Home » Forums » General Forums » News & Activism

God did it

Posted on: April 3, 2012 - 12:07am
digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
God did it

Don't believe this article... god is trying to trick us...

 

  http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-fire-20120403,0,5516323.story

 

‹ Atheists progress in society. McHooker ›

Posted on: April 4, 2012 - 11:40am #1
Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16463
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It really sucks that there

It really sucks that there WILL inevitably be some idiot theist who looks at this and say "your original data is wrong" therefor "my god did it".

This is as stupid as if you deliver pizza and the numbers to the house get transposed, so that means pink unicorns make pizzas.

They won't bother reading the ENTIRE article which basically says that this new data is just that, and needs more scrutiny.

So if this new data is based on bad methodology, it should not  be taken into account, If it is based on good methodology, it should be considered, and if it stands the scrutiny of the scientific community, they will adapt it.

But in neither case is it a popularity contest, like theism is.

Geology for example, existed as a scientific study long before we had the tools to calculate the age of the earth, but every single time better data corrected older data the data was updated.

Theists simply want to throw the baby out with the bath water because myth fits in without self introspection or peer review.

But even if science was off as to when humans started to control fire, you are still talking about evolution vs creationism.

So you could side either way, that we had control over fire earlier, or we didn't, but neither side is going to say, because of this dispute, a fictional magic man with a magic wand exists.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Posted on: April 4, 2012 - 11:46am #2
digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It really

Brian37 wrote:

It really sucks that there WILL inevitably be some idiot theist who looks at this and say "your original data is wrong" therefor "my god did it".

This is as stupid as if you deliver pizza and the numbers to the house get transposed, so that means pink unicorns make pizzas.

They won't bother reading the ENTIRE article which basically says that this new data is just that, and needs more scrutiny.

So if this new data is based on bad methodology, it should not  be taken into account, If it is based on good methodology, it should be considered, and if it stands the scrutiny of the scientific community, they will adapt it.

But in neither case is it a popularity contest, like theism is.

Geology for example, existed as a scientific study long before we had the tools to calculate the age of the earth, but every single time better data corrected older data the data was updated.

Theists simply want to throw the baby out with the bath water because myth fits in without self introspection or peer review.

But even if science was off as to when humans started to control fire, you are still talking about evolution vs creationism.

So you could side either way, that we had control over fire earlier, or we didn't, but neither side is going to say, because of this dispute, a fictional magic man with a magic wand exists.

See, their god created you and I, so you and I are actually part of god's plan to test "them" and see if they are worthy to enter in to heaven.

 


Posted on: April 4, 2012 - 11:49am #3
Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16463
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It really sucks that there WILL inevitably be some idiot theist who looks at this and say "your original data is wrong" therefor "my god did it".

This is as stupid as if you deliver pizza and the numbers to the house get transposed, so that means pink unicorns make pizzas.

They won't bother reading the ENTIRE article which basically says that this new data is just that, and needs more scrutiny.

So if this new data is based on bad methodology, it should not  be taken into account, If it is based on good methodology, it should be considered, and if it stands the scrutiny of the scientific community, they will adapt it.

But in neither case is it a popularity contest, like theism is.

Geology for example, existed as a scientific study long before we had the tools to calculate the age of the earth, but every single time better data corrected older data the data was updated.

Theists simply want to throw the baby out with the bath water because myth fits in without self introspection or peer review.

But even if science was off as to when humans started to control fire, you are still talking about evolution vs creationism.

So you could side either way, that we had control over fire earlier, or we didn't, but neither side is going to say, because of this dispute, a fictional magic man with a magic wand exists.

See, their god created you and I, so you and I are actually part of god's plan to test "them" and see if they are worthy to enter in to heaven.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog