101 thoughts on “An organized collection of irrational nonsense”
But where’s the conspiracy to keep ID down, since professors and/or scientists could never transition to design explanations when they are shown to be best? You know, because Darwinism is a religion, so to ever admit that it was wrong would be like them acknowledging that ID is wrong, contrary to religious principles.
OK, it’s less a conspiracy than the projection of religion/presupposition that keeps them from dealing with the evidence, but it comes out the same either way–evidence-free belief in a concerted effort to keep down an ID that even they never use to do pretend science.
LoL! And yet there isn’t any science to support the claims of your position. Not only that there is more evidence for bigfoot and UFOs than there is for your position.
ID has a methodology whereas evolutionism has dogmatic proclamations…
Abiogenic origin of petroleum is listed as pseudo science. Why? Even if ultimately wrong, experiments have demonstrated it is possible in principle. A report was even published in a mainstream journal of the American Geophysical Union:
Deep-seated abiogenic origin of petroleum: From geological assessment to physical theory
[1] The theory of the abyssal abiogenic origin of petroleum is a significant part of
the modern scientific theories dealing with the formation of hydrocarbons. These theories include the identification of natural hydrocarbon systems, the physical processes leading to their terrestrial concentration, and the dynamic processes controlling the migration of that material into geological reservoirs of petroleum. The theory of the abyssal abiogenic origin of petroleum recognizes that natural gas and petroleum are primordial materials of deep origin which have migrated into the Earth’s crust. Experimental results and geological investigations presented in this article convincingly confirm the main postulates of the theory and allow us to reexamine the structure, size, and locality distributions of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves.
Why is that so politically incorrect. Does it suggest “fossil fuels” aren’t really from fossils. Is that the real reason?
They got one of your numbers.
stcordova:
Abiogenic origin of petroleum is listed as pseudo science.Why?Even if ultimately wrong, experiments have demonstrated it is possible in principle.A report was even published in a mainstream journal of the American Geophysical Union:
Why is that so politically incorrect.Does it suggest “fossil fuels” aren’t really from fossils.Is that the real reason?
How about the lack of evidence for that hypothesis?
Sure, there are lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan. But on earth hydrocarbons are found in quantity where kerogen forms in sedimentary rocks. A good many petroleum sources were found because hydrocarbons rose to the surface. Why did this happen where sedimentary rocks are common, and not where igneous rocks greatly predominate?
There never was good evidence for abiogenetic petroleum, and the searches for it have proven fruitless. That’s why it’s pseudoscience.
As a religious person, like almost everyone else in the world (all evidence favors the thesis that atheism is abnormal), what should I be taking from the OP?
Mung:
As a religious person, like almost everyone else in the world (all evidence favors the thesis that atheism is abnormal), what should I be taking from the OP?
That the OP has a strongly evidentialist bias, perhaps.
How about the lack of evidence for that hypothesis?
How about your position’s lack of hypotheses for the evidence?
Mung:
As a religious person, like almost everyone else in the world (all evidence favors the thesis that atheism is abnormal), what should I be taking from the OP?
Beware the intersections?
Clearly not all religious folk fall for junk science, but a lot do.
Mung:
As a religious person, like almost everyone else in the world (all evidence favors the thesis that atheism is abnormal), what should I be taking from the OP?
How about your position’s lack of hypotheses for the evidence?
What does my sitting position have to do with anything?
petrushka: You want to go home and rethink your life?
I already do that. Any other ideas?
ok, I looked over that list. It is a real shame the things atheists will believe.
Mung: It is a real shame the things atheists will believe.
You and WJM might want to have a chat about that….
Mung: It is a real shame the things atheists will believe.
If we want to go there then you can try and put into words what you believe as a theist, bonus points for not making it sound absurd.
Mung: It is a real shame the things atheists will believe.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you hang around with people (for example, KF) who genuinely believe they could not publish a scientific paper relating to ID because of the worldwide conspiracy of Darwinists who act in concert to prevent such papers being published.
Have you ever pointed out it’s a real shame KF believes that, as it’s what is preventing him from making his claims in the only arena that really matters?
Mung: ok, I looked over that list. It is a real shame the things atheists will believe.
Is an atheist more or less likely to believe ghosts exist?
I know you are just trolling, but it must shame you at some level what the other people who’s set you fall into believe.
Back around 1998 I followed the creation evolution debate on a political website. On of the popular conspiracy theories was that some government agency was developing software to intercept and scan all internet communication..
The outrage at that time was that the original programmer had not been paid.
Mung asks what I intend as the take away for this post.
My take away is that it is not that the claims themselves are ridiculous, but that the reasons for believing are are usually unsupported. Most of the items on this chart are wishful thinking. a few might have some merit, but they are believed because someone wants them to be true, and not because there is a preponderance of evidence.
Mung:
As a religious person, like almost everyone else in the world (all evidence favors the thesis that atheism is abnormal), what should I be taking from the OP?
That you and most people on the planet are gullible to some extent?
I’ll note that some level of gullibility isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s kinda of nice and cute to believe in Santa as a little kid for instance. Some level of gullibility even protects some people from harm. It’s only a bad thing when one decides that some unsupported or questionable notion is not only true, but must be defended at all costs, even to the point of absurd claims and dishonesty.
Evolutionists are the most gullible people on Earth. They have decided that some unsupported or questionable notion is not only true, but must be defended at all costs, even to the point of absurd claims and dishonesty. 😛
Evolutionism is accepted despite the fact that its claim cannot be tested. Why is that?
Frankie: Evolutionists are the most gullible people on Earth. They have decided that some unsupported or questionable notion is not only true, but must be defended at all costs, even to the point of absurd claims and dishonesty.
And yet ID is not anti-evolution….
Riiiiiggght.
Frankie: Evolutionism is accepted despite the fact that its claim cannot be tested. Why is that?
It can and has. That you did not understand the answer is irrelevant.
Robin: That you and most people on the planet are gullible to some extent?
Why is it that you don’t think religious people are simply insane? Or do you think that?
Mung: Why is it that you don’t think religious people are simply insane? Or do you think that?
Because it is natural to look for hope and knowledge, both of which religion promises. The insanity only applies to those who are willing to hold specific doctrinal beliefs to be inerrant which cannot in any way be reconciled with science, history, or basic human understanding.
LoL! @ OM again- ID is NOT anti-evolution. Nice to see that you are unable to grasp the explanation.
And your bluff is duly noted as your position doesn’t have any answers- no one knows how stochastic processes could produce ATP synthase or a bacterial flagellum or any complex adaptation.
RoyLT: Because it is natural to look for hope and knowledge, both of which religion promises.The insanity only applies to those who are willing to hold specific doctrinal beliefs to be inerrant which cannot in any way be reconciled with science, history, or basic human understanding.
Evolutionism cannot be reconciled with science, history or basic human understanding
Frankie: Evolutionism cannot be reconciled with science, history or basic human understanding
That may be true, but it depends on what evolutionism is. What is evolutionism?
Alan Fox: That may be true, but it depends on what evolutionism is. What is evolutionism?
Exactly what I have been telling you, Alan- evolutionism is the alleged theory of evolution. I say alleged because no one seems to be able to find it. Evolutionism is the claim that all of life’s diversity arose via natural selection, drift and neutral construction from some simpler replicator.
Frankie: Evolutionism cannot be reconciled with science, history or basic human understanding
Would you classify “evolutionism” as religion?
Mung: Why is it that you don’t think religious people are simply insane? Or do you think that?
Well, because if we’re being technical, there’s no such thing as insanity.
But, more to the point, because there’s no basis of mental illness in believing that which is untrue or simply unprovable. Further, it’s necessary in many cases to hold beliefs that cannot be substantiated (believing someone loves you, for instance) or believing things that are statistically inaccurate. Most people get into their cars believing that they will get to their destination without incident, yet statistically speaking, it’s a pretty dangerous activity. Is it therefore insane to get into a car and go somewhere? I don’t think so given the efficiency and lack of alternatives.
The long and short is that I don’t see being religious as inherently dangerous to oneself or others, being the result of some specific mental illness or delusion, or being some grand burden on society. For the most part, religious people tend to find comfort in their religious beliefs and tend to engage in socially promoting behaviors as a result of those beliefs. As such, I don’t see most religious people as insane. That said, those ISIS folks in Belgium? Yeah…that would be an example of waaaay insane religious people. Joe is quite probably another good example…
Frankie: Evolutionism is the claim that all of life’s diversity arose via natural selection, drift and neutral construction from some simpler replicator.
Mung actually has a point there. It’s impossible to make a robust test of that theory, because of the word “all”. It’s not enough just to show how some things arose. You have to test every feature of every organism. Nevertheless, we do have enough evidence about enough features that those processes are the way to bet. Is there any other process that we know is operating that could have influenced the course of evolution? Not that I can see. If the theory is incomplete in that way, we have no real suggestion of what might complete it.
So, Mung, is it just the proposed mechanisms of evolution you don’t like or is it common descent too?
Oh, one more thing: “from some simpler replicator” doesn’t really belong; it suggests some innate drive toward greater complexity, and that’s more of a theological than an evolutionary position.
Religion is a bit like drinking alcohol.
A little bit makes you feel good. A lot more can make you dangerous to yourself or to others.
It is also possible that a sprinkling of religion — like a bit of LSD or peyote — can free the imagination and improve creativity. Or lead you to attempt walking on air.
I’ve known quite a few religious people, and far fewer nonbelievers. I see no difference in mental stability or social stability between the two groups.
Often as not you get saints or hypocrites in equal proportion.
I do think, however, that when it comes to religious institutions (as opposed to abstract beliefs and worldviews) that religious organizations have disproportionately attracted and sheltered predators. Religious people tend to be trusted, so it is not surprising that people who thrive on the abuse of trust will find organized religion attractive.
Atheists and nonbelievers are granted no assumption of trust. There is no way to abuse expectations.
RoyLT: Because it is natural to look for hope and knowledge, both of which religion promises.The insanity only applies to those who are willing to hold specific doctrinal beliefs to be inerrant which cannot in any way be reconciled with science, history, or basic human understanding.
I think I would qualify the difference this way: religious people who believe that their religious principles not only apply to all aspects of everyday life, but who feel compelled to enforce the principles of those beliefs throughout society (or worse, the world), coercing others to adhere to their religious principles by punishing those who do not go along with their doctrines are insane.
So, if you really believe that the Noah flood story literally took place and that brings you some level of comfort, have at it. But you believe the story is true and you not only feel that public science classes should teach Noahic flood geology, but actively and aggressively petition against current public school geology, attempt to intimidate public school officials and parents of school kids, and covertly attempt to slip religious materials into the school curricula, then you have a real problem.
John Harshman: So, Mung, is it just the proposed mechanisms of evolution you don’t like or is it common descent too?
I don’t believe that I have any compelling reason to reject common descent. My acceptance of common descent is subject to revision. It’s not a dogma.
Mung: Why is it that you don’t think religious people are simply insane? Or do you think that?
I do think some religious people are insane. For example, the people who knowingly affirms adherence to faith-statements such as the ones fundamentalist creationist institutions put out.
“By definition, no apparent, percieved, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.” – AnswersInGensis.org
I have argued with quite a number of young Earth creationists the last couple of years, and it turns out many of them are actually surprised by this statement and refuse to defend it. This implies to me they don’t actually agree with the statement, because they really do understand the problem with putting your conclusion before and above your inquiry. Those people I take it actually are totally normal people with a healthy mind, who have been misinformed and or are simply a product of their upbringing, their surrounding culture, their social bubble and all that. Most of us are like this. I believe most believers are like this. The vast, vast majority. They’re religious because of upbringing and surrounding culture, not because of some strange fundamentalist adherence to lunatic views on reason and evidence.
But this also implies to me there are people who DON’T see that problem, or who would even go so far as to say that a statement such as that one is virtous. I contend that those people and the person who first wrote it, really are insane.
Mung: I don’t believe that I have any compelling reason to reject common descent. My acceptance of common descent is subject to revision. It’s not a dogma.
It’s subject to revision of all kinds.
The most obvious revision to common descent is horizontal gene transfer, which occurs most frequently among microbes.
Common descent is not accepted by biologists as dogma. It’s simply supported by boatloads of evidence, and has no sensible competitors.
That’s pretty much true of any idea in science that lasts 50 years or more.
Petrushka:
I see no difference in mental stability or social stability between the two groups.
Oddly, in my personal encounters with intellectually gifted non-believers, they’ve been more stable mentally than non-intellectually gifted believers.
That’s probably why I feel more at home at TSZ than some Christian forums even though I self-identify as Christian.
That’s not to say there aren’t some scary atheist places like the defenders of Rad Feminism. Speaking of which, why isn’t Rad Feminism listed in that organized list of irrational beliefs?
A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretations of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry. Presumably these metaphors, too, had fruitful pragmatic, methodological, and metaphysical consequences for science. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton’s laws as “Newton’s rape manual” as it is to call them “Newton’s mechanics”?
When social psychologist Phoebe Ellsworth took the podium at a recent interdisciplinary seminar on emotions, she was already feeling rattled. Colleagues who’d presented earlier had warned her that the crowd was tough and had little patience for the reduction of human experience to numbers or bold generalizations about emotions across cultures. Ellsworth had a plan: She would pre-empt criticism by playing the critic, offering a social history of psychological approaches to the topic. But no sooner had the word “experiment” passed her lips than the hands shot up. Audience members pointed out that the experimental method is the brainchild of white Victorian males. Ellsworth agreed that white Victorian males had done their share of damage in the world but noted that, nonetheless, their efforts had led to the discovery of DNA. This short-lived dialogue between paradigms ground to a halt with the retort: “You believe in DNA?”
More grist for the academic right? No doubt, but this exchange reflects a tension in academia that goes far deeper than spats over “political correctness.” Ellsworth’s experience illustrates the trend — in anthropology, sociology, cultural studies and other departments across the nation — to dismiss the possibility that there are any biologically based commonalities that cut across cultural differences. This aversion to biological or, as they are often branded, “reductionist” explanations commonly operates as an informal ethos limiting what can be said in seminars, asked at lectures or incorporated into social theory. Extreme anti-innatism has had formal institutional consequences as well: At some universities, like the University of California, Berkeley, the biological subdivision of the anthropology department has been relocated to another building — a spatial metaphor for an epistemological gap.
Although some of the strongest rejections of the biological have come from scholars with a left or feminist perspective, antipathy toward innatist theories does not always score neatly along political lines.
I hardly see the relevance to atheism or nonbelief.
Mung: I don’t believe that I have any compelling reason to reject common descent. My acceptance of common descent is subject to revision. It’s not a dogma.
Would you make a similar statement if I asked whether you accept that the earth goes around the sun or that it’s round? You should in fact have some quite compelling reasons to accept common descent and it should be about as subject to revision as heliocentrism or sphericity. Would you agree?
There are some empty space in that diagram we ought to fill in. I don’t see Raelians anywhere, they deserve a spot.
I hardly see the relevance to atheism or nonbelief.
Petrushka,
If you were referring to my comment about Rad Fems in atheism the connection is that most bodies of religious of belief are Patriaracal traditionally. The one religion that isn’t patriarchal would be witchcraft, and Rad Fems seem to be tailor made to be witches!
Otherwise atheism and agnosticism and the lack of belief are not inherently patriarchal, hence it seems a natural place for Rad Fems. Rad Fems wouldn’t be welcome in some denominations as a matter of principle, so it is not surprising many Rad Fems are atheists.
John Harshman: Pretty much everything in science involves inference.
This is a cross-posting of something you said in a different thread:
Is it an inference that the earth revolves around the sun?
Is it an inference that the earth is spherical?
Mung: Is it an inference that the earth revolves around the sun?
Is it an inference that the earth is spherical?
Neither of these claims is quite correct. Earth is an oblate spheroid revolving (along with the sun and the other planets) around a complex moving barycenter. I suppose this is inferred from theory, as well as measured more or less accurately.
Mung: This is a cross-posting of something you said in a different thread:
Is it an inference that the earth revolves around the sun?
Is it an inference that the earth is spherical?
Of course it is. Both times. Now some inferences are more intuitive than others. These days, you can see photos of that spherical earth, and that’s a very strong inference. But before that point, it was all less obvious inference. And nobody has ever seen the earth go around the sun; that’s just what makes sense of our observations.
Sal, you are conflating nonbelief with political movements.
There are lots of political movements, but they are orthogonal to whether one is a believer.
As being a theist says nothing about which of thousands of gods one believes in.
John Harshman: Mung actually has a point there. It’s impossible to make a robust test of that theory, because of the word “all”. It’s not enough just to show how some things arose. You have to test every feature of every organism. Nevertheless, we do have enough evidence about enough features that those processes are the way to bet. Is there any other process that we know is operating that could have influenced the course of evolution? Not that I can see. If the theory is incomplete in that way, we have no real suggestion of what might complete it.
So, Mung, is it just the proposed mechanisms of evolution you don’t like or is it common descent too?
Oh, one more thing: “from some simpler replicator” doesn’t really belong; it suggests some innate drive toward greater complexity, and that’s more of a theological than an evolutionary position.
OK so you think the first replicator was complex. Congratulations, you just refuted materialism and naturalism. And thanks for admittimg your position cannot be tested and isn’t science
RoyLT: Would you classify “evolutionism” as religion?
It takes faith and relies on faith. So it is a religion of sorts
The most obvious revision to common descent is horizontal gene transfer, which occurs most frequently among microbes.
Common descent is not accepted by biologists as dogma. It’s simply supported by boatloads of evidence, and has no sensible competitors.
That’s pretty much true of any idea in science that lasts 50 years or more.
Common Descent cannot be tested making petrushka’s claim close to a lie. But we all know that petrushka loves to bluff. It beats actually having to support one’s claims
But where’s the conspiracy to keep ID down, since professors and/or scientists could never transition to design explanations when they are shown to be best? You know, because Darwinism is a religion, so to ever admit that it was wrong would be like them acknowledging that ID is wrong, contrary to religious principles.
OK, it’s less a conspiracy than the projection of religion/presupposition that keeps them from dealing with the evidence, but it comes out the same either way–evidence-free belief in a concerted effort to keep down an ID that even they never use to do pretend science.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
LoL! And yet there isn’t any science to support the claims of your position. Not only that there is more evidence for bigfoot and UFOs than there is for your position.
ID has a methodology whereas evolutionism has dogmatic proclamations…
Abiogenic origin of petroleum is listed as pseudo science. Why? Even if ultimately wrong, experiments have demonstrated it is possible in principle. A report was even published in a mainstream journal of the American Geophysical Union:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008RG000270/full
Why is that so politically incorrect. Does it suggest “fossil fuels” aren’t really from fossils. Is that the real reason?
They got one of your numbers.
How about the lack of evidence for that hypothesis?
Sure, there are lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan. But on earth hydrocarbons are found in quantity where kerogen forms in sedimentary rocks. A good many petroleum sources were found because hydrocarbons rose to the surface. Why did this happen where sedimentary rocks are common, and not where igneous rocks greatly predominate?
There never was good evidence for abiogenetic petroleum, and the searches for it have proven fruitless. That’s why it’s pseudoscience.
Glen Davidson
As a religious person, like almost everyone else in the world (all evidence favors the thesis that atheism is abnormal), what should I be taking from the OP?
That the OP has a strongly evidentialist bias, perhaps.
All evidence to the contrary, of course
GlenDavidson,
How about your position’s lack of hypotheses for the evidence?
Beware the intersections?
Clearly not all religious folk fall for junk science, but a lot do.
Glen Davidson
You want to go home and rethink your life?
I already do that. Any other ideas?
ok, I looked over that list. It is a real shame the things atheists will believe.
You and WJM might want to have a chat about that….
If we want to go there then you can try and put into words what you believe as a theist, bonus points for not making it sound absurd.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you hang around with people (for example, KF) who genuinely believe they could not publish a scientific paper relating to ID because of the worldwide conspiracy of Darwinists who act in concert to prevent such papers being published.
Have you ever pointed out it’s a real shame KF believes that, as it’s what is preventing him from making his claims in the only arena that really matters?
Is an atheist more or less likely to believe ghosts exist?
I know you are just trolling, but it must shame you at some level what the other people who’s set you fall into believe.
Back around 1998 I followed the creation evolution debate on a political website. On of the popular conspiracy theories was that some government agency was developing software to intercept and scan all internet communication..
The outrage at that time was that the original programmer had not been paid.
Mung asks what I intend as the take away for this post.
My take away is that it is not that the claims themselves are ridiculous, but that the reasons for believing are are usually unsupported. Most of the items on this chart are wishful thinking. a few might have some merit, but they are believed because someone wants them to be true, and not because there is a preponderance of evidence.
That you and most people on the planet are gullible to some extent?
I’ll note that some level of gullibility isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s kinda of nice and cute to believe in Santa as a little kid for instance. Some level of gullibility even protects some people from harm. It’s only a bad thing when one decides that some unsupported or questionable notion is not only true, but must be defended at all costs, even to the point of absurd claims and dishonesty.
Robin,
Evolutionists are the most gullible people on Earth. They have decided that some unsupported or questionable notion is not only true, but must be defended at all costs, even to the point of absurd claims and dishonesty. 😛
petrushka,
Evolutionism is accepted despite the fact that its claim cannot be tested. Why is that?
And yet ID is not anti-evolution….
Riiiiiggght.
It can and has. That you did not understand the answer is irrelevant.
Why is it that you don’t think religious people are simply insane? Or do you think that?
Because it is natural to look for hope and knowledge, both of which religion promises. The insanity only applies to those who are willing to hold specific doctrinal beliefs to be inerrant which cannot in any way be reconciled with science, history, or basic human understanding.
LoL! @ OM again- ID is NOT anti-evolution. Nice to see that you are unable to grasp the explanation.
And your bluff is duly noted as your position doesn’t have any answers- no one knows how stochastic processes could produce ATP synthase or a bacterial flagellum or any complex adaptation.
Evolutionism cannot be reconciled with science, history or basic human understanding
That may be true, but it depends on what evolutionism is. What is evolutionism?
Exactly what I have been telling you, Alan- evolutionism is the alleged theory of evolution. I say alleged because no one seems to be able to find it. Evolutionism is the claim that all of life’s diversity arose via natural selection, drift and neutral construction from some simpler replicator.
Would you classify “evolutionism” as religion?
Well, because if we’re being technical, there’s no such thing as insanity.
But, more to the point, because there’s no basis of mental illness in believing that which is untrue or simply unprovable. Further, it’s necessary in many cases to hold beliefs that cannot be substantiated (believing someone loves you, for instance) or believing things that are statistically inaccurate. Most people get into their cars believing that they will get to their destination without incident, yet statistically speaking, it’s a pretty dangerous activity. Is it therefore insane to get into a car and go somewhere? I don’t think so given the efficiency and lack of alternatives.
The long and short is that I don’t see being religious as inherently dangerous to oneself or others, being the result of some specific mental illness or delusion, or being some grand burden on society. For the most part, religious people tend to find comfort in their religious beliefs and tend to engage in socially promoting behaviors as a result of those beliefs. As such, I don’t see most religious people as insane. That said, those ISIS folks in Belgium? Yeah…that would be an example of waaaay insane religious people. Joe is quite probably another good example…
Mung actually has a point there. It’s impossible to make a robust test of that theory, because of the word “all”. It’s not enough just to show how some things arose. You have to test every feature of every organism. Nevertheless, we do have enough evidence about enough features that those processes are the way to bet. Is there any other process that we know is operating that could have influenced the course of evolution? Not that I can see. If the theory is incomplete in that way, we have no real suggestion of what might complete it.
So, Mung, is it just the proposed mechanisms of evolution you don’t like or is it common descent too?
Oh, one more thing: “from some simpler replicator” doesn’t really belong; it suggests some innate drive toward greater complexity, and that’s more of a theological than an evolutionary position.
Religion is a bit like drinking alcohol.
A little bit makes you feel good. A lot more can make you dangerous to yourself or to others.
It is also possible that a sprinkling of religion — like a bit of LSD or peyote — can free the imagination and improve creativity. Or lead you to attempt walking on air.
I’ve known quite a few religious people, and far fewer nonbelievers. I see no difference in mental stability or social stability between the two groups.
Often as not you get saints or hypocrites in equal proportion.
I do think, however, that when it comes to religious institutions (as opposed to abstract beliefs and worldviews) that religious organizations have disproportionately attracted and sheltered predators. Religious people tend to be trusted, so it is not surprising that people who thrive on the abuse of trust will find organized religion attractive.
Atheists and nonbelievers are granted no assumption of trust. There is no way to abuse expectations.
I think I would qualify the difference this way: religious people who believe that their religious principles not only apply to all aspects of everyday life, but who feel compelled to enforce the principles of those beliefs throughout society (or worse, the world), coercing others to adhere to their religious principles by punishing those who do not go along with their doctrines are insane.
So, if you really believe that the Noah flood story literally took place and that brings you some level of comfort, have at it. But you believe the story is true and you not only feel that public science classes should teach Noahic flood geology, but actively and aggressively petition against current public school geology, attempt to intimidate public school officials and parents of school kids, and covertly attempt to slip religious materials into the school curricula, then you have a real problem.
I don’t believe that I have any compelling reason to reject common descent. My acceptance of common descent is subject to revision. It’s not a dogma.
I do think some religious people are insane. For example, the people who knowingly affirms adherence to faith-statements such as the ones fundamentalist creationist institutions put out.
I have argued with quite a number of young Earth creationists the last couple of years, and it turns out many of them are actually surprised by this statement and refuse to defend it. This implies to me they don’t actually agree with the statement, because they really do understand the problem with putting your conclusion before and above your inquiry. Those people I take it actually are totally normal people with a healthy mind, who have been misinformed and or are simply a product of their upbringing, their surrounding culture, their social bubble and all that. Most of us are like this. I believe most believers are like this. The vast, vast majority. They’re religious because of upbringing and surrounding culture, not because of some strange fundamentalist adherence to lunatic views on reason and evidence.
But this also implies to me there are people who DON’T see that problem, or who would even go so far as to say that a statement such as that one is virtous. I contend that those people and the person who first wrote it, really are insane.
It’s subject to revision of all kinds.
The most obvious revision to common descent is horizontal gene transfer, which occurs most frequently among microbes.
Common descent is not accepted by biologists as dogma. It’s simply supported by boatloads of evidence, and has no sensible competitors.
That’s pretty much true of any idea in science that lasts 50 years or more.
Oddly, in my personal encounters with intellectually gifted non-believers, they’ve been more stable mentally than non-intellectually gifted believers.
That’s probably why I feel more at home at TSZ than some Christian forums even though I self-identify as Christian.
That’s not to say there aren’t some scary atheist places like the defenders of Rad Feminism. Speaking of which, why isn’t Rad Feminism listed in that organized list of irrational beliefs?
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/09/know-thy-enemy-newtons-rape-manual.php
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Ehrenreich.html
I hardly see the relevance to atheism or nonbelief.
Would you make a similar statement if I asked whether you accept that the earth goes around the sun or that it’s round? You should in fact have some quite compelling reasons to accept common descent and it should be about as subject to revision as heliocentrism or sphericity. Would you agree?
There are some empty space in that diagram we ought to fill in. I don’t see Raelians anywhere, they deserve a spot.
Petrushka,
If you were referring to my comment about Rad Fems in atheism the connection is that most bodies of religious of belief are Patriaracal traditionally. The one religion that isn’t patriarchal would be witchcraft, and Rad Fems seem to be tailor made to be witches!
Otherwise atheism and agnosticism and the lack of belief are not inherently patriarchal, hence it seems a natural place for Rad Fems. Rad Fems wouldn’t be welcome in some denominations as a matter of principle, so it is not surprising many Rad Fems are atheists.
This is a cross-posting of something you said in a different thread:
Is it an inference that the earth revolves around the sun?
Is it an inference that the earth is spherical?
Neither of these claims is quite correct. Earth is an oblate spheroid revolving (along with the sun and the other planets) around a complex moving barycenter. I suppose this is inferred from theory, as well as measured more or less accurately.
Of course it is. Both times. Now some inferences are more intuitive than others. These days, you can see photos of that spherical earth, and that’s a very strong inference. But before that point, it was all less obvious inference. And nobody has ever seen the earth go around the sun; that’s just what makes sense of our observations.
Sal, you are conflating nonbelief with political movements.
There are lots of political movements, but they are orthogonal to whether one is a believer.
As being a theist says nothing about which of thousands of gods one believes in.
OK so you think the first replicator was complex. Congratulations, you just refuted materialism and naturalism. And thanks for admittimg your position cannot be tested and isn’t science
It takes faith and relies on faith. So it is a religion of sorts
Common Descent cannot be tested making petrushka’s claim close to a lie. But we all know that petrushka loves to bluff. It beats actually having to support one’s claims