OT: Superman and Stemcells

[Arryn]

Sadly, "the number of people who Subscribe to logic" is a miniscule percentage of the population of any country, especially ours. As proof I present you with "reality TV", our national debt courtesy those whom the populace in their boundless logic continue to reelect, and that same populace's belief in myth & superstition, drug use (including tobacco), drunk driving, and child/spousal abuse. (BTW, by myth and superstition I'm not referring to voodoo, astrology, numerology, John Edwards, et cetera, though they certainly are obvious examples of bunk. I'm referring to most religions such as Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.)

[johan osterman]

Arryn I am not sure what you mean by Subscribe to logic. But I imagine that one would not have any great difficulty digging up any number counter examples amongst logicians or mathematicians guilty of one or more of the 'sins' you list. I think you attribute a broader normative use to logic than what is warranted. And to be blunt, I think you confuse your own attitudes with logic.

[Arryn]

Johan, the tobacco industry (and the pharmaceutical industry, and the auto industry, and the oil industry, etc.) has had doctors and scientists "proving" whatever they felt like proving, and truth be damned. Just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean they are less susceptible to being fooled (or capable of fooling others). Belief (and willful ignorance) has always trumped logic. Humans have a boundless, and perhaps instinctive, capacity for self-delusion.

I'll make things simple for you, Johan. Give me an affirmative proof of the veracity of the Biblical account of Genesis. Or an account of the Resurrection that couldn't be torn to shreds by any competent attorney using the standards of evidence of any western court of law.

The burden of proof falls upon those making the claims. And the more fantastical the claims, the more rigid the proof must be. Religion fails miserably when subjected to such tests. Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them, which isn't a legitimate defense, but works most of the time because people are too lazy to avoid falling for it. (The same can be said for supporters of supply-side [Reagan/Bush] economics.)

Yes, Johan, you can believe whatever makes you sleep better. And I'm sure you can find comfort in whatever "proofs" you can dig up. Just as there are people who believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked and have "proof" of it. Religion has, and always will be, nothing more than an opiate for the masses, and it's just as addictive and dangerous.

[Cainehill]

Zen said:
It might also be an interested thing to note how many forumites believe in Creationism and how many believe in Evolution. I would imagine that this genre might have a broad swath, while certainly, some aspects of this game might seem sacriligeous to most Creationists to a degree.

As a Solipsist, I believe in neither evolution nor creationism. The world is a fever dream, and when I die, it'll go away.

[Cainehill]

Zen said:

There are people who live 20-30 years that can probably say the same?

But we currently have proof that you don't need living brain cells or brain activity to become the president of the USA, if your family is rich and connected enough.

[Arryn]

Cainehill said:
But we currently have proof that you don't need living brain cells or brain activity to become the president of the USA, if your family is rich and connected enough.

Actually, he does have living brain cells. Just enough so that he can half-assed parrot what his handlers (namely Dick Cheney) tell him to say.

BTW, did you see the recent remake of the Manchurian Candidate? We have the Halliburton Candidate in the oval office now. (Well, until this campaign he spent most of his time in Crawford playing on his ranch and hiding from the public, but he does, alas, hold the office.)

[Gandalf Parker]

Zen said:
It might also be an interested thing to note how many forumites believe in Creationism and how many believe in Evolution.

Or those who believe in both. One is cause, the other is method. They arent necessairly exclusive of each other unless you belong to certain faiths which say they are.

Interesting note: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
(The answer is known. Your question answers this one)

[Arryn]

Gandalf, Creationists posit that the Biblical account of Genesis is accurate and thus the Earth was created, pretty much as you see it today, a bit over 6000 years ago. And thus God also created the fossil record for some unknown reason (or as someone once told me, to make scientists look foolish), and thus radiocarbon dating cannot be true (which throws most of particle physics right out the window). Creationism and Evolution *are* necessarily mutually exclusive. BTW, the principal backer of Creationism is the same Catholic church that took 500 years to acknowledge that it was wrong and Galileo and Copernicus were right. IOW, its backers have a long track record of being wrong and being too obstinate to admit it.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:
Gandalf, Creationists posit that the Biblical account of Genesis is accurate and thus the Earth was created,

The term creationists is a much larger term than people who would quote genesis as their source. And that is also a larger group than saying christians. Its probably a good idea to not lump terms like creationists, religion, religious people, moral people, and many others I cant think of right now.. automatically into a group called christians. Its abit of a red flag for me.

In fact, in my humble opinion, jumping to christians usually gives far more points to the argument than it would otherwise have. Rather like starting a discussion against dieting by considering them all to be anorexics.

[Arryn]

Gandalf Parker said:
The term creationists is a much larger term than people who would quote genesis as their source.

I use the definition from the Merriam-Webster Online page for Creationist . Playing semantics is a smokescreen for dodging the argument.