The Dudeism Forum

If you find yourself in a debate with a guy who teaches science to grade school children..... Well you know.

You have to fast forward through the silly countdown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

I watched the whole thing.  I agree with Dawkins that you shouldn't debate creationists - I think mostly because they admit they come to the table with the prejudice of faith in god and the bible; that their world view is firmly planted in their skygod and iron-age fairy tales.  How can you talk to a fool who doesn't want to use logic, reason, and evidence?

And yet, if the Shroud of Turin's carbon-dating confirmed it was from circa 35 AD you can bet your sweet pickles they'd have lauded that science. Selective reasoning is a shady thing.

Man, is so fucking difficult to listen to this kind of discussions without being bias at all when I really believe right out of the bat that Mr. Ham and his pack of dudes to be as looney as a fucking duck! I tried but its just too much to ask out of me...    In defense to all religious folks out there: I don't give two fucks in what magical being you believe in. That is your right and thus I respect it but how in the fuck is this crazy creationism stuff suppose to taken serious? Also, how does Mr. Nye does this with out laughing his ass off listening to all that mess? I guess that is why he is the pro here. This kinda shit really saddens me  to think that people and children are raised believing this stuff... oh well... as long as is not shoved down my throat or my kids, go right ahead 

Quote from: jgiffin on February 05, 2014, 08:52:12 PM
And yet, if the Shroud of Turin's carbon-dating confirmed it was from circa 35 AD you can bet your sweet pickles they'd have lauded that science. Selective reasoning is a shady thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

QuoteIn 1988 a radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390. The validity and the interpretation of the 1988 tests are still contested by some statisticians, chemists and historians.[3] Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit observed in 2011 that "There are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up."[4]

As for Science:

QuoteYou always have to remember that we are all wrong - based on the fact that we know too little to be right.
by Chiara Cuelli

Quoteoh well... as long as is not shoved down my throat or my kids, go right ahead

Even that's a problem.  Letting it get shoved down other's throats just exacerbates the problem. I'm all for tolerance, but this shit is poison.  Like the saying goes, good men do good, evil men do evil.  But for good men to do evil, you need religion.

Some people need that religious placebo, man.

Like BD says, religion is adult thumb-sucking.  That pretty well says it all. Instead, we should all be drinking beer actually.  ;-)

http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/10-surprising-health-benefits-beer

Gee,  I'm surprised Icon hasn't jumped in.

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on February 05, 2014, 11:39:20 PM
Gee,  I'm surprised Icon hasn't jumped in.

Wait...

Quote from: cckeiser on February 05, 2014, 08:56:34 PM

Quote from: jgiffin on February 05, 2014, 08:52:12 PM
And yet, if the Shroud of Turin's carbon-dating confirmed it was from circa 35 AD you can bet your sweet pickles they'd have lauded that science. Selective reasoning is a shady thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

QuoteIn 1988 a radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390. The validity and the interpretation of the 1988 tests are still contested by some statisticians, chemists and historians.[3] Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit observed in 2011 that "There are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up."[4]

I was under the impression they contested the carbon dating because the only bits they let the scientists test were the bits that had been re-built after being damaged.

For my part: I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than life my life as if there isn't and die to find out that there is.  And that's all I have to say about the matter.

Seems like you guys have not been around to see that not all christian types take a word for word literal aproach to creation. I dont and know of others that dont as well. Yes there are those that will debate until blue in face that the earth is 6000 years old... Even an antiquity Jewish sage defends it by saying that during the flood something makes it impossible to see past rightly. If I come across it I will share it. However, I see the whole of the allworld or universe as being billions of years old and the earth as very old to. I do believe and I say believe as in science and faith can and do work together like Einstein and Tesla have demonstrated in their works. I believe that there is a creator, nothing that can be defined anymore than anyone can explain and understand everything in seen and unseen space. Light has a speed limit, so we have only seen as far as that limit has allowed. Our planet has been around a few billion years and man as we know perhaps about 20,000 years. It is, as far as I seen in science not been proven of any middle stages of primate to upright man with speech ability. Random mutation in an nearly over night theory is one I have heard but, that would mean we should take Marvel super heroes serious as possible. I believe that the creative force caused things to happen at certain times and by whatever means and purpose it put forth. Not being hung up or pushing this creative force has been part of select scientists that do hold belief in it and have no problem being helpful in great break throughs in science and discovery.

Hamm, to me represents a portion of bleivers, not all. He can do it till he is blue in face, but at the end of day we have to move along and deal with where the pins lay. We can point finger and say anyone that believes in higher power is like Hamm or any of the others on the literalist belief represent all of them. Or we can just say, nice opinion, and move on... Cant be getting our Walter on, nor worrying about this shit argument. Some believe in higher power some dont, but it has no bearing on being dude if one does or doesn't. Just as many Christians are uptight let, Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.

Quote from: Hominid on February 05, 2014, 09:06:51 PMLike the saying goes, good men do good, evil men do evil.  But for good men to do evil, you need religion.

OK, I cannot resist commenting on this particular comment from Hominid.  Social institutions (like organized religions) are all very resistant to change, and people in power rarely wish to share their power.  I'll give you that .  But it's not as if the world of religion is the only venue in which basically good men will to do evil things.  What about the world of partisan politics, for example?  Or the corporate world?  Or even the world of pseudo-scientific "self-help" therapeutic modalities? 

It's not fair (IMO), nor is it honest, to single out the world of religion to scapegoat, and hang the blame for All the Trouble in the World on.