Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

Can emotional trauma in childhood be a factor leading to skepticism in adulthood?

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#461  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 24, 2015 1:23 am

carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:
carl wrote:
BTW, will those studies actually claiming to confirm the origin of the universe (as if !) contain the words: "possibly", "maybe", "we propose", "it seems likely", "could", "should", "might", "in all likelihood", "theorize", etc.. ?


I doubt if any study will authoritatively claim to confirm the origins of the universe. We leave the delusions of 100% certainty to religion.

We need to discern what is speculative and what is confirmative.


We can and we do. It's called science. You should learn about it.


We ought never to confuse true science with speculation. For example, to put modern medicine alongside the theory of abiogenesis is very deceiving. It is a deceitful practice of many skeptics and atheists on the internet.


Bullshit. Oh wait, the researchers in the field have already determined, that many of the chemical reactions postulated to be responsible for the origin of life work, and produce the anticipated results. How many of the 261 papers in the field in my collection shall I bring here, in order to demonstrate that your above assertion is a bare faced lie?

carl wrote:This is what happens when we are overly impresses with those who have PhDs in some field of pseudoscience (not science) when they discuss their theory of abiogenesis, theory of evolution, theory of cosmology, theory of......


Bullshit and lies. Oh wait, the science you're dismissing here with your manifestly false and defamatory comments, enjoys a level of empirical support that your mythology has never remotely come close to. Indeed, in the case of evolution, I can bring any of three thousand, three hundred and thirty eight peer reviewed papers in my collection to the table, many of them documenting direct empirical test and verification of evolutionary hypotheses. So before launching into an embarrassing display of ignorance, you might want to check some facts. The only "psuedoscience" we see around here, consists of creationists playing apologetics with science.

Plus, I notice with interest that it's always when observing creationist propaganda outlets, that appeals to credentials loom large. Funny how real scientists don't need to do this, they simply point to the data.

carl wrote:Unfortunately, what we don't understand is that immense topics such as the origin of the universe or the origin of life are out of our reach to scientifically confirm


Bullshit. How many of those papers shall I bring here again? Oh, you might want to factor into your choice of decision, that those papers in my collection constitute less than one percent of the total extant in the field.

carl wrote:leaving us with speculation about that which occurred in ancient history.


Bullshit. Studied any of the requisite disciplines to any reasonable level have you Carl? Or are you merely regurgitating the sad apologetic bullshit you found on creationist websites, because it tickles your ideological erogenous zones?

carl wrote:There is no way to apply the scientific method - or any other scientific method - to confirm such theories


Lie. How many of the papers shall I drop on you from a great height in order to establish this?

carl wrote:leaving us with the dubious position of placing our faith in those whom we listen to, with their grand theories and presuppositions.


Lie. We leave faith and presuppositions to supernaturalists.

carl wrote:This is why Jesus said:


HA HA HA HA HA!

After launching into a duplicitous tirade, defaming valid, empirically verified science, you turn to fucking mythology?

Your apologetics are a joke.

carl wrote:"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."


Oh wait, to how many decimal places is your mythology in accord with the data again? Oh wait, it isn't in accord therewith. The data carpet bombs the assertions of your worthless mythology back to the primaeval slime.

carl wrote:The level of our education has nothing to do with the condition of our heart. We can have ten PhDs but if we're bent away from God, we're on the road to destruction, as well as those who foolishly listen to them.


Drivel.

carl wrote:NO faulty HUMAN BEING will ever be able to tell us, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or origin of life, through ANY technology.


We've seen assertions of this sort being peddled by supernaturalists before. Such as the assertion that no one would ever unlock the underlying mechanisms behind biodiversity. Oh but wait, that assertion died a death 150 years ago.

carl wrote:If they try to tell us so, they are not a braniac but a megalomaniac. It should never cease to amaze us how much stretching of the truth, exaggeration, and extravagance of the claims we see in the media today.


Not by any actual scientist I know of. Hmm, seems like this cartoon is apposite:

How Science Reporting Works.jpg
How Science Reporting Works.jpg (509.65 KiB) Viewed 4262 times


carl wrote:Every pseudoscientist wants to be in the limelight, and there are throngs of armchair science-fiction fans out there to satisfy their ridiculous egos.


Funny how the actual psueodscientists are usually the ones complaining that the scientific community won't accept their crackpot assertions. Rupert Sheldrake, anyone?

carl wrote:Megalomania:
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.


Oh you mean the way supernaturalists are obsessed with fantasies of power and omnipotence? Not to mention rampant greed? Such as for example, Benny Hinn, the aptly named Creflo Dollar, the late Jerry Falwell, and all the other "prosperity gospel" brigade? Funny how it was a televangelist who persuaded millions of suckers to pony up for $36 million worth of private jet, not a scientist. Benny Hinn persuaded his gullible rubes to pony up for one of these:

Image

Most scientists I know are running ten year old second hand cars, not private jets, with the exception of those fortunate few who have picked up their Nobel Prizes.

Keep peddling those lies, Carl, all you're doing is making your mythology even more repugnant to us than it already is by peddling them.

carl wrote:Habakkuk 2
See, he is puffed up; his desires are not upright--but the righteous will live by his faith.


Oh you mean like Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar, etc?

carl wrote:Psalm 10: The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God...


Oh, you mean the "wicked", such as all those child raping Catholic priests?

carl wrote:1 Timothy
Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called...


You made this one up. 1 Timothy 4:7 actually says " But refuse profane and old wives' fables ..."

Tell me, if you have to peddle falsehoods about what your own mythology says, why should any of us bother with it?

carl wrote:"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—W. Kaempffert.


If you're referring to Waldemar Kaempffert, he died in 1956. We've learned much since then. How many of those papers shall I bring here to demonstrate that your apologetics are all lies and bullshit? Are you even going to be man enough to accept the challenge?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22082
Age: 59
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#462  Postby Macdoc » Jan 24, 2015 1:49 am

Carl ....tune an old fashioned TV between stations and WATCH ....."ancient history".....that hiss and static IS the remnants of the big bang...you can look and listen to.

This is science....your premises are ignorance writ large...



Go back to kindergarten and get some education in science instead of making a thorough fool of yourself on a rational based board. :nono:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#463  Postby redwhine » Jan 24, 2015 4:07 am

carl wrote:NO faulty HUMAN BEING will ever be able to tell us, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or origin of life, through ANY technology.

...yet a book cobbled together from the rantings of equally (at the very least) faulty uneducated desert dwelling nomads, full of contradictions, can?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 68
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#464  Postby redwhine » Jan 24, 2015 4:13 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Stop conversing via your rectum carl, it will stop you from making yourself look like a fool.

:ask:

The jury is still out on that one!

;) :lol: :lol: :lol:
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 68
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#465  Postby laklak » Jan 24, 2015 4:23 am

You ever lose a filling? You know it's going to hurt, but you keep sticking your tongue in the hole anyway. This thread is like that.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#466  Postby redwhine » Jan 24, 2015 4:44 am

Calilasseia wrote:Most scientists I know are running ten year old second hand cars, not private jets, with the exception of those fortunate few who have picked up their Nobel Prizes.

"Illustrious", perhaps? (I get your meaning but "fortunate" makes it sound like they simply bought a winning lottery ticket or something. Years of hard work =/= fortunate.)
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 68
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#467  Postby Sciwoman » Jan 24, 2015 5:13 am

laklak wrote:You ever lose a filling? You know it's going to hurt, but you keep sticking your tongue in the hole anyway. This thread is like that.

And as a former fundamentalist, I know what the answers are going to be, but I still keep reading. Apparently I like torturing myself.
Religion is not the answer-it is the problem. Everything considered, we would be better off without it.~Baubles of Blasphemy~Edwin F. Kagin
User avatar
Sciwoman
RS Donator
 
Name: AKA Ayaan
Posts: 916
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#468  Postby Agrippina » Jan 24, 2015 6:12 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
carl wrote:
Nicko wrote:

So He has a solution for the problem He created?

Cool. How's that working out?

The point, in case it escapes you, is that omnipotent beings don't need "a plan" to do anything. They want something done, it's done. That's what "omnipotent" means.

Regardless, your objection still doesn't address the issue of the vast amount of suffering not caused by human beings.


1) Where in the Bible does it say God caused the Fall after His initial Creation? It doesn't.

It does. The bible literally states God created everything.

And this is the point that carl is STILL ignoring, even after I pointed it out pages and pages ago, just as I predicted he would.

If your God made everything in exacting detail as you believe carl, then he is primarily responsible for all of it. Will you please address this instead of ignoring it? Because every time you ignore it, it further convinces everyone that you haven't put much thought into your beliefs, and that you have no interest in questioning any of them. Not a great position to hold on a skeptic's forum.


You notice that? He doesn't respond to most posts directed at him. Sigh! :roll:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#469  Postby BlackBart » Jan 24, 2015 11:34 am

Agrippina wrote:
You notice that? He doesn't respond to most posts directed at him. Sigh! :roll:


Of course he doesn't. If he actually responded to anything honestly, he wouldn't be able to pretend his position hasn't fallen apart like a clown's car.

Take the Prince Phillip thing for example; he avoided that one like a like a ham sandwich at a Barmitzvah . If he actually acknowledged he lacked a belief in the divinity of 'ol Phil the Greek (Which we all know he bloody doesn't) he'd have to answer why then he doesn't give in the name of that fact any more than we don't give in the name of name of a lack of belief in his particular brand of cargo cult. Awkwaaaard!!

A sad and pathetic strategy we've all seen before and no doubt will see again. :yawn:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12233
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#470  Postby Agrippina » Jan 24, 2015 12:59 pm

Such a pity they won't interact with us and try to understand what we're saying. I wonder why the avoidance. :dunno:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#471  Postby BlackBart » Jan 24, 2015 1:10 pm

Could be one of a plethora of reasons; Desperately trying to shore up an emotional crutch, mere trolling, who knows? :dunno:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12233
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#472  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 24, 2015 2:37 pm

Answering a couple of points here ...

[1] This one ...

Macdoc wrote:Carl ....tune an old fashioned TV between stations and WATCH ....."ancient history".....that hiss and static IS the remnants of the big bang...you can look and listen to.

This is science....your premises are ignorance writ large...



Go back to kindergarten and get some education in science instead of making a thorough fool of yourself on a rational based board. :nono:


I'm reminded at this juncture of the famous XKCD cartoon ...

Image

Oh wait, that graph I've just illustrated? The correlation is so precise, that the error bars are too small to draw on the graph. This is how precisely the curve for Planck's Law matches the cosmic microwave background. From the Wikipedia page devoted to the CMB, we have this:

The high degree of uniformity throughout the observable universe and its faint but measured anisotropy lend strong support for the Big Bang model in general and the ΛCDM ("Lambda Cold Dark Matter") model in particular.


That model, the ΛCDM model, has made the following successful predictions:

[1] The existence of baryon acoustic oscillation. To understand what this is, remember that the CMB, whilst being highly uniform, does contain measurable anisotropies, corresponding to differences in density in the early universe. In short, some regions contained slightly more matter than others. The denser regions, courtesy of gravity, attracted still more matter to them. However, as is observed to be the case during star formation, that attraction of matter results in the temperature of the dense attracting regions increasing, in accordance with the Gas Laws (this phenomenon is observed on a smaller scale when you inflate a bicycle tyre - increase the internal pressure, and you increase the temperature). Some of that matter, as a result of increasing temperature, acquires a radial outward motion. However, note that the ΛCDM model covers two distinct types of matter: standard baryonic matter, which interacts with the electromagnetic force, and cold dark matter, which only interacts via the gravitational force. The baryonic matter is the matter that experiences a counter-force to gravity, but the cold dark matter does not. The cold dark matter remains at the centre of the dense regions, providing a continued gravitational force attracting the baryonic matter back.

Now what happens, is that photons associated with the baryonic matter, decouple from that matter, and in doing so, radiate away the heat energy to the surroundings, and allow the temperature to fall again. This results in lower velocities for the baryonic matter, and consequently, that baryonic matter is attracted back again. This oscillation is what is known as baryon acoustic oscillation, and the ΛCDM model was the first model to predict the existence of this phenomenon in the early universe. This mechanism eventually has an effect upon the distribution of galaxies much later in the history of the universe - it results in galaxies being clustered at a specific scale. By analysing the observed distribution of galaxies, and observing clustering at the requisite scale, baryon acoustic oscillation can be searched for in that distribution. The ΛCDM model predicted the existence of the phenomenon, and the clustering scale that it would generate later in the history of the universe. The CMB, incidentally, provides additional information about baryon acoustic oscillation to high accuracy, allowing an additional check to be made.

[2] The polarisation of the CMB. Photons of light have a polarisation associated with them, and the ΛCDM model predicted that the observed polarisation of the CMB would consist of two classes, known as E-mode and B-mode polarisation. If the electric field associated with a photon is E, and the magnetic field associated with the same photon is B, then E-mode polarisation arises as a consequence of the fact that the curl of the electric field is zero. B-mode polarisation arises as a consequence of the fact that the divergence of the magnetic field is zero. E-mode polarisation values arise naturally as a result of Thomson scattering in the requisite plasma, and the signal for E-mode polarisation is strong as a consequence. B-mode polarisation, on the other hand, has a much weaker signal, some of which is interfered with by the E-mode signal, so determining the precise level of the B-mode signal, and the nature thereof, is a difficult task, involving some fairly intricate apparatus, followed by a lot of hard mathematical work with deconvolution.

However, the fun part is this: the B-mode signal can arise from two sources. The first source consists of gravitational lensing of E-mode signals. This effect has already been measured. The second source consists of perturbations in space-time arising from gravitational waves generated by cosmic inflation. As a result of this second mechanism, the precise nature of the B-mode signal, once properly deconvoluted from the E-mode signal, provides an empirical test of the likely validity of cosmological theories. In short, any cosmological theory that predicts a specific spectrum of values for the gravitational wave B-mode signal component, falls by the wayside the moment a different spectrum of values is measured. Since B-mode polarisation spectra arise from all the mechanisms invoked by modern cosmological theories, the observed B-mode spectrum provides an empirical test, allowing us to rule out those theories predicting a spectrum significantly divergent from the observed spectrum. At the moment, the difficulties lie in deconvoluting the B-mode signal in a manner allowing the precise spectrum to be determined, but work is underway to address these issues.

[3] The statistics of weak gravitational lensing. Gravitational lensing was, of course, one of the famous predictions of Einstein's theory of general relativity, that were found to be in accord with observational data to a striking degree of precision. Although other workers alighted upon the concept before Einstein, Einstein was the first to provide a quantitative analysis of the phenomenon, in a well-known 1936 paper.

However, gravitational lenses behave differently from optical lenses, and these differences in behaviour allow a range of other phenomena to be tested. Strong lensing was tested for with relative ease, courtesy of the fact that a strong gravitational lensing source produces large and easily detectable distortions in the receieved image of an object behind that source, relative to our viewpoint. The so-called "Einstein ring" has been observed being generated by many different sources. Weak lensing, on the other hand, requires more work to analyse, as it involves detecting the much smaller distortions arising from a multiplicity of much less powerful lensing sources. However, once this hard work is completed, the data allows us to determine, with precision, the mass distribution in the lensing region. Which again has cosmological implications. A cosmological theory that fails to reproduce the correct mass distribution is again sent back to the drawing board.

Now, whilst there exist certain systematic sources of measurement error to be overcome, these sources are known, and can be counteracted, though this process tends to be expensive, and involves using space-based observational tools. However, data has now been gathered, and as a corollary of that data gathering, the ΛCDM model has once again acquitted itself, by providing the best account for observed weak gravitational lensing statistics. It provides the best fit with respect to predictions of matter distribution in weak lensing regions.

So when Carl posts yet more apologetic fabrications about "speculation", you can read the above and toss his drivel into the bin where it belongs. :)

Next ...

redwhine wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Most scientists I know are running ten year old second hand cars, not private jets, with the exception of those fortunate few who have picked up their Nobel Prizes.


"Illustrious", perhaps? (I get your meaning but "fortunate" makes it sound like they simply bought a winning lottery ticket or something. Years of hard work =/= fortunate.)


An admittedly unfortunate choice of adjective in the heat of the moment, as you have revealed above, but I am minded to note that a lot of extremely high standard work, on the part of some extremely eminent people, never sees that shiny medal. It's a measure of how much high standard work our scientists produce, that only the most resolutely ground-breaking work even gets a look in. The problem with the Nobel Prize, is that it's partly a victim of its own success: having established itself as the most prestigious award in science, the constraints upon consideration of likely candidates are extremely tight. For example, Stanley Prusiner received his Nobel Prize, because he established evidential support for an idea so revolutionary, that it took quite a few biologists by surprise when he finally delivered that evidence. The idea that nucleic acids were not the only self-replicating molecules possible was such a shock to many, that when Prusiner not only discovered the existence of alternative replicators, but demonstrated conclusively that they were central to several important disease processes, that his work well and truly fell into the "ground breaking" category.

With respect to the above exposition I've provided on the ΛCDM model, which is our best current model of observed spacetime, if a physicist were to alight upon data telling us that said model had actually got it wrong, and provided a better model to go with the data, said physicist would be a natural candidate for a Nobel. This is the standard of work required now, and it's in that sense, that I describe the recipients as "fortunate", because they've managed to move to the front of the queue by dint of their work being truly exceptional. I never intended to detract from the fact that they made that good fortune through monumental labour, a point I've repeatedly stressed in many past posts, and as a consequence, regarded the requisite exposition as superfluous to requirements to those familiar with my output here. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22082
Age: 59
Male

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

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#473  Postby laklak » Jan 24, 2015 4:17 pm

I tried explaining that to my Labrador, Cali, with about the same results.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#474  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 24, 2015 4:28 pm

Except that your labrador was probably sitting still, paying attention, whilst thinking "do I get sausages at the end of this?" :mrgreen:

Reference for those that need it ... :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22082
Age: 59
Male

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

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#475  Postby Nebogipfel » Jan 25, 2015 2:12 pm

carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:
carl wrote:
BTW, will those studies actually claiming to confirm the origin of the universe (as if !) contain the words: "possibly", "maybe", "we propose", "it seems likely", "could", "should", "might", "in all likelihood", "theorize", etc.. ?


I doubt if any study will authoritatively claim to confirm the origins of the universe. We leave the delusions of 100% certainty to religion.

We need to discern what is speculative and what is confirmative.


We can and we do. It's called science. You should learn about it.


We ought never to confuse true science with speculation.


We don't, or at least those who understand what true science is, don't. True science is just the scientific method properly and conscientiously applied, and that turns out to be a great tool for distinguishing speculation that is on the right track from speculation that isn't.


For example, to put modern medicine alongside the theory of abiogenesis is very deceiving. It is a deceitful practice of many skeptics and atheists on the internet.


Modern medicine and abiogenesis research are underpinned by the same scientific methodology: formulation of a hypothesis (usually from speculation), making predictions from the hypothesis, confirming or disconfirming those predictions by means of experiement, peer review and reproduction of experimental results. If the predictions of your hypothesis are not confirmed by experiement, then you have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better hypothesis. There's no shame in this; this is how science works.

If you're going to reject evolutionary biology and cosmology as "false science", then you also have to reject the science that underpins you computer, your television, your microwave, the internal combustion engine in your car, your refrigerator, the prescription antibiotics you take when you get an infection, the surgical procedure you'll undergo if you have a burst appendix - that all relys on the same methodological framework, so they must also be "fake science" and unfounded speculation, right? Of course, they aren't, and niether is cosmology, evolutionary biology and all the rest of it.

Now, "we" don't know for sure how life arose on the Earth. But we do know that many of the basic building blocks of living things are just lying around in the solar system, or can be made by natural processes. So it's really not a huge leap of either imagination or credibility to envision Darwin's "warm little pool" on the early earth. It certainly makes a lot more sense than "goddidit". Why's that? Well, here are three short articles by Stephen Law that explain it quite well:

But it fits!
The Vision Thing and the Tinfoil Hat
The strange case of the car-stealing elves


This is what happens when we are overly impresses with those who have PhDs in some field of pseudoscience (not science) when they discuss their theory of abiogenesis, theory of evolution, theory of cosmology, theory of......


:picard: oh dear, red herring, straw man, smear and ad hom all rolled into one nasty bogey of fail :nono:

Do you actually know anything about evolutionary biology or cosmology which entitles you to smear those fields as pseudoscience?
Do you know actually know what the word pseudoscience means?
It means fake science, counterfeit science - stuff that pretends to be science, but does not follow the methodology.

This is a near-perfect description of creationism. All the effort that the folks at Answers in Genesis waste on trying to browbeat what true science has discovered about the age of the earth and the origin of species to fit what their religious ideology needs to be true about the world. They're no better than Lysenko

Here's the thing that you still don't seem to understand. "We" aren't impressed just because someone puts PhD after their name, or styles themselves "Professor". "We" are more impressed by what they have done to earn that title, and whether what they say makes sense and is supported by the evidence.

If you ask me, this is the fundamental difference between science and religion. Science knows when it's wrong. Science is happy to be wrong, because that's when it learns stuff.

Religion doesn't even know when it's wrong!. Religion can't even know when it's wrong.


Unfortunately, what we don't understand is that immense topics such as the origin of the universe or the origin of life are out of our reach to scientifically confirm,


You know this how?

leaving us with speculation about that which occurred in ancient history. There is no way to apply the scientific method - or any other scientific method - to confirm such theories, leaving us with the dubious position of placing our faith in those whom we listen to, with their grand theories and presuppositions.


This is quite simply rubbish. I'll repeat my previous advice: Learn something about the subject before you start spouting off about it. Try visiting your local library. There are any number of good books explaining different areas of science. Here's a very short and accessible one, if now a little dated.


This is why Jesus said: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."


Sound adivce. Try going through the narrow gate of learning something about what science has to say about the age of the earth and the origin of species, rather than taking the broad road of just accepting what some charlatan at Answers in Genesis say because it's what you want to hear.


The level of our education has nothing to do with the condition of our heart. We can have ten PhDs but if we're bent away from God, we're on the road to destruction, as well as those who foolishly listen to them.


You know this how?


NO faulty HUMAN BEING will ever be able to tell us, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or origin of life, through ANY technology.


And yet you believe the faulty HUMAN BEINGS who tell you, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or origin of life, based on the Bible. Why is that?


If they try to tell us so, they are not a braniac but a megalomaniac.


An apt description of charlatans like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.


It should never cease to amaze us how much stretching of the truth, exaggeration, and extravagance of the claims we see in the media today. Every pseudoscientist wants to be in the limelight, and there are throngs of armchair science-fiction fans out there to satisfy their ridiculous egos.


Yes, which is why quacks, pseudoscientists and armchair science-fiction fans don't get published in Nature. The scientific method weeds them out.

The fact that you seem to regard the disciplines of cosmology, geology, genetics and evolutionary biology as pseudosciences practiced by charlatans just demonstrates that you don't even know how much you don't know.

Seriously, you are like a man at a busy airport smugly lecturing a group of pilots and aeronautical engineers on how heavier-than-air flight is a pseudosicence and it's practitioners are charlatans who are just in it for the money and the ego.


Megalomania:
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.


Who are these megalomaniacs? Name names, and back up these smears with evidence. Or STFU.


Habakkuk 2
See, he is puffed up; his desires are not upright--but the righteous will live by his faith.

Psalm 10: The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God...


Yeah, we know you think people who don't follow your religion are bad people. Same old same old. Try reading more than one book. :coffee:

1 Timothy
Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called...


Oh, for fuck's sake.. :nono:

Ach, you know, this constant smearing of people who disagree with your religion as being moral defectives is just getting nauseating now. I'm actually think the "no preaching" rule is a little harshly enforced on this board, but this constant regurgitation of Bible verses and smearing of people who are actually figuring out how the world really works is crossing the line.


"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—W. Kaempffert.


Oh, so you're impressed by scientists when they say stuff you agree with? Nice double standard you have there. :nono:
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion
-- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Nebogipfel
 
Posts: 2085

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

Ads by Google


Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#476  Postby Nebogipfel » Jan 25, 2015 4:59 pm

Heh. 1 Timothy is the one which talks about how women should be quiet and submissive and not hold authority over men. I don't think that author of that text is much of a guide to anything. :coffee:
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion
-- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Nebogipfel
 
Posts: 2085

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

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#477  Postby Greyman » Jan 26, 2015 4:54 am

Agrippina wrote:
carl wrote:
Nicko wrote:
carl wrote:God was not taken by surprise by mankind's sinfulness nor is He without a plan to redeem the situation:


So He has a solution for the problem He created?

Cool. How's that working out?

The point, in case it escapes you, is that omnipotent beings don't need "a plan" to do anything. They want something done, it's done. That's what "omnipotent" means.

Regardless, your objection still doesn't address the issue of the vast amount of suffering not caused by human beings.


1) Where in the Bible does it say God caused the Fall after His initial Creation? It doesn't. It says humans caused it and continue to perpetuate it today.


Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

If he didn't want them to fail, why did he put this tree there? To test them? But he's all-knowing, so he knew they would disobey, therefore putting the tree there, with the knowledge that they would fail his test, means that he caused "the Fall."

2) What cosmic law says God can't have a plan and have a certain timing for the unfolding of His plan?

Suffering, birth defects, disease, natural disasters, death, etc. were all brought into God's perfect Creation by Adam and Eve's original sin, which tainted God's original Creation which was initially 'very good'.

Where in the Bible does it say that God caused a worm that eats eyeballs? Or that he caused flesh-eating bacteria to develop just to spite humans because he set his creation up for a fall by putting temptation in their way, knowing that they would succumb to the temptation?

It's worse than that, according to carl's theology*, it wasn't an act of God: It was very act of original sin (disobeying god to seek the wisdom to understand ethics) which broke the perfection of god's creation and caused natural evil -- natural disasters, disease, suffering, predation, and parasitism, et cetera. Somehow.

(* Though, no, that wasn't claimed in the Bible either.)

But yeah, god has totally got an excellent plan to fix this. This was revealed to consist of:
  • Instructing the original humans to go forth an multiply, knowing that their numerous descendants would inherit this sin.
  • On realising that humans were multiplying, and in particular the descendants of Cain were developing cities, and civilisation, and such, deciding to flood the entire world killing everything except for the population of a zoo boat.
  • Then, some time after the descendents of Noah has repopulated the world, deciding to sacrifice his son to remove(redeem) their inherited original sin. (Wait...couldn't that have been done a little earlier?)
  • Finally, promising that some indeterminate time in the future to destroy humanity in yet another massive murder fest (see: Revelation) and start again with a new, perfect world. (Again, why not do that the first time?)
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 53

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#478  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jan 26, 2015 5:39 am

I was trying to think of a way to get this idea across to Carl and people that think like him -- people who blame people for things that, by the terms of their own mythology, should be the responsibility of God. I remember this one time I spent the weekend at a friend's house, my mom sent me with a batch of brownies. We went running around the neighborhood having accidentally left the brownies somewhere that his poor dog could get into them. By the time we came back, the plate was empty. We knew chocolate was poisonous to dogs, so we both felt really bad about being so thoughtless. Fortunately she just had a bit of a tummy ache and was fine, but things could have been much worse. Never once did I think, "well the dog deserved it, she knows she's not supposed to eat human food!" The dog, being a dog, does dog things. If I was to intentionally leave out a bunch of chocolate for the dog to eat, knowing full well that the dog would eat it, I doubt there's a person alive who wouldn't see that as a capricious, spiteful action. Even worse if I blamed the dog for it.

That's your God, carl. A mean-spirited, petty-minded sociopath, unable to take responsibility for His own actions. Instead he just blames the creatures that he made for acting as he specifically made them, knowing exactly what they'd do and how they'll suffer for their actions. And worse yet, you defend such disgusting, immoral behavior :yuk:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14598
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#479  Postby Agrippina » Jan 26, 2015 7:40 am

I agree with both of you Greyman and SafeAsMilk. Nasty, spiteful, petty, barbaric invention of the minds of nasty, spite, petty, vengeful, barbaric humans.

You can know a god by the character of the people who invented him.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Skepticism: Link to Emotional Trauma in the Early Years?

#480  Postby Greyman » Jan 26, 2015 8:18 am

Meh, my focus is more that the biblical accounts of God are just not all that impressive. But that too. Such a small god.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 53

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest