Richard Dawkins: Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact
- Thread starter speculawyer
- Start date
- Status
V_Arnold said:
You mean when you're religious you basically come full circle.
You start off not knowing anything, you're ignorant. You accept that you don't know anything, you're less ignorant. You just want a quiet life away from thinking about this bullshit, you're not ignorant.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Evolution is a "triumphant" theory. No need to talk further about it. In a few short years it will be accepted by everyone. The argument will move solely to abiogenesis.Uchip said:
Being religious warps the mind and can give the believer a sense of insider knowledge and complicity with the world. Unfortunately, what happens in your head is only there, and we are all luck we have scientists who aren't satisfied by this ignorance, and want to seek out the truth.V_Arnold said:
The breadth of evidence for evolution is truly vast, and people not believing it in 2011 is mind boggling...
Some may frame this as "science vs religion" or "science is a religion", but it just proves their lack of knowledge on the issue. Science seeks out data and decides on Truths, whereas religion relies on revelation.
Evolution is a fact, whether you want it to be or not.
To the "it's a theory" people, a lot of shit that's typically taken as fact is a theory, you just don't know it because it's not as "controversial" (i.e., people who don't want to accept it) as other theories. Like gravity. In science, a theory usually means "nearly almost completely fucking true".
Wouldn't you like at someone crazily if they said "I don't believe in gravity"?
Wouldn't you like at someone crazily if they said "I don't believe in gravity"?
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
erm...can you explain this post so you don't seem like a crazy person?V_Arnold said:
Yes, its only been 152 years so far, I am sure the next few will be, as the kids say, 'for the win'.Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I have a serious issue with the whole word "ignorant", because it is plain dumbness to even use that.
What creeps me out about it the most is that some people pick up - let us say - a field, or a way of thinking and devotes some time to it, and then suddenly, BAM, if you are not believing in something that is as close as a proven theory as it can be, and now you are "ignorant".
First of all, I have read a lot of logic stuff. It is amazing. The sheer ability for this plane of existence to reason out more than it is known by starting off with what is known is amazing. There are great minds in this field, they were people with humbleness and hard work, and instead of going around in forums (what is that? yeah... not in that day and age..) pointing fingers on the "ignorant", they pioneered and created laws, rules and theories out of NOTHING.
That, I think, is respectable.
But. Although that almost every single popular religion has been distorted to the point of being easily "refutable" by any scientist (if not to the extent that some radical materialist would want or dare I say, wish, of course), there are movements and laws out there, with awesome amount of information, that descibe that there is a greater power, an infinite intelligence and unity behind ALL these rules. And for some weird reason, they do not deny evolution. Evolution itself is the mere result of a social complex wishing to evolve and stay in a changing atmoshpere and enviromnent, and for every wish, a neccessary chemical reaction is coming to fruit, even if it takes decades or more (or less) to be realized in the physical plane. It is a wonderful and real thing - evolution, I mean - but it in no way "disproves" the religion that is not distorted too much.
I wish every materialist and good scientist good luck in his/her journey though, and I love math just as much as some of you, but by saying "to be religious is to be ignorant" is an amazingly separatist, amazingly egoist, and an insanely fearful line of thinking. For me, obviously. One can have religion and one can have science. There is no need to demean any who choose one over the other.
It is. it is a major feature in this plane of existence. Of course it is a "fact". Is there all that is to life? Nope.
What creeps me out about it the most is that some people pick up - let us say - a field, or a way of thinking and devotes some time to it, and then suddenly, BAM, if you are not believing in something that is as close as a proven theory as it can be, and now you are "ignorant".
First of all, I have read a lot of logic stuff. It is amazing. The sheer ability for this plane of existence to reason out more than it is known by starting off with what is known is amazing. There are great minds in this field, they were people with humbleness and hard work, and instead of going around in forums (what is that? yeah... not in that day and age..) pointing fingers on the "ignorant", they pioneered and created laws, rules and theories out of NOTHING.
That, I think, is respectable.
But. Although that almost every single popular religion has been distorted to the point of being easily "refutable" by any scientist (if not to the extent that some radical materialist would want or dare I say, wish, of course), there are movements and laws out there, with awesome amount of information, that descibe that there is a greater power, an infinite intelligence and unity behind ALL these rules. And for some weird reason, they do not deny evolution. Evolution itself is the mere result of a social complex wishing to evolve and stay in a changing atmoshpere and enviromnent, and for every wish, a neccessary chemical reaction is coming to fruit, even if it takes decades or more (or less) to be realized in the physical plane. It is a wonderful and real thing - evolution, I mean - but it in no way "disproves" the religion that is not distorted too much.
I wish every materialist and good scientist good luck in his/her journey though, and I love math just as much as some of you, but by saying "to be religious is to be ignorant" is an amazingly separatist, amazingly egoist, and an insanely fearful line of thinking. For me, obviously. One can have religion and one can have science. There is no need to demean any who choose one over the other.
Kurdel said:
It is. it is a major feature in this plane of existence. Of course it is a "fact". Is there all that is to life? Nope.
SneakyStephan
Banned
DennisK4 said:
Here we are again passing theory as fact!
Clearly god chose the earth to harbor man and as such it must be the center of the universe.
Tsk.
Am I doing it right religion gaf?
krypt0nian
Banned
V_Arnold said:
"You'll see when you're dead, alright!"
Guy dies.
"Oh he's in trouble now!"
L
o
L
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
no. thats not... no.V_Arnold said:
evidence?V_Arnold said:
Even in the practices of religion itself you must choose to be ignorant. You must choose your religion of choice, the rituals that will appease the deity of choice, and to bet against all the others.V_Arnold said:
Wilful ignorance of holy texts that have since become outdated in their factual information so as to preserve them as "the word of god/deity", while maintaining that other segments are still true.
Ignorance of the concept of morality without religion, of the psychological studies that explain a human being's intrinsic desire for a 'greater purpose' and more besides.
Ignorance is a harsh accusation, and has since become something of an insult. But to choose to believe in one religion is to actively practice ignorance of the others.
Evidence of the soul? Evidence of this other plane? Read up on some psychology. You'll soon discover your gut instinct of there having to be more is nothing more than the intricacies of the psyche.V_Arnold said:
This is why I don't really give a shit how abrasive Dawkins is (and he's not even that abrasive, look at Christopher Hitchens for that). Creationists that deny evolution are either 1. Retarded, 2. Being intellectually dishonest in order to try to mold reality to their God-bias, 3. Uneducated on the matter, or 4. Most likely some unholy combination of the first 3.DeathIsTheEnd said:
Um, I really don't feel like reading this entire thread, but at the same time I can't quite believe that there are six pages of useful discussion that could have happened about this topic since 1:00 AM last night, considering that the majority of the developed world who browses GAF during that timespan agrees with Dawkins.
fabricated backlash
Member
V_Arnold said:
Ignorant by its origin means not knowing, unaware of.
You are right, people shouldn't use ignorant to describe people that deny evolution, they should use willfully ignorant, arrogant, imbeciles, living in denial, etc etc.
No one wants people to believe in Evolution. You don't need to believe in facts. You have to accept them or look like a bloody fool with an extreme bias against those facts.
That's exactly why creationism is so dangerous for science. It is a degradation of scientific standards, replacing curiosity with fatalism, evidence with assumptions, and arguments with finger pointing.
krypt0nian
Banned
How crazy do you have to be to pick one religion out over all the others with absolutely no evidence, when the thing at risk is supposedly your soul and an endless afterlife?
Reel crazay. You'd think that something so invaluable (the soul) would require some critical thinking, testing, observation and facts.
Reel crazay. You'd think that something so invaluable (the soul) would require some critical thinking, testing, observation and facts.
krypt0nian
Banned
V_Arnold said:
Exactly.
V_Arnold said:
May you take a few minutes. and bring to light the awesome evidence that shows there is a "greater power"? Evolution does not disprove this idea, but rather the concept that a "power" created life as we know it. But if you can point out the proof for such a "power", then we could settle all this and all share your beliefs.
With logic and reason, there is no way a person can arrive at the concluson that there is such a power. In that sense, a person who believes in such a power is suspending his or her critical thought to favor illogical beliefs. Then, if they decide to ignore facts or arguments againts their worldview, they are ignorant. If they have it all laid out in front of them, and still don't believe, they are no longer ingnorant, but fully fledged idiots.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Well then you've missed the fact (theory?) that Smoky Dave's grandmother is a wildebeest.Sharp said:
Honestly, people who are so anti-Religion are often worse than southern extremists. Do you not understand that you are doing the same things that they are?
Also, as usual, Matt and Trey get it right,
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155408/atheists-plan-to-go-to-war#searchterm=atheist
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419/kill-the-wise-one#searchterm=atheist
Also, as usual, Matt and Trey get it right,
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155408/atheists-plan-to-go-to-war#searchterm=atheist
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419/kill-the-wise-one#searchterm=atheist
DeathIsTheEnd said:
You know, I could never watch more than a couple of minutes of this, her smile is just to creepy, but this time I made it to part three already! Yay!
Her spinning, question dodging and circular logic might actually be the force behind earth´s rotation. That´s a theory now, but I don´t have any of your so called "evidence", you facist people hating atheists.
Who wants to join me in bringing this theory into schools?
I'm worried about how Americans must see Brits as holier-than-thou missionaries telling them how to live their lives.
Simon Cowell tells you who's talented
Jonathan Ive tells you what your electronics should look like
Jamie Oliver tells you what to eat
Super Nanny tells you how to raise your kids
Richard Dawkins tells you what to think
I'd be pretty fed up of it.
Simon Cowell tells you who's talented
Jonathan Ive tells you what your electronics should look like
Jamie Oliver tells you what to eat
Super Nanny tells you how to raise your kids
Richard Dawkins tells you what to think
I'd be pretty fed up of it.
krypt0nian
Banned
narca said:
Yes, pointing out lies is the same as trotting out outright nonsense for money. Exactly the same, nay worse.
You should feel bad.
radioheadrule83
Banned
By far the best part of that article:
It happens in other countries too, dumbed down personality politics is to blame, the smearing of good candidates, the spin on and the dismissiveness of intelligence as alien or elitist...
but for sure, the fact that anyone cares what Perry, Bachmann or Palin has to say, and the fact that GWB got elected are to me - the USAs biggest modern day shames.
It happens in other countries too, dumbed down personality politics is to blame, the smearing of good candidates, the spin on and the dismissiveness of intelligence as alien or elitist...
but for sure, the fact that anyone cares what Perry, Bachmann or Palin has to say, and the fact that GWB got elected are to me - the USAs biggest modern day shames.
Kurdel: evidence, I cannot give. Evidence is a very interesting concept and has very strong hold on a lot of people's thinking, but it is not the Alpha and Omega of our existence. I know that it must be hard to understand that, but it is.
To put it into mathematical terms, let us assume a 4 dimensional plane. NxNxNxN.
Let us have the projection of NxNxN of those 4-dimensional vectors.
(1,2,3,4) -> (1,2,3)
(1,2,3,6) -> (1,2,3)
Now, prove it that the two vectors (in their 3 dimensional "form) are different. Yeah, they are the same. Now, of course you, as an observer, KNOW that they are not the same, but only are considered equivalent on the projection level if the n1,n2,n3 properties are the same. (Sorry for the weird terming, but I never did math on english language, only in hungarian, do not know what the exact terms in english are).
All what I am believing(!) in and what I am trying to show that it is easy to design a space - or a plane of existence, for that matter - where it is nearly impossible to "prove" within that space that there is someone out there who designed the space - for the obvious reasons. One can even ask "why then, should the designers being or not being even a question?". Good question, but that might be for another thread, of course.
To put it into mathematical terms, let us assume a 4 dimensional plane. NxNxNxN.
Let us have the projection of NxNxN of those 4-dimensional vectors.
(1,2,3,4) -> (1,2,3)
(1,2,3,6) -> (1,2,3)
Now, prove it that the two vectors (in their 3 dimensional "form) are different. Yeah, they are the same. Now, of course you, as an observer, KNOW that they are not the same, but only are considered equivalent on the projection level if the n1,n2,n3 properties are the same. (Sorry for the weird terming, but I never did math on english language, only in hungarian, do not know what the exact terms in english are).
All what I am believing(!) in and what I am trying to show that it is easy to design a space - or a plane of existence, for that matter - where it is nearly impossible to "prove" within that space that there is someone out there who designed the space - for the obvious reasons. One can even ask "why then, should the designers being or not being even a question?". Good question, but that might be for another thread, of course.
What are you talking about? Also what do you mean by "southern extremists"? White separatists? No, we don't believe that religious people are inherently different because they are religious, or judge them on any inherent property. We do not wish to take away their rights to practice religion. That is a fucking terrible analogy.narca said:
The problem I have with Dawkin's scathing critique of Perry here is that he actually seems to believe that Perry believes in intelligent design. As far as I can tell, Perry doesn't believe in anything or doesn't care to, for that matter. He puts on the suit to match the tie of his intended constituency. If his felt he stood a better chance of winning by appealing to atheists, he wouldn't have any qualms experiencing a sudden conversion. To believe that he believes seems, frankly, naive to me. So, while there are plenty of reasons why one might not want Mr. Perry in the White House, I don't think ignorance revealed by foolish beliefs is one of them. (Although Perry may be a grade d idiot, to be sure, if his college records are indicative of his actual intelligence.)
J Tourettes
Banned
1) Dawkins isn't a prick. Maybe you should watch some of his debates/interviewsdIEHARD said:
2) he needs to fight fire with fire. Only 39% of Americans think evolution is true. Just think about that. The "opposition" is using their every waking moment trying to downplay facts of life like that, so you can't exactly be all "well, they can surely have their opinion" while, for example, those people destroy what little credibility your school systems still have and try to prevent perfectly normal people from getting married. You have to be strong "no, that shit is ridiculous and it is wrong, this is how it really is" if you want to have any chance of getting through to at least some of these people.
- Status