 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> and atheists aren't anti-christian, they're anti-theist. :-)
>
> In my experience the majority of self-proclaimed atheists vehemently
> oppose christianity, usually much more than any other religions. Usually
> they have a more or less indifferent attitude towards other religions,
> while loudly opposing anything related to christianity.
I don't know any atheists who oppose christian suicide bombers more than
muslim suicide bombers. It's probably just that the atheists here have
more christians to oppose.
> (I have even witnessed extreme cases, where devoted atheists have had
> a *positive* attitude towards other religions, up to the point where they
> frown upon criticising them, while still loudly criticising christianity.)
That's kind of strange. These were theistic religions?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You were talking about evolution, to start with, tho. We know there are
> theories that aren't complete. We know there are unanswered questions in
> every scientific theory. But most stuff tends to be refinements of what
> we already know in realms we couldn't measure before. Even quantum and
> relativity didn't overthrow newtonian physics - we still use that to
> shoot space probes.
The problem is that while most knowledgeable people are not claiming
that the theory of relativity is the absolute truth, many are nevertheless
saying that the theory of evolution is the absolute truth. Granted, in
many cases it's the laymen who know little about the actual physics who
throw claims like "the theory of evolution has been proven to be true",
especially in heated discussions against creationists, but you can see
claims along those lines from more knowledgeable people too.
For example Phil Plait is a professional astronomer, and you can
constantly find that kind of attitude in his blog. He doesn't believe
that evolution is true, he *knows* that evolution is true. It's a fact.
When reading his blog on this subject it quickly becomes clear that to
him evolution is exactly the same type of fact as gravity or the existence
of the Sun. It's quite clear that to him it's not a theory at all, but a
proven law of nature.
It's this kind of "I know" attitude that bothers me.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Hence, the
> mocking obviously had some use here, getting some of the more religious
> people trying to defend their beliefs in some small way.
I haven't seen any defending of religious views in this thread. Perhaps
I missed it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
> If I have to be hated by one fool to prevent a hundred people following
> him blindly because no-one wanted to sound confrontational, well so be
> it. It does not make things worst overall.
To me the mocking just looks like preaching to the choir. (No pun
intended, really.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > You always sound so arrogant, but in this case you are simply wrong,
> > sorry, and this time I have quite clear references. For example:
> >
> > http://amasci.com/weird/end.html
> OK, so for 20 years they thought they'd have everything figured out.
> That's hardly stagnation.
I don't remember saying anything about stagnation, but whatever.
> > And why do you bring up religion into this?
> Must be something about the thread. Hmmm... Could be the creationist
> museum concept?
The sub-thread I started was related to the mocking of other people
because of their beliefs, not to whether creationists are right or wrong.
The usenet protocol doesn't really support the concept of "sub-thread",
where a thread is spawned by another. You can either change the subject
of your post (which still technically makes it part of the same thread)
or create a completely new thread (which would separate it from its
context).
The objection I raised was not about the validity of any claims, but
about the moral justification of this kind of mocking.
> > Where have I proposed that? Why do you insist in bringing religion
> > into this?
> I dunno. I look at the subject line, and when you say "I believe
> evolution is implausible",
I have never said that's my opinion. The only thing I have said is
that someone having that opinion is not reason enough to ridicule him.
If I say "you should not make fun of homosexuals" that doesn't imply
I am a homosexual, nor even that I am a pro-homosexual. It simply means
that I object to making fun of people because of their orientation.
> I have to believe it's because you prefer the
> religious explanation.
I have never implied anything like that either. That's completely your
own idea.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You can find the latter attitude in all kind of people, from complete
> laymen to amateur scientists to professional scientists. Sure, not *all*
> people are like that, but many are.
What you're saying is that the same 'blind belief' attitude is present
amongst all categories of people, regardless of whether what they
believe is religion or science. From what I understand, the very point
of science is its mutability; when new, contradicting evidence is
discovered, old theories are modified or discarded. And while some
people think that Science, like Religion, is set in stone and there
haven't been paradigm shifts since [insert famous name here, be it
Einstein, Hawking, Pasteur, Watson/Crick, Galileo, etc], each field is
constantly undergoing change based on new evidence; if you don't
actively follow that field, however, you're left thinking it static.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The article is indeed all about mockery and too over-the-top itself. But he
does not take jabs at Christians, only at this whole Intelligent Design,
Creationism propaganda trying to pass off as Science. It's not Science because
Science is (or should be) all about trying to break down old theories of how
things work, while ID is all about reassuring the Word of God as written in the
Bible.
I don't think there is today as much anti-christianism as there is an
anti-scientific mood in the air...
I'm a Christian but I think it's hard to believe God would reveal all the
mysteries of the Universe in exact technical details to the simple shepherds of
4000+ years ago... He had to keep it simple. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I don't think there is today as much anti-christianism as there is an
> anti-scientific mood in the air...
That may be so in the US. Not yet here.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> The article is indeed all about mockery and too over-the-top itself. But he
> does not take jabs at Christians, only at this whole Intelligent Design,
> Creationism propaganda trying to pass off as Science. It's not Science because
> Science is (or should be) all about trying to break down old theories of how
> things work, while ID is all about reassuring the Word of God as written in the
> Bible.
Science isn't about either specifically breaking down or proving old
theories; it's about both, or neither, depending on the evidence. If
evidence shows that an old theory is *mostly* correct, you don't
completely discard the old theory; you just modify it so it also
incorporates the new data.
Also: what are you supposed to call it if you believe something (we'll
call it "God") created everything and the rules by which everything
works, and at least has the capacity to directly interfere, whether or
not it does such, and things like evolution and physics are a result of
those rules? Since "Intelligent Design" has been co-opted..
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
>>> You're not going to change the mind of the religious person.
>>
>> So let's make things even worse and make him hate you?
He already hates me. He thinks I deserve an eternity of damnation.
> If I have to be hated by one fool to prevent a hundred people following
> him blindly because no-one wanted to sound confrontational, well so be
> it. It does not make things worst overall.
Precisely. Warp, your mileage may vary. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
