Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[Desperate Measures]

I finally understand. The two of you. This whole internet thing. The reason why I'm not a raging activist in the streets. The two of you. You're in cahoots! Cahoots, I tell you!

I think the employee handbook says I'm not supposed to get into cahoots with my colleagues, especially not my superiors.

This is bigger than I imagined...

[Farnhamia]

I think the employee handbook says I'm not supposed to get into cahoots with my colleagues, especially not my superiors.

This is bigger than I imagined...

*smiles enigmatically and makes an entry on a hand-held device*

[Ifreann]

I think the employee handbook says I'm not supposed to get into cahoots with my colleagues, especially not my superiors.

This is bigger than I imagined...

Really? It seems smaller than I thought it would be. Though that could be because the corridors all look much the same.

[Farnhamia]

This is bigger than I imagined...

Really? It seems smaller than I thought it would be. Though that could be because the corridors all look much the same.

*makes a note to adjust Ifreann's medication*

[The Alma Mater]

This is bigger than I imagined...

Really? It seems smaller than I thought it would be. Though that could be because the corridors all look much the same.

You are playing the public release of wolfenstein 3D on IDs website, aren't you ?

[Desperate Measures]

This is bigger than I imagined...

*smiles enigmatically and makes an entry on a hand-held device*

I just had the weirdest dream! You were in it and Ifreann and all these men in white suits. Glad to be back in my room. It's safer here.

[Tmutarakhan]

I think the employee handbook says I'm not supposed to get into cahoots with my colleagues, especially not my superiors.

This is bigger than I imagined...

That's what SHE said...

[The Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church]

And nuclear marriage is very recent too, only really catching on with the stiffening morality of Victorian times.

Hur hur hur.....

Caught a bad dose of foot in mouth disease at birth. Some days I can wedge both my feet in at the same time.

[Vousielle]

Hur hur hur.....

Caught a bad dose of foot in mouth disease at birth. Some days I can wedge both my feet in at the same time.

Thats a good way to get athlete's tongue.

[The Cummunist State]

Caught a bad dose of foot in mouth disease at birth. Some days I can wedge both my feet in at the same time.

Thats a good way to get athlete's tongue.

I hate you forever for putting that visual in my head.
Oh god, I need mind bleach

[Sociobiology]

It is still a testable claim, it ispossible to demonstrate. you are confusing testable in general, and testable by me right now.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that certain things can happen regardless of whether or not certain individuals can test for them.

again there is a difference between testable and testable right now.

Only for gods that have no testable claims, hence my original statement.
IF there is a claim of effect it is testable.

Not all claims of effect are testable, especially not by current technologies.

all claims of effect are testable/falsifiable as long as they are a defined set of effects. regardless of current technology.
most gods proposed are falsifiable
the ones that are not are indistinguishable from not existing.

Things that are untestable cannot have evidence so there is not reason

There is not scientific reason. There are plenty of other reasons.

care to express any? We have already covered feeling good is not one, and morality is not one.

I don not need to disprove a claim if no evidence is given to support it, because then it is opinion not a claim.

Well, now we're just arguing definitions. But, yes, you don't need to disprove it. They don't need to prove it. Because telling someone they must prove or disprove the unfalsifiable is a patently ridiculous notion.

I make the distinction because god is made as a claim, whenever it is used as an explanation or justification for behavior or phenomenon.

Again, just because something cannot be shown to do something does not mean it does not do something. That's a false equivalence, as I've shown. You've yet to prove my shirt is brown, and yet, my shirt remains brown.

how do I know this?
is so your shirt could be blue or you could not be wearing a shirt. You make the positive claim, you must show evidence.
The only way to reliably show anything is by the method I am using.

That doesn't address the point I'm making, which is that if something cannot be tested or be made testable at any given moment (say, by Humanity 2 millenia ago, or Humanity now), that does not mean it is not true. It doesn't mean it is true. It means you can't know.

it means you have no reason to make the claim.
If it can not be tested it is indistinguishable from non-existence.
Gravity is caused by invisible immaterial fairy's that perfectly simulate the actions of Theory X, this proposal is untestable but is no,t just as valid as the actualy scientific theory.

something you have to demonstrate to claim, you can't even demonstrate omnipotence is possible so how can you claim it as an attribute.

You don't have to demonstrate something to claim that it exists. That's backwards. First you claim something exists, then you test to demonstrate it. Or do you mean something else by 'demonstrate' or 'claim'?

but you are using one thing as an assumption for the other, not as its own claim, that is something you cannot do. if you were proposing omnipotence by itself you could.
You also run into the problem that omnipotence existing logically as well.

No, you do not have to disprove that I am a unfrozen cave man scientist, I must demonstrate it. If I can't the claim ends there, I could not overcome the burden of proof.
look up something called the null, all proposals start as incorrect (asymptotically unlikely) and must be demonstrated as correct (or more likely)

You're applying the standards applied to falsifiable ideas and hypotheses to an unfalsifiable concept. That makes no sense.

what I claimed in the example is entirely falsifiable.

but claiming that comfort justifies that belief is incorrect, as demonstrated below with the serial killer who believes himself a hero. Either he is a hero and should be treated as such or he is finding comfort in something false and should be discouraged from doing so.

Firstly, I didn't say it justified belief, I said it was a reason to believe. Greed is a reason for theft, though not a justification.
Secondly, we arrest serial killers for whatever reason. The simplest being that the majority finds their actions to be harmful and immoral. However, I see no reason why the actions of a theist must inherently be harmful and immoral according to the majority, as killing seems to be.

it is not, directly
just like the hero belief it is used to support the harmful belief or behavior, and faith is exceedingly good at supporting harmful beliefs.
faith is exceedingly good at supporting all belief because it ignores evidence and this in and of itself is the problem, with no way to distinguish belief you are left with a completely random assortment of beliefs, instead of a selective pressure for true ones.

then why bring it up, it is a total non-sequitur if you are not using it as justification for a belief.

I'm using it as a reason for belief, obviously. I've said that many, many times now. Like in the passage you just quoted.
There can be no objective, true justification for belief in god's existence or non-existence, because he's unfalsifiable.

And that only works when you postulate a god that is indistinguishable from not existing , which most people do not do.

no I said there is no falsifiable gods that have evidence supporting them.

Indeed, that is true. No falsifiable god has any evidence

fixed,
But lets try this again
1. claims of an effect on the universe is falsifiable
2. unfalsifiable claims are indistinguishable form non-existant
3. there is no reason to propose existance without evidence

You're not addressing the points.
Firstly, that morality is purely relative.

morality is an instinctual behavior, it has many non-relative and universal components.
although we may be arguing over the use of the word relative.
descriptive vs normative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Secondly, that being arrested does not, inherently, make you immoral due to moral relativity.

But do you agree that those arrested for various serious crimes are more likely to be guilty than a random sample of the parent population?

whoa so sorry, it was supposed to link to this.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion
Damn you copy/paste
it shows how this difference is consistent over things like spousal abuse and is reversely correlated with racism, things generally accepted in as moral, It also correlates with modern states that are safer, healthier, and less violent

Okay, now I get what you're driving after. You're correct, those facts are true. The problem is this, however: "What is the root cause?"
You've yet to offer any proof that the root cause of the behavior is theism. As they say, correlation is not causation.

(Actually, as I recall, it is general lower rates intelligence among theists or something like that. Lower intelligence promotes violence and a few other such things, as well as promoting religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence)

actually my proposed root cause is faith, for which religion is just he main offender/supporter

Not surprised.
This is, of course, wrong. Double standards are wrong. Advocating (what I presume was) needless murder is wrong.
But that doesn't mean being a theist is wrong. It means having double standards and advocating needless murder are.

It means using faith as justification is wrong.
The problem is it is NOT a double standard to them because there is an important difference, the problem is the only evidence they have of that difference is based on faith.
Their logic is sound, just not the assumptions.
(I hope you know what I mean by that last sentence I can't think of a better way of saying it, even though it is not the right use of the word sound but there is no other good word.)

religion does the worst thing you can to humanity it removes doubt. Doubt that what your doing is right or wrong.

Indeed. To be frank, I have issues with the way organized religion handles things. However, do note that theism doesn't require organized religion, nor does it require the methods organized religion uses to propagate itself.[/quote]
well this is not exclusive to organized religion, or even religion, as mentioned it is caused by accepting faith as justification for belief.

As for it removing doubt, that's why I keep saying there are two realms, the unfalsifiable and the falsifiable. Don't confuse the two. The issue, partially, arises from the fact that many theists do confuse the two to some extent or another, which aggravates me immensely. However, for those theists who don't confuse the two, I find far fewer reasons to say they should not believe in a personal deity.

well a personal deity is patently false because it implies interaction if not intervention in the universe, you are thinking of the deist god. And even for them most of the ones proposed are falsifiable.

I also recommend the Science of liberty which talks about how tightly linked advancments in science and human rights are in history, it is weird but both are reliant on plurality and evidence.

I'll keep that one in mind.[/quote]

I spend A lot of time in the desert and I only recently got a satellite link for the internet, I read a LOT.
How we decide is the go to book for laymen on how humans make decisions.
Inside jokes is about how the human mind processes logic, and how humor evolved to compensate for the how the human mind makes correlations and how prone to positive error it is.
humor is your brain defragging itself, or more specifically bribing you with pleasure to defrag your/itself.

[Sociobiology]

This is bigger than I imagined...

That's what SHE said...

As long as it is not what HE said

[Sociobiology]

You are NSG's most successful satirist. Good job.

Nonsense, there's no satire on NSG.

AHHHH the satire singularity.
Flee.. flee for lives!!!!
It is consuming all irony.
Colbert just stroked out.
O'reilly unaffected

[The Cummunist State]

That's what SHE said...

As long as it is not what HE said

And what's wrong with that? >:I

[Coccygia]

what repeatable experiment could I do, with A or B as an outcome.

Oh. You'll need to convert to Buddhism for that.

Or Hinduism. And don't drink the Lethe water.

[Katganistan]

Yes but the reason for that faith being placed in a religion about as substantiated as every other and not the other religions confuses me.

In law, truth is considered an absolute defense.
Perhaps there is something in people - call it soul - that steers the better of us towards the truth, because we know it in our hearts.

I know in my heart I am the most beautiful woman on Earth. My mom, my dad, and my fiance told that to me all the time.

Why I no win beauty pageants?

[Katganistan]

And what if the atheists are the ones with the superior soul ?

Yeah, right, that's why we have US presidents swear on Richard Dawkin's "Infidel's Handbook".

That's why in the courts you solemnly affirm, rather than swear on the Bible.

[Hallistar]

In law, truth is considered an absolute defense.
Perhaps there is something in people - call it soul - that steers the better of us towards the truth, because we know it in our hearts.

I know in my heart I am the most beautiful woman on Earth. My mom, my dad, and my fiance told that to me all the time.

Why I no win beauty pageants?

You won it in an invisible dimension of fluidic subspace. You just gotta have faith.

[Desperate Measures]

In law, truth is considered an absolute defense.
Perhaps there is something in people - call it soul - that steers the better of us towards the truth, because we know it in our hearts.

I know in my heart I am the most beautiful woman on Earth. My mom, my dad, and my fiance told that to me all the time.

Why I no win beauty pageants?

I think it is the Liberal Media and the absence of a true Free Market.

[Katganistan]

I know in my heart I am the most beautiful woman on Earth. My mom, my dad, and my fiance told that to me all the time.

Why I no win beauty pageants?

I think it is the Liberal Media and the absence of a true Free Market.

Or the fact that I was told things I want to hear by people who had an interest in pleasing me, but believing such things does not mean reality reflects them?

[Desperate Measures]

I think it is the Liberal Media and the absence of a true Free Market.

Or the fact that I was told things I want to hear by people who had an interest in pleasing me, but believing such things does not mean reality reflects them?

Ehhhhhhh... you might be onto something. But that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

[Jafas United]

Die thread. Just die already!

[Sociobiology]

As long as it is not what HE said

And what's wrong with that? >:I

you never watched the predator movie?

"jeeze you got a big pussy, jeeze you got a big pussy"
why'd you say it twice.
I didn't

[Sentoro]

I believe in Evolution.

As a Unitarian and on a side note, I don't see how Evolution disproves god. Maybe it just means interpereting some parts of scripture differently.

[Ceannairceach]

I believe in Evolution.

As a Unitarian and on a side note, I don't see how Evolution disproves god. Maybe it just means interpereting some parts of scripture differently.

It simply means the Biblical description of the creation of species is entirely false, which puts into doubt the rest of the Bible.