Bye bye Age of Reason
Forum rules
Please read and follow this sub-forum's specific rules listed HERE, as well as our sitewide rules listed HERE.
Link to the Secret Ninja Sessions community ustream channel - info in this thread
Please read and follow this sub-forum's specific rules listed HERE, as well as our sitewide rules listed HERE.
Link to the Secret Ninja Sessions community ustream channel - info in this thread
Bye bye Age of Reason
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 78,00.html
Oh dear, oh dear - rationality out of the window today. Was hoping that in light of evidence against that people might question their beliefs - ho hum.
Apparently due to political correctness towards religious groups and their "sensitivities" (i.e. inability to consider their guide book wrong)
Oh dear, oh dear - rationality out of the window today. Was hoping that in light of evidence against that people might question their beliefs - ho hum.
Apparently due to political correctness towards religious groups and their "sensitivities" (i.e. inability to consider their guide book wrong)
Hmm....


-
metalboxproducts
- Posts: 7132
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 9:46 pm
- Location: Lower Clapton Rd, Hackney
- Contact:
The age of enlightenment only lasted for a short amount of time. Our world is run by people who believe in faith more than proof. BIG DEAL. We are devolving culturely rather than evolving.
.
I want to revolve. Ye get meh
I want to revolve. Ye get meh
Close The Door available here vvvvvvvvmagma wrote: I must fellate you instantly."?
http://www.digital-tunes.net/labels/metalbox
http://www.myspace.com/metalboxproducts
every thursday 10-12 gmt

goddamnit everyone should read francis wheen's 'how mumbo jumbo conquered the world' right NOW:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0007 ... y&v=glance
best book i've read in aaaaaaages. it's like enlightenment fundamentalism, and it's absolutely brilliant.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0007 ... y&v=glance
best book i've read in aaaaaaages. it's like enlightenment fundamentalism, and it's absolutely brilliant.
Atheism isn't a belief - it's an understanding of the world based on logic and reason against superstition and dogma. There is no evidence of god, thus it doesn't exist - the "existence" is a belief, the non-existence is verifiable. If the existence could be proven, then belief would not be required.Spaceboy wrote:so what you trying to say?
your an atheist? isn't that a belief in itself?
It's possible that a supreme being created the universe and everything in it, but there's no evidence for it (and no, Intelligent Design doesn't explain it either - pseudo-science at it's most pronounced)
Hmm....


it's not though, is it. you can't be in a position to prove or disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife unless you die. in which case, you're not in a position to prove or disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife. lack of evidence does not disprove a theory or beliefthe non-existence is verifiable
i thought the 'intelligent design' stance was the belief that evolution occurred, but was planned by god?
Well, seeing as all of the people that say that there is an afterlife are alive, what basis do they base their views on then? Of course if you do die and there's a supreme being and we enter infinity, this again wouldn't require belief to sustain it as it would be able to be experienced and quantified.pk- wrote:it's not though, is it. you can't be in a position to prove or disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife unless you die. in which case, you're not in a position to prove or disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife. lack of evidence does not disprove a theory or beliefthe non-existence is verifiable
i thought the 'intelligent design' stance was the belief that evolution occurred, but was planned by god?
To say that something that we can't explain must be god doesn't make any sense logically. It just means that we have no explanation for it yet.
Might also be worth wiki-ing unintelligent design too and see what you make of that. I think that the intelligent design thing was created as a way of somehow trying to add religious beliefs into science, so that you could somehow avoid the notion that ancient texts may not be true. As creationism becomes increasingly laughable with genetic research, this is a way of refusing to face down the fact that Christians might be wrong, yet trying to make it seem like scientific fact.
Hmm....


-
masstronaut
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:37 pm
Agnosticism would perhaps be a more honest stance then, unless you do have some evidence one way or another.
Thing is, for most of us who have not devoted our lives to studying fossil records, genetics and the like, to unquestioningly believe in evolution in the Darwinian sense is also largely an act of faith.
What should distinguish science from faith based systems is that it absolutely acknowledges that all it can ever come up with are theories, however well they may appear to fit the evidence.
"May God us keep
From Single vision & Newton's sleep!"
William Blake
"It's a paramechanical world."
Amon Duul
"It ain't necessarily so that it ain't necessarily so."
Sun Ra
Thing is, for most of us who have not devoted our lives to studying fossil records, genetics and the like, to unquestioningly believe in evolution in the Darwinian sense is also largely an act of faith.
What should distinguish science from faith based systems is that it absolutely acknowledges that all it can ever come up with are theories, however well they may appear to fit the evidence.
"May God us keep
From Single vision & Newton's sleep!"
William Blake
"It's a paramechanical world."
Amon Duul
"It ain't necessarily so that it ain't necessarily so."
Sun Ra
i completely agree with you there, i just meant thatTo say that something that we can't explain must be god doesn't make any sense logically. It just means that we have no explanation for it yet.
wasn't strictly true. i'm not really sure why i mentioned being dead, it's been a long day. there really is no proof for it, because proving it is impossible, but that lack of proof doesn't prove it doesn't exist.There is no evidence of god, thus it doesn't exist
if that makes sense, which i sincerely doubt.
I think agnosticism's a cop-out to be honest, as it still posits a belief that there might be something there, but what is this assumption based on?It might be a hangover from the old beliefs, where shaking off this whole idea of a "creator" can't quite be acheived, even though it may not be a god as suggested in the Bible, Quran, Tora, etc. Seems to be more of a yearning for something to be there than anything more concrete.masstronaut wrote:Agnosticism would perhaps be a more honest stance then, unless you do have some evidence one way or another.
Thing is, for most of us who have not devoted our lives to studying fossil records, genetics and the like, to unquestioningly believe in evolution in the Darwinian sense is also largely an act of faith.
What should distinguish science from faith based systems is that it absolutely acknowledges that all it can ever come up with are theories, however well they may appear to fit the evidence.
I'm not totally convinced by the Big Bang theory in all honesty, and it's doubtful we'll ever know, but with evolution, it does seem to me that there are too many people coming up with linking theories of explanation of how life evolved for it to be dismissed as a belief system. Richard Dawkins may well explain it better than me, but with the amount of research put in by so many over the years, it seems unlikely that this is coincidence. Unless of course it's a very complex test of faith
Hmm....


I believe the idea of god is the byproduct of our own consciousness, you are trying to explain an unexplainable void in your own head. I also think that religion has progressed rapidly over time from something that was trying to explain peoples own reality and things that science couldnt explain to something that is exploited as a use of control to the masses, even from back when some fat witchdoctor sat in his cave dishing out spiritual advice/blessings and in alot of cases useless remedies for food and respect.
-
masstronaut
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:37 pm
Agnosticism can read to mean quite a few different things I guess.Shonky wrote:I think agnosticism's a cop-out to be honest, as it still posits a belief that there might be something there, but what is this assumption based on?
I would say it's not 'a belief that there might be something there', just a simple belief that you cannot logically make claims to know the truth of something that is unknown.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
