For Creationists.....

[thaumaturgy]

RELIGION is man's reliance on a specific system of belief for either social, economic, personal, educational, eternal reward or some other perceived beneficial element.

LittleNipper, I can understand you want to move the definitions of words around as you wish just so you can lable everyone else's beliefs.

To my knowledge the most common definition of Religion is in relation to supernatural beliefs. Now granted I'm sure you'll be able to find some unique definition or etymological extension that fails to specify "supernatural", but certainly as commonly used "religion" relates to supernatural ideas.

That being said, why do you want to redefine religion? What is your angle?

Do you think "Gravitationalism" is a religion? If I believe I will fall if I jump off a building then I am "religious" about Gravity?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Capitalism is a religion now?

As is belief in:

1. mathematics
2. gravity
3. electricity
4. objective reality
5. everything

This of course renders the word "religion" exactly useless, so we can apply it to everything!

I'm going to make a sentence now using this new "wonder-word":

Religion religiously religions religionally religiously religion religion. Religion religion.

Can you guess what I said? Sure you can! It's Li'l Nippers world and we can say what we want and want whatever we say to mean whatever we want!

Religion!

 

[Loudmouth]

RELIGION is man's reliance on a specific system of belief for either social, economic, personal, educational, eternal reward or some other perceived beneficial element.

Then this does not apply to science. Science is a methodology, not a belief. The theory of evolution is a conclusion produced by the methodology that is held tentatively. Again, not a belief. What are you digging for here? Are you trying to drag science down to your level and beat it through experience?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

RELIGION is man's reliance on a specific system of belief for either social, economic, personal, educational, eternal reward or some other perceived beneficial element.

You could define it like that. Or you could define it in a way that correlates to the English language (deities, miracles, theological beliefs, supernatural beliefs, sacred texts, faith statements, etc). Indeed, you could just look at the systems universally considered to be religions (Judaeo-Christo-Islamo-Bahá'ísm, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc), and look at the common features.
But call it what you want. Just make sure we know what you're talking about.

 

[FoeHammer]

Thank you for proving that I was correct in my assessment of creationists rejecting both the conclusions and methods of science.

This creationist and with regards to origins.
Observation, hypotheses, repeatable experiment, conclusion.
I do not reject the method of science. I accept its limits in certain areas (including some human experience.) I also reject any conclusion that is obtained when it cannot be verified via that method. I think it is you and your ilk that reject the scientific method leaving you free to wildly speculate anything and everything in an attempt to justify your atheism. As you said yourself if you can’t show it you don’t know it. Beyond the observed, tested and demonstrated, that is, variation within a kind you have nothing, zip, zilch, nada to support the view that we ultimately evolved from a simple(?) life form. You can’t show it, you don’t know it.

Again you've revealed a failure to grasp even the fundamentals of science. I just explained this to RichardT. But I'll repeat it here…..

No need I stand by what I said with regards to the philosophical tenet of methodological naturalism where origins are concerned.

You're contradicting yourself.

How?

So you're saying that it requires faith to believe that, without any indication to the contrary, that the laws of matter and physics worked in the past the way they do today?

Yes.

How does that qualify as faith?

Because you cannot know that they did.

''The present is the key to the past.''

This is an unproved and unprovable assumption. If you want to accept it anyway and base everything you consequently ‘’know’’ on that assumption go right ahead (that would be an act of faith) but you have to be willing to accept that you might be wrong….. Am I being unreasonable?

Wow. OK. Here's a good example; Leprechauns. They can be silent and invisible, and they live only in the places where no one has ever looked. So you can never prove they don't exist. Its impossible to prove a universal negative. But that doesn't mean you should assume that they do exist. They might exist, sure. But you've got nothing to indicate that they do, so you'd have to base your belief in them on faith instead. If you want to claim there are leprechauns, science requires that you show evidence of them right then and there. If you can't show sufficient cause to consider your claim, then you can't make that claim.

God exists.
The evidence of Gods existence is all around and within you, there’s a whole universe full of it.

You couldn't obviously. But you have to try. Because remember, it has to be "potentially" falsifiable. So you come up with circumstances related to your hypothesis which would prove it wrong -if it was wrong, in whole or in part. Something like this; "If x is true, then y should be true also", or "If x is true, then z could not be true." Then you turn it over to your peers who will spend eternity trying to find all the flaws in whatever you propose -just like they're still trying to do with evolution. See, the truth obviously can't be falsified. But neither can creationism, because if everything happens by magic, and apologetics can always rationalize some excuse about how gods or devils can bend all reality at will to suit their preferred illusion, and there's never a process or mechanism ever given for anything, nothing that can ever be tested, then it would never be possible to falsify even the most blatant lie.

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Should I assume that this is the truth or a lie?

Where is my "well duh" emoticon?

You probably lost it while mining for quotes.

Anything. The only way to improve your understanding of anything is to find the flaws in your current perspective and correct them. But you won't even admit there are flaws to correct. So you're effectly saying that you personally already know everything about everything and you know it all perfectly. But you haven't been right about anything yet.

I will not admit to flaws in my current perspective when there are none in this particular conversation with you. I stand by everything I have said.

I repeat; you're going to have to correct your definition because the one you're using excludes several universally-accepted religions. And your allegation has still failed because this definition doesn't apply to evolution either -since evolution, (being strictly limited to biology only) doesn't even relate to the "cause of the universe" nor its "purpose", and it allows actual religions to determine that for themselves. Repeating the same lie unchanged will not make it any truer. You're going to have to correct it.

Ok! I’ll rephrase it; evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism… Happy now?

*****

Evolution, on the other hand, is objectively demonstrable myriad different ways…

No it is not.

including by direct observation in real time.

Variation within kinds, that’s all the scientific evidence you’ve got.

That's why faith is auto-deceptive; its a mind-set wherein you assume what you do for no reason and will not allow yourself to reconsider that for any reason. So it offers no way to seek the real truth about anything. But its a great way to stay wrong forever and never know it.

Again clearly demonstrated by you and your faith in mega-evolution.

"Mega-evolution" is another strawman word you just made up. Biological evolution including the concept of common ancestry is based on all of those, and on some level, you know it is.

You know exactly what I mean by mega-evolution (simple(?) life-form to human evolution) The reason I decided to use the term mega-evolution was because I am having to repeat myself so often plus anything that helps to ease the pressure on the tips of my two typing fingers is a plus.

.....BLAH BLAH BLAH.....

I don’t expect I’ll be hearing from you again in this thread then.

FoeHammer.

 

[LittleNipper]

Then this does not apply to science. Science is a methodology, not a belief. The theory of evolution is a conclusion produced by the methodology that is held tentatively. Again, not a belief. What are you digging for here? Are you trying to drag science down to your level and beat it through experience?

An hypothesis is a belief. Methodology is a series of procedures believed to achieve an answer for what one is considering. If you jump off a building, you are being stupid, because we observe that people fall down. The consideration that gravity is of strictly natural origin is a belief and not an observable conclusion.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

An hypothesis is a belief.

It is not. It's a testable explanation for an observed phenomenon.

Methodology is a series of procedures believed to achieve an answer for what one is considering. If you jump off a building, you are being stupid, because we observe that people fall down. The consideration that gravity is of strictly natural origin is a belief and not an observable conclusion.

Yes, and the consideration that the water on my stove boils because I turned the heat on is a belief too. Better include some magical stove pixies that stir the water with their wands until it evaporates.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

An hypothesis is a belief.

No. It is an explanation for a given set of phenomena (for example, I have a hypothesis for why I cannot walk through walls: little gnomes are pushing me back).
I do not think my hypothesis is true, and hence it is not a belief.

Methodology is a series of procedures believed to achieve an answer for what one is considering.

A methodology is a means to and end. The end need not be a mathematical solution, or a logical derivation.
LN, I believe you are equivocating.

If you jump off a building, you are being stupid, because we observe that people fall down. The consideration that gravity is of strictly natural origin is a belief and not an observable conclusion.

On the contrary, it is an entirely valid conclusion. It is not proven, though the evidence supporting it is obscene in its strength.
And as it happens, the same is true for Evolutionary theory: it isn't proven, but there's so much evidence for it that to disbelieve is to disbelieve your own senses.

 

[Loudmouth]

An hypothesis is a belief.

It's the exact opposite of religious belief and religious dogma.

Methodology is a series of procedures believed to achieve an answer for what one is considering.

Correct, and the scientific method is independent of human belief. It is objective and empiric. For this reason, the second that a creationist calls science a religion I know that they do not understand what science is. The only reason that I can see for theists attacking science is that they feel threatened by it. I also find it interesting that theists (some, not all) use the word "religion" as an insult.

If you jump off a building, you are being stupid, because we observe that people fall down. The consideration that gravity is of strictly natural origin is a belief and not an observable conclusion.

You do fall as described by consistent and testable scientific laws that do not, nor need, the mention of any supernatural deity.

 

[Edx]

You said it yourself, we are to look for signs of things that might have happened differently in the unobserved past. Not only presume philosophical naturalism, that would be highly dishonest.

1. See Loudmouths post.

2. Please stop it, science doesnt presume "philosophical naturalism", because philosophy isnt scientific - we told you this before, okay?

3. Methodological naturalism is "presumed" beause it works and we have no reason to presume the universal laws were different in the past and everything we do know indicates that it wasnt. The only reason you want to consider it is because of your faith in the Bible, not on any actual evidence therefore theres no reason science cares about it.

Likewise, we have no reason to presume there is a secret pixie plot to cause global warming as everything indicates far more plausible explanations, so why would it be dishonest to presume "pixie theory" is nonsence? It wouldnt, and of course thats the point. I use this example not to ridicule your position but simply to show what the consequences would be for the same logic.

Richard, if you want to have a scientific method that can incorporate what you want to incorporate you need to demonstrate how it can verifiably improve our understanding of the universe. If you cant do this you really dont have any leg to stand on and methodological naturalism stands as the best way to understand the universe. You can complain all you like about how its unfair that science wont consdier the supernatural but until you can actually show how presuming such a thing would be usefull you will still have nothing, Im afraid.

 

[Edx]

''Evidently''? Should I prepare myself for yet another argument from personal incredulity?

lol. So you dont like that logical fallacy when it suits you, right?

 

[The Bellman]

Ok! I’ll rephrase it; evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism

Why do creationists persist in this lie?

Atheism is not a religion; consult any dictionary. No creationist has been able to come up with a valid definition of 'religion' which includes atheism, excludes things everyone concedes are not religion, and includes all currently accepted religions.

And even if it were a religion, evolution would not be a 'tenet' of it, since there is nothing about atheism that requires or implies an acceptance of evolution.

 

[Aron-Ra]

there is nothing about atheism that requires or implies an acceptance of evolution.

Or vice versa.

 

[Molal]

It seems it is the day for definitions.

Why don't we ask FoeHammer what he considers the definition of 'religion' to be?

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems it is the day for definitions.

Why don't we ask FoeHammer what he considers the definition of 'religion' to be?

Better yet, have FH give us a list of what is and is not religion and then give us a definition for religion that is capable of differentiating between the two.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why do creationists persist in this lie?

Atheism is not a religion; consult any dictionary. No creationist has been able to come up with a valid definition of 'religion' which includes atheism, excludes things everyone concedes are not religion, and includes all currently accepted religions.

And even if it were a religion, evolution would not be a 'tenet' of it, since there is nothing about atheism that requires or implies an acceptance of evolution.

Atheism is founded on Secular Humanism. It is a man centered belief, that attempts to place man where GOD should be ----- at the center. Evolutions main directive is establishing how man could originate naturally without a Creator. Ever notice how evolutionists only seem to discuss the origins of man.... Ape to man ---- Man from ape. It is supposed that they feel apes are less important than man and that man is more important than anything else. Has anyone ever wondered why evolutionists do not trace the ancestors of the Horseshoe Crap? Could it be that they all look like Horseshoe Crabs?

 

[Aron-Ra]

It seems it is the day for definitions.

Why don't we ask FoeHammer what he considers the definition of 'religion' to be?

He explained that a few times already. Its one of the definitions I cited, but with the important parts edited out.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Atheism is founded on Secular Humanism.

No it isn't. It is simply a lack of beleif in gods. There are even religions that are athiest, including a form of Buddhism.

Everything you ever say is wrong. Amazing.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Better yet, have FH give us a list of what is and is not religion and then give us a definition for religion that is capable of differentiating between the two.

That's a good idea. But he won't do it, (1) because that would be falsifiable, and (2) because it requires that he actually do something. You can lead him to water, but you can't make him think.

 

[Split Rock]

It is supposed that they feel apes are less important than man and that man is more important than anything else.

Isn't this a better description of the creationist viewpoint? Wasn't the Earth created by God solely for Man's benefit? Isn't that why when Adam sinned against God it threw all of Creation into a tizzy... because Man is the center of Creation?