davidylan:


i didnt make the assumption... the big bang theory did. You seem confused.

I don't think the Big Bang theory posited a chaotic preuniverse. A infintely dense singularity is not the same as chaos.

davidylan:


Actually the difference is a meagre 0.001% or less... infact we share a remarkable 60% of our DNA with a cob of maize... funny. Seems you really dont know what you're talking about.

Yet a .001 per cent change in a delicate encryption such the DNA has a substantial effect, wouldn't you agree?

UyiIredia:


I think you should appreciate that people can be think rationally while holding superstitious beliefs.

I agree in the sense that it is not binary, but, rational thinking ends where superstition begins.
The extent of a person's superstitious tendencies is inversely proportional to the extent of his/her rational thinking.

UyiIredia:

I disagree, it could hinder scientific advance to an extent but our scientific underachievement is really a failure of governance and it is reflected in how much of our budget goes into education compared with other areas.

I didn't say that superstition is the only reason for our underachievement, the emboldened is my point.

plaetton:

Ahhh !
So refreshing.
Fresh air.
You make me so proud of having a mind, of seeing the universe beyond my closet space.
I pity those who do not.

Seriously, you never cease to amaze...

Joshthefirst:
Seriously, you never cease to amaze...

I'm not amazed by him. The only thing that amazes me is that people actually take him seriously.

thehomer:


DNA is a natural molecule. It arose from other molecules. No my position is that DNA is a product of natural events. Why? Well for a reson similar to why the grand canyon was formed. I see no reason why I have to impose a human purpose on a natural process.

From what and why did your God evolve? Essentially, your position is that chaos is the basis for the evolution of your God.

DNA is a natural molecule that arose from design by a genius creator. A common template coding for everything physical life. Reproducing itself, Even correcting itself. Genius. Working and Efficient Genius is not a product of chaotic substandard randomized non-directional natural events. Unfortunate man who refuses to think outside the narrow box of idi.ot naturalism.

Antiparticle:


I agree in the sense that it is not binary, but, rational thinking ends where superstition begins.
The extent of a person's superstitious tendencies is inversely proportional to the extent of his/her rational thinking.

I didn't say that superstition is the only reason for our underachievement, the emboldened is my point.

Pls explain what you see as

1. "scientific advance"
2. superstition
3. And how you think ' 2 ' at this present time can stop '1'

Thanks.

Kay17:


I will ordinarily accept the illogicality of an infinite regress as a proof against God. Nonetheless, I want you to acknowledge the problem of a complex designer without a cause. If you acknowledge that, then we can move on to the issue whether God being non-physical, can not be complex.

The illogicality of an infinite regress isn't proof against God. The issue of an uncaused complex designer would only be a problem if God was physical, He isn't. That said, we can't have a one-way discussion where only I defend my position, YOU TOO must defend your position that unguided natural processes resulted in life, a position that lacks any evidence whatsoever.

I assume you are asking these questions in good faith, in which case I should let you know that my prior comments on this thread already address your questions. Please read my previous comments.

KingEbukasBlog:


Pls what do explain what you see as

1. "scientific advance"
2. superstition
3. And how you think ' 2 ' at this present time can stop '1'

Thanks.

Antiparticle:
I assume you are asking these questions in good faith, in which case I should let you know that my prior comments on this thread already address your questions. Please read my previous comments.

No no no , you got me confused cos I see contradiction.Take a look at these :

1. As an atheist , haven't you wished someone good luck before ? I mean luck is unscientific

2. A quick example : As kids we believed that when one crosses over your head or any part of your body , that part stops growing . Now that's a superstitious belief because science refutes that belief .

So now that we've known the truth , how did our superstitious belief stop our advancement in the knowledge of science ?

3. I believe in the existence of God- which is seen as superstitious- but I make use of smartphones , an advancement in communication , technology (applied science). So according to you , why didnt my "superstitious belief" reject that advancement

4. Sorry am just saying your statement is wrong - superstition does not hinder scientific advancement to any extent

Kay17:


Yet a .001 per cent change in a delicate encryption such the DNA has a substantial effect, wouldn't you agree?

Not really... infact not at all. You're basing your "substantial effect" on pure phenotype alone... i.e. skin color, facial features. But you forget that there are literally millions of other processes that take place under the skin facade that are no different from that of your neighbor. Your cells act exactly alike, your blood is the same color, your cells respire through mitochondria... etc.

Kay17:


I don't think the Big Bang theory posited a chaotic preuniverse. A infintely dense singularity is not the same as chaos.

Well what does it posit then? You seem to waffle from position to position based on the particular thread you're on. Are you saying that the big bang created an ordered universe?

thehomer:


So you agree that Uyi Iredia has no clue of what he is talking about. It's nice that someone else has realized this fact. As I've shown, I'm happy to discuss the science and your God with you. Why do you find it so difficult to admit your belief in your God on an anonymous forum? What are you afraid of?

I made no such direct comment. I only meant to say that you seem to like to pick and choose who you want to have a science discussion with... presumably based on who you think you can easily bullshit.

As i said... i came here to talk science... you seem to be desperate to change the topic even though you keep caterwauling about how you are happy to discuss the science. We dont have to discuss both at the same time... that is madness. Lets start with the science if you have a clue what you talk about.

UyiIredia:


The illogicality of an infinite regress isn't proof against God.

Exactly ! God exists outside of time, He has always existed and will always exist. Infinite regress depends on/ works with time . If there is no time, something does not predate the other . Our ability to say that this was before this is because of time .

Kay17:


I don't think the Big Bang theory posited a chaotic preuniverse. A infintely dense singularity is not the same as chaos.

Take a little step back , before the big bang

Antiparticle:
Yes, totally agreed. Religion (or atheism), in and of itself, has little to do with economic success.

The problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth. Europe's economic and scientific advancement blossomed once people began to feel free to think outside the box of the then traditional Christianity.

Nigeria will continue to lag economically and scientifically if the intellectual laziness of ascribing calamities or triumphs to spirit entities continues uninhibited.

So perhaps you can tell us the state religion in China or North Korea?

Dubai and Saudi Arabia are streets ahead of us and yet are probably far more religious than we are... the problem is you are not thinking through your arguments at all. You're simply repeating what you've heard someone else say...

KingEbukasBlog:


No no no , you got me confused cos I see contradiction.Take a look at these :

1. As an atheist , haven't you wished someone good luck before ? I mean luck is unscientific

I am indeed skeptical about a lot of religious claims, but show me where I claimed to be atheist.

Luck is not unscientific; it is an acknowledgement that "randomness" can go in your favor (good luck), or against your favor (bad luck).
Luck acknowledges the role of probability and statistics in certain event outcomes. Randomness is not unscientific; in science we often can describe randomness pretty well over large sample sizes either through extended observation or through comprehensive understanding of the underlying physical phenomena.

Randomness would be unscientific if it were non-physical (could not be explained by physical laws), however, this is not the case.

KingEbukasBlog:

2. A quick example : As kids we believed that when one crosses over your head or any part of your body , that part stops growing . Now that's a superstitious belief because science refutes that belief .

Superstition does not interfere with physical laws. This is not the issue of contention.

KingEbukasBlog:

So now that we've known the truth , how did our superstitious belief stop our advancement in the knowledge of science ?

What truth?

KingEbukasBlog:

3. I believe in the existence of God- which is seen as superstitious- but I make use of smartphones , an advancement in communication , technology (applied science). So according to you , why didnt my "superstitious belief" reject that advancement

4. Sorry am just saying your statement is wrong - superstition does not hinder scientific advancement to any extent

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I used the term "scientific advancement" separately from "economic advancement". I was referring to Nigeria's collective ability to make scientific discoveries, advance global scientific knowledge, and create technology innovations. This is different from being able to afford or push buttons on a smartphone.

I won't argue further on this; see my prior statement: [T]he extent of a person's superstitious tendencies is inversely proportional to the extent of his/her rational thinking.

davidylan:


So perhaps you can tell us the state religion in China or North Korea?

Dubai and Saudi Arabia are streets ahead of us and yet are probably far more religious than we are...

Saudi Arabia. You just proved the point of my statement (see: persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth).

Please explain the China and North Korea reference? I don't see the point. Where did I say that religion is exclusively and always responsible for tyranny and the like?

davidylan:

the problem is you are not thinking through your arguments at all. You're simply repeating what you've heard someone else say...

I have consistently kept the conversation with you civil but you repeatedly attempt to insult my intelligence. Why not just respond without the ad hominems? Once again, would whichever deity you worship approve of this?

I'll have to stop responding to you if you continue to respond this way. The goal here is not to win an argument, the goal is to explain my point and you explain your point. We don't have to agree, but we can respect each other in the process even if we have to point out logical inconsistencies wherever they may exist in either of our positions.

Antiparticle:


Saudi Arabia. You just proved the point of my statement (see: persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth).

Please explain the China and North Korea reference? I don't see the point. Where did I say that religion is exclusively and always responsible for tyranny and the like?

My mention of Saudi Arabia was to counter this point you made - "Europe's economic and scientific advancement blossomed once people began to feel free to think outside the box of the then traditional Christianity."

Its quite silly and revisionist history to claim that Europe only started to bloom once people started to think outside christianity. Most of the early scientists who formulated the scientific theories that are the foundation of science today where in fact christian. Remember Sir Isaac Newton?

The China and North Korea reference is quite simple really - you said this - "the problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth."... China and North Korea are relatively atheist nations and yet are two of the most repressive societies on earth... like i said, you dont seem to be thinking through your comments at all... its not an insult, just fact.

Antiparticle:


I am indeed skeptical about a lot of religious claims, but show me where I claimed to be atheist.

Sorry , but it seemed you were one

Luck is not unscientific; it is an acknowledgement that "randomness" can go in your favor (good luck), or against your favor (bad luck).
Luck acknowledges the role of probability and statistics in certain event outcomes. Randomness is not unscientific; in science we often can describe randomness pretty well over large sample sizes either through extended observation or through comprehensive understanding of the underlying physical phenomena.

Randomness would be unscientific if it were non-physical (could not be explained by physical laws), however, this is not the case.

Luck goes beyond randomness going for/against your favour .Because it begs for the reason of favour for/against . If the reason of an outcome is not sensible or logical it is irrational thus unscientific .

Superstition does not interfere with physical laws. This is not the issue of contention.

Same way it does not affect your ability to think or innovate irrespective of your region .

What truth?

That crossing over you does not stop your growth

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I used the term "scientific advancement" not "economic advancement". I was referring to Nigeria's collective ability to make scientific discoveries, advance global scientific knowledge, and create technology innovations. This is different from being able to push buttons on a smartphone.

So how does the belief in God stop a set of Nigerian scientists from discovering the cure for cancer

I won't argue further on this; see my prior statement: [T]he extent of a person's superstitious tendencies is inversely proportional to the extent of his/her rational thinking.

You have to convince someone that your statement is right

davidylan:


My mention of Saudi Arabia was to counter this point you made - "Europe's economic and scientific advancement blossomed once people began to feel free to think outside the box of the then traditional Christianity."

Your Saudi Arabia mention confirms the following statement: "The problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth"

Your Saudi Arabia mention does not counter the reality that Europe advanced greatly (in the sciences) during the Age of Enlightenment.

davidylan:

Its quite silly and revisionist history to claim that Europe only started to bloom once people started to think outside Christianity. Most of the early scientists who formulated the scientific theories that are the foundation of science today where in fact christian. Remember Sir Isaac Newton?

I never said that Christians can't be great scientists. There are different doctrines and movements of Christianity and some are more superstitious than others. Also, some Christians are quick to reject certain truth claims of the faith and not become atheist in the process (though many in this day and age become agnostic or atheist). The Christianity of pre-Reformation Europe (rigid, dogmatic, and ruthlessly authoritarian) was vastly different from Christianity thereafter (more open to criticism, thanks to Martin Luther and other such trailblazers).

In my comments about Nigeria's scientific advancement, I contextualized this aspect of my position to Nigerian Christianity/religion and its highly superstitious nature (read my comments in this thread); I further stated that the extent to which a person is superstitious is related inversely with their rational thinking. Where did I say you can't be scientist and "Christian"?

Also, here's a quick Wikipedia quote about the Age of Enlightenment: "The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason) is an era from the 1620s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority. It was promoted by philosophes and local thinkers in urban coffee houses, salons, and Masonic lodges. It challenged the authority of institutions that were deeply rooted in society, especially the Catholic Church; there was much talk of ways to reform society with toleration, science and skepticism."

Scientific curiosity blossomed during this time.

davidylan:

The China and North Korea reference is quite simple really - you said this - "the problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth."... China and North Korea are relatively atheist nations and yet are two of the most repressive societies on earth... like i said, you dont seem to be thinking through your comments at all... its not an insult, just fact.

Correlation-causation mix-up here. Once again, I never said that the truth claims of religion are always and exclusively the cause of persecution and tyranny. Please post where I wrote this.

You are welcome to continue the unfounded insults, perhaps this is what you think is necessary to defend your deity.

I rest my case.

KingEbukasBlog:


Sorry , but it seemed you were one



Luck goes beyond randomness going for/against your favour .Because it begs for the reason of favour for/against . If the reason of an outcome is not sensible or logical it is irrational thus unscientific .




Same way it does not affect your ability to think or innovate irrespective of your region .




That crossing over you does not stop your growth



So how does the belief in God stop a set of Nigerian scientists from discovering the cure for cancer



You have to convince someone that your statement is right

Antiparticle:


Your Saudi Arabia mention confirms the following statement: "The problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth"

Your Saudi Arabia mention does not counter the reality that Europe advanced greatly (in the sciences) during the Age of Enlightenment.

Actually not really... because i notice you cleverly pretended not to see where i clearly showed that North Korea and China are two nations that put a lie to that fact. They are as atheist as you can get and have a far worse civil rights abuse record than Saudi Arabia... but it seems your bias is clouding your sense of judgement.

Antiparticle:

I never said that Christians can't be great scientists. There are different doctrines and movements of Christianity and some are more superstitious than others. Also, some Christians are quick to reject certain truth claims of the faith and not become atheist in the process (though many in this day and age become agnostic or atheist). The Christianity of pre-Reformation Europe (rigid, dogmatic, and ruthlessly authoritarian) was vastly different from Christianity thereafter (more open to criticism, thanks to Martin Luther and other such trailblazers).

In my comments about Nigeria's scientific advancement, I contextualized this aspect of my position to Nigerian Christianity/religion and its highly superstitious nature (read my comments in this thread); I further stated that the extent to which a person is superstitious is related inversely with their rational thinking. Where did I say you can't be scientist and "Christian"?

Also, here's a quick Wikipedia quote about the Age of Enlightenment: "The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason) is an era from the 1620s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority. It was promoted by philosophes and local thinkers in urban coffee houses, salons, and Masonic lodges. It challenged the authority of institutions that were deeply rooted in society, especially the Catholic Church; there was much talk of ways to reform society with toleration, science and skepticism."

Scientific curiosity blossomed during this time.



Correlation-causation mix-up here. Once again, I never said that the truth claims of religion are always and exclusively the cause of persecution and tyranny. Please post where I wrote this.

You are welcome to continue the unfounded insults, perhaps this is what you think is necessary to defend your deity.

You keep caterwauling about "correlation-causation mixup" yet you keep making the same fallacy... assuming that the decline in state-sponsored religion in Europe somehow had something to do with its industrial revolution. It is true that you have not said that religion is exclusively the cause of tyranny... the problem is that i have not accused you of saying so either. The other problem is that you're trying to split hairs... you are clearly insinuating that the level of religion has something to do with the level of tyranny... that is demonstrably false. Seriously, i am not insulting you... just that unlike most here, i have very little patience for people who think they are smarter than they actually are. You cant spend time posting demonstrably false nonsense and then cry when you're called out on it. We can have a civil discussion, what we cant have is one based on revisionist history and dishonest histrionics.

You've been busy playing musical chairs with the issues. You complain that Africa is an example of religion restraining technological advancement, when i bring up the fact that Saudi Arabia and Dubai are far more religious than we are and far more technologically advanced, you avoid that entirely and start pointing at tyranny... when i bring up china as an example that religion and tyranny are not mutually inclusive, you suddenly pivot back to technology... perhaps you should figure out what argument you really want to make and think about it deeply first.

davidylan:


Not sure what your point is... perhaps you're also surprised that Sir Isaac Newton was a christian and scientist too?

No, I've been living under a rock and wasn't aware of that.....

Anyhoo, 'twasn't a point per ser, but to answer your question ser LacksImagination; no.

I'm also not surprised Jefferson died owning slaves and Lincoln was known to have made racist jokes. Those were their times. So unless you fancy yourself a scientist living in the 17th century, I fail to see the point of your question. (granted, your living in the 17th century would explain a lot)

If you're genuinely (and bizarrely) having trouble as to why I ask, then here's an explanation:

There are 'xtians' that are scientists even in this day of course (though their numbers continue to dwindle and rapidly, especially among the elite), many doing well even. By and large they know how to seperate their beliefs from their science

You clearly can't

For instance, you assert that there is NO evidence for evolution.

Not only do you do this, you also try to pass ID off as science (something you're desperately trying to avoid admitting, despite thehomers probing)

Do you know silly that is?

Imagine an atheist as a pastor. He simply needs to show up, open the Bible and continue to regale his flock with fairy tales and whatnot. He might not believe it but at least he's 'apastoring, he's doing the job. Now, if said atheist started reading The God Delusion instead of the bible to his sheeple, could you really call him a pastor?! One would have to ask WTF is he doing on the pulpit, no?

That's how silly you look when you claim that there's no evidence for evolution and ID is science.

I'm being silly? Well, then do show how ID is science. Better yet, you're a researcher (or so you claim), no? Show it to your peers.

Write that paper titled "The Myth of Evolution" or "Intelligent Design; The Evidence from the Beautiful Design" and claim your glorious Nobel Prize. (Please share it with me for giving you such a lovely, if obvious, idea abeg)

As for yourr claims that there's no evidence for evolution, like I've stated to you before, you do this while making points like we share ~60% of our dna with corn (or whatever you said earlier). Claiming there's no evidence for evolution while stating this is...well....lol.

So, instead of doing some science, rubbing heads with your peers to put your money where your mouth is, etc, you're here on NL's religion section spewing horse$hit and challenging laymen to do 'real science'. You should be educating us but nooooooo. It even seems like we're easily much better at discerning real science than you are, ser professional, and using our brains to analyze it better sef.

In fact, just take this your 'science' to biology's equivalence of physics.org and please let us observe the debate. Go talk to them about this 'beauty' you see and just how it must be evidence of a designer (and even more ridiculously, a supernatural one that wrote a story book 2000 years ago)

You can't, you never will, because ID is simply NOT SCIENCE. In any shape, form or manner. And the evidence for evolution is clearly bountiful and everywhere to be seen

So again, if you wanted say godidit, please and please why in the world are you a scientist? Godidit is for the pulpit not the lab, so why are you there?


BTW, even though Newton belonged to an generation whose parents were jailed for stating the earth wasn't the centre of the universe, he persisted with strange and idiosyncratic ideas where religion was concerned. In fact, had his views on religion been made public he could have found himself in prison. That should tell you that perhaps he was less than satisfied with what he had seen in the 'perfect' book of god and his investigations

wiegraf:


No, I've been living under a rock and wasn't aware of that.....

Anyhoo, 'twasn't a point per ser, but to answer your question ser LacksImagination; no.

I'm also not surprised Jefferson died owning slaves and Lincoln was known to have made racist jokes. Those were their times. So unless you fancy yourself a scientist living in the 17th century, I fail to see the point of your question. (granted, your living in the 17th century would explain a lot)

If you're genuinely (and bizarrely) having trouble as to why I ask, then here's an explanation:

There are 'xtians' that are scientists even in this day of course (though their numbers continue to dwindle and rapidly, especially among the elite), many doing well even. By and large they know how to seperate their beliefs from their science

You clearly can't

For instance, you assert that there is NO evidence for evolution.

Not only do you do this, you also try to pass ID off as science (something you're desperately trying to avoid admitting, despite thehomers probing)

Do you know silly that is?

Imagine an atheist as a pastor. He simply needs to show up, open the Bible and continue to regale his flock with fairy tales and whatnot. He might not believe it but at least he's 'apastoring, he's doing the job. Now, if said atheist started reading The God Delusion instead of the bible to his sheeple, could you really call him a pastor?! One would have to ask WTF is he doing on the pulpit, no?

That's how silly you look when you claim that there's no evidence for evolution and ID is science.

I'm being silly? Well, then do show how ID is science. Better yet, you're a researcher (or so you claim), no? Show it to your peers.

Write that paper titled "The Myth of Evolution" or "Intelligent Design; The Evidence from the Beautiful Design" and claim your glorious Nobel Prize. (Please share it with me for giving you such a lovely, if obvious, idea abeg)

As for yourr claims that there's no evidence for evolution, like I've stated to you before, you do this while making points like we share ~60% of our dna with corn (or whatever you said earlier). Claiming there's no evidence for evolution while stating this is...well....lol.

So, instead of doing some science, rubbing heads with your peers to put your money where your mouth is, etc, you're here on NL's religion section spewing horse$hit and challenging laymen to do 'real science'. You should be educating us but nooooooo. It even seems like we're easily much better at discerning real science than you are, ser professional, and using our brains to analyze it better sef.

In fact, just take this your 'science' to biology's equivalence of physics.org and please let us observe the debate. Go talk to them about this 'beauty' you see and just how it must be evidence of a designer (and even more ridiculously, a supernatural one that wrote a story book 2000 years ago)

You can't, you never will, because ID is simply NOT SCIENCE. In any shape, form or manner. And the evidence for evolution is clearly bountiful and everywhere to be seen

So again, if you wanted say godidit, please and please why in the world are you a scientist? Godidit is for the pulpit not the lab, so why are you there?


BTW, even though Newton belonged to an generation whose parents were jailed for stating the earth wasn't the centre of the universe, he persisted with strange and idiosyncratic ideas where religion was concerned. In fact, had his views on religion been made public he could have found himself in prison. That he should tell you that perhaps he was less than satisfied with what he had seen in the 'perfect' book of god and his investigations

The above in highlights is an example of what is wrong with militant atheism. Conjecture, poor thinking, rush to conclusions...

I make a conclusion that there is no evidence for MACRO evolution (it is important to make that distinction since dishonest atheists like to conflate macro and micro evolution as if both are one and the same) based on my experience in the lab and spending over 7 years reading science publications. You dont have any evidence otherwise... all you keep saying is that one should write a paper. That is as senseless as asking scientists who disagree with a colleague need to write a paper to be taken seriously. Scientists can disagree without needing to spam the scientific community with papers refuting each other. Sigh... the level of discourse out here hasn't improved i see. Its still dominated by thoughtless, juvenile ranting.

Just to add, i need to react to this laughable stuff that if anyone is a christian then he/she should stick to a pulpit rather than the lab. Its even worse when you consider the people making such a point could not differentiate between a nucleus and mitochondria under a light microscope (that is if they have ever even used one in their entire lives). There are millions of conscientious christian scientists doing great work in labs all over the world... least of all the US. Just because they believe in God does not mean they do not have the chops to spend countless hours designing better bacterial-resistant drugs so intellectually lazy internet warriors here can live longer to spew more thoughtless bile on the web.

davidylan:


Actually not really... because i notice you cleverly pretended not to see where i clearly showed that North Korea and China are two nations that put a lie to that fact. They are as atheist as you can get and have a far worse civil rights abuse record than Saudi Arabia... but it seems your bias is clouding your sense of judgement.

Once again, you are talking past my point. I never claimed that persecution and tyranny are exclusively due to religion, neither did I claim that atheist leaders can't be tyrants. Here is what I said: "The problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth." I deliberately included qualifiers in most of my comments but you seem to disregard this.

Saudi Arabia is a specific example of how when a religion's truth claims are taken too far, persecution and tyranny result. That you deny this is disingenuous.

You have repeatedly claimed that since I said B is sometimes due to A, that I am saying that B is always due to A and that B can't also be due to anything else. This is a significant misunderstanding and fallacy.

davidylan:

You keep caterwauling about "correlation-causation mixup" yet you keep making the same fallacy... assuming that the decline in state-sponsored religion in Europe somehow had something to do with its industrial revolution. It is true that you have not said that religion is exclusively the cause of tyranny... the problem is that i have not accused you of saying so either. The other problem is that you're trying to split hairs... you are clearly insinuating that the level of religion has something to do with the level of tyranny... that is demonstrably false. Seriously, i am not insulting you... just that unlike most here, i have very little patience for people who think they are smarter than they actually are. You cant spend time posting demonstrably false nonsense and then cry when you're called out on it. We can have a civil discussion, what we cant have is one based on revisionist history and dishonest histrionics.

I never said that scientific advancement (or the industrial revolution) in Europe was due to the decline of religion. I said scientific advancement increased once people started thinking outside the box of the then traditional Christianity. There is a marked difference between these two statements. You assume I said the former, which is incorrect.

Glad to hear you think you are a good arbiter of "smartness". I'll let rational readers judge.

davidylan:

You've been busy playing musical chairs with the issues. You complain that Africa is an example of religion restraining technological advancement, when i bring up the fact that Saudi Arabia and Dubai are far more religious than we are and far more technologically advanced, you avoid that entirely and start pointing at tyranny... when i bring up china as an example that religion and tyranny are not mutually inclusive, you suddenly pivot back to technology... perhaps you should figure out what argument you really want to make and think about it deeply first.

I did not claim that religion and tyranny are mutually inclusive; I don't know where you are pulling this from.

You claim I am playing musical chairs with the issues, but I posit that you perceive my arguments this way because you are treating as absolute my deliberately qualified statements. I carefully qualify all my comments but you consistently mis-attribute different notions to me.

Ok, yes, Saudi Arabia and Dubai are far more religious than we are though far more technologically advanced. So? What did I say that this disproves? I said "Nigeria will continue to lag economically and scientifically if the intellectual laziness of ascribing calamities or triumphs to spirit entities continues uninhibited." I also said: "Hastily ascribing calamities and triumphs to spiritual forces influences one's willingness to evaluate problems critically and rationally", as well as "Note that I particularly emphasize superstition (lazily ascribing occurrences to spiritual entities) not just religion.".


At this point, I don tire of separating what you claim I said from what I actually said.

Antiparticle:


Once again, you are talking past my point. I never claimed that persecution and tyranny are exclusively due to religion, neither did I claim that atheist leaders can't be tyrants. Here is what I said: "The problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth." I deliberately included qualifiers in most of my comments but you seem to disregard this.

Saudi Arabia is a specific example of how when a religion's truth claims are taken too far, persecution and tyranny result. That you deny this is disingenuous.

You have repeatedly claimed that since I said B is sometimes due to A, that I am saying that B is always due to A and that B can't also be due to anything else. This is a significant misunderstanding and fallacy.




I never said that scientific advancement (or the industrial revolution) in Europe was due to the decline of religion. I said scientific advancement increased once people started thinking outside the box of the then traditional Christianity. There is a marked difference between these two statements. You assume I said the former, which is incorrect.

Glad to hear you think you are a good arbiter of "smartness". I'll let rational readers judge.



I did not claim that religion and tyranny are mutually inclusive; I don't know where you are pulling this from.

You claim I am playing musical chairs with the issues, but I posit that you perceive my arguments this way because you are treating as absolute my deliberately qualified statements. I carefully qualify all my comments but you consistently mis-attribute different notions to me.

Ok, yes, Saudi Arabia and Dubai are far more religious than we are though far more technologically advanced. So? What did I say that this disproves? I said "Nigeria will continue to lag economically and scientifically if the intellectual laziness of ascribing calamities or triumphs to spirit entities continues uninhibited." I also said: "Hastily ascribing calamities and triumphs to spiritual forces influences one's willingness to evaluate problems critically and rationally", as well as "Note that I particularly emphasize superstition (lazily ascribing occurrences to spiritual entities) not just religion.".


At this point, I don tire of separating what you claim I said from what I actually said.

You're simply a dishonest weasel and i'm not willing to play your game of musical chairs anymore. I think it is quite clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. If religion is the reason Nigeria is backward then why are the even more religious in Dubai prospering? We have oil too.

If religion is the basis for tyranny then ergo... china?

The point is simple, as Uyi iredia has tried unsuccessfully to tell you - you're conflating causation with association. This is what happens when non-scientists play with words they dont understand. There are plenty of superstitious people in the US... so they are unable to analyze things critically? You're an atheist... what have you analyzed critically that we can point to as an example of why you are right?

davidylan:


The above in highlights is an example of what is wrong with militant atheism. Conjecture, poor thinking, rush to conclusions...

I make a conclusion that there is no evidence for MACRO evolution (it is important to make that distinction since dishonest atheists like to conflate macro and micro evolution as if both are one and the same) based on my experience in the lab and spending over 7 years reading science publications. You dont have any evidence otherwise...

David, you just stated that macro and micro evolution are not the same.......

Are you sure you're a biologist? Are you really sure aren't some labrat being somehow experimented on?

And I've got no evidence for macro evolution? Again, just exactly does the fact that you share 50% of your DNA with corn imply?

DOHOHOHOHOHO

davidylan:

all you keep saying is that one should write a paper. That is as senseless as asking scientists who disagree with a colleague need to write a paper to be taken seriously. Scientists can disagree without needing to spam the scientific community with papers refuting each other. Sigh... the level of discourse out here hasn't improved i see. Its still dominated by thoughtless, juvenile ranting.

Hmm, kettle still fuming over 'juvenile ranting'. As for even insuating there's an iota of thought that's not cancer ridden by delusion in here....well

That asides, no, you do not need write a paper, though that would be ideal. I stated clearly there, mr thoughtfull, that you could just go to the equivalent of physics.org for biologists and we'll watch the discussion (or your r.ape) of the details. And, as your malady seems rather bad, you may not have noticed that that is not all I posted there.

Seriously, not that you haven't been pounded enough, but you want to argue the details because you've deluded yourself about being a scientist for about 7 years, take it up with other scientist. That shouldn't be an ordeal for you, a professional, no? What is the problem here?

Actually, I seem to remember once posting a fairly technical article that made horse$hit of the nonsense you were selling us and there wasn't even a murmur of a response from you

Not a whiff

Not a whisper

Do you want to go there again?

lol

davidylan:


Just to add, i need to react to this laughable stuff that if anyone is a christian then he/she should stick to a pulpit rather than the lab. Its even worse when you consider the people making such a point could not differentiate between a nucleus and mitochondria under a light microscope (that is if they have ever even used one in their entire lives). There are millions of conscientious christian scientists doing great work in labs all over the world... least of all the US. Just because they believe in God does not mean they do not have the chops to spend countless hours designing better bacterial-resistant drugs so intellectually lazy internet warriors here can live longer to spew more thoughtless bile on the web.

Err, thoughtful dumba$$, where did I state an xtian couldn't be a (or an even good) scientist? You even bolded where I stated that....

I say YOU, you in particular, are a disgrace to your profession. Many a times I've told you this actually, and in the same way, but it seems it quite difficult to get through the moimoi in your skull.

Jokes aside, answer please. Why in the world do you remain a scientist when you're looking for ways to say godidit? Claiming no evidence for evolution and ID is science. What is wrong with you??



PS:And as usual, and again, your hypocrisy amazes....

Thank you for your diagnosis. I'll let rational readers judge.

lol @ dishonest weasel! that was a good one.

davidylan:


You're simply a dishonest weasel and i'm not willing to play your game of musical chairs anymore. I think it is quite clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. If religion is the reason Nigeria is backward then why are the even more religious in Dubai prospering? We have oil too.

If religion is the basis for tyranny then ergo... china?

The point is simple, as Uyi iredia has tried unsuccessfully to tell you - you're conflating causation with association. This is what happens when non-scientists play with words they dont understand. There are plenty of superstitious people in the US... so they are unable to analyze things critically? You're an atheist... what have you analyzed critically that we can point to as an example of why you are right?

davidylan:


I made no such direct comment. I only meant to say that you seem to like to pick and choose who you want to have a science discussion with... presumably based on who you think you can easily bullshit.

No you implied it since it was UyiIredia that I had been having the discussion you're referring to.

davidylan:

As i said... i came here to talk science... you seem to be desperate to change the topic even though you keep caterwauling about how you are happy to discuss the science. We dont have to discuss both at the same time... that is madness. Lets start with the science if you have a clue what you talk about.

The topic itself talks about arguments for God. If anything, you're the one desperate to change the topic. I've not just said it, I've shown it in my discussion with UyiIredia who you've criticized. It is one discussion and we can have it right now if you're not afraid of talking about your God. Let's continue with your God if you have a clue of what he is supposed to be.

Joshthefirst:
DNA is a natural molecule that arose from design by a genius creator. A common template coding for everything physical life. Reproducing itself, Even correcting itself. Genius.

Which molecules would you say are not designed? Do you have any evidence for the creator you have in mind?

Joshthefirst:

Working and Efficient Genius is not a product of chaotic substandard randomized non-directional natural events.

Well that isn't actually true. Evolution is a non-directional natural phenomenon.

Joshthefirst:

Unfortunate man who refuses to think outside the narrow box of idi.ot naturalism.

Unfortunate man who is unable to demonstrate the core assumption of ignorant supernaturalism.

I have issue with several statements you made.

Antiparticle:

"The problem with religion arises when a society elevates all its truth claims to the level of fact. This often gives rise to persecution, tyranny, suppression of free speech, and so forth." I deliberately included qualifiers in most of my comments but you seem to disregard this.

Actually, your statement again is partially true. The key word there is 'often'. The problem is that you focus only on instances where that problem with religion gave rise to persecution, tyranny etcetera and ignore many other contexts it didn't. For example, many ethnic groups in pre-colonial Africa, and Nigeria, took their religion as a given, that didn't give rise to the effects you mentioned.

Antiparticle:

Saudi Arabia is a specific example of how when a religion's truth claims are taken too far, persecution and tyranny result. That you deny this is disingenuous.

This is debatable. Indeed, Saudi Arabia's strict Wahabbi school of Islam has much to do with the level of repression there. But I would also argue that some of the problem is also socio-political, monarchies are very prone to be repressive and Saudi Arabia is a constitutional monarchy.

More importantly, davidylan was using Saudi Arabia to show that a society can be superstitious and successful. You ignore the fact that man's progress into civilization occurred while still superstitious.

Antiparticle:

Ok, yes, Saudi Arabia and Dubai are far more religious than we are though far more technologically advanced. So? What did I say that this disproves?

So, societies can be superstitious and religious and still advance.

Antiparticle:

I said "Nigeria will continue to lag economically and scientifically if the intellectual laziness of ascribing calamities or triumphs to spirit entities continues uninhibited." I also said: "Hastily ascribing calamities and triumphs to spiritual forces influences one's willingness to evaluate problems critically and rationally", as well as "Note that I particularly emphasize superstition (lazily ascribing occurrences to spiritual entities) not just religion.".

I have already stated why your prediction is wrong. We can and have actually progressed economically and scientifically under a superstitious context.