29 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt's because people love to live in the land of black and white, where things are clearly defined and they are told just what to believe and what not to believe.
They are confused.
And also wrong.
People can and do believe mutually contradictory things.
The fact that religion and science are utterly incompatible and diametrically opposed
doesn't stop people mentally compartmentalising their minds and believing both.
What's more indicative is that scientists are vastly less likely to believe in gods ...[text shortened]... on claims to
tackle closest, are the ones least likely to believe in the claims of religion.
Creationists claim evolution is wrong and the universe was created as told in the Bible.
Atheists (who by and large tout science as one reason why they cannot have a belief in God) claim science is fact, and "ergo" (funny, because one does not necessarily follow the other) God must not exist.
People don't usually believe "mutually contradictory" things. Especially when they're not "mutually contradictory".
Funny how only atheists and fundamentalists believe that "religion and science are utterly incompatible and diametrically opposed". The Scientist saying that sounds as stupid as the Creationist saying it.
I believe God did indeed create the universe, but that He used the laws of physics to achieve His ends, which is why it took billions of years. I just don't see why believing one negates the other. I guess if your mind is closed, then you're going to only believe what you were taught, regardless of which side of the river you're on.
The reason there are so few scientists who believe in God is because by any reckoning, there are always going to be less people with open minds than with closed minds.
29 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgereligions are first and foremost philosophical systems. to say that the most important thing about christianity is the 7 day creation story with which its holy book begins is missing the point. by quite a lot. you should be proud to be in the same select group as rjhinds and other fundies, they too believe that. judging a philosophical or moral system by an insane interpretation a select few have is easy. maybe i should judge chemistry by what the alchemists thought a while back.
The entire quoted section is quoted from the blog I linked to.
The bold bits are the words of the person who wrote the blog (PZ Myers).
The non-bold bits are where he quotes the article by Higgs.
I posted it because I agree with what PZ Myers said.
As for the rest...
Try reposting in coherent sentences and then I can respond.
Howe ...[text shortened]... g.
At least not to anyone who hasn't had an irrational respect for stupidity beat into them.
that is why higgs, an atheist, considers dawkins an embarrassment
jesus doesn't do science. the sooner you and fundies understand that the better.
29 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgespaghetti sauce and swiss clocks are utterly incompatible and diametrically opposed
They are confused.
And also wrong.
People can and do believe mutually contradictory things.
The fact that religion and science are utterly incompatible and diametrically opposed
doesn't stop people mentally compartmentalising their minds and believing both.
What's more indicative is that scientists are vastly less likely to believe in gods ...[text shortened]... on claims to
tackle closest, are the ones least likely to believe in the claims of religion.
29 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt seems to me that the scientists that have discovered really important things are the ones that believe in God. Very interesting. 😏
They are confused.
And also wrong.
People can and do believe mutually contradictory things.
The fact that religion and science are utterly incompatible and diametrically opposed
doesn't stop people mentally compartmentalising their minds and believing both.
What's more indicative is that scientists are vastly less likely to believe in gods ...[text shortened]... on claims to
tackle closest, are the ones least likely to believe in the claims of religion.
Originally posted by Suzianne... I believe God did indeed create the universe, but that He used the laws of physics to achieve His ends, which is why it took billions of years. I just don't see why believing one negates the other. I guess if your mind is closed, then you're going to only believe what you were taught, regardless of which side of the river you're on. ...
It's because people love to live in the land of black and white, where things are clearly defined and they are told just what to believe and what not to believe.
Creationists claim evolution is wrong and the universe was created as told in the Bible.
Atheists (who by and large tout science as one reason why they cannot have a belief in God) claim scie , there are always going to be less people with open minds than with closed minds.
Yeah but you also believe in demons and a great big battle that's going to take place between Satan's minions (us atheists apparently) and heavens angels within the next 50 years.
Any hope that your beliefs will be taken seriously went right out of the window with that one. :]
29 Dec 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think it is relevant
irrelevant. please read the link he provided thoroughly and you will understand how far off-topic you posted
though given I hadn\'t followed up with my motivation for posting that I understand the difficulty in perhaps seeing it - I have yet to receive a response from the OP answering my question
- Higgs doesn't like how Dawkins tars all Christians with the brush, however I strongly suspect he himself has a problem with fundies...you know...those ones for whom science and religion not mixing is blatant.29 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by kd2aczOk, forget the "fundamentalist" label for a moment... do you believe in, or are undecided on such propositions like a 6000 year old earth, talking snakes (that coerce people into eating naughty apples), Noah's Ark, and so on...?
Don't call myself much of anything, and I fail to see your point in light of the article and the OP. Your thoughts depend not on mine, why not share? I thought the article was interesting and wanted to know what ya'll thought.
I'll get to my point when I have an answer to this question
29 Dec 12
Originally posted by AgergAre you talking about the school system where many do not want to mix the teaching of science and religion? It is clear to me that trying to teach science without religion is harmful to the society. We have tried that idea without much success. We need to bring the Christian religion back into the schools and teach the truth to the kids instead of the lies of evolution. 😏
I think it is relevant [hidden]though given I hadn\'t followed up with my motivation for posting that I understand the difficulty in perhaps seeing it - I have yet to receive a response from the OP answering my question[/hidden]- Higgs doesn't like how Dawkins tars all Christians with the brush, however I strongly suspect he himself has a problem with fundies...you know...those ones for whom science and religion not mixing is blatant.
30 Dec 12
Originally posted by Agergyou asked him if he is a young earth creationist, yet the article is about higgs thinking dawkins is embarassing in how he deals with creationists. it is off topic. the talk here is higgs oppinion on dawkins, whether it is right or wrong and to what degree, not what the op's beliefs are.
I think it is relevant [hidden]though given I hadn\'t followed up with my motivation for posting that I understand the difficulty in perhaps seeing it - I have yet to receive a response from the OP answering my question[/hidden]- Higgs doesn't like how Dawkins tars all Christians with the brush, however I strongly suspect he himself has a problem with fundies...you know...those ones for whom science and religion not mixing is blatant.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe game that fundies play is one of deflecting any criticisms of their faith by {misquoting/ appealing to the past mistakes of} respectable scientists and over-generalising the terms "Chrisitanity", "theism", etc... to give themselves an air of credibility they do not deserve. In response, the game I play is one of undermining their efforts in this regard by showing how their efforts are irrelevant to the validity of their own particular beliefs.
you asked him if he is a young earth creationist, yet the article is about higgs thinking dawkins is embarassing in how he deals with creationists. it is off topic. the talk here is higgs oppinion on dawkins, whether it is right or wrong and to what degree, not what the op's beliefs are.
Given that kd2acz no doubt intends to undermine any attacks against his own faith by posting that article
i.e. \"look!!! - a respectable scientist and atheist, Higgs, is criticising Dawkins...so perhaps the rest of you should follow suit!\"
My intent is to point out to kd2acz, given that I strongly suspect he/she is {him/her}self a fundamentalist - that Higgs criticism of Dawkins serves his/her purpose very little.
Ridiculing fundamentalists and their stupid beliefs is always fair game - showing us that Higgs doesn't like the way Dawkins paints all theists as creationists is all well and good, but I strongly doubt kd2acz is not a creationist.
30 Dec 12
Originally posted by AgergNumbnuts! Your doubts are irrelevant to the OP.
The game that fundies play is one of deflecting any criticisms of their faith by {misquoting/ appealing to the past mistakes of} respectable scientists and over-generalising the terms "Chrisitanity", "theism", etc... to give themselves an air of credibility they do not deserve. In response, the game I play is one of undermining their efforts in this regard by ...[text shortened]... as creationists is all well and good, but I strongly doubt kd2acz is not a creationist.
Originally posted by kd2acz"In 1963 Higgs predicted the existence of a force-carrying particle, part of an invisible energy field that filled the vacuum throughout the observable universe. Without the field, or something like it, we would not be here. The field clings to the smallest fundamental particles and gives them mass. The field, which switched on moments after the big bang, allowed particles to come together and form all the atoms and molecules around today.."
What are your thoughts...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
Just one question: Who / what caused, created or was (is) responsible for this
"invisible energy field that filled the vacuum throughout the observable universe."?
.