Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?

[Tym]

There seems to be a meme going around that there is proof and evidence of ID (intelligent design) or a creator. Usually if you can get them to admit it, it happens to be the god they believe in. The god in question almost always ends up being the christian god, and depending on who you talk to, the god with the same name is usually never the same god for any two believers.

In the hope that I can possibly reach some rational free thinking intelligent people, who have an interest in what is actually true, and what is rationally justified, I am posting this thread in which I will link to some of my fellow youtube atheists videos, and maybe even one or two of my own, I obviously won't tell you what ones are mine, but if you figure it out please, keep it to yourself. Thanks..

First Up, my good friend Thunderfoot, with his Why do people laugh at creationists? video series..

[video=youtube;BS5vid4GkEY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY[/video]

 

[Tym]

[video=youtube;t1rURJX6vRI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1rURJX6vRI[/video]

 

[Tym]

[video=youtube;JJxCFa8YmbQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJxCFa8YmbQ[/video]

 

[skolar182]

My biggest problem with creationists is that they ignore any and all scientific facts..

 

[Tym]

I have two main problems with creationist. The one you stated, and the propensity to tell lies.

 

[Japanfreak]

They don't really bother me because of this thing called progress.

 

[beardo]

Athiests go to hell

 

[Tym]

[video=youtube;TjxZ6MrBl9E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related[/video]

 

[Tym]

[video=youtube;dK3O6KYPmEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&NR=1[/video]

 

[Rascality Afoot]

It's a tricky issue. I would hardly consider the judaeo-christian religions (thats including islam) to be realistic posibilities. We can trace their histories and observe the frequency with which the "holy" books were changed to meet political and social controllers needs. I do see a very real possibility that we have been created by something. Saying that anybody with our current perspective could conceive of how we came to be is just silly. Maybe in a thousand years we can be within sight of that knowledge, as long as the flying spaghetti monster and Cthulu don't harvest our proteins before then...

 

[TaoWolf]

I'll bite, but this is a disingenuous one-sided topic...

There are stupid people. And there are intelligent people. But spirituality and belief systems have been a part of mankind throughout it's history and spiritual belief has never been a litmus test for being either stupid or intelligent. To be completely rational about the topic would be to recognize that a majority of the greatest and most influential people in history (even in the specific realms of philosophy, government, and science)... had spiritual beliefs - including Abrahamic-based beliefs.

People like Ghandi, Einstein, Confucius, Carl Jung, Newton, Malcom X, Sitting Bull, etc. were neither stupid nor irrational in their thinking while being spiritual and even being driven by their spiritual belief in daily life. Society (and even peer-reviewed and honest scientific thought) wouldn't even exist with any depth or complexity if it weren't for societal bonds based in spirituality and philosophy that a majority of people share.

Were it not a fact of experience that supreme values reside in the soul, psychology would not interest me in the least, for the soul would then be nothing but a miserable vapor.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.ascensiongateway.com/quotes/carl-jung/index.htm[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Tym]

It's a tricky issue. I would hardly consider the judaeo-christian religions (thats including islam) to be realistic posibilities. We can trace their histories and observe the frequency with which the "holy" books were changed to meet political and social controllers needs. I do see a very real possibility that we have been created by something. Saying that anybody with our current perspective could conceive of how we came to be is just silly. Maybe in a thousand years we can be within sight of that knowledge, as long as the flying spaghetti monster and Cthulu don't harvest our proteins before then...

I freely admit that a creator is possible. But so is Russel's Teapot, the flying spaghetti monster and the magical pink unicorn.. Along with everything else anyone has ever made up.
But why bother trying to tout them as fact?

 

[Tym]

I'll bite, but this is a disingenuous one-sided topic...

There are stupid people. And there are intelligent people. But spirituality and belief systems have been a part of mankind throughout it's history and spiritual belief has never been a litmus test for being either stupid or intelligent. To be completely rational about the topic would be to recognize that a majority of the greatest and most influential people in history (even in the specific realms of philosophy, government, and science)... had spiritual beliefs - including Abrahamic-based beliefs.

People like Ghandi, Einstein, Confucius, Carl Jung, Newton, Malcom X, Sitting Bull, etc. were neither stupid nor irrational in their thinking while being spiritual and even being driven by their spiritual belief in daily life. Society (and even peer-reviewed and honest scientific thought) wouldn't even exist with any depth or complexity if it weren't for societal bonds based in spirituality and philosophy that a majority of people share.

You are right, being religious in no way makes people stupid. What does make people stupid is making claims about reality as if they were proven fact, and refusing to even question the validity of the claims for themselves. When someone points out the glaring contradictions, lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary, the person refuses to even listen to reason, refuses to use the same logic they use every day to discern the difference between reality and fiction, and chooses to remain ignorant.

These days, the majority of great minds do not believe in those things. It was so prevalent back then cause you faced death to claim otherwise. Slavery also used to be prevalent back then, that doesn't make it right. I know you know that, but I just had to point that out for those who may have lots the point.

Cognitive dissonance is prevalent in the rest, they are intelligent, logical and rational, except when it comes to matters of religion or spirituality. This can be proven by the inability for them to provide evidence and logical, rational, intelligent justification for the matter in question. This is why most intelligent people with spiritual and religious beliefs do not argue them.

 

[TaoWolf]

What does make people stupid is making claims about reality as if they were proven fact, and refusing to even question the validity of the claims for themselves. When someone points out the glaring contradictions, lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary, the person refuses to even listen to reason, refuses to use the same logic they use every day to discern the difference between reality and fiction, and chooses to remain ignorant.

Sure, that's called being closed-minded. But being closed-minded is not unique to people who are spiritual. Claiming otherwise is nothing more than a shallow exercise in stereotyping people of any specific certain group. Martin Luther, Ghandi, and Jesus (the historical person) would be good historical examples of prominent religious people who put their lives on the line while questioning beliefs, governments, and institutions. Hardly closed-minded.

These days, the majority of great minds do not believe in those things. It was so prevalent back then cause you faced death to claim otherwise. Slavery also used to be prevalent back then, that doesn't make it right. I know you know that, but I just had to point that out for those who may have lots the point.

Cognitive dissonance is prevalent in the rest, they are intelligent, logical and rational, except when it comes to matters of religion or spirituality. This can be proven by the inability for them to provide evidence and logical, rational, intelligent justification for the matter in question. This is why most intelligent people with spiritual and religious beliefs do not argue them.

You are making a circular argument because it *cannot* be proven that spirituality is always or mostly equivalent to cognitive dissonance. That's simply an opinion and not fact or being truly rational. =P Again, not everyone that is spiritual displays any more or any less cognitive dissonance than anyone else and it is easy to provide factual examples that show spirituality does not always equate to cognitive dissonance (like your term by the way). Science and other trappings of modern society are based in the philosophy, art, religion, ethics, and personal codes of behavior that come from spirituality. Claiming spirituality is a sign of cognitive dissonance that modern man has, or must, overcome through or by 'science' is about as futile and pointless as expressing the freedom of expression by burning a symbol of freedom of expression.

 

[tardis]

There seems to be a meme going around that there is proof and evidence of ID (intelligent design) or a creator. Usually if you can get them to admit it, it happens to be the god they believe in. The god in question almost always ends up being the christian god, and depending on who you talk to, the god with the same name is usually never the same god for any two believers.

In the hope that I can possibly reach some rational free thinking intelligent people, who have an interest in what is actually true, and what is rationally justified, I am posting this thread in which I will link to some of my fellow youtube atheists videos, and maybe even one or two of my own, I obviously won't tell you what ones are mine, but if you figure it out please, keep it to yourself. Thanks..

First Up, my good friend Thunderfoot, with his Why do people laugh at creationists? video series..

[video=youtube;BS5vid4GkEY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY[/video]

OK, i'm going to throw this change in my pocket up in the air.


Ok it landed on the table, and the ones with heads are 3 quarters 2 nickles and 1 dime.

See because those three are head must mean that this was meant to be, i mean look at the facts in front of your eyes, the larger the size the more heads up there are, so that is a pattern which must mean there was a plan and it happens for a reason.


That is why we laugh at creationists....

 

[mindphuk]

[video=youtube;KnJX68ELbAY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=0&playnext=1[/video]

 

[Tym]

Sure, that's called being closed-minded. But being closed-minded is not unique to people who are spiritual. Claiming otherwise is nothing more than a shallow exercise in stereotyping people of any specific certain group. Martin Luther, Ghandi, and Jesus (the historical person) would be good historical examples of prominent religious people who put their lives on the line while questioning beliefs, governments, and institutions. Hardly closed-minded.



You are making a circular argument because it *cannot* be proven that spirituality is always or mostly equivalent to cognitive dissonance. That's simply an opinion and not fact or being truly rational. =P Again, not everyone that is spiritual displays any more or any less cognitive dissonance than anyone else and it is easy to provide factual examples that show spirituality does not always equate to cognitive dissonance (like your term by the way). Science and other trappings of modern society are based in the philosophy, art, religion, ethics, and personal codes of behavior that come from spirituality. Claiming spirituality is a sign of cognitive dissonance that modern man has, or must, overcome through or by 'science' is about as futile and pointless as expressing the freedom of expression by burning a symbol of freedom of expression.

No, that's not being closed minded. That is being a fucking idiot. If you make a claim in a public forum, then refuse to defend it, provide evidence for it's validity and reject all criticism, you are being stupid.
I never said it was exclusive to religion did I? No stop trying to strawman me. I said no such thing. Please try to refute what I actually said.

Again, where did I say that cognitive dissonance was exclusive to spirituality? Oh yeah that's right, I didn't. Again please do not strawman my argument, please address the things I actually said.
This is not a circular argument, the terminator is right about... oh yeah, here "This is why most intelligent people with spiritual and religious beliefs do not argue them." Oh and also here "Cognitive dissonance is prevalent in the rest". Prevalent, not all, just most..

Circular reasoning is a type of logical fallacy in which the "proof" of a statement ultimately depends on assuming the truth of the statement itself.
Where did my proof depend on assuming the truth of the statement?
They have an inability to provide evidence and a logical, rational, intelligent justification. Refute that, please.

You are making a claim that you cannot support. "Science and other trappings of modern society are based in the philosophy, art, religion, ethics, and personal codes of behavior that come from spirituality." How can you expect to defend that? What evidence do you have to support such a extraordinary claim?

 

[TaoWolf]

No, that's not being closed minded. That is being a fucking idiot.

Rebelling against a self-serving religious establishment is being a fucking idiot? Rebelling against foreign military occupation is being a fucking idiot? Or what specifically about those people do you consider being idiotic?

If you make a claim in a public forum, then refuse to defend it, provide evidence for it's validity and reject all criticism, you are being stupid.

I don't know which claim you challenged me about and are referring to (I've only made two posts - only one in response to you directly).

I never said it was exclusive to religion did I? No stop trying to strawman me. I said no such thing. Please try to refute what I actually said.

My apologies, I assumed you brought it up along the lines of the thread topic. No intent to strawman or personally attack you to the point of making you angry at all.

This is not a circular argument, the terminator is right about... oh yeah, here "This is why most intelligent people with spiritual and religious beliefs do not argue them." Oh and also here "Cognitive dissonance is prevalent in the rest". Prevalent, not all, just most..

I'd like to respond but since this is now clearly considered a strawman argument by both of us, let's just drop it at this point.

Circular reasoning is a type of logical fallacy in which the "proof" of a statement ultimately depends on assuming the truth of the statement itself.
Where did my proof depend on assuming the truth of the statement?
They have an inability to provide evidence and a logical, rational, intelligent justification. Refute that, please.

You are making a claim that you cannot support. "Science and other trappings of modern society are based in the philosophy, art, religion, ethics, and personal codes of behavior that come from spirituality." How can you expect to defend that? What evidence do you have to support such a extraordinary claim?

On the contrary, it is an easy claim to support: The rise of civilizations which could eventually produce philosophies, arts, and different hard sciences all revolves around intertwining organizational governments, religions, shared morality, and preserved culture and knowledge among groups of people living in societies... well, ever since humanity began. Science itself came about from a combination of both art and philosophy and questioning the world around us: Leonardo di Vinci would be the poster-child of the roots of modern science by applying those concepts of questioning the world, using art and ideas and creating some amazingly practical new knowledge and ideas that were ahead of any other thought at the time - he's not the only example or an exception, just a good one.

The at-one-time standard four-year degree at colleges and universities, a Bachelor of Arts, used to ensure that everyone receiving a complete higher education was aware of all those concepts that you find to be such an extraordinary claim. Obviously it's no longer the case as most people attending college do so to just get training for a career and B.A. degrees (or any humanities type degrees) are becoming rare... but the moral of the story is, take at least one general humanities or religious studies class sometime at least and you wouldn't be claiming it's such an outrageous concept.

 

[Tym]

Rebelling against a self-serving religious establishment is being a fucking idiot? Rebelling against foreign military occupation is being a fucking idiot? Or what specifically about those people do you consider being idiotic?



I don't know which claim you challenged me about and are referring to (I've only made two posts - only one in response to you directly).


My apologies, I assumed you brought it up along the lines of the thread topic. No intent to strawman or personally attack you to the point of making you angry at all.


I'd like to respond but since this is now clearly considered a strawman argument by both of us, let's just drop it at this point.





On the contrary, it is an easy claim to support: The rise of civilizations which could eventually produce philosophies, arts, and different hard sciences all revolves around intertwining organizational governments, religions, shared morality, and preserved culture and knowledge among groups of people living in societies... well, ever since humanity began. Science itself came about from a combination of both art and philosophy and questioning the world around us: Leonardo di Vinci would be the poster-child of the roots of modern science by applying those concepts of questioning the world, using art and ideas and creating some amazingly practical new knowledge and ideas that were ahead of any other thought at the time - he's not the only example or an exception, just a good one.

The at-one-time standard four-year degree at colleges and universities, a Bachelor of Arts, used to ensure that everyone receiving a complete higher education was aware of all those concepts that you find to be such an extraordinary claim. Obviously it's no longer the case as most people attending college do so to just get training for a career and B.A. degrees (or any humanities type degrees) are becoming rare... but the moral of the story is, take at least one general humanities or religious studies class sometime at least and you wouldn't be claiming it's such an outrageous concept.

Wow, you are so lost it's not even funny... I have to go to work so this will be quick.
Read what I said again, you are way out of the loop. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about people who make claims then refuse to back them up with evidence. And people who refuse to listen to reason when valid counter evidence is presented. You really have to re read the conversation.. You are lost..

You may consider it a strawman on my part, but you would be wrong since I am not arguing a point you never made.. You were..

And finally your last statement, How does that prove anything spiritual? You say "Science and other trappings of modern society are based in the philosophy, art, religion, ethics, and personal codes of behavior that come from spirituality." How can you prove that? How can you prove we derive these things from anything spiritual? You would first have to show me that spirituality is something other than physical.. The colloquial definition of spiritual means something outside the physical realm.. Please show me how this is possible..

 

[Heisenberg]

For what it's worth. Some good discussion about religion, including some points on how religion has influenced culture, behavior, decisions, ect. These are audio podcasts.

God's Brain
Lionel Tiger, Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University, talks about how religion takes place in brains, and not just in churches, temples and mosques. He explains how the brain created religion, and how religion feeds the brain. He relates his own experiences of religion, as a skeptic. He contrasts his approach to the scientific study of religion with that of the New Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins. He describes how feelings of connection resulting from religion are a function of neurochemistry, and how churches are “serotonin factories.” He talks about why interest in human sexuality is so often intertwined with religious pursuits. And he explores why secular institutions may fail to inspire commitment as compared to religion.

Supernormal Stimuli
Deirdre Barrett talks about supernormal stimuli, which are exaggerated versions of natural stimuli to which there are existing instinctual responses. She discusses how our evolved instincts are overwhelmed by technological advances and other facets of modern society. She explores how pornography, unhealthy diets, and even the quest for nuclear energy as opposed to wind or solar energy are supernormal stimuli. And she explains how undue credulity in the supernatural and the paranormal may be a function of our natural instincts to believe becoming overrun by supernormal stimuli.

Why Believe?
Bruce M. Hood discusses why so many people believe in the supernatural despite the lack of evidence, explaining that it may have something to do with how our brains are wired. He draws a distinction between religious supernatural beliefs, which are culturally determined, and more universal secular supernatural beliefs such as mind-body dualism and causality. He explains how such magical thinking may be socially advantageous and how even skeptics engage in supersense thinking. He also warns against the unscrupulous individuals who take advantage of what is a natural disposition in the majority of people.