How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Spin-off from "Dialog on 'Creationists read this' "

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#861  Postby bert » Jun 29, 2015 11:36 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I don't think much progress can be made until religion and faith are regarded as forms of mental dysfunction.


I recall a study (of less than 2 years ago?) where they checked Americans ability to reason logically. Once that was established for a neutral topic, they let them reason on things that were close to their political heart. (One topic was guns, the other one I forgot). Once, it was about a topic they cared about, the opinion took over. Republicans and Democrats both threw reason out of the window.

So, I think it is a general problem (people getting emotionally attached to certain views), with religion a terrible pinnacle.

I sometimes hear about people having problems with their identity. I'm not sure what that is (the only answer I have to the question: Who are you, is my name), but I do recall some wisdom that people that derive their identity from (I forgot how it was phrased, but it was something like) outside things, the more problems they had, because those things are under attack. If you're a Red socks fan, then there's bad news they lose sometimes. Religion is also an identity thing, and people don't want to lose that at all cost. They want to be right, they want that certainty. Hey, about being right; that's interesting. My brother used to be a teacher. To get kids an idea about numbers, he'd let them guess a number. Between 1 and 10, that could work with wild guessing. But between 1 and 1000, that was impractical. But they could ask whether it is higher/lower than a particular number. The interesting thing was, that kids would ask: Is it more than 500? If my brother said no, the kid was disappointed and if it was, then he was happy. To get to the correct answer (number) quickly, it doesn't really matter whether it is more or less!

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#862  Postby Calilasseia » Jun 30, 2015 2:09 am

The study you're referring to above is this one ...

Motivated Numeracy And Enlightened Self-Government by Dan M. Kahan, Ellen Peters, Erica Cantrell Dawson and Paul Slovic, Yale Law School Public Working Paper No. 307, Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 116, September 3rd, 2013 [Full paper downloadable from here

Kahan et al, 2013 wrote:Abstract:

Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence? We conducted an experiment to probe two alternative answers: the “Science Comprehension Thesis” (SCT), which identifies defects in the public’s knowledge and reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies; and the “Identity-protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT) which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science. In our experiment, we presented subjects with a difficult problem that turned on their ability to draw valid causal inferences from empirical data. As expected, subjects highest in Numeracy — a measure of the ability and disposition to make use of quantitative information — did substantially better than less numerate ones when the data were presented as results from a study of a new skin-rash treatment. Also as expected, subjects’ responses became politically polarized — and even less accurate — when the same data were presented as results from the study of a gun-control ban. But contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported ICT, which predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks. We discuss the theoretical and practical significance of these findings.


The authors performed an interesting test in this paper. Having gathered a sample of people for the test, they then assigned to those people a 2×2 contingency test. However, one randomly selected group was given the test with the columns labelled in one manner, and the remainder were given the test with the columns switched, which means that the two groups should have reached entirely different conclusions, if they performed the computations correctly. The authors admitted that this was a hard problem to give to the test groups, because even mathematically astute people can fail to assess 2×2 contingency tests correctly. As the authors state in the paper:

Kahan et al, 2013 wrote:Correctly interpreting the data was expected to be difficult. Doing so requires assessing not just the absolute number of subjects who experienced positive outcomes (“rash better”) and negative ones (“rash worse”) in either or both conditions but rather comparing the ratio of those who experienced a pos-itive outcome to those who experienced a negative one in each condition. Comparing these ratios is essen-tial to detecting covariance between the treatment and the two outcomes, a necessary element of causal inference that confounds even many intelligent people (Stanovich 2009; Stanovich & West 1998).


This is where life got interesting. The authors further split the experiment, by subvidiving the groups. One subgroup was given the data, labelled as being data from a politically neutral topic (a medical test of a topical skin cream), whilst the other subgroup was given the same data, but this time labelled as the outcome of a gun control policy.

So, the experiment was a four way test, with all four groups being given the same essential data, but with different labelling.

Group A: medical test, labelled to point to the conclusion "skin cream worked"
Group B: medical test, labelled to point to the conclusion "skin cream didn't work"
Group C: gun control policy, labelled to point to the conclusion "gun control worked"
Group D: gun control policy, labelled to point to the conclusion "gun control didn't work"

From the paper again:

Kahan et al, 2013 wrote:Based on previous studies using the design reflected in this experiment, it is known that most people use one of two heuristic alternatives to this approach. The first involves comparing the number of outcomes in the upper left cell to the number in the upper right one (“A vs. B”). The other (“A vs. C”) involves comparing the numbers in the upper left and lower left cells (Wasserman, Dorner & Kao 1990).

Each of these heuristic strategies generates a recognizable species of invalid causal inference. “A vs. B” amounts to assessing a treatment without considering information from a control. “A vs. C” compares outcomes in the treatment and control but in a manner that neglects to consult information necessary to disentangle the impact of the treatment from other influences at work in both conditions.

In the real world, of course, use of either of these defective strategies—both of which amount to failing to use all the information necessary to make a valid causal inference—might still generate the correct answer. But for our study stimulus, the numbers for the cells of the contingency table were deliberately selected so that use of either heuristic strategy would generate an incorrect interpretation of the re-sults of the fictional skin-treatment experiment.

The second two versions of the experiment involved a gun-control measure (Figure 3). Subjects were instructed that a “city government was trying to decide whether to pass a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns in public.” Government officials, subjects were told, were “unsure whether the law will be more likely to decrease crime by reducing the number of people carrying weapons or increase crime by making it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from violent criminals.” To address this question, researchers had divided cities into two groups: one consisting of cities that had recently enacted bans on concealed weapons and another that had no such bans. They then observed the number of cities that experienced “decreases in crime” and those that experienced “increases in crime” in the next year. Supplied that information once more in a 2x2 contingency table, subjects were instructed to indicate whether “cities that enacted a ban on carrying concealed handguns were more likely to have a decrease in crime” or instead “more likely to have an increase in crime than cities without bans.” The column headings on the 2x2 table were again manipulated, generating one version in which the data, properly interpreted, supported the conclusion that cities banning guns were more likely to experience increased crime relative to those that had not, and another version in which cities banning guns were more likely to experience decreased crime.

Overall, then, there were four experimental conditions—ones reflecting opposite experiment results for both the skin-treatment version of the problem and the gun-ban version. The design was a between-subjects ones, in which individuals were assigned to only one of these conditions. For sake of expository convenience, we will refer to the conditions as “rash decrease,” “rash increases,” “crime decrease,” and “crime increase,” with the label describing the result that a correct interpretation of the 2x2 contingency table would most support.


What happened when the authors conducted this experiment?

Kahan et al, 2013 wrote:3.5. Hypotheses

We formed three hypotheses. The first was that subjects high in numeracy would be more likely to get the right result in both skin-treatment conditions.

This hypothesis reflected results in previous studies. As indicated, such studies show that the co-variance-detection problem featured in this experiment is very difficult for most people to answer correct-ly (Stanovich 2009).

One recent study, however, shows that the likelihood of answering the problem correctly is pre-dicted by an individual’s score on the Cognitive Reflection Test (Toplak, West & Stanovich 2011). The CRT features a set of problems, each of which is designed to prompt an immediate and intuitively compelling response that is in fact incorrect. Because supplying the correct answer requires consciously stifling this intuition and logically deducing the right response, the CRT is understood to measure the disposition to use the slower, deliberate form of information-processing associated with System 2, as opposed to the rapid, heuristic-driven form associated with System 1.

The CRT requires elementary mathematical skills, but is not a numeracy test per se (Liberali, Reyna, Furlan, Stein & Pardo 2012). However, insofar as making valid causal inferences in the covariance-detection problem likewise demands suppressing the heuristic tendency to give decisive significance to suggestive but incomplete portions of the information reflected in the 2x2 contingency table, it is not surprising that individuals who score higher on CRT are more likely to correctly interpret the data the table contains.

We would expect Numeracy scale to be an even stronger predictor of how likely a person is to select the correct response in the skin-treatment versions of this problem. Like the CRT, Numeracy measures a disposition to subject intuition to critical interrogation in light of all available information—and thus to avoid mistakes characteristic of over-reliance on heuristic, System 1 information processing (Liberali et al. 2012). Indeed, two CRT items are conventionally included in the Numeracy scale (Weller, Dieckmann, Tusler, Mertz, Burns & Peters 2012), and we added the third in this study in order to rein-force its sensitivity to the disposition to preempt reliance on unverified intuition. However, whereas the CRT measures the disposition to use System 2 information processing generally, Numeracy measures how proficient individuals are in using it to reason with quantitative information in particular, a capacity specifically relevant to the covariance-detection problem featured in the stimulus.

The hypothesis that performance in the skin-treatment conditions would be positively correlated with Numeracy was common to SCT and ICT. The second and third hypotheses reflect opposing SCT and ICT predictions relating to results in the gun-ban conditions.

Whereas the issue in the skin-treatment versions of the covariance-detection problem—does a new skin cream improve or aggravate a commonplace and nonserious medical condition—is devoid of partisan significance, the question whether a gun ban increases or instead decreases crime is a high profile political one that provokes intense debate. Consistent with the growing literature on culturally or ideologically motivated reasoning (Jost, Hennes & Lavine in press), we anticipated that subjects in the gun-ban conditions would be more likely to construe the data as consistent with the position that prevails among persons who share their political outlooks—regardless of which version of the problem (“crime increases” or “crime decreases”) they were assigned. Specifically, we surmised that gratification of the interest subjects would have in confirmation of their predispositions would reinforce their tendency to engage in heuristic reasoning when subjects were assigned to the condition in which “A vs. B” or “A vs. C” generated a mistaken answer that was nonetheless congenial to their political outlooks. That ideologically motivated reasoning would compound heuristic reasoning in this way was specifically supported by studies showing that an existing position on a contested nonpolitical issue (Dawson & Gilovich 2000), aversion to threatening information (Dawson, Gilovich & Regan 2002), and prior beliefs (Stanovich & West 1998) can all magnify the sorts of reasoning errors frequently encountered in covariance-detection problems identical or closely related to the one featured in our stimulus.


I'll let you read the rest of the paper, and see the huge difference in the graphs toward the end. It's both hilarious and disturbing to observe.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22599
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#863  Postby bert » Jun 30, 2015 6:17 pm

Cali, you're brilliant for digging that up.

I'll let you read the rest of the paper, and see the huge difference in the graphs toward the end. It's both hilarious and disturbing to observe.


Disturbing indeed. Takes away from hope for the future.

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#864  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 01, 2015 2:37 am

Why the fuck do people have to have "identity"??
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 69

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#865  Postby Oldskeptic » Jul 01, 2015 3:15 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Why the fuck do people have to have "identity"??


I imagine that it helps in deciding not to punch yourself in the face because someone else cuts in front of you in line at the market. It would also help in deciding that you don't want to go to jail so you refrain from punching that someone else in the face.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#866  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 01, 2015 5:54 am

Oldskeptic wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:Why the fuck do people have to have "identity"??


I imagine that it helps in deciding not to punch yourself in the face because someone else cuts in front of you in line at the market. It would also help in deciding that you don't want to go to jail so you refrain from punching that someone else in the face.

No shit Sherlock. I meant "identity" in terms of aligning oneself with a particular religion, culture or group to the extent may regard others as inferior or wrong. I don't mean identity in terms of "self vs non-self" in the physical sense. Cultural identity.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 69

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#867  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 01, 2015 9:59 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Why the fuck do people have to have "identity"??


As trite as it may be to say, I honestly think it can be laid firmly at the foot of our evolutionary history. We're tribal creatures, we know all our guys are good - they do stuff we approve of mostly, and understand what stuff is wrong. Those other fellas clearly don't, and we should certainly be careful of them, and it might even be a good idea to pre-emptively ensure that they don't attack us - we know what they're like, after all!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#868  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 01, 2015 2:45 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:Why the fuck do people have to have "identity"??


As trite as it may be to say, I honestly think it can be laid firmly at the foot of our evolutionary history. We're tribal creatures, we know all our guys are good - they do stuff we approve of mostly, and understand what stuff is wrong. Those other fellas clearly don't, and we should certainly be careful of them, and it might even be a good idea to pre-emptively ensure that they don't attack us - we know what they're like, after all!

Sure. But we have to grow up soon. We can't afford our little cliques any more, it just creates wars and other miseries. Being tribal won't solve problems humanity has to face as a whole. We may have evolved to be tribal, but now that is killing us.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 69

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#869  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Jul 02, 2015 2:20 am

I don't think we will ever stop being tribal anytime soon. But our tribes are getting larger, we aren't just the people in this village, or the people in this valley, or the people on this island, or even the people in this country. Soon our tribe will be the whole Earth, the internet and social media is opening the world up to the younger generations. They have no boundaries to talking to someone, even talking face to face. They can listen to people from anywhere they want, hear what they think and respond in kind. The internet tribe will take over the world and they wont need violence to do it, just time.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 38
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#870  Postby Sendraks » Jul 02, 2015 8:53 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I don't think we will ever stop being tribal anytime soon. But our tribes are getting larger, we aren't just the people in this village, or the people in this valley, or the people on this island, or even the people in this country. Soon our tribe will be the whole Earth, the internet and social media is opening the world up to the younger generations. They have no boundaries to talking to someone, even talking face to face. They can listen to people from anywhere they want, hear what they think and respond in kind. The internet tribe will take over the world and they wont need violence to do it, just time.


It's getting harder and harder to live in an echo chamber, without obviously contriving one for yourself. People are exposed increasingly to opinions and evidence which conflict with their worldview. The intelligent ones, the ones that can think critically, manage to assimilate that information in such a way that refines their thinking.

The thickos just rail against that which they disagree with. Seeking neither to learn or to change.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15260
Age: 107
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#871  Postby THWOTH » Jul 02, 2015 5:40 pm

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:Why the fuck do people have to have "identity"??


As trite as it may be to say, I honestly think it can be laid firmly at the foot of our evolutionary history. We're tribal creatures, we know all our guys are good - they do stuff we approve of mostly, and understand what stuff is wrong. Those other fellas clearly don't, and we should certainly be careful of them, and it might even be a good idea to pre-emptively ensure that they don't attack us - we know what they're like, after all!

Sure. But we have to grow up soon. We can't afford our little cliques any more, it just creates wars and other miseries. Being tribal won't solve problems humanity has to face as a whole. We may have evolved to be tribal, but now that is killing us.

You'll change your mind when the insectoid brianslurpers finally arrive.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 38718
Age: 59

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#872  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 03, 2015 3:22 am

THWOTH wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:Why the fuck do people have to have "identity"??


As trite as it may be to say, I honestly think it can be laid firmly at the foot of our evolutionary history. We're tribal creatures, we know all our guys are good - they do stuff we approve of mostly, and understand what stuff is wrong. Those other fellas clearly don't, and we should certainly be careful of them, and it might even be a good idea to pre-emptively ensure that they don't attack us - we know what they're like, after all!

Sure. But we have to grow up soon. We can't afford our little cliques any more, it just creates wars and other miseries. Being tribal won't solve problems humanity has to face as a whole. We may have evolved to be tribal, but now that is killing us.

You'll change your mind when the insectoid brianslurpers finally arrive.


No doubt! :grin:

Nevertheless, I think we should live "dangerously" and make the whole human species a single 'tribe", not forgetting the rest of life of Earth, of course. :thumbup:
Of course, the first rule of empire is to divide and conquer..... ;)
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 69

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#873  Postby bert » Jul 03, 2015 6:35 pm

Perhaps this is another piece of the creationists, why?!-puzzle:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 ... 0002&abg=1

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#874  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 04, 2015 6:31 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:Why the fuck do people have to have "identity"??


As trite as it may be to say, I honestly think it can be laid firmly at the foot of our evolutionary history. We're tribal creatures, we know all our guys are good - they do stuff we approve of mostly, and understand what stuff is wrong. Those other fellas clearly don't, and we should certainly be careful of them, and it might even be a good idea to pre-emptively ensure that they don't attack us - we know what they're like, after all!

Sure. But we have to grow up soon. We can't afford our little cliques any more, it just creates wars and other miseries. Being tribal won't solve problems humanity has to face as a whole. We may have evolved to be tribal, but now that is killing us.



I agree, but it's not me you need to convince... it's all those other bastards! :D
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#875  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 04, 2015 6:40 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I don't think we will ever stop being tribal anytime soon. But our tribes are getting larger, we aren't just the people in this village, or the people in this valley, or the people on this island, or even the people in this country. Soon our tribe will be the whole Earth, the internet and social media is opening the world up to the younger generations. They have no boundaries to talking to someone, even talking face to face. They can listen to people from anywhere they want, hear what they think and respond in kind. The internet tribe will take over the world and they wont need violence to do it, just time.


Yup! It *is* happening, albeit apparently slowly on a human scale, but incredibly quickly on a historical one.

There's one sad potentiality in the universe to act as a force for human commonality, that would be finding an 'other' which we can all subscribe to - intelligent alien life of a threatening nature.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#876  Postby Fallible » Jul 04, 2015 6:45 am

By the way, Jayjay was here on Thursday to check people were still talking about him. Hi, Jayjay! :wave:
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 51
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#877  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Jul 04, 2015 6:56 am

Spearthrower wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:I don't think we will ever stop being tribal anytime soon. But our tribes are getting larger, we aren't just the people in this village, or the people in this valley, or the people on this island, or even the people in this country. Soon our tribe will be the whole Earth, the internet and social media is opening the world up to the younger generations. They have no boundaries to talking to someone, even talking face to face. They can listen to people from anywhere they want, hear what they think and respond in kind. The internet tribe will take over the world and they wont need violence to do it, just time.


Yup! It *is* happening, albeit apparently slowly on a human scale, but incredibly quickly on a historical one.

There's one sad potentiality in the universe to act as a force for human commonality, that would be finding an 'other' which we can all subscribe to - intelligent alien life of a threatening nature.


That is a possibility and I know a few scifi stories that have our first encounter stray towards the hostile. Others play it the other way that by the time we are travelling the stars we have woken up to the silliness of the "other". Sadly I don't think it will be a problem for me or my kids and by the time it is humans might be so far different from us that what we think is moot.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 38
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#878  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 04, 2015 6:59 am

...across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.


But yeah, I doubt it's going to happen any time soon as well! :) Sadly, with our history, it's more likely to be the other way round.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#879  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Jul 04, 2015 7:09 am

Spearthrower wrote:
...across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.


But yeah, I doubt it's going to happen any time soon as well! :) Sadly, with our history, it's more likely to be the other way round.


Damn you I had to go and listen to the Jeff Wayne version of that intro.

I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 38
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#880  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 04, 2015 7:11 am

First time I heard that version was on a cub-scout trip in the dark on the way to a camp-site in the woods. It was absolutely terrifying! :D
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron