The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Colonialboy

SW wrote: »

against my better judgement but I cant let that go without a making a modern uptodate and unbiased scientific contribution, cos someone needs to make truly modern scientific contributions to this thing.

Its a pretty picture just dont mention the Damnisi skulls....

This time Im really done, I really dont like mutual admiration societys pretending to be science and am just too busy in my work.

Delirium

Colonialboy wrote: »

against my better judgement but I cant let that go without a making a modern uptodate and unbiased scientific contribution, cos someone needs to make truly modern scientific contributions to this thing.

Its a pretty picture just dont mention the Damnisi skulls....

This time Im really done, I really dont like mutual admiration societys pretending to be science and am just too busy in my work.

Are you suggesting there isn't evidence to support evolution? strange suggestion to make considering you promised a scientific contriubution. Or where you just talking out loud wishing for someone else to make a point for you?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Michael Nugent
My personal suggestion would be a symbol of nature, or of the universe, that religious people could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as created by their god, and that atheists could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as naturally evolved.

Username
I don't agree with your logic here. Most religious people believe in evolution, in fact I would say all Catholics do. Creating that kind of distinction of interpretation (between the evolution believing atheist as apposed to the Grand designer view of people of religion) could cause further animosity between atheists and theists. Furthermore as an atheist I have no wish to worship the theory of evolution or create symbolism around it. I find that kind of pseudo religious thinking around scientific theory a bit disturbing tbh.

Firstly, it's a fact ... that there is a great deal of pseudo religious thinking around Evolution, in all of its many-faceted manifestations. This is to be expected from something that attempts to replace God as Creator of the Universe with the blind forces of Nature.

Secondly, it is a fact that all Roman Catholics, in good standing with their Church, believe that all things were Created by God ... and they proclaim this as their personal belief every Sunday at Mass when they say the Apostles or Nicene Creed.
Thirdly, why should there be any animosity between Christians and Atheists?
We have widely divergent views on the existence of God and many other follow-on beliefs (and none of this is about to change any time soon) ... but why should this create any animosity?
... can we not respect each others differences and each others right to publicly express these differences, while sharing whatever common beliefs we may have as well?
Some of the most interesting theological (or should that be atheological) discussions that I have had, have been with my atheist friends ... and we continue to be friends ... because we all respect the fact that we have different beliefs and perspectives ... and we aren't trying to come up with some kind of fake consensus ... or a 'winner takes all' end point.

... and when it comes to symbols and other expressions of our different beliefs, surely we can tolerate and respect these things in any society worthy of the name pluralist?
... and rather than cutting down our symbols of belief with angle grinders ... should we not be respecting and protecting these symbols ... and making a point of re-erecting them whenever somebody decides to express their intolerance by destroying them?
I also think that proposing to erect something else, that may actually please nobody, in their place, certainly isn't the way forward.
... and I'd say the exact same thing if somebody destroyed a monument to evolution or any other monument that Atheists might like to erect to express their world-view.
The true measure of inclusivity and pluralism is the degree to which communities with different beliefs accommodate and respect these differences.
Trying to get lowest common denominator expressions of consensus belief (other than a consensus to respect and care for each other) is a bit of a waste of time IMO ... and isn't actually respecting our differences at all.
It also isn't needed for good community relations where everybody respects the right of everybody else to be different and to hold and express different opinions and beliefs (within the bounds of common decency and the law).

J C

SW wrote: »

:P

Great evidence for a Common Creator allright!!!:P

Thanks for the 'heads up' SW

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

Great evidence for a Common Creator allright!!!:P

Thanks for the 'heads up' SW

So who created the creator then? Inb4 "god always existed ".

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Great evidence for a Common Creator allright!!!:P

Thanks for the 'heads up' SW

You didn't understand the post judging by your response.

J C

SW wrote: »

You didn't understand the post judging by your response.

I understood it allright ... I didn't agree with it much ... though.:)

oscarBravo

Colonialboy wrote: »

Its a pretty picture just dont mention the Damnisi skulls....

So you've mentioned the Dmanisi skulls. Were you planning to make an actual point about them, or were you just using them as a passive-aggressive mic-drop before flouncing out of the conversation without actually contributing anything useful?

PopePalpatine

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you've mentioned the Dmanisi skulls. Were you planning to make an actual point about them, or were you just using them as a passive-aggressive mic-drop before flouncing out of the conversation without actually contributing anything useful?

Hmm...sounds a lot like mickrock's "contributions" to me. I've probably summoned him like Beetlejuice, haven't I?

Brian Shanahan

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Hmm...sounds a lot like mickrock's "contributions" to me. I've probably summoned him like Beetlejuice, haven't I?

Just don't say it three times.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Just don't say it three times.

You're not superstitious, surely?:eek:

Doctor Jimbob

Colonialboy wrote: »

against my better judgement but I cant let that go without a making a modern uptodate and unbiased scientific contribution, cos someone needs to make truly modern scientific contributions to this thing.

Its a pretty picture just dont mention the Damnisi skulls....

This time Im really done, I really dont like mutual admiration societys pretending to be science and am just too busy in my work.

Where is the scientific contribution exactly?

J C wrote: »

Firstly, it's a fact ... that there is a great deal of pseudo religious thinking around Evolution, in all of its many-faceted manifestations. This is to be expected from something that attempts to replace God as Creator of the Universe with the blind forces of Nature.

Secondly, it is a fact that all Roman Catholics, in good standing with their Church, believe that all things were Created by God ... and they proclaim this as their personal belief every Sunday at Mass when they say the Apostles or Nicene Creed.
Thirdly, why should there be any animosity between Christians and Atheists?
We have widely divergent views on the existence of God and many other follow-on beliefs (and none of this is about to change any time soon) ... but why should this create any animosity?
... can we not respect each others differences and each others right to publicly express these differences, while sharing whatever common beliefs we may have as well?
Some of the most interesting theological (or should that be atheological) discussions that I have had, have been with my atheist friends ... and we continue to be friends ... because we all respect the fact that we have different beliefs and perspectives ... and we aren't trying to come up with some kind of fake consensus ... or a 'winner takes all' end point.

... and when it comes to symbols and other expressions of our different beliefs, surely we can tolerate and respect these things in any society worthy of the name pluralist?
... and rather than cutting down our symbols of belief with angle grinders ... should we not be respecting and protecting these symbols ... and making a point of re-erecting them whenever somebody decides to express their intolerance by destroying them?
I think that proposing to erect something else, that may actually please nobody, in their place, certainly isn't the way forward.
... and I'd say the exact same thing if somebody destroyed a monument to evolution or any other monument that Atheists might like to erect to express their world-view.
The true measure of inclusivity and pluralism is the degree to which communities with different beliefs accommodate and respect these differences.
Trying to get lowest common denominator expressions of consensus (other than a consensus to respect and care for each other) is a bit of a waste of time IMO ... and isn't actually respecting our differences at all. It also isn't needed for good community relations where everybody respects the right of everybody else to be different and to hold and express different opinions and beliefs (within the bounds of common decency and the law).

You are absolutely entitled to express your beliefs as much as you like. You are not entitled to pretend your beliefs are science.

J C wrote: »

Great evidence for a Common Creator allright!!!:P

Thanks for the 'heads up' SW

No.

RikuoAmero

J C question...you've expressed here on this thread your acceptance of AnswersinGenesis.

Please give me a reason why I should accept any evidence from you that you say supports your beliefs, given that AiG say, on their website

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
Basically, you and they have a presupposed bias in what you believe to be true (the book called the bible), and gleefully admit to tossing aside any evidence that turns up that contradicts it.
To me, you have no credibility at all, when it comes to the topic of religion.

Also, why should I believe you when you parse the words spoken by catholic priests and say "They actually believe in creationism!" when these very same priests, bishops, cardinals and popes have said on record the opposite when asked the question point blank?

J C

RikuoAmero wrote: »

J C question...you've expressed here on this thread your acceptance of AnswersinGenesis.

Please give me a reason why I should accept any evidence from you that you say supports your beliefs, given that AiG say, on their website

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
Basically, and they have a presupposed bias in what you believe to be true (the book called the bible), and gleefully admit to tossing aside any evidence that turns up that contradicts it.
To me, you have no credibility at all, when it comes to the topic of religion.

I do not accept everything that AIG says ... and if there were unambiguous evidence that contradicts the Bible, I would, of course, accept it.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Also, why should I believe you when you parse the words spoken by catholic priests and say "They actually believe in creationism!" when these very same priests, bishops, cardinals and popes have said on record the opposite when asked the question point blank?

Firstly, in relation to this stuff about the Pope believing in 'evolution' ... I too believe 'evolution' to be a fact ... in the sense of Natural Selection selecting the most adapted creatures to particular environments ... using the pre-existing CFSI found in the genomes of all Created Kinds ... but I still believe in Divine Creation to be the origin of it all.
Secondly, I never said that the Roman Catholic hierarchy believes in Creationism ... please stop making things up about what I said ... what I did say was that they believe that all things were Created by God ... and they confirm their belief in God as Creator of Heaven and Earth and all things visible and invisible every day when they say Mass.
This is a fact ... and you may believe it or deny it, to suit your purposes ... but it still remains a fact, that they proclaim their belief in God as the Creator of everything.
It's not just me that is saying this anyway:-

wrote:

Originally Posted by Michael Nugent
"My personal suggestion would be a symbol of nature, or of the universe, that religious people could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as created by their god, and that atheists could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as naturally evolved."

This is a fair and balanced summary by Michael of the beliefs of Christians and Atheists in relation to nature and the origins of the Universe.

Nature exists and is a fact accepted by both Christians and Atheists alike ... just like Michael has correctly said.

On the question of the origins of the Universe and nature, Christians believe it to be Created by God and Atheists believe it to have 'naturally evolved' from simple structures and elements into the more complex structures observed today, just like Michael has also correctly said.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Basically, you and they have a presupposed bias in what you believe to be true (the book called the bible), and gleefully admit to tossing aside any evidence that turns up that contradicts it.
To me, you have no credibility at all, when it comes to the topic of religion.

It is an accepted fact that personal beliefs can create bias in favour of ones own beliefs and against other peoples beliefs. This is just as true about Atheist acceptance of Molecules to Man Evolution as it is about Christian acceptance of Creation ... and vice versa.
... so we need to evaluate everything that each side says about their own and the other sides beliefs and we should evaluate the evidence for these beliefs in the light of the possible biases existing on both sides of this issue.

Delirium

You say the Catholic church accept evolution, yet subsequently state later in the same post that only atheists accept evolution.

Which is it?

J C

SW wrote: »

You say the Catholic church accept evolution, yet subsequently state later in the same post that only atheists accept evolution.

Which is it?

The Roman Catholic Church accepts 'evolution' (just like I do) ... in the sense of Natural Selection selecting the most closely adapted organisms to particular environments ... using the pre-existing CFSI found in the genomes of all Created Kinds ... but they still believe that Direct Divine Creation was the origin of it all ... just like I also do.

Atheists believe in evolution as their 'origins' explanation for the gradual development of everything from the Universe to nature and life itself.
Michael Nugent has neatly summarised this belief system of Atheists in the quote below.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I meant symbolise nature or the universe, not symbolise the theory of evolution or any scientific theory.

I was using the word evolved in the wider sense of the gradual development of something, in this case nature and the universe, not the specific sense of the theory of evolution of living species on earth.

And it wouldn't involve worship. Think of it as art, which atheists can appreciate without any theological baggage.

... and BTW, Theists are also able to appreciate art without any theological (or indeed atheological) baggage, just like Atheists can.

Delirium

You're getting very muddled with your explanation.

You don't accept evolution, as currently understood by science. To state otherwise is dishonest.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. You would do well to pick up an introductory book on biology to avoid such basic misunderstandings regarding evolution.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You are absolutely entitled to express your beliefs as much as you like. You are not entitled to pretend your beliefs are science.

... so then, presumably, you're unreservedly condemning the recent attempt at denying the Christian people of Kerry expressing their belief on Carrauntoohill.

... and you're in full support of this action being undone by the re-erection of the cross there?

I'm not pretending that my Christian beliefs are science ... but I am claiming Scientific support for the existence of God and the events recorded in the Bible, like the Creation of Adam and Eve ... and the Great Flood.
If these events actually happened and if God exists and created life you would expect physical evidence (accessible to scientific investigation) to exist for these phenomena ... and this is what we actually do find.

J C

SW wrote: »

You're getting very muddled with your explanation.

You don't accept evolution, as currently understood by science. To state otherwise is dishonest.

The Roman Catholic Church also doesn't accept the Atheistic understanding of 'evolution', as the evolution of pondkind into mankind, using nothing but time and selected mistakes - and that was my point.

SW wrote: »

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. You would do well to pick up an introductory book on biology to avoid such basic misunderstandings regarding evolution.

Less of the patronizing comments, please - it does nothing for your argument.

In any event, just like Michael Nugent, I was talking about 'evolution' in the wider sense of the gradual development of everything , including nature and the Universe!!:)

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I meant symbolise nature or the universe, not symbolise the theory of evolution or any scientific theory.

I was using the word evolved in the wider sense of the gradual development of something, in this case nature and the universe, not the specific sense of the theory of evolution of living species on earth.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... so then, presumably, you're unreservedly condemning the recent attempt at denying the Christian people of Kerry expressing their belief on Carrauntoohill.

... and you're in support of this action being undone by the re-erection of the cross there.

As a matter of fact, I think it was an utterly moronic thing to do, yeah. I have no idea how it has anything whatsoever to do with this debate though.

I'm not pretending that my Christian beliefs are science ... but I am claiming Scientific support for the existence of God and the events recorded in the Bible, like the Creation of Adam and Eve ... and the Great Flood.
If these events actually happened and if God exists and created life you would expect physical evidence (accessible to scientific investigation) to exist for these phenomena ... and this is what we actually do find.

Except no, we don't.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church also doesn't accept the Atheistic understanding of 'evolution' as the the evolution of pondkind into mankind using nothing but time and selected mistakes - and that was my point.

Once again you show your inability to seperate religion from science.

Less of the patronizing comments, please - it does nothing for your argument.

He's right though. You clearly don't have even an elementary understanding of the topic at hand.

Delirium

Less of the patronizing comments, please - it does nothing for your argument.

really?.....

J C wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church also doesn't accept the Atheistic understanding of 'evolution' as the the evolution of pondkind into mankind using nothing but time and selected mistakes - and that was my point.

Seems it wasn't patronising, but rather a statement of fact since you've termed evolution as "atheistic evolution". The evolution you reject is actually accepted by the RCC. And once again it highlights that you don't accept current scientific understanding of evolution.

In any event, just like Michael Nugent, I was talking about 'evolution' in the wider sense of the gradual development of everything , including nature and the Universe!!:)

thanks for the clarification. very hard to keep up with your varied uses (both correct and incorrect) of the word.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

As a matter of fact, I think it was an utterly moronic thing to do, yeah. I have no idea how it has anything whatsoever to do with this debate though.

Thanks ... it's a pity that this wasn't the position of all other atheists ... it could have truncated the thread about this outrage, on this forum ... which is still going strong and doing enormous damage to the image of atheism in Ireland - at least among Christians, anyway.
I have never seen such an offended reaction to any event among Christians of my acquaintance.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Except no, we don't.

Oh yes we do ... ranging from the CFSI in life to the catastrophically laid down fossiliferous sedimentary rock all over the the Earth ... to the discovery of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam ... who are the scientifically established common ancestors of all Human Beings.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Thanks ... it's a pity that this wasn't the position of all other atheists ... it could have truncated the thread about this outrage on this forum ... which is still going strong and doing enormous damage to the image of atheism in Ireland.
I have never seen such quietly determined and incensed reaction to any event among Christians of my aquaintance.

Just because I personally don't agree with it doesn't mean I can't sympathise with the position of other atheists though. An argument could be made that they're expressing their belief that christianity has damaged this country and having symbols of it all over the place is outright offensive. Now my personal view but certainly one I could understand. Again though it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

Oh yes we do ... ranging from the CFSI in life to the fossiliferous sedimentary rock cover all over the surface of the Earth ... to the discovery of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam ... who are the scientifically established common ancestors of all Human Beings.:)

CFSI isn't a thing, so no. Sedimentary rock and the fossils therein is literally evidence of the exact opposite of what you claim. Just because someone called them adam and eve doesn't mean they represent the adam and eve from the bible...you can't actually be stupid enough to think it does, can you?

legspin

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

...you can't actually be stupid enough to think it does, can you?

I feel the evidence suggest that not only is he more that capable of being that stupid, he really does achieve it with frightening regularity. Hence, this entire thread.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Just because I personally don't agree with it doesn't mean I can't sympathise with the position of other atheists though. An argument could be made that they're expressing their belief that christianity has damaged this country and having symbols of it all over the place is outright offensive. Now my personal view but certainly one I could understand. Again though it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

Christianity hasn't done any damage to anybody ... it is a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Some Christians and their churches may have made mistakes ... but when we contrast the Ireland of the 1930's with some of its European neighbours of the time, who were busy implementing social darwinism under the Nazis and Atheistic Communism under the Russians ... Ireland was heaven on earth, in comparison.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

CFSI isn't a thing, so no. Sedimentary rock and the fossils therein is literally evidence of the exact opposite of what you claim. Just because someone called them adam and eve doesn't mean they represent the adam and eve from the bible...you can't actually be stupid enough to think it does, can you?

Genetic Information is literally Complex, Functional and Specified ... so CFSI exists in life.
How does the billions of dead things found in sedimentary rock layers, laid down under water all over the earth not provide evidence for a global water-based catastrophe?
... and is it not an established scientific fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman?
Calling me 'stupid' is an ad hominem and name calling ... and the infallible sign of a lost cause, on your part.:)

J C

legspin wrote: »

I feel the evidence suggest that not only is he more that capable of being that stupid, he really does achieve it with frightening regularity. Hence, this entire thread.

More unfounded name-calling ... but no actual evidence for your position that we are all descended from slimeballs.:(

Please obey your own signature ... and be pure, be vigilant, BEHAVE.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Christianity hasn't done any damage to anybody ... it is a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Some Christians and their churches may have made mistakes ... but when we contrast the Ireland of the 1930's with some of its European neighbours of the time, who were implementing social darwinism under the Nazis and Atheistic Communism under the Russians ... Ireland was heaven on earth, in comparison.

more "atheists are evil" sh*te :rolleyes:

The women who were carted off to laundries would probably dispute your claim of "heaven on Earth" btw.

J C

SW wrote: »

more "atheists are evil" sh*te :rolleyes:

The women who were carted off to laundries would probably dispute your claim of "heaven on Earth" btw.

I never said 'atheists are evil' ... and indeed such a generalization is quite untrue and very unfair on all atheists of my personal acquaintance, who are descent, law-abiding, good people.
There are good and bad within all belief systems ... and just like the bad within Soviet Atheistic Communism isn't applicable to all Atheists ... neither are the issues with the Magdalene laundries applicable to all Christians ... or indeed all Roman Catholics, for that matter.

... so, sorry to disappoint you, but none of this is any excuse for cutting down Christian crosses ... or taking over their schools, either - which seems to be one of the objectives of the 'cross cutters'.

Delirium

I never suggested the laundries applied to any religious group. It was to counter your rather blinkered view of Ireland being heaven on Earth.

And you definitely were suggesting atheism is evil so don't play coy.