View Single Post
Old August 28 2012, 06:34 AM   #87
J. Allen
Love For All
J. Allen's Avatar
Location: United States
View J. Allen's Twitter Profile
Re: Bill Nye: “Creationism is not Appropriate for Children”

Yminale wrote: View Post
Existential truth goes to issues that we can't objective study and analyze. What's the purpose of the Universe? What's the meaning life? What happens when we die? What is love? What is good?
Existential truth has no place in science, and such "truths" aren't always factual. If you want to ponder the reason behind it all, that's fine. Those are questions humanity has been asking itself since we crawled out of the muck.

The problem is replacing fact with "truth". That's where critical thinking comes into play.

Atheist like to dismiss these concerns because there can't be an objective answer but they exist for people nonetheless.
You sure do speak a great deal on what Atheists like to do and think. It's as if you've decided they're all the same and not worth speaking about on an individual level.

I'm not sure if you understand what the natural end point is. Many Atheists do but they don't want to express it. They don't want to say "We want to promote science and critical thinking and the natural consequence is the end of religion". If they said that the public would balk.
You mean people like Richard Dawkins? Lawrence Krauss? Stephen Fry? Christopher Hitchens? Carl Sagan? James Randi? Isaac Asimov? Douglas Adams? Sam Harris? Bertrand Russell? Tim Minchin? Kip Thorne? Mark Twain?

All of them famous atheists, and who have made their opinions well known, yet are still well received by much of the general public?

People use to support Eugenics, the Tuskegee experiments, lobotomies and a host of all kind of bad ideas with that logic.

Science isn't perfect, data is never complete and scientists are both flawed and biased.

Even within evolution there was a crap load of racism and political ideology that took decades to remove.
Of course things can and do go wrong. We're human, and we're very fallible. Still, the evidence does win out, and things do change for the better.

This generally does not happen in a religion, because it is a closed system. Religious archetypes only move once the culture around them begins to abandon them. This is how such religions try to remain relevant, and in the process of that change, there is conflict, and people are burned/killed/shunned/enslaved/hated/oppressed/despised.

It states that people are human. Some of us like the uncertainty that asking questions bring but I suspect that the majority don't like uncertainty and confusion. I think skeptics and atheist over sell science. It's what we don't know that makes science amazing, not what we do know. Science can never provide certainty because there is no certainty in science only probabilities.
The only appropriate response to this is a facepalm. You actively pride yourself on the virtues of ignorance.

Yminale wrote: View Post
Any time you have a radical change in human society, you have to wonder what the future consequences are. I'm a liberal not a progressive. I don't think change for the sake of change is a good thing. Humanism is just as vulnerable to human corruption as Christianity and Islam. Critical thinking only works if you know your biases and have the appropriate amount of information. If you don't you have rationalization.
You're inferring things that no one has said. You have done this a few times. Quit reading between the lines and read the actual text. It's so much nicer to get answers to actual questions rather than ruminations on what you think I "really" said.

Like My Little Pony? Join us at Brony Kingdom!

-= St. John of Trenton, Patron Saint of Cute Ponies =-
Bestowed upon me by Pondwater
J. Allen is online now   Reply With Quote