The Notre Dame brouhaha...

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Your problem with atheism aside, to call finknottle's post "rambling" makes you come across as a total dumbass. He was using evolutionary biology to address a specific question you posed earlier: why is a belief in God so pervasive throughout humanity if one were to assume God does not exist?

 

You do believe in evolutionary biology, don't you?

 

It is PPP requirement to appear as a dumb ass. And you pass. Welcome.

[Typical TBD Guy]

It is PPP requirement to appear as a dumb ass. And you pass. Welcome.

 

I'll try this one more time without namecalling.

 

What of finknottle's post (#66 in this thread) did you not agree with?

[Brian Cohen]

I'll try this one more time without namecalling.

 

What of finknottle's post (#66 in this thread) did you not agree with?

 

I would say that the science is being misrepresented. The evidence is that humanity is genetically predisposed towards the "higher power" explanation, not that humanity is simply predisposed to try to explain phenomena away. The simplest explanation of the science appeared in Newsweek in 2007 (roughly spring, if I'm remembering correctly).

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

I'll try this one more time without namecalling.

 

What of finknottle's post (#66 in this thread) did you not agree with?

 

 

Right, the old natural selection and evolution cause everything including mythology in our heads theory. I must admit, it sure does explain God away very neatly.

[Gene Frenkle]

Right, the old natural selection and evolution cause everything including mythology in our heads theory. I must admit, it sure does explain God away very neatly.

Why not just say that God set the Big Bang in motion and all that has happend since is part of his plan? You can say that he intended all things that we find to be true. It's not so different from what you claim now. You will no longer feel compelled to ignore good science and you can keep your warm and fuzzies too!

[/dev/null]

Why not just say that God set the Big Bang in motion and all that has happend since is part of his plan? You can say that he intended all things that we find to be true. It's not so different from what you claim now. You will no longer feel compelled to ignore good science and you can keep your warm and fuzzies too!

 

Gene Frenkle FTW (even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes )

[Gene Frenkle]

Gene Frenkle FTW (even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes )

Your avatar has been giving me seizures.

[DC Tom]

Why not just say that God set the Big Bang in motion and all that has happend since is part of his plan? You can say that he intended all things that we find to be true. It's not so different from what you claim now. You will no longer feel compelled to ignore good science and you can keep your warm and fuzzies too!

 

Because that's not what the Bible says.

 

It's not about belief in God. It's about belief in a Book, and the only way we can know what God has done and will do is to take that Book* literally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*My Book. Not your Book. Your Book is heretical and pagan. Only my Book is right.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I would say that the science is being misrepresented. The evidence is that humanity is genetically predisposed towards the "higher power" explanation, not that humanity is simply predisposed to try to explain phenomena away. The simplest explanation of the science appeared in Newsweek in 2007 (roughly spring, if I'm remembering correctly).

 

Well for one thing, I wouldn’t trust whatever a popular science article from Newsweek states over whatever the original source – a refereed science journal – states.

 

In whatever research we are all referring to, the statement, “humans are predisposed toward believing in a higher power,” was most likely the corollary from a more canonical evolutionary assertion. Humans are most definitely thought to be “predisposed to try and explain phenomena away,” although maybe I would rephrase that as, “humans are predisposed to contemplating, examining, and understanding their environment at a level unseen in any other living species.”

 

I thought finknottle’s explanation for religion was sound, but maybe somewhat incomplete? He refers strictly to the action-inaction behavioral advantages in believing in a higher power, but I might have also elaborated on the social bonding and psychological coping advantages as well.

 

Furthermore, I would have also mentioned the usefulness that playing “The Great Omnipotent Invisible Man In The Sky” card was to alpha males. Superior physical strength and mental acuity are helpful in winning leadership positions and controlling the human behavior of the masses, but even more so are the dual uses of fear and of mystical rewards. As for what happened to all those non-believers and skeptics in very early man? Well maybe the alpha males had them all conveniently killed off? It’s a hypothesis that would match what scientists see in alpha-beta male relationships throughout many other species in the animal kingdom.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Right, the old natural selection and evolution cause everything including mythology in our heads theory. I must admit, it sure does explain God away very neatly.

 

It's not about trying to explain God away. It's about carefully and rigorously applying the scientific method to try and answer science's difficult questions instead of just taking the easy way out and saying God did it.

 

The scientific method has been somewhat useful in the past in helping to explain things and solve civilization's problems, no? So why not continue with it a little further?

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

It's not about trying to explain God away. It's about carefully and rigorously applying the scientific method to try and answer science's difficult questions instead of just taking the easy way out and saying God did it.

 

The scientific method has been somewhat useful in the past in helping to explain things and solve civilization's problems, no? So why not continue with it a little further?

 

I have never have understood the conflict between science and faith (notice I did not say religion) that so many, on both sides, have a problem with. You need to learn how to compartmentalize, seemingly conflicting ideas. Think what science has discovered in just the past hundred years, things that were once thought true, that are now thought not. Think how much will be learned in the next one hundred. But a theory about primitive alpha males using fear, religion, and angry mountain Gods, does not prove God or some ultimate power, does not exist. That too, would take a leap of faith.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Why not just say that God set the Big Bang in motion and all that has happend since is part of his plan? You can say that he intended all things that we find to be true. It's not so different from what you claim now. You will no longer feel compelled to ignore good science and you can keep your warm and fuzzies too!

 

So what set the big bang in motion, I mean just this last time? What existed before? Other various sized bangs over an eternity? Eternity! Now there's a concept. Science has got that one all figured out.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I have never have understood the conflict between science and faith (notice I did not say religion) that so many, on both sides, have a problem with. You need to learn how to compartmentalize, seemingly conflicting ideas. Think what science has discovered in just the past hundred years, things that were once thought true, that are now thought not. Think how much will be learned in the next one hundred. But a theory about primitive alpha males using fear, religion, and angry mountain Gods, does not prove God or some ultimate power, does not exist. That too, would take a leap of faith.

 

But was the alpha male hypothesis I described, like any scientific hypothesis derived from the theory of natural selection, even making such a far-reaching claim?

 

You need to seriously think about who is the one here having trouble learning how to "compartmentalize seemingly conflicting ideas."

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

But was the alpha male hypothesis I described, like any scientific hypothesis derived from the theory of natural selection, even making such a far-reaching claim?

 

You need to seriously think about who is the one here having trouble learning how to "compartmentalize seemingly conflicting ideas."

 

I certainly did get the idea that was your point, that God is just an "imaginary man in the sky." And dismissing any other point of view as to easy. What was your far reaching point?

[Gene Frenkle]

Because that's not what the Bible says.

 

It's not about belief in God. It's about belief in a Book, and the only way we can know what God has done and will do is to take that Book* literally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*My Book. Not your Book. Your Book is heretical and pagan. Only my Book is right.

Which is why, in the end, all organized religion sucks donkey balls.

 

No offense to anyone here of course.

[Gene Frenkle]

So what set the big bang in motion, I mean just this last time? What existed before? Other various sized bangs over an eternity? Eternity! Now there's a concept. Science has got that one all figured out.

So do you just score low on the reading comprehension part of the test or do you have a problem that I should be sensitive to?

 

Just kidding. But you basically just reiterated my point. We'll probably never know (with any great detail) what happened before the Big Bang. I was giving you an out. God can certainly rain down fire and brimstone in the Pre-Big-Bang Universe. It's uninteresting to me because it's really just making schitt up.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I certainly did get the idea that was your point, that God is just an "imaginary man in the sky." And dismissing any other point of view as to easy. What was your far reaching point?

 

WRONG.

 

My point wasn't that God is just an "imaginary man in the sky." My point was that invoking the "God did it" explanation for any question about the universe around us is scientifically invalid and, quite frankly, intellectually lazy. In other words, the scientific method must necessarily ignore the role of God and his very existence for the specific purpose of better understanding the world around us. That is why I have referred to God as The Invisible Sky Man. The issue of a higher power's existence is a philosophical question, not a scientific one upon which I have actually taken any definitive position.

 

The Biblical Creationist version of God, however, is another matter altogether. Science has conclusively proven that idea to be false. If you believe that the Earth is 5K years old, or that humans aren't evolving primates, or that God cares whether you masturbate in the shower or kiss another man, then yes you are most definitely irrational.

 

I will ask you again: do you think the scientific theory of evolution is an accurate description of the biological world around us?

[Booster4324]

I will ask you again: do you think the scientific theory of evolution is an accurate description of the biological world around us?

 

 

I do. I also think that it meshes nicely with the bible if you aren't strict about interpretation. I also believe in a God, if not necessarily the one straight from the bible. Of course that falls nicely into the true strength of religion. I mean that it is an article of faith, you either believe or you don't. Just my take.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

So do you just score low on the reading comprehension part of the test or do you have a problem that I should be sensitive to?

 

Just kidding. But you basically just reiterated my point. We'll probably never know (with any great detail) what happened before the Big Bang. I was giving you an out. God can certainly rain down fire and brimstone in the Pre-Big-Bang Universe. It's uninteresting to me because it's really just making schitt up.

 

The Big Bang theory, is still just a theory after all. A good one, the 3 degree Kelvin thing, faster moving distant galaxies, and such. But it has some holes in it, insufficient mass for instance. No where in this discussion did I ever say I don't believe in science. But genuine scientific analysis does not prove that God does not exist. But keep trying.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

WRONG.

 

My point wasn't that God is just an "imaginary man in the sky." My point was that invoking the "God did it" explanation for any question about the universe around us is scientifically invalid and, quite frankly, intellectually lazy. In other words, the scientific method must necessarily ignore the role of God and his very existence for the specific purpose of better understanding the world around us. That is why I have referred to God as The Invisible Sky Man. The issue of a higher power's existence is a philosophical question, not a scientific one upon which I have actually taken any definitive position.

 

The Biblical Creationist version of God, however, is another matter altogether. Science has conclusively proven that idea to be false. If you believe that the Earth is 5K years old, or that humans aren't evolving primates, or that God cares whether you masturbate in the shower or kiss another man, then yes you are most definitely irrational.

 

I will ask you again: do you think the scientific theory of evolution is an accurate description of the biological world around us?

 

Were you talking about Invisible Sky Man and Alpha male priests, or was it Finknottle? Honest science does not prove god does not exist. You seem to have some real angst against organized religion. Leave me out of it.