Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?

[TaoWolf]

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..

I have been trying to point out evidence about the spiritual and the real impact it has on mankind, society, and science specifically. Spirituality 'exists' even if you disagree with it or have an opinion about it in any form:

Spirituality exist in individual thoughts that are translated into action or behavior. I can't physically prove anyone's thoughts as they aren't directly physically provable even though we know thoughts "exist" (or at least if you go for the I think, therefor I am line of philosophy), so instead I'm providing examples of the behaviors and actions of people associated with spiritual thinking that existed... and how that has impacted the history of mankind into the present, that which is expressed in art by individuals, and what our current ideals of morality and ethics in society are as a result of spirituality (which comprises our modern concepts of law and justice in a functional legal system). It's along the same lines of symbols; symbols mean nothing without a shared sense of meaning inside of a culture.

People aren't born with any specific sense of morality or understanding of law and ethics and they didn't come to be by chance, it is learned through the culture (which is comprised of philosophy, art, religion, law, etc...) that people must exist within and have to function as a part of. At least according to scientists in the fields of sociology, psychology, and anthropology. Different people, different cultures, different governments, different laws and different senses of morality and ethics that are instilled within people. There are entire fields of science devoted to studying how and why it is not only possible but how important it has been and continues to be to mankind. Take it up with scientists in those fields if you are skeptical - there are years upon years of research and study available for you to delve into personally if you want. Otherwise we'll just dismiss 'spirituality' as unprovable, not real, and of no consequence and move on - I get what you are saying.

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond (physiology and geography professor @ UCLA) goes over the concept well in layman's terms and is a good read to get an idea of what has gone on over the past 13,000 years in the history of mankind that resulted in modern spirituality, art, science, and philosophy.

In direct response to first having to "show you that spirituality is something other than physical"... that is the claim that spiritual people exercise whenever they think spiritual thoughts - however they personally define spiritual. And I'm not interested in arguing semantics over the world 'spiritual' because it varies from individual to individual and culture to culture. We can agree or disagree as you see about this as well. No offense meant.

But on the contrary, science does not exist only within the realm of provable physical laws and facts, and instead goes heavily into physically unprovable theories. So what's the point in discussing what is 'physical' or not? The most fascinating aspects of science (to me) lay in quantum mechanics where the physical laws we have defined and tried to prove as 'fact' simply do not apply and are currently inexplicable outside of new theories that are continuously proven wrong (like E=mc2). And according to even rational, scientific principles like Heisenberg's, we'll never likely be able to directly "see" or prove what reality truly is at the most basic levels of our existence where 'physical' or 'physical laws' have no meaning and everything we thought was proven 'fact' is wrong.

A lot like any scientific theory stating that time and space began at a certain place at a certain time... in 'time' and 'space'. How can time even 'begin' at all? How can matter and a physical universe come from nothingness when matter cannot be created nor destroyed? Even die-hard atheist scientists, like Steven Hawking can admit to the glaring paradoxes scientific theories themselves create and appreciate the limits of scientific knowledge. Read A Brief History of Time by Hawking if you ever get a chance and haven't already. It will blow your mind - presented in a way that doesn't require knowing a lot of mathematics to understand the principles of existence.

 

[mindphuk]

I have been trying to point out evidence about the spiritual and the real impact it has on mankind, society, and science specifically. Spirituality 'exists' even if you disagree with it or have an opinion about it in any form:

Yet you later state that spirituality cannot be conveniently defined ("And I'm not interested in arguing semantics over the world 'spiritual' because it varies from individual to individual and culture to culture. ") If that's true than the term is meaningless.

But on the contrary, science does not exist only within the realm of provable physical laws and facts, and instead goes heavily into physically unprovable theories. So what's the point in discussing what is 'physical' or not? The most fascinating aspects of science (to me) lay in quantum mechanics where the physical laws we have defined and tried to prove as 'fact' simply do not apply and are currently inexplicable outside of new theories that are continuously proven wrong (like E=mc2). And according to even rational, scientific principles like Heisenberg's, we'll never likely be able to directly "see" or prove what reality truly is at the most basic levels of our existence where 'physical' or 'physical laws' have no meaning and everything we thought was proven 'fact' is wrong.

You have a severe misunderstanding of what science is. Science never attempts to prove anything. It can only disprove things. Yes it does only deal within the realm of the physical and observable. Science uses methodological materialism. We restrict ourselves to natural causes. The essence of science is testing our ideas against the natural world. If something cannot be tested, it is not science. The quantum world does follow certain laws of nature that are repeatable and testable because the quantum world exists within nature and has a measurable effect when we look. Everything is science is ultimately falsifiable, otherwise it wouldn't be science.

A lot like any scientific theory stating that time and space began at a certain place at a certain time... in 'time' and 'space'. How can time even 'begin' at all? How can matter and a physical universe come from nothingness when matter cannot be created nor destroyed? Even die-hard atheist scientists, like Steven Hawking can admit to the glaring paradoxes scientific theories themselves create and appreciate the limits of scientific knowledge. Read A Brief History of Time by Hawking if you ever get a chance and haven't already. It will blow your mind - presented in a way that doesn't require knowing a lot of mathematics to understand the principles of existence

No one claims that time and space began at any one point. You again are misrepresenting what science claims. No one has claimed that everything came from nothing. The only thing that cosmologists say is that time and space are meaningless when all of spacetime is condensed into a hot, dense, singularity. The physical forces as we know today didn't even exist then and even attempting to say "how long" a singularity existed is meaningless when there is nothing available to usefully measure spacetime. It's like asking what is outside of the boundary of the universe? It is a meaningless question. Paradoxes do not make a theory invalid. Paradoxes only point out that certain areas we have a less than complete understanding.

 

[DaLeftHandMan]

lol. wow. your full of yourself aye?

What if theres no such thing as a God? would it make you feel better to know that this is all there is to your pathetic existance?...70+ possible years of consciousness then nothingness..an endless void of...what?

What would science prove, by disproving creationism? what can science prove that doesnt happen when you die? does your spirit NOT leave your body...? is your ethirial essence not displaced into a permiable layer of consciousness that allows for movement thru fields of electrical impulses and energy, much like the protoplasm found in the brain? oops..got scientific there for a sec. but your probably not familiar with the more rational free thinking intelligent scientists out there. lol

What if "GOD" was just another lie, told to the populous, to pacify and control? to generate more revenue and create a sub-structure of life that would facilitate and manipulate peoples faith and beliefs? could you (the OP) think that freely? or reply as rationally as your requiring others here?

just some random processes i riffled off before i head to my buddies for a smoke session.

so theres your free thinking (nothing free is rational)...your going to have to challenge me a little bit more to get to MY intellectual level.

 

[Tym]

lol. wow. your full of yourself aye?

What if theres no such thing as a God? would it make you feel better to know that this is all there is to your pathetic existance?...70+ possible years of consciousness then nothingness..an endless void of...what?

What would science prove, by disproving creationism? what can science prove that doesnt happen when you die? does your spirit NOT leave your body...? is your ethirial essence not displaced into a permiable layer of consciousness that allows for movement thru fields of electrical impulses and energy, much like the protoplasm found in the brain? oops..got scientific there for a sec. but your probably not familiar with the more rational free thinking intelligent scientists out there. lol

What if "GOD" was just another lie, told to the populous, to pacify and control? to generate more revenue and create a sub-structure of life that would facilitate and manipulate peoples faith and beliefs? could you (the OP) think that freely? or reply as rationally as your requiring others here?

just some random processes i riffled off before i head to my buddies for a smoke session.

so theres your free thinking (nothing free is rational)...your going to have to challenge me a little bit more to get to MY intellectual level.

I was going to reply to taowolf, but mindphuck did an excellent job as usual! So I'll reply to you DaLeftHandMan

How am I full of myself? Ad hominem attacks are the realm of the incompetent. If you have any valid grievances please state them.

What if there is no such thing as the flying spaghetti monster? Would it make you feel better to know that you don't get beer volcanoes and stripper factories after you die?
Yes, that is exactly it, nothing.. No endless void, nothing, non existence.. To quote the late and great Mark twain: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

Science is our best way (and only true way) to make sense of reality. If it is not testable, it is not provable. Why would you believe something that can't be proven? Until you can define and test ideas like "a soul" or "a spirit" it's not even worth trying to make sense of them.. It's just mental masturbation. You may want to spend your time and waste your intellect thinking about things that don't exist, but us "scientific" types think it's a waste of time.

"is your ethirial essence not displaced into a permiable layer of consciousness that allows for movement thru fields of electrical impulses and energy, much like the protoplasm found in the brain? oops..got scientific there for a sec." Lol, this is what happens when you spend your time thinking about things that don't exist. It allows you to make ignorant statements like this one. Sorry dude, that is not scientific. Thanks though, cause I got a good laugh out of it..

What if god was a chunk of corn I just shat out in the toilet? I'm sorry I don't spend my time on what if's. I spend my time on things that manifest in the physical realm. Show me some evidence for something, point to something physical that I can test.

Wow, another inane statement, If I was ever at your "intellectual" level, I would lose my job. You can't spell worth a shit, you don't use proper sentence structure, and you display a horrible lack of knowledge of anything relevant to the subject. You have no understanding of science let alone the scientific method. You have poor standards of evidence, and you can't relay meaningful, intelligent, succinct ideas.
No sir, if I was at your "intellectual" level, I would keep my mouth shut.

 

[Japanfreak]

Holy shit, like watching babies roll around in mudd with huge smiles on themselves.

 

[Tym]

It sure is, when people have nothing to add to the conversation but they just have to come in and try to act like you're above it all..

Yeah, we get it. You're to good for such conversations. We are beneath you and your time is better spent somewhere else.. Thanks for your wise and insightful contribution.

 

[Japanfreak]

Like you have anything to add. How the fuck old are you? Keep on linking other people's ideas and maybe one day you might have an original one.

 

[Tym]

Like you have anything to add. How the fuck old are you? Keep on linking other people's ideas and maybe one day you might have an original one.

Again, thanks for the wise insightful comment. It's good to know you can read 2 pages of posts and deduce that I had not one original thought the entire time. I obviously went to another site where people used the exact same criticisms that I received here, copied the response of a better educated person word for word and pasted them here. Quite incredible how the exact same wording and argument has been used before, every time. Even this one is a copy and past of someones previous work.

The intelligence of a man such as yourself is surely just wasted here. Your ability to spew out rapid fire ad hominem attacks against strawmen all while not saying anything conducive to the conversation is unparalleled. The intelligence it must take to personally attack people without prior provocation and refusing to provide logical explanations for the childish claims you make all while saying nothing meaningful, is surely greater than anything we could ever accomplish here.

We are humbled by your gracious insight, thank you for everything you contributed.

 

[Japanfreak]

You're very welcome

 

[Tym]

[video=youtube;JaXSp8fft1E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaXSp8fft1E[/video]

 

[Tym]

[video=youtube;bDe0W_vJgDA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe0W_vJgDA[/video]

 

[Tym]

[video=youtube;qahB7mYhLxs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs[/video]

 

[Brazko]

I laugh at creationist for the same reason I laugh at Atheist.. They always try to generalize then double talk their points even though it has nothing to do with what the other has stated. And that's not intelligent, thats fucking stoopid...that's why I laugh . Intelligence has nothing to do with how much information one contains, but their ability to understand and apply it....


I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. A Fearful Scientist

 

[guy incognito]

I laugh at creationist for the same reason I laugh at Atheist.. They always try to generalize then double talk their points even though it has nothing to do with what the other has stated. And that's not intelligent, thats fucking stoopid...that's why I laugh . Intelligence has nothing to do with how much information one contains, but their ability to understand and apply it....


I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. A Fearful Scientist

Creationist inherently have an inability to understand and apply intelligence. Otherwise they wouldn't be creationist.

It what ways do atheists "always try to generalize then double talk their points"?

 

[Brazko]

Like this....

Creationist inherently have an inability to understand and apply intelligence. Otherwise they wouldn't be creationist."?

And more to the point the term creationist although defined, varies and is broaden to enclose a certain discription of a persons character of thought. And because of this I don't know what a creationist is only the person's train of thought and thinking of who I'm conversing with. So the people you may deem as creationist, does not apply to my opinion and judgement of them lacking the ability to understand and apply intelligence and in the same breath may not even be a creationist in my sight.

It what ways do atheists "always try to generalize then double talk their points"?

Although I could point out throughout this thread of double talk and generalization it's not my place to point out anothers debate of which I'm not apart of unless invited. But if you would like to invite me to point out some of yours, I'll try to give you an example.

 

[guy incognito]

Like this....



And more to the point the term creationist although defined varies and is broaden to enclose a certain discription of a persons character of thought. And because of this I don't know what a creationist is only the person's train of thought and thinking of who I'm conversing with. So the people you may deem as creationist, does not apply to my opinion and judgement of them lacking the ability to understand and apply intelligence and in the same breath may not even be a creationist in my sight.



Although I could point out throughout this thread of double talk and generalization it's not my place to point out anothers debate of which I'm not apart of unless invited. But if you would like to invite me to point out some of yours, I'll try to give you an example.

I'm not so sure your english is making sense. The definition of creationist varies? Are you saying I may judge someone to be a creationist where as you may not? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Brazko]

What part of my enlglish don't make sinse.... I clearly said it was defined but varies / broaden to interpretation....

You see....Double Talk

If you state to me this person's particular beliefs and they fall in the licit definition of creationist... I can say yes they are creationists. However, people broaden and vary the term to encompass all that they deem to be creationist methology thinking therefore deemed a creationist. And that still does not conform to the general concept you have chosen to give that they are inable to understand or apply intelligence.

But let me correct my enlish and place a comma behind defined if that helpls you to compute better..

I'm not so sure your english is making sense. The definition of creationist varies? Are you saying I may judge someone to be a creationist where as you may not? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[DaLeftHandMan]

I was going to reply to taowolf, but mindphuck did an excellent job as usual! So I'll reply to you DaLeftHandMan

How am I full of myself? Ad hominem attacks are the realm of the incompetent. If you have any valid grievances please state them.

What if there is no such thing as the flying spaghetti monster? Would it make you feel better to know that you don't get beer volcanoes and stripper factories after you die?
Yes, that is exactly it, nothing.. No endless void, nothing, non existence.. To quote the late and great Mark twain: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

Science is our best way (and only true way) to make sense of reality. If it is not testable, it is not provable. Why would you believe something that can't be proven? Until you can define and test ideas like "a soul" or "a spirit" it's not even worth trying to make sense of them.. It's just mental masturbation. You may want to spend your time and waste your intellect thinking about things that don't exist, but us "scientific" types think it's a waste of time.

"is your ethirial essence not displaced into a permiable layer of consciousness that allows for movement thru fields of electrical impulses and energy, much like the protoplasm found in the brain? oops..got scientific there for a sec." Lol, this is what happens when you spend your time thinking about things that don't exist. It allows you to make ignorant statements like this one. Sorry dude, that is not scientific. Thanks though, cause I got a good laugh out of it..

What if god was a chunk of corn I just shat out in the toilet? I'm sorry I don't spend my time on what if's. I spend my time on things that manifest in the physical realm. Show me some evidence for something, point to something physical that I can test.

Wow, another inane statement, If I was ever at your "intellectual" level, I would lose my job. You can't spell worth a shit, you don't use proper sentence structure, and you display a horrible lack of knowledge of anything relevant to the subject. You have no understanding of science let alone the scientific method. You have poor standards of evidence, and you can't relay meaningful, intelligent, succinct ideas.
No sir, if I was at your "intellectual" level, I would keep my mouth shut.

lol..THIS is why your full of yourself. if you actually read your own words and understood how you used them, youd see what a fool you are. Your grasp of science is meager at best, an online thesaurus wont make you sound smart btw.

show me something science has disproven? my request is simple for someone of your obvious magnitude in insight and scientific knowledge. science is whatever you find as fact, but whos science do you believe?! your own? some guys research you read? what if hes just as fractured, jaded and closed minded as you? history, is something we learn about, but thats only because we observe what others TOLD us was their experiences.does THAT make those experiences fact because we read them? no.

my words stay simple and poinient. i wont get pulled into an intellectual fight with someone who is CLEARLY..unarmed.

peace brother.

 

[Draco Malfoy]

Athiests go to hell

Dumbest post ever.

 

[Brazko]

my bad double post

I laugh at creationist for the same reason I laugh at Atheist.. They always try to generalize then double talk their points even though it has nothing to do with what the other has stated. And that's not intelligent, thats fucking stoopid...that's why I laugh . Intelligence has nothing to do with how much information one contains, but their ability to understand and apply it....


I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. A Fearful Scientist