Sciencologists.

[packow]

I should probably say what a "Sciencologist" is, as I have made up the term myself.

A Sciencologist is a blind, evangelistic follower of the doctrine of scientific principles.

Sciencologists can be identified in many of the following ways:

-An fervent beleif that modern science renders the entirety of religious doctrine obselete, and that the two views are inherently incompatible.
-A determination to show beleivers in any religion the "error of their ways."
-A beleif that they are actually capable of making beleivers convert to Sciencology.
-Incessant mocking, insulting, and denunciation of the character of beleivers.
-An inherant misunderstanding of scientific and religious principles, often to an extreme and hypocritical extent. (For example. referring to evolution as a fact, and referring to "religion" as a murderous force)
-A tendancy to link to websites advertising cynicism, paganism, and hot topic stores.

I'm not taking sides. I am completely neutral on the issue.

I just think that the majority of the science argument at the moment as been giving their side of the argument a bad name with their ignorance. I notice it is often the D-students who like to overemphasize the science argument.

Let me make one thing abundantly clear: I have no problem with the science argument.

I do have a problem with people making complete asses of themselves in their efforts to try to convert religious beleivers to Sciencology... over the internet.

[Alphabit]

Scientologists eat placenta for breakfast. ewww.

[Drah]

That sounds surprisingly much like the more "militant" wing of atheism...
You know, that constantly push forth theories, logical or not, that (in their mind) prove there is no god.

I'm more of the "screw them" atheist, and let them have their belief in little magic tricks in peace.

Untill some guy comes along and reverts one of your lines to "Evolution is a big lie, inteligent design is a fact! (Because God told me so)"...

[Togukawa]

Referring to evolution as a fact isn't any more wrong than referring to the earth being round as a flat. Both are just theories, established beyond reasonable doubt.

In fact, outside of human made systems based on axioms and definitions, there are no such things as facts in the real world. Every single statement you make about the natural world is based on the assumption of determinism.
It could be that gravity completely disappears in the following microsecond and that you turn into a pink whale.

If calling evolution a fact is "inherent misunderstanding of scientific principles", you're whining. Technically you are right, but not being able to call anything a fact just isn't workable. Evolution is a scientific fact, with the correct interpretation of the word fact. I.e. something that's beyond reasonable doubt given the contemporary frame of gathered knowledge.

I wonder why you want to call this militant anti-religious behaviour "sciencology". It barely has anything to do with science in itself. It's the same as calling communism the same as atheism. There's a mutual ground, but the problems with communism are caused by something else entirely than the atheism that goes with it.

[Dealy-rizazamatizazz]

Would it be crazy for me to say perhaps God invented evolution to see where it would go? Cause earth is like a mathematical in-probability..life harboring...yeah.

[Drah]

At 1/20/07 08:25 AM, Dealy-rizazamatizazz wrote: Would it be crazy for me to say perhaps God invented evolution to see where it would go?

Yes, because you'd need to be REALLY stoned to interpret genesis that way...

The only reason there's still ANY religions around is that they always (by coincidence) find out that they "misunderstood" their holy book shortly after a fact disproving "part X" of their holy book, hence their religion, arises...

I hate religious people who can't stand losing, hence claiming something is actualy how their god did it, even though their religious leader says the opposite.

[Goldensheep]

At 1/20/07 03:00 AM, packow wrote: A Sciencologist is a blind, evangelistic follower of the doctrine of scientific principles.

I think like all atheist attemps to buttonhole religious groups into catagories, you definition doesn't address the nuances of what you call "Sciencology". Just as some Christians are rabid fundamentalists, some are more liberal in their approach. The same can be said for "Sciencology"

Many atheists do believe that scientific doctrine will render religions obsolete. I do not believe this. However, no sensible person should believe that religions make science obsolete.

[DJ-Jerakai]

This is not a fair point. There is no talk of Jehova's witness's or how hard Christianity and Islam is forced on non-believers.

You paint the picture of a bunch of scientists wickedly trying to uncover something that will give them ammunition to destroy religious beliefs.

When its actually closer to the truth that reason for research into our past is to help us understand our physiology and genetics for the purpose of better protecting the human race against disease, you fuck.

[packow]

I'm not saying that either of them are wrong.

I'm saying that they should understand that the issue is a matter of personal principle and beleifs, not a matter of intelligence. You guys aren't going to change each others' minds.

And comparing evolution as "just as proven as the earth being round" is fucking ridiculous for two reasons:

1. We have photographic evidence of the earth being round. Their is ZERO scientific evidence to the contrary.
2. We have failed to make one species completely turn into another species.

I AM NOT SAYING I BELEIVE EVOLUTION TO BE WRONG.

I wholehearedly beleive that certain genes can cause the inherant fitness or unfitness of some members of a species, and that in the long run this can lead to a reshaping of the living pupulation.

But, considering that the idea the "darwinism" directly contradicts the bible is based on only one interpretation of the bible-- the fundamentalist, literal interpretation. This completely rules out any room for considering translations, literary devices, morals, and figurative language.

There are many, MANY sects and denominations that interpret the bible in different ways. For a text that is over 5,000 years old, I think it is sort of dumb to beleive that there is only one interpretation.

To write the whole thing off just because a single denomination (Fundamentalists) has a literalist interpretation is just ignorant.

People defend the bible because it has a important message. To tell them "stop beleiving in any higher powernd anything in the bible, because science proves that a certain story in the bible couldn't possibly have happened" is to fight a losing and completely stupid battle.

People tend to have their own beleifs, regardless of what you tell them.

And then people have the nerve to say things like "Well I think that anyone who beleives in God deserves to be shot for their ignorance of scientific fact." I can't fucking stand this. Guess what- all the science in the world could not convince me that there is no God. It's not possible to prove, so shut the fuck up.

In short: Being an athiest does not make you any smarter than someone who beleives in God.

[DJ-Jerakai]

At 1/20/07 03:00 AM, packow wrote: -An fervent beleif that modern science renders the entirety of religious doctrine obselete, and that the two views are inherently incompatible.
-A determination to show beleivers in any religion the "error of their ways."
-A beleif that they are actually capable of making beleivers convert to Sciencology.
-Incessant mocking, insulting, and denunciation of the character of beleivers.

You've done nothing but bag and mock people that follow science so far. So don't say your not anti-science or anti-athiest, because you've clearly taken a side and clearly shown bias.

[Peter-II]

At 1/20/07 12:25 PM, packow wrote: 1. We have photographic evidence of the earth being round. Their is ZERO scientific evidence to the contrary.

And we have the fossil record, not to mention bacterial resistance to antiobiotics, vestigial organs and microevolution (which implies macroevolution), and there is zero scientific evidence to the contrary.

2. We have failed to make one species completely turn into another species.

Point being? I doubt that's even possible, considering macroevolution takes place over a long time, acumulating small, microevolutionary genetic change. Besides anything, that wouldn't stop evolution from being a fact anyway. Evolution just refers to variation in the gene pool, which most definitely has been directly observed.

[packow]

At 1/20/07 12:21 PM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: This is not a fair point. There is no talk of Jehova's witness's or how hard Christianity and Islam is forced on non-believers.

Athiest like to grill believers in any faith for the actions of other religions. Not. all do, of course

You paint the picture of a bunch of scientists wickedly trying to uncover something that will give them ammunition to destroy religious beliefs.

What? Absolutely not. Read more carefully. Scientists are not the same as Sciencologists. Scientists are educated individuals who put their best efforts into understanding our world and who use this knowledge to make our world a better place. They have a strong understanding of what they study.

Sciencologists are teenage neo-atheists who use their vague understanding of the fundamentalist controvery to insult everyone who does not conform to their beleifs. As I said, a basic characteristic of a Sciencologist is a total misunderstanding of science and religion.

When its actually closer to the truth that reason for research into our past is to help us understand our physiology and genetics for the purpose of better protecting the human race against disease, you fuck.

I'm not saying that science is wrong, I'm saying that the "sciencologist" argument makes their whole side look like a bunch of arrogant blowhards. I personally plan to major in Chemistry.

But it pisses me off when the kids in my class who failed Biology are the ones who end up lecturing people who beleive in God about why they are in the wrong, and become total assholes about it.

[DJ-Jerakai]

But what about the millions more, religious folk that do the same thing but on a much larger scale?

Throughout history we have seen time and time again, christian conquests to spread the word of god.
Even today still, look at northern africa and how hard they push it there.

Do athiests do this?
Quests for global conformism?

[DJ-Jerakai]

But what about the millions more, religious folk that do the same thing but on a much larger scale?

Throughout history we have seen time and time again, christian conquests to spread the word of god.
Even today still, look at northern africa and how hard they push it there.

Do athiests do this?
Quests for global conformism?

[Togukawa]

At 1/20/07 12:34 PM, packow wrote:

At 1/20/07 12:21 PM, DJ-Jerakai wrote:

I'm not saying that science is wrong, I'm saying that the "sciencologist" argument makes their whole side look like a bunch of arrogant blowhards. I personally plan to major in Chemistry.

But it pisses me off when the kids in my class who failed Biology are the ones who end up lecturing people who beleive in God about why they are in the wrong, and become total assholes about it.

It doesn't take a fundamental expertise in science itself to understand that the method of science is better than the method of religion to arrive at conclusions about the natural world.

Or to put it in the words of someone I don't recall, you don't have to be able to lay an egg to know whether an egg is rotten.

[going4broke]

Atheists are hypocrites.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At 1/20/07 01:42 PM, going4broke wrote: Atheists are hypocrites.

Explain.....

[going4broke]

At 1/20/07 02:59 PM, made-4-sex wrote:

At 1/20/07 01:42 PM, going4broke wrote: Atheists are hypocrites.

Explain.....

Soitenly, Moe!

And furthermore...

[Humbucker740]

At 1/20/07 06:08 PM, going4broke wrote:

At 1/20/07 02:59 PM, made-4-sex wrote:

At 1/20/07 01:42 PM, going4broke wrote: Atheists are hypocrites.

Explain.....

Soitenly, Moe!

And furthermore...

Both of these links are biased crap. They also don't represent all of atheism.

[DJ-Jerakai]

Its true, both those links are to christian websites.
Try pasting something impartial.

[Dealy-rizazamatizazz]

Believe it or not i dont smoke drink or take drugs, prescribed or other wise, i simply think god has perhaps made evolution. Is it so crazy to think that this all knowing being wouldnt realize the choices we'd make and how evolution would help, we have a thing called fitness...which it pretty much daily evolution, evolution allows us to adapt and survive and grow stronger, i believe god would offer this, we form our destiny's with fitness and were the human race will go..i believe thats free will, or a form of it.

Psss...Earth is older than the bible says <.< >.> dont tell no one.

[going4broke]

At 1/20/07 11:56 PM, Humbucker740 wrote:

Both of these links are biased crap. They also don't represent all of atheism.

Then how about you provide a link to an atheist webpage that isn't biased toward christianity?

[going4broke]

At 1/21/07 12:52 AM, Dealy-rizazamatizazz wrote:

Psss...Earth is older than the bible says <.< >.> dont tell no one.

And how old does the bible say the earth is exactly?

[Togukawa]

At 1/21/07 01:11 AM, going4broke wrote:

At 1/21/07 12:52 AM, Dealy-rizazamatizazz wrote:

Psss...Earth is older than the bible says <.< >.> dont tell no one.

And how old does the bible say the earth is exactly?

http://www.independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Ye ar%20Old%20Earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm

http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-t housand-years.html

Six thousand years. Read the overwhelming proof these sites present, that shakes the very foundations of science by its sheer overwhelmingness.

[Togukawa]

At 1/21/07 02:26 PM, claim2fame wrote:
No, that's what the fundamentalists say, not the Bible.

If you interpret the Bible literally, that's what it says. It doesn't literally say "the earth is 6000" years old, but it gives a number of events, with dates between them. Adding the time between these events, and the 2000 from the last event to this day, gives 6000. So yes, it's what follows directly from the Bible.

[packow]

At 1/20/07 12:32 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 1/20/07 12:25 PM, packow wrote: 1. We have photographic evidence of the earth being round. Their is ZERO scientific evidence to the contrary.

And we have the fossil record, not to mention bacterial resistance to antiobiotics, vestigial organs and microevolution (which implies macroevolution), and there is zero scientific evidence to the contrary.

Keyword being "implies." Small scale evolution is indisputable. But to call macro-evolution a fact is a bit far fetched in comparison. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I really don't know. I'm just saying that you can't just compare macroevolution to the earth being round. One obviously has much more evidence, while one is an unproven theory.

You might be thinking that I am implying that I think macroevolution does not exist. This is not what I am saying. It is definitely feasible. Does it exist? I really don't know. It's not as if the evidence is overwhelming. People sometimes argue that small evidence proves a big theory. Vestigial organs and fossil records do not prove evolution, but they do support it. It's simply not a case of A = B.

Earth round = yes.
Humans evolved from Monkeys = maybe.

Simple as that.

[packow]

At 1/20/07 12:46 PM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: But what about the millions more, religious folk that do the same thing but on a much larger scale?

Throughout history we have seen time and time again, christian conquests to spread the word of god.
Even today still, look at northern africa and how hard they push it there.

Do athiests do this?
Quests for global conformism?

Yes, you dumbass. THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF THIS THREAD IS THAT YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN THEM IN YOUR OWN EFFORTS.

[Togukawa]

At 1/21/07 05:43 PM, packow wrote:

At 1/20/07 12:32 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 1/20/07 12:25 PM, packow wrote: 1. We have photographic evidence of the earth being round. Their is ZERO scientific evidence to the contrary.

And we have the fossil record, not to mention bacterial resistance to antiobiotics, vestigial organs and microevolution (which implies macroevolution), and there is zero scientific evidence to the contrary.

Keyword being "implies." Small scale evolution is indisputable. But to call macro-evolution a fact is a bit far fetched in comparison. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I really don't know. I'm just saying that you can't just compare macroevolution to the earth being round. One obviously has much more evidence, while one is an unproven theory.

And there you are wrong. Because they ARE equal. Both are unproven theories, with shitloads of both direct and circumstancial evidence. It could very well be that the earth is actually flat, but that spacetime itself is bent is such a way that we perceive the earth to be round in every possible way.
But there's no evidence for that, so we take the most logical conclusion based on what evidence we have: the earth is round. But it's not a fact, it's a theory.

Same with evolution. We see a whole lot of evidence for evolution, including but not limited to transitional fossils. It could very well be that the earth is only 6000 years old, and created down to the atom in such a way every possible way of dating gives the results we get now. But there's just no evidence for that, so we take the most logical conclusion based on what evidence we have: macro-evolution is what made the world to what it is now, and the world is as old as we measure it to be.

I don't know if that's reason to have less certainty about the earth being round, or more certainty about evolution, but fact still is both are just theories, not facts. There's no intrinsic difference between the two theories.

You might be thinking that I am implying that I think macroevolution does not exist. This is not what I am saying. It is definitely feasible. Does it exist? I really don't know. It's not as if the evidence is overwhelming. People sometimes argue that small evidence proves a big theory. Vestigial organs and fossil records do not prove evolution, but they do support it. It's simply not a case of A = B.

Nothing is a case of A=B in natural science. You can't "prove" anything in natural science, since there is no basis to start with. In maths, you can start with a couple of axioms and definitions, things you are 100% certain about, and then prove things based on those axioms and definitions.
There's no such thing in natural science. There is no axiom we can fall back on. We're not even certain that the laws of nature don't change every second. We just assume that they don't, because if they would, science would be pointless. And up until now, that assumption has proved to be reasonable.

Earth round = yes.
Humans evolved from Monkeys = maybe.

Simple as that.

Sadly, no.

Earth round = maybe.
Humans evolved from Monkeys = maybe.

But calling everything 'maybe' is pretty pointless, so we can call the things that we have established beyond reasonable doubt "true". Even though we have to keep in mind that they might turn out to be false later.