Confused about the mysteries and wonders of existence? Ask a footy player!

[Elbo]

If someone's going to attack evidence based scientific theories with garbled moralising and jibberish in printed media they deserve to be gunned down in a blaze of you know, facts and truth. If he's going to publically announce these opinions, and they're based on completely not understanding Evolutionary theory or the functional role of DNA in biology along with a few downright lies, it needs to be shown.

You may be astounded to know that people such as myself for instance, dislike having our profession attacked by nonsense - say I was to publish an opinion that all Christians are pedophiles based on the acts of a minority of Catholic priests, you'd want set the record straight, right?

I'm not surprised, I completely agree. Its in your best interests to defend your profession, as it is in my best interests to defend my beliefs. Your profession is your belief, of course you will defend it. I'm not saying you are stepping beyond the line of defence Arete, but there is definitely a difference that exists between defence and belittling someone who doesn't agree with you.

People search for answers in different ways. For some, if everything can be explained with logic and physical evidence, they are happy. Others look at the universe and believe there is something out there that is greater than them. Despite what some people believe, they aren't stupid or ignorant. They think deeply about it and come to a different conclusion.

1. The only thought that provoked was "great, another born-again hypocrite telling me I need psychological drugs to live a happy life".
2. Everyone stands by what they believe, otherwise they change their opinion.
3. See PoSM's post.
4. Why the attack on science? Are you that threatened by reality?
5. Science isn't inherently opposed to religion, and this is what most religious types don't get: science is the pursuit of truth, WHATEVER THAT TRUTH IS. Instead of coming to a conclusion then looking for evidence to support it, science is the faculty of seeing what evidence exists then drawing a conclusion from it. The fact that "science" does not support "religion" indicates that by and large, the evidence for how we came to be and all that stuff does not correlate with the tall tales told by the various religions (none of which agree with each other anyway).
6. As far as ethics and all that go, consider this: if there isn't a god, and all the "religious wisdom" including morals/ethics/rules to live by WERE actually created by man... then that simply proves by default that the claim that we need "God's law" as a moral compass is utter bullshit since that law was written by man anyway.

There is a proverb - "Follow those who seek the truth, and run from those who claim to have found it". Science seeks the truth, Jebus allegedly claimed to BE the truth.

1. If you take advice from an opinion piece in the Herald Sun, then yes. Obviously you don't, so its really a non-issue.
2 & 3. Precisely
4. Reality as I see it is that God created the world. The only reality that matters to me is mine. Here you claim science is reality, and therefore truth (see your proverb).
5 & 6. Science is the pursuit of truth… have they found it yet? Because it seems they are pretty sure of themselves. Yes, Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life. He said he was the only way to get to God. Jesus also said "they hated me without a cause"… seems pretty accurate if you ask me.

 

[Spanky_Ham]

Whoa.... hang on a minute...... Just put the f*cking handbrake on...
Correct the pig if his bacon is wrong on this one... but is this the same Gary Ablett who had a 20 year old footy groupy die in his hotel room after he gave her a line of heroin telling her it was cocaine. Abandoning her, hiding from police.... not telling the whole story cause he didn't want to incriminate himself? Who used drugs during the end, and after the end of his career.....

Really.... a decline of morals is due to teaching evolution...... really... Would you like to play again?

s

 

[S.]

1. If you take advice from an opinion piece in the Herald Sun, then yes. Obviously you don't, so its really a non-issue.
2 & 3. Precisely
4. Reality as I see it is that God created the world. The only reality that matters to me is mine. Here you claim science is reality, and therefore truth (see your proverb).
5 & 6. Science is the pursuit of truth… have they found it yet? Because it seems they are pretty sure of themselves. Yes, Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life. He said he was the only way to get to God. Jesus also said "they hated me without a cause"… seems pretty accurate if you ask me.

Uh, I said science was dedicated to finding out WHAT REALITY IS. In case you aren't aware of the principle of falsification, it basically states that every scientific theory is a MODEL that accurately accounts for all the given evidence and successfully predicts outcomes, but can never be proven absolutely beyond doubt - only potentially disproven. Essentially, it's always seeking the truth but never actually claiming to have found it - in fact, explicitly acknowledging that it will NEVER find "the truth" beyond any shadow of doubt. The scientific process does not start with "how do we disprove christianity?", but rather "is there any evidence to support this idea?". How does that disagree with that proverb?

Jesus also said he was the son of god. I said the same thing to my boss the other day, but he didn't believe me. Weird hey! I don't hate Jesus, nor anyone else (except the chick who cleaned out my wallet last week - fuck you bitch), quit acting like the scientific community is unjustly persecuting you.

 

[Oliver.]

4. Reality as I see it is that God created the world. The only reality that matters to me is mine. Here you claim science is reality, and therefore truth (see your proverb).

Well, then your reality is incorrect.

This isn't a matter of 'both sides can be right'. There is enough evidence to support the notion that god does not exist in any form, and unless you have physical proof to debunk this, it is NOT a matter of debate, especially not in a developed society of intelligent humans. Sorry.

If you are happy to accept the notion that religion and christianity form the moral base of our modern society, then that is fine. (which personally, I believe is a good thing) However, suggesting that Jesus, God and the Bible are real manifestations of fact, and that evolution does not exist is frankly stupid.

The Herald Sun has quite clearly used this article to gain a large volume of attention for itself. I don't think they are of the belief that it has any intellectual merit.

 

[Oneiva]

10characters

 

[Elbo]

If you are happy to accept the notion that religion and christianity form the moral base of our modern society, then that is fine. (which personally, I believe is a good thing) However, suggesting that Jesus, God and the Bible are real manifestations of fact, and that evolution does not exist is frankly stupid.

quit acting like the scientific community is unjustly persecuting you.

You scoff at someone who claims to be the truth but what truth do you offer up instead? Science? That discipline that you say only ever works towards the truth. You are completely entitled to dismiss my opinion, as I am yours, but until you claim to know and stand by another truth, not a theory or a model, then you cannot claim that the truth I believe in is incorrect. And unfortunately by your own definition, science can never give you another truth.

 

[smeck]

........... is this the same Gary Ablett who had a 20 year old footy groupy die in his hotel room after he gave her a line of heroin telling her it was cocaine..........

It wasn't the herion that killed her, it was the information that snuck into the herion when he opened the bag.

 

[wombat]

...and that god created tyrannosaurs rex

He did! They were meant to eat Chuck Darwin*. but then on the seventh day god took a smoko and, ya know, they died.


*HOLY FUCK! Charles Darwin is Chuck D! Now that's a revelation!

 

[daever]

His noodly appendages are reaching out for you right now Gary...

 

[wespelarno]

The problem with this thread is that nobody has quoted a batman movie yet:

"this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object"

"You and I are destined to do this forever"

The whole religion vs science thing is a totally void argument. One relies on fact, the other relies on belief and in both cases the opposite parties argument is futile.

It doesn't matter what proof you provide, I believe

It doesn't matter what you believe, I have proof.

Kinda spins in circles indefinately. That said, the document in the herald is a load of crap and while science can't prove god doesn't exist, it certainly can prove the process of evolution-there isn't a single piece of biological evidence to suggest otherwise.

One argument I found interesting is the assertion that god created life, with the intention of it growing and developing, and evolving. The 7 days doesn't need to be taken literally, the same way most of the bible (or religious text of choice) isn't taken literally. Man came about by the process of evolution from life created by a god.

 

[dcrofty]

There's 1 too many noodly appendages in that pic.

 

[FR Drew]

What I'm happy to scoff at is a so called "role model" who has acted like a total nimrod in the past (disregarding law, morals, treating women like chattels, dismissive of behavioural guidelines such as "responsibility, truthfulness, self respect, respect of others") and then feels like he should lecture us on the downfall of modern society.

Maybe if all the "role models" that our kids are supposed to look up to weren't acting like immature self serving responsibility free delinquents then society wouldn't be going down the toilet?

Being "born again" and trotting out attempts at pseudo science like "intelligent design" is not an argument for developing society. It pushes the dogma of "ask no questions, dispute no claims, swallow what we tell you". The fact that a number of the people pushing this viewpoint most publicly seem to be over represented in the areas of child abuse, extra marital sex, tax evasion and so forth obviously does something to discredit their point of view and their claims.

For the record, Steven Hawkins made the statement that the rate of expansion of the universe didn't deny the existence of god as a creator, it simply set limits on the timing of his act.

Tripe like the posted article serves to actively take the "intelligent" out of the intelligent design article. It's the "Today Tonight" of faith and religion.

 

[disfocus]

You scoff at someone who claims to be the truth but what truth do you offer up instead? Science? That discipline that you say only ever works towards the truth. You are completely entitled to dismiss my opinion, as I am yours, but until you claim to know and stand by another truth, not a theory or a model, then you cannot claim that the truth I believe in is incorrect. And unfortunately by your own definition, science can never give you another truth.

'Beliefs are the eyelids of the mind.'

'Get some slack, pink boy!'

 

[FR Drew]

Science asks me to look at the evidence before me and try to understand it with logic and analysis.

Religion asks me to ignore the evidence before me, abandon logic and simply accept what I am told, by people who represent only one viewpoint out of dozens of conflicting versions of "how and why things are the way they are".

Don't get me wrong, I believe in Jesus more than I believe in some short blue dude with an elephant head (no offence intended to any Hindu folks on rotorburn, I'm simply being honest WRT my beliefs), but I hold a bucketload more stock in Charles Darwin than in the hour of power from the crystal cathedral.

If and when I choose to be preached at on the decline of society's morals, it won't be by some born again footy player who took an active role in teaching a generation of young Australian men how to be a misogynist delinquent.

"And now a lesson on monogamy, morals and the respect of women brought to you by the Cronulla Football club..."

 

[casnell]

Science-
put up a theory
test theory
if experiment agrees, do another one and test again
if experiment disagrees, put up a new theory

religion-
put up an answer
ignore everything to the contrary


put much better in the flow-chart below...

 

[casnell]

As below

 

[for those about to rock]

Well, then your reality is incorrect.

This isn't a matter of 'both sides can be right'. There is enough evidence to support the notion that god does not exist in any form, and unless you have physical proof to debunk this, it is NOT a matter of debate, especially not in a developed society of intelligent humans. Sorry.

Religion doesn't state that God exists, only that he did. Also, God does exist in some form or another, usually in spirit or mind. Also our "developed society" is somewhat based on religion. In case you are all forgetting, it was in fact two Catholic priests that hypothesised the Big Bang Theory. Which, if you ask me, 100% proves that both sides can be right, presuming someone is wise enough to accept both sides.

If you are happy to accept the notion that religion and christianity form the moral base of our modern society, then that is fine. (which personally, I believe is a good thing) However, suggesting that Jesus, God and the Bible are real manifestations of fact, and that evolution does not exist is frankly stupid.

You show me where in the Bible that evolution is said to not exist. Yes, they came up with unrealistic times about the creation of the Earth and everything else, which IMHO, is perfectly acceptable considering it was written over 2000 years ago. They still thought the earth was flat and that it was at the centre of the universe at least 500 years ago.

Again I remind you of who came up with he Big Bang Theory. Religion doesn't eliminate evolution. It is based on something that existed far before Charles Darwin or anyone else even considered how we got here.

After all, the creation stories of all religions were the evolution theories of their time. Imagine the debate that will happen in another 2000 years when we are even more educated.

Also Casnell, look at your "faith" flow chart. It is more closely linked to how science was structured back in the day. Take the evolution theory for instance, they got an idea, ignored contradicting evidence (religion and the past 2000 years of previous knowledge) and then they kept the idea forever (up until now).

Elbo, I'm with you buddy!

 

[disfocus]

Huh??
Defending religion by saying it was priests who first posited the big bang theory is like defending alchemy because Newton described gravity.
Or saying that because I got full marks on a science test once, I must know what I'm doing when I drink and smoke too much.

 

[disfocus]

Also Casnell, look at your "faith" flow chart. It is more closely linked to how science was structured back in the day. Take the evolution theory for instance, they got an idea, ignored contradicting evidence (religion and the past 2000 years of previous knowledge) and then they kept the idea forever (up until now).

Elbo, I'm with you buddy!

Oh yeah--nearly forgot. 'Religion' does not constitute conflicting evidence any more than a Grimms Brothers anthology does.

EDIT: Bugger it. I'm too tired for this bollocks. Maybe I'll have a spot of pantheistic multi-ego solipsism for brekkie in the morning.

 

[for those about to rock]

Huh??
Defending religion by saying it was priests who first posited the big bang theory is like defending alchemy because Newton described gravity.
Or saying that because I got full marks on a science test once, I must know what I'm doing when I drink and smoke too much.

I was merely stating the fact that science and religion can work in harmony.

Oh yeah--nearly forgot. 'Religion' does not constitute conflicting evidence any more than a Grimms Brothers anthology does.

Up until not too long ago, it did.

You show me physical evidence of Darwin existing and I'll admit defeat. Because if all you have is pictures and books..........