanding of an individuals lifestyle where as religion was established an an ideology of understanding how the world works not as a form of suppression.

Says you.

 

[danwarb]

I'm not exactly sure how one can be different from the other, especially if I can claim that the gases WERE God. :lol

It's all about interpretation on the subject and it seems most people are too narrow minded stuck on science or established religions.

There were no gasses.

 

[Mario]

.There is no evidence that the world happened by chance, there are only theories.

Science does not claim that the world happened "by chance".

As for "there are only theories", the use of the word "theory" in science does not mean "guess". A scientific theory is actually a well supported and heavily scrutinised explanation of physical phenomenon backed up by observed evidence and experimentation and also able to make predictions.

For example, gravity and evolution are facts. They both happen. The "theory of gravity" and the "theory of evolution" are detailed explanations of why and how they happen.

It sounds as though your interpretation of the bible has you incredibly mislead.

While I have not had formal religious studies outside of very limited Sunday school, I have reread the Bible twice in the past couple of years, and read/watched countless materials on the various creation positions.

I'm sorry, but the Bible makes claims which are at odds with our observations and understanding of the universe.

 

[JBaird]

Says you.

Yeah I'm pretty sure I said that, it does have my name in the quote and I recall posting that a few minutes ago.

There were no gasses.

Atoms, trash, sandwhich, whatever the form of the beginning of existence that is explained by science.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yeah I'm pretty sure I said that, it does have my name in the quote and I recall posting that a few minutes ago.

Durr.

Support that which you said.

 

[Pikelet]

I'm not exactly sure how one can be different from the other, especially if I can claim that the gases WERE God.

Now that's just silly.
That would be tacking on religion in places where there is even less reason for it to be.



...Anyways, to go back on topic: This discovery fascinates me, makes you wonder how different our view of the past will be within my lifetime.

 

[JBaird]

Durr.

Support that which you said.

lol

Anyway I really don't see what needs support? Unless you are talking about religion being created as an explanation?

Now that's just silly.
That would be tacking on religion in places where there is even less reason for it to be.



...Anyways, to go back on topic: This discovery fascinates me, makes you wonder how different our view of the past will be within my lifetime.

That's why I put the laughing smiley, it was a hyperbole explanation, but not really far from the truth behind the idea of religion.

Anyway I agree with you on the discovery fascination.

 

[Count Dookkake]

lol

Anyway I really don't see what needs support? Unless you are talking about religion being created as an explanation?

All of it.

 

[Meesh]

Thats a pretty sketchy definition of the word 'reason'
When i say it (and what i assume most people mean when they say it in this thread) is rationality, logic and other higher functions. aka things that don't come from biblical knowledge at all.

Also, that last sentence is a train-wreck Cutting down on your use of commas will increase your readability about ten-fold. As it is now, i have no idea what you are saying :lol

There is nothing sketchy about it. Reason comes from exactly what you're talking about, those "higher functions"... Logic and rationality are used to teach the bible clearly. That's how teaching works. If you haven't experienced this, then you're probably thinking about the raving lunatic that's usually preaching to you. Clear, level headed and open minded discussion without finger pointing and raised voices usually works. If I'm throwing around too many commas it's usually when I'm in thought. Thanks for pointing them out.

While I have not had formal religious studies outside of very limited Sunday school, I have reread the Bible twice in the past couple of years, and read/watched countless materials on the various creation positions.

I'm sorry, but the Bible makes claims which are at odds with our observations and understanding of the universe.

Not many read the Bible and finish it, that's huge. But I have to say, It's those very interpretations or teachings that have you thinking the Bible contradicts science. The problem with Biblical study is that it's more than Sunday school or a couple documentaries, it's a life style. Learning the Bible and applying it's principles requires change, it's generally not enough to know how one person views it versus another. It requires a search for truth and it may take years for a person to find a teaching that makes sense. I think because the Bible holds so many visions or dreams that need interpretation to understand them fully, that's why we have so many religions vying for support...really, there's a lot of shit to sift through. I'm not stating a case to change someone's mind here, I'm just saying...don't discount everything yet...

 

[Presco]

Durr.

Support that which you said.

It's just not worth arguing. As much as I want to, it's utterly useless. Reason and logic will not work on their type. Durr is definitely the most accurate way to put it.

 

[Green Mamba]

And you guys have ruined yet another thread.

Way to go. All of you involved in this shit.

 

[Presco]

And you guys have ruined yet another thread.

Way to go. All of you involved in this shit.

You are very right. I am also at fault. Everyone go read the Ediacara biota page on wikipedia and forget the argument.

 

[Mario]

Anyways, to go back on topic: This discovery fascinates me, makes you wonder how different our view of the past will be within my lifetime.

Our fossil and biological discoveries over the past 50 years have been huge and appear to be accelerating as our tools improve. I think within the next 50 years we will have made some profound discoveries.

What particularly interests me is the possibility of life on other planets and moons within our solar system. Finding even simple bacteria on another planet or moon would have profound implications for our understanding and view of life. Though I have my fingers crossed for more complex life in the possible underground seas of Europa

 

[JBaird]

It's just not worth arguing. As much as I want to, it's utterly useless. Reason and logic will not work on their type. Durr is definitely the most accurate way to put it.

Their type? I'm pretty much an atheist. I just hate the definitive view on the subject of religion and science, both can be very dynamic. My main point is that both sides have interesting things to be explored and neither are definite. The whole reason I even posted in the begging though was to point out the hypocritical bigotry.

Our fossil and biological discoveries over the past 50 years have been huge and appear to be accelerating as our tools improve. I think within the next 50 years we will have made some profound discoveries.

What particularly interests me is the possibility of life on other planets and moons within our solar system. Finding even simple bacteria on another planet or moon would have profound implications for our understanding and view of life. Though I have my fingers crossed for more complex life in the possible underground seas of Europa

Yeah, if there was any reason I would want to be immortal would be purely to observe historical finds in 50, 100, 1000 years.

 

[Meesh]

It's just not worth arguing. As much as I want to, it's utterly useless. Reason and logic will not work on their type. Durr is definitely the most accurate way to put it.

Nice. What's their type? I'm trying to have a logical conversation, If you'd like to make a thread about creation vs science or whatever I'll join. Sorry to derail, originally I was wondering about the validity of carbon dating...I don't think I found the answere...

 

[yankeehater]

Here's my guess. Gay is something innate to one's person, based on a series of facts, some biological, some sociological. A gay person, in toto, is following a reasonably logical path. Religions, on the other hand, and there are thousands, range from utter horseshit all the way up to very well established and monolithic giants. But they're all based on an illogical precept, and many do significant harm to communities large and small. So they are ripe and rightfully open to criticism.

Best. Post. Ever.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

So quick to start the Religion bashing

Otherwise some would have to learn 'n think 'n stuff.

Our fossil and biological discoveries over the past 50 years have been huge and appear to be accelerating as our tools improve. I think within the next 50 years we will have made some profound discoveries.

What particularly interests me is the possibility of life on other planets and moons within our solar system. Finding even simple bacteria on another planet or moon would have profound implications for our understanding and view of life. Though I have my fingers crossed for more complex life in the possible underground seas of Europa

And more and more countries' formations are feasible to get at, with more countries fielding scientists working in these fields, ESPECIALLY China. China's a freaking gold mine for fossils.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Can we still talk about the scientific aspect of this, or have we already moved on to religion?

 

[JBaird]

Best. Post. Ever.

Not really as it doesn't explain the reason for not allowing bigotry in one occasion and it allowing it in another. Both are forms of bigotry of touchy subjects whether biological or ideological and should be unacceptable.

To push the idea further what about the scientific theory that religion was part of human evolution? That would result in religion being a biological attached mechanism.

Can we still talk about the scientific aspect of this, or have we already moved on to religion?

You can talk about both as you go, that's what I'm doing.

 

[Meesh]

Science!

Our fossil and biological discoveries over the past 50 years have been huge and appear to be accelerating as our tools improve. I think within the next 50 years we will have made some profound discoveries.

What particularly interests me is the possibility of life on other planets and moons within our solar system. Finding even simple bacteria on another planet or moon would have profound implications for our understanding and view of life. Though I have my fingers crossed for more complex life in the possible underground seas of Europa

Same. Years ago I read about a cave discovered in Europe that contained it's own eco system, completely shut out from the outside world. There were small fish and scorpions If I remember correctly...an algae or something was at the base of the food chain. Pretty incrdible stuff.

 

[kame-sennin]

You are comparing two different forms of ideologies. Racism and Homophobia is a ideology of hate and misunderstanding of an individuals lifestyle where as religion was established an an ideology of understanding how the world works not as a form of suppression.

White supremacy is an ideology about the nature of the world. So is nazism. You can argue that the religions of the world are based on understanding, but it is undeniable that many of them promote sectarianism, racism, sexism, homophobia, violence, and even genocide. Any belief system that promotes such ideas, regardless of what ever else it promotes, is and should be subject to ridicule.

I think very few people understand how fossil dating works. Really, an atheist who just accepts a claim because it comes from a source of authority is taking it on faith.

It would be irrational (and impossible) to personally investigate every scientific claim known to human kind.

 

[Mario]

Sorry to derail, originally I was wondering about the validity of carbon dating...I don't think I found the answere...

I missed where you asked about the validty of carbon dating. Carbon dating certainly does have limitations, the most important one being it can only date stuff back about 60,000 years or so.

In this sort of discovery, scientists would use a wider range of dating methodlogies including radiometric dating of different elements, geology, chemistry, etc.

In other words, they employ multiple tools which allow them to cross check and achieve a great deal of accuracy.

 

[Monocle]

Not really as it doesn't explain the reason for not allowing bigotry in one occasion and it allowing it in another. Both are forms of bigotry of touchy subjects whether biological or ideological and should be unacceptable.

Actually, it does. OWV's entire post addressed that very point. Reading comprehension fail.

By the way, dismissing irrational nonsense isn't "bigotry."

 

[kame-sennin]

How are insults rational? I have no problem with people debating religion as I find it a fascinating subject, but even in this thread there is someone saying "creationists are stoopid". If I were to say "Gays are stoopid" I would most likely be banned. I am just pointing out the hypocritical nature of the subject.

No, the analogy you are looking for is how we treat political beliefs. Like religion, political beliefs are chosen by the individual who espouses them. Like religious beliefs, political beliefs are very personal. And like religion, on gaf we are allowed to ridicule ridiculous political beliefs without mercy; see libertarianism. There's no hypocrisy there.

What's the difference between believing in a creator and believing in a group of gasses causing an explosion.

Evidence.

 

[Stridone]

Not really as it doesn't explain the reason for not allowing bigotry in one occasion and it allowing it in another. Both are forms of bigotry of touchy subjects whether biological or ideological and should be unacceptable.

To push the idea further what about the scientific theory that religion was part of human evolution? That would result in religion being a biological attached mechanism.

Wanting to have sex is a "biological attached mechanism" too, that doesn't mean you have to rape every women on sight. So stop raping rationality!

 

[JBaird]

Actually, it does. OWV's entire post addressed that very point. Reading comprehension fail.

By the way, dismissing irrational nonsense isn't "bigotry."

Apparently you haven't followed anything I have said. I am not saying dismissing religion is bigotry, I in fact have said that debate on the subject is interesting and fine to do, what I AM talking about is the insulting of religious individuals and their views. Bigotry = being intolerant of another persons view, lifestyle, etc and calling an individual names or demeaning them.

Wanting to have sex is a "biological attached mechanism" too, that doesn't mean you have to rape every women on sight. So stop raping rationality!

lol wtf, I don't even know what you are trying to convey.

No, the analogy you are looking for is how we treat political beliefs. Like religion, political beliefs are chosen by the individual who espouses them. Like religious beliefs, political beliefs are very personal. And like religion, on gaf we are allowed to ridicule ridiculous political beliefs without mercy; see libertarianism. There's no hypocrisy there.



Evidence.

True I guess, but I still find it to be a form of bigotry to insult, key word being insult, someone based on their lifestyle or ideology. I'm more into logical debate than insults.

Although I'm not sure where the evidence is for the big bang theory that couldn't be applied to a form of entity. (no this is not me insinuation the existence of God)