Rooster_DAR Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Start carrying exerts from Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" on some fliers with you. Next time your approached, pull one out, hand it to them, and profess to them how misguided they are. D'oh! Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Erased Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Start carrying exerts from Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" on some fliers with you. Next time your approached, pull one out, hand it to them, and profess to them how misguided they are. D'oh! I love that! Pure genius Link to post Share on other sites
Phateless Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Dude, about a month or two ago, this kid in my bio class raised his hand and asked the professor "Do you BELIEVE in Evolution?" I literally scoffed out loud and squirmed in chair, trying to keep my mouth shut. The professor was quite obviously shocked and stuttered and replied with facts, evidence, and logical conclusions, saying that it was not a question of belief but of scientific evidence. I wanted to yell at the top of my voice to the kid "are you F-ing serious?!" Got me all fired up... Link to post Share on other sites
Phateless Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 What question? There isn't a question anywhere in that post. Just a bunch of nonsense. Reason has everything to do with why I believe. And no, I don't switch off my brain to critical thinking when it comes to defending my faith.......in fact it lights it up like a Christmas tree!! No I don't follow the Bible to the letter, BUT NOONE has or CAN except Christ Himself. Maybe it's time that you boys get boned up on Scripture and learn a few things before you make these heinous claims. Ah.....screw it....without the Holy Spirit you wouldn't understand anyways.....(wipes dust off feet) "I wouldn't understand without the holy spirit" - "Finite beings can't possibly comprehend it" That is EXACTLY the kind of cop-out answer I'm talking about. I make a valid logical accusation on your beliefs and your response is... what? Your brain is lighting up to think of some way to prove it, because there is none. How does reason LEAD one to the conclusion that scripture is true? If someone in a tire shop tells me Bridgestone Potenzas cost more because they're better, I look to the car mags to do reviews to tell me if traction is any better, through testing by the scientific method. There is zero proof of anything in religious context. Nothing more than coincidence and circumstantial evidence. People make decisions emotionally and then use logic and reason to try to defend those decisions, but the decisions are usually based on a fallacy in the first place. Religious folk defending their beliefs are doing exactly that. Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Erased Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Dude, about a month or two ago, this kid in my bio class raised his hand and asked the professor "Do you BELIEVE in Evolution?" I literally scoffed out loud and squirmed in chair, trying to keep my mouth shut. The professor was quite obviously shocked and stuttered and replied with facts, evidence, and logical conclusions, saying that it was not a question of belief but of scientific evidence. I wanted to yell at the top of my voice to the kid "are you F-ing serious?!" Got me all fired up... My first year of High School, it was a Private, Anglican, school. Well I was brought up Catholic (There was no decent Catholic school in the area) and so I had a pretty hard time during quite a few of the lessons, seeing as what you were expected to write in quizzes, exams, essays etc was completley against what I believed. I almost was expelled (no joke here) because I dared to challenege some of what was being taught by one of my teachers, outside of class as well Anyway, the point is, that these little rich brats used to constantly disrupt the class by asking the evolution question. Except, obviously, being an Anglican school, they were challenging why the teacher didn't believe in it, teach it etc. I have my own theories on evolution, God etc which I prefered to keep to myself, and used to get so revved up at how annoying and disruptive these brats were I mean, the bell is about to ring, and they ask these questions Lunch is more important to 13 year olds you would think Link to post Share on other sites
Phateless Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 (edited) Wow, that's crazy. I don't think this kid was challenging the teacher, I think he honestly thought it was questionable, which made my blood boil. I am tempted to ask qualifying questions to religious people from time to time to try to make their head explode, but the conversation inevitably ends when logic prevails over blind assertion and they say something along the lines of "you can't understand because you don't have faith in God" or something asinine to that effect. I learned a phrase in Freshman English called the "ritual of ratification" which is when two or more people who believe the same thing serve to confirm each other's beliefs so that neither one is taxed by the burden of critical though. To me, that is entirely why religious people seek to convert others. Either that or they think admission to heaven is like a tax deductible donation to charity. Edited January 8, 2008 by Phateless Link to post Share on other sites
shadowofman Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I learned a phrase in Freshman English called the "ritual of ratification" which is when two or more people who believe the same thing serve to confirm each other's beliefs so that neither one is taxed by the burden of critical though. To me, that is entirely why religious people seek to convert others. Either that or they think admission to heaven is like a tax deductible donation to charity. This is exactly the principle behind memetics. This is how all cultural ideas propagate. It is almost as if ideas have an intellegence of their own and struggle for survival just like life. Of course this is a metaphor, but a very convincing concept. And this is why there are gathering places for believers, or more accurately, why believers go to these gathering places. It's a sense of community that reinforces the beliefs. Link to post Share on other sites
noblesan6 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 deep understanding leads them to the necessity to convert to what truth they had learned Link to post Share on other sites
JamesM Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Dude, about a month or two ago, this kid in my bio class raised his hand and asked the professor "Do you BELIEVE in Evolution?" I literally scoffed out loud and squirmed in chair, trying to keep my mouth shut. The professor was quite obviously shocked and stuttered and replied with facts, evidence, and logical conclusions, saying that it was not a question of belief but of scientific evidence. I wanted to yell at the top of my voice to the kid "are you F-ing serious?!" Got me all fired up... I was thinking about this today for some reason. I had to ask you why you got so fired up? Are not theories that are something to believe or disbelieve based on the evidences presented? As a student in college, is it not proper to ask those very questions? I remember asking a similar question in my cell biology college class. I asked the teacher what his belief regarding evolution was. He was a theistic evolutionist...and yes, this was a public university. So, I asked what made him as a PhD scientist believe in theistic evolution versus abiogenetic evolution. It was an opportunity for me to learn. At that stage in my life, I had not met a serious theistic evolutionist with a doctorate background. Scientific evidence can be interpreted different ways for different conclusions. Ignore the creationist/evolutionist aspect. Are not theories questioned quite often? Many of the scientific theories of today, including evolution have been formulated BECAUSE scientists (and even students) questioned the accepted belief of that day. Study Copernicus as an example. SO, for a student to question his professor (to whom that student has entrusted his education) is the ultimate quest for knowledge. Why would you scoff? If the student had asked if the professor believed that the theory of relativity was correct, would you scoff? If the student had asked why we believe that the earth is round, would you scoff? (Years ago, if a student had asked why we think the world is flat, he probably would have received the response you gave. Should he have been treated respectfully? Or should he have been told that is the conclusion that we believe based on the facts that we know? "Do not question what you are being taught.") How can one defend his beliefs or understand what is being taught if he or she does not question that information? Can someone defend himself in a discussion regarding evolution if he has not really understood what explanations of the evidences are used? Should not a professor of evolutionary biology be prepared to answer such a simple question? Is it better to accept all that you are taught as fact and believable when learning, or is it better to question that which is being presented as a way to understand completely or as a way to challenge that which does not seem obvious? Life is about learning and asking questions. Even the seemingly dumb questions can lead to future discoveries. Link to post Share on other sites
JamesM Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Wow, that's crazy. I don't think this kid was challenging the teacher, I think he honestly thought it was questionable, which made my blood boil. And why don't you believe it is questionable? Because you have been taught that it is not? Because you have been presented with the scientific evidences used to explain this theory and do not question their validity? Or because you have actually done your own research? At one point the idea that the earth was flat was not questioned either. I learned a phrase in Freshman English called the "ritual of ratification" which is when two or more people who believe the same thing serve to confirm each other's beliefs so that neither one is taxed by the burden of critical though. To me, that is entirely why religious people seek to convert others. Either that or they think admission to heaven is like a tax deductible donation to charity. So, religion is all based on rituals of ratification and atheism is based only on reason and logic? Have you read much theology yet? I think you would be surprised to see how much logic and reasoning is used. The strong possibility exists that many/most Christians have a basis in logic and reasoning for their belief in God based in their interpretation of the evidences. There is the strong possibility that Christians serve and worship God out of love and gratification because He has saved their souls. While this may cause you to scoff, the reality is that it may simply be true. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 "I wouldn't understand without the holy spirit" - "Finite beings can't possibly comprehend it" That is EXACTLY the kind of cop-out answer I'm talking about. I make a valid logical accusation on your beliefs and your response is... what? Your brain is lighting up to think of some way to prove it, because there is none. How does reason LEAD one to the conclusion that scripture is true? If someone in a tire shop tells me Bridgestone Potenzas cost more because they're better, I look to the car mags to do reviews to tell me if traction is any better, through testing by the scientific method. There is zero proof of anything in religious context. Nothing more than coincidence and circumstantial evidence. People make decisions emotionally and then use logic and reason to try to defend those decisions, but the decisions are usually based on a fallacy in the first place. Religious folk defending their beliefs are doing exactly that.Whatever ever floats your boat, my point, (and opinion) is, until you receive the Holy Spirit and do what I highlighted in bold with Scripture, you're not going see evidence, circumstantial or concrete. And when I said, "finite" that doesn't neccessarly mean that I consider believers to be able to understand the infinite 100%. They just have more insight than that of a non-believer. Is that threatening to you for some reason? Link to post Share on other sites
JamesM Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 This is exactly the principle behind memetics. This is how all cultural ideas propagate. It is almost as if ideas have an intellegence of their own and struggle for survival just like life. Of course this is a metaphor, but a very convincing concept. And this is why there are gathering places for believers, or more accurately, why believers go to these gathering places. It's a sense of community that reinforces the beliefs. Dawkins implies that the meme has a mind of its own, and we humans are simply "survival machines." This means that the human body is simply a home for the intelligent meme. It is speculation with no basis in research via the scientific method. Why would that be more convincing to you that simply believing that a God created the world and is real? Neither are explained by the scientific method. I think he also implied that the "God Delusion" was like a virus. I wonder what the cure for us Dims is, so that we can be enlightened and be called Brights. I guess he would tell me it is education and "belief" in things that are testable and natural. Oh wait, then I guess the meme is real and testable? It is a fascinating theory that has not shown to be provable. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I was thinking about this today for some reason. I had to ask you why you got so fired up? Are not theories that are something to believe or disbelieve based on the evidences presented? As a student in college, is it not proper to ask those very questions? I remember asking a similar question in my cell biology college class. I asked the teacher what his belief regarding evolution was. He was a theistic evolutionist...and yes, this was a public university. So, I asked what made him as a PhD scientist believe in theistic evolution versus abiogenetic evolution. It was an opportunity for me to learn. At that stage in my life, I had not met a serious theistic evolutionist with a doctorate background. Scientific evidence can be interpreted different ways for different conclusions. Ignore the creationist/evolutionist aspect. Are not theories questioned quite often? Many of the scientific theories of today, including evolution have been formulated BECAUSE scientists (and even students) questioned the accepted belief of that day. Study Copernicus as an example. SO, for a student to question his professor (to whom that student has entrusted his education) is the ultimate quest for knowledge. Why would you scoff? If the student had asked if the professor believed that the theory of relativity was correct, would you scoff? If the student had asked why we believe that the earth is round, would you scoff? (Years ago, if a student had asked why we think the world is flat, he probably would have received the response you gave. Should he have been treated respectfully? Or should he have been told that is the conclusion that we believe based on the facts that we know? "Do not question what you are being taught.") How can one defend his beliefs or understand what is being taught if he or she does not question that information? Can someone defend himself in a discussion regarding evolution if he has not really understood what explanations of the evidences are used? Should not a professor of evolutionary biology be prepared to answer such a simple question? Is it better to accept all that you are taught as fact and believable when learning, or is it better to question that which is being presented as a way to understand completely or as a way to challenge that which does not seem obvious? Life is about learning and asking questions. Even the seemingly dumb questions can lead to future discoveries. I agree here vehemently. I think all theories and assertions alike should be challenged, it keeps us fresh in our hypothesis and opens the door for new evidences to be introduced. I used to get offended when people challenged what I believed, but I learned that the state of being offended is only offering a closed mind in my core belief system. Good post! Link to post Share on other sites
j_hunt_12 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 The original question: The good one's try to because they truly believe you will go to hell if you dont convert and they care about others... Most are bad though and I really don't understand it either. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 my point, (and opinion) is, until you receive the Holy Spirit and do what I highlighted in bold with Scripture, you're not going see evidence, circumstantial or concrete. And when one does believe that they have received this Holy Spirit, evidence will no longer be required for them because they already believe. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 And when one does believe that they have received this Holy Spirit, evidence will no longer be required for them because they already believe. Cheers, D.Yep. Good job explaining it. (Assuming it's geniune) It's kind of like jumping into the pool in the middle of August when the heater has been broke for a month, BUT, you think, "ah....it'll be alright"....but there's a chance that..... "And when one jumps into the ice cold water and receives this shock, evidence will no longer be required for them because they already believe" Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 The good one's try to because they truly believe you will go to hell if you dont convert and they care about others... Most are bad though and I really don't understand it either. that's a curious way of looking at it! Wouldn't the good ones want to be the good example to lead you toward God, and leave conversion in God's hands, while the bad ones use bad example to bash it over your head? Link to post Share on other sites
shadowofman Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Dawkins implies that the meme has a mind of its own, and we humans are simply "survival machines." This means that the human body is simply a home for the intelligent meme. It is speculation with no basis in research via the scientific method. I totally agree. And there would be no way to demonstrate this scientifically. Unless we discover an intellegence within each gene, it remains speculation. But more accurately, a metaphor. We do know that genes are the lowest common denominator to what we know as "life". It is the genes that cause us to procreate, or at least have a drive to procreate and this is true with all life. Non-intellegent mechanisms that express a will of their own, or are they intellegent? I don't believe so. Why would that be more convincing to you that simply believing that a God created the world and is real? Neither are explained by the scientific method. Because I know genes exist, though there are still mysteries as to their ultimate natures. I do not know that god exists, therefore memetics is more likely. The scientific method will not give us all the answers, has never claimed the abiltiy. Only the answers that can be observed. And intellegent genes can not be observed. Only their non-intellegent wills conceived in random mutation. Link to post Share on other sites
JamesM Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Because I know genes exist, though there are still mysteries as to their ultimate natures. I do not know that god exists, therefore memetics is more likely. The scientific method will not give us all the answers, has never claimed the abiltiy. Only the answers that can be observed. And intellegent genes can not be observed. Only their non-intellegent wills conceived in random mutation. So your logic for accepting that memes is exist is because genes exist? This is one of those few times that I do not follow your logic. Memes were "created" because genes is exist. In other words, "well, we have genes and they explain how the body changes and develops...so, let's make the same sort of thing for intelligence." It sounds like a good comparison, but it does not make memes real. The fact that genes exist does not make memes more likely, because this is what they were modeled after. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Yep. Good job explaining it. (Assuming it's geniune) It is, and it's refreshing to see you admit that evidence plays no part in this process. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 It is, and it's refreshing to see you admit that evidence plays no part in this process. Cheers, D.You misunderstand. The evidence, is evident at conversion. Link to post Share on other sites
j_hunt_12 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 "The good one's try to because they truly believe you will go to hell if you dont convert and they care about others... Most are bad though and I really don't understand it either. that's a curious way of looking at it! Wouldn't the good ones want to be the good example to lead you toward God, and leave conversion in God's hands, while the bad ones use bad example to bash it over your head?" All try as it is their duty (not really anything wrong with this). Most put on the good face for you, whether it is sincere or not. Very few actually have the right to try to convert non-believers as they really don't believe or really are just bad people. I'm not nearly as old as you but I've found this to be true. The question is, why do the bad one's care if there are so many?... Maybe because they want reassurance that what they do is right. Maybe having more in a specific cult is a way to gain power. Maybe they are insecure and want to project their hatred and jealousy onto you (these are the worst and most common). These fall under your bad example ones. Most here seem ok though... peace guys... lol Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Very few actually have the right to try to convert non-believers as they really don't believe or really are just bad people. I'm not nearly as old as you but I've found this to be true. The question is, why do the bad one's care if there are so many?... Maybe because they want reassurance that what they do is right. Maybe having more in a specific cult is a way to gain power. ow! you've mortally wounded me with the "old as you" comment true Christian believers understand that they are not "converting" an individual, but merely evangelizing or sharing the Good News about Jesus Christ. Because they realize that faith is a gift from God, therefore they're interested in getting the word out so that people can "tune in" to God's call. "bad" ones abuse spirituality by using it for self-profit or self-aggrandization … think of the Jim Joneses and David Koreshes, of the televangelists who call out for more money to show the world you love Jesus, but who use that money to fund their expensive habits. Those folks can be called false prophets, and even if you don't have a spiritual claim or preference, you possess the ability to discern who's using the public and who genuinely wants to introduce you to a God that loves you. Hopefully, you're able to brush aside the jerks who are users and find some merit – even if you don't personally believe in God – in the other group's work. Link to post Share on other sites
j_hunt_12 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I'll agree with you there. As for the old comment. I dont know how old you are... i was just trying to avoid saying "well I've seen a lot in my day" without a disclaimer. Someone could be like "you're only 20 kid...you ain't seen nothing"... I made a "b" on a paper once for that...lol Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 yeah, some of those profs can be brutal in pointing out one's lack of experience ... no offense taken, I thought it was funny, as I just turned 42 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts