Creationists

[UltimateReality]

how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?

Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.

yes !are you afraid that you're wrong?
since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.

How can you test something that is supernatural??

[For the rest of the observers, this is just me turning Hollie and Daws own words back on them]

 

[daws101]

Ahh,I knew you couldn't nor would you attempt to point out his ignorance. I knew you would turn to your usual dribble,insulting someone educated to the point you can't take on the issues he raises.

He is a man of science and yet you still have a problem with him,why Hollie ? It isn't about science is it Hollie,it's because he is a believer.

Oh you poor dear. You don't understand the concept of professional integrity. Here, let's see if we can help.

Let's suppose that you were a biologist and were offered a chance to work in behalf of Phillip Morris companies. Your Job was to defend their claim that cigarette smoking was not harmful to peoples health. Let's further propose that as part of your employment, you had to sign an agreement that any results of your work that were in conflict with the opinions of Phillip Morris could not be disclosed.

Would that make you a shill for Phillip Morris? Would that make you a hack?

Of course it would. That scenario precisely describes the ID / creationist hacks who sign such agreements as required by the ICR for example.

Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if you would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was a biologist to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.

getting pissy are we...
sorry but holding a degree in biology does not in and of itself make you a biologist.
as I recall you were a lab assistant.
that's like a janitor saying he's Washington insider because he cleans the toilets.
you over estimate your own education and intelligence to the point of farce .

 

[Hollie]

True.

True in the sense that you're going bat shit!

Daws, you need to catch up buddy. All of these posts you are commenting on was me being "Hollie for a day" to show how utterly frustrating her methods are. They weren't really meant to be taken seriously by you but if you want to, go right ahead.

Your spamming the thread was nothing more than an inability to compose s coherent comment.

I don't know why its so difficult for fundie to be honest.

 

[daws101]

It's a belief system, it's real to us, because of our perception. As far as proving there is a God, the tests we run to see if that is correct, is through our feelings, and karma, and being good to others. And we test this to our limits and we find truth. It's kinda like looking into a microscope.

and it's bullshit

 

[Hollie]

Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.

yes !are you afraid that you're wrong?
since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.

How can you test something that is supernatural??

[For the rest of the observers, this is just me turning Hollie and Daws own words back on them]

There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. Science cannot test for supernatural, supermagical gods.

For the rest of the observers, note how the fundies are adept at dismantling their own arguments.

 

[Hollie]

No you repeatedly ignore questions put to you that is not an attack that is a fact. Do you always stereotype people because the actions of a few ?

It's not surprising that you would accuse others of not addressing issues as you and the other fundie have done that consistently. It's quite clear that without the benefit of cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites, you have no ability to respond with a meaningful comment. I have several posts just within the last several pages of this thread which you and the other fundie have made every effort to sidestep and avoid.

Your responses are best when they consist of you not trying to compose coherent sentences.

 

[daws101]

Hollie if you did you could see conjecture ans vivid imaginations is what holds your theories that you attempt to defebnd together.

There is a reason why the science and the educational community has unequivocally rejected Christian creationism as science and the courts have done similarly.

I can understand that you feel a need to force your beliefs in fear and superstition on the public but you're on the losing end of reality in doing so.

Go thump your bibles elsewhere.

Yes ,because they have been brainwashed since they were very young with this nonsense.

funny the same can be said about the crap you spew and it would be backed by evidence.

Is religion bad for your health?Is religion bad for your health?
Published on September 15, 2009 by Clay Routledge, Ph.D. in Death Love Sex Magic


In my last post, I considered the numerous ways that religion may be advantageous for psychological and physical health. This poses the question: Is it possible for religion to be bad for your health? The short answer is yes. Religion can compromise your health. Let us consider how.

Religion can be distressing

Everyone knows that stress and anxiety can compromise health and well-being. Perhaps ironically, religion, which can help reduce anxiety, can also cause it. The reason is that many (but certainly not all) religious beliefs are at odds with scientific knowledge. For example, if a person strongly desires to believe the traditional Biblical view that God created humans in their present form but is confronted with an increasing amount of evidence that another perspective (evolution) is more accurate, this individual may be distressed.
!
A rich tradition of research in cognitive dissonance theory indicates that people are distressed by these types of situations and go to great lengths to resolve them in some way. This explains what appears to be a thriving pseudo-scientific industry of creationist-based theories that seek to challenge, dismiss, or reinterpret the overwhelming amount of converging data that exclusively supports an evolutionary perspective. In short, when beliefs are at odds with facts, but people strongly desire to maintain those beliefs, the result is often negative emotion.



Religion can direct people away from conventional medical treatment

Everyone has seen the news stories of people refusing medical treatment for themselves or their children because of religious beliefs. In some of these cases, people deny medical treatment because the treatment is believed to be prohibited by their particular faith. In other cases, people deny medical treatment because they believe that turning to medicine instead of relying on God answering their prayers for healing would show a lack of faith or confidence in God.

Some of my colleagues and I were interested in this particular issue. In a series of experiments, we sought to investigate the extent to which religious fundamentalism played a decisive role in people choosing faith over medicine. The results of these studies were astonishing. We had participants come into the laboratory and complete a number of questionnaires, including a measure of religious fundamentalism. Then we asked some participants to think about their own death (something that is often on one's mind when making health-related decisions), and other participants to think about unpleasant topics unrelated to death. Finally, we assessed whether they favored faith (i.e., prayer) or medical-based treatments for disease. This preference was assessed differently in each study. For example, in one study we had participants read a court case about a sick boy that had been taken away from his parents because they refused life-saving medical intervention for religious reasons. We asked the participants whether or not they supported the position to deny medicine and rely on faith alone. In another study, we asked the participants to what extent they themselves would rely on faith alone when dealing with an illness. The results were always the same. The participants that were asked to think about death, relative to those asked to think about other things, chose faith over medicine, but only if they ranked high in religious fundamentalism.

In short, when death is on your mind, having a very rigid and dogmatic approach to religion (fundamentalism) can be hazardous to your health because it motivates a reliance on faith instead of conventional medicine. It is worth noting that people who are not fundamentalists, but are religious, are more likely to rely on conventional medicine, even if they also rely on prayer. That is, they use both, and using a combination of medicine and faith is not problematic for health as long as the religious component does not push one away from relying on conventional medicine.

Religion can be a form of avoidant coping

Avoidant coping is when people engage in efforts to avoid dealing with an unpleasant situation or simply try to deny that it exists. In the case of illness or disease, obviously, avoidance is bad for your health. As discussed in my last post, religion can be a psychological strength and can thus help people adaptively cope with illness by giving them the courage and strength needed to confront health threats. However, religion can also offer people a way to avoid the problem. That is, people can say things like "It is in God's hands" or "It must have happened for a reason". In other words, if people want to avoid confronting a health problem, they can pass the buck to God and this approach serves as a barrier to maintaining and improving health.

In sum, religion can be good for your health. But it can also threaten your health. To the extent that religion serves to bolster feelings of hope, optimism, self-esteem, belongingness, and meaning, it may be an important psychological resource for many people. It is worth noting that many people do not turn to religion for these psychological and social resources but instead rely on romantic relationships, friendships, social groups, and other meaningful personal and cultural investments. And these secular investments work just as well. However, when religious beliefs are at odds with scientific facts, are extremely dogmatic or inflexible, or provide people a way to avoid taking responsibility for their health, they can be deadly.

Further reading

Vess., M., Arndt, J., Cox, C., Routledge, C., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2009). The terror management of medical decisions: The effect of mortality salience and religious fundamentalism on support for faith-based medical intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 334 -350.

Is religion bad for your health? | Psychology Today

Faith and Foolishness: When Religious Beliefs Become Dangerous
Religious leaders should be held accountable when their irrational ideas turn harmful

By Lawrence M. Krauss

Every two years the National Science Foundation produces a report, Science and Engineering Indicators, designed to probe the public’s understanding of science concepts. And every two years we relearn the sad fact that U.S. adults are less willing to accept evolution and the big bang as factual than adults in other industrial countries.

Except for this time. Was there suddenly a quantum leap in U.S. science literacy? Sadly, no. Rather the National Science Board, which oversees the foundation, chose to leave the section that discussed these issues out of the 2010 edition, claiming the questions were “flawed indicators of scientific knowledge because responses conflated knowledge and beliefs.” In short, if their religious beliefs require respondents to discard scientific facts, the board doesn’t think it appropriate to expose that truth.

The section does exist, however, and Science magazine obtained it. When presented with the statement “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” just 45 percent of respondents indicated “true.” Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in Japan (78), Europe (70), China (69) and South Korea (64). Only 33 percent of Americans agreed that “the universe began with a big explosion.”

Consider the results of a 2009 Pew Survey: 31 percent of U.S. adults believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” (So much for dogs, horses or H1N1 flu.) The survey’s most enlightening aspect was its categorization of responses by levels of religious activity, which suggests that the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality. White evangelical Protestants have the highest denial rate (55 percent), closely followed by the group across all religions who attend services on average at least once a week (49 percent).

I don’t know which is more dangerous, that religious beliefs force some people to choose between knowledge and myth or that pointing out how religion can purvey ignorance is taboo. To do so risks being branded as intolerant of religion. The kindly Dalai Lama, in a recent New York Times editorial, juxtaposed the statement that “radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold religious beliefs” with his censure of the extremist intolerance, murderous actions and religious hatred in the Middle East. Aside from the distinction between questioning beliefs and beheading or bombing people, the “radical atheists” in question rarely condemn individuals but rather actions and ideas that deserve to be challenged.

Surprisingly, the strongest reticence to speak out often comes from those who should be most worried about silence. Last May I attended a conference on science and public policy at which a representative of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences gave a keynote address. When I questioned how he reconciled his own reasonable views about science with the sometimes absurd and unjust activities of the Church—from false claims about condoms and AIDS in Africa to pedophilia among the clergy—I was denounced by one speaker after another for my intolerance.

Religious leaders need to be held accountable for their ideas. In my state of Arizona, Sister Margaret McBride, a senior administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, recently authorized a legal abortion to save the life of a 27-year-old mother of four who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from severe complications of pulmonary hypertension; she made that decision after consultation with the mother’s family, her doctors and the local ethics committee. Yet the bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olm*sted, immediately excommunicated Sister Margaret, saying, “The mother’s life cannot be preferred over the child’s.” Ordinarily, a man who would callously let a woman die and orphan her children would be called a monster; this should not change just because he is a cleric.

Faith and Foolishness: When Religious Beliefs Become Dangerous: Scientific American

.

 

[daws101]

Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.

Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist.

Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal.

Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.

You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community.

I'll take fries with that order.

I am no longer in the lab, i am now in the precious metals business. Semi retired laughing all the way to the bank tacobell hostess.

Of course you are. And beside working in the precious metals business, you also fancy yourself as Napoleon Bonaparte.

really? I thought it was Jesus or Elvis (both were kings neither are coming back!)

 

[daws101]

Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.

Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.

Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist.

Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal.

Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.

You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community.

I'll take fries with that order.

And yet you ignore his question about your credentials. I'm looking around wondering if anyone else is seeing how dishonest and ALWAYS evasive you are.

No one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a Christian home. Instead, you just make up lies about others who have shared about their personal positions on here. Please tell me you don't think for one second any of us are falling for your nonsense.

why does this matter to you:" No one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a Christian home."UR

you pull this little gem out of each and every time your ass is in a crack .

HOLLIE'S sex /or religious upbringing, like mine ,are not relevant to this conversation.
it's a cheap childish maneuver to bolster your bigotry and it's chicken shit.

 

[daws101]

Still you are evasive. Are you Hollie or the man Rugged Touch? Were you raised in a Christian home? These are simple questions, that don't really require an attack paragraph on some other topic.

Still you are evasive. Are you posting with a second account as Youwerecreated?

I should advise you that doing so is against the board rules.

Otherwise, why are so afraid to answer direct questions about christianity and the inability of folks like you and your alternate identity to come to tems with religion (under the guise of ID), not being taught in schools?

You made the outrageously stupid comment that "Christian creationism was the status quo" for some length of time with the implication that we should then continue to teach tales, fables and superstitious nonsense as fact.

You have been dodging and sidstepping from addressing my response in typical fundie fashion.

Let me explain something to you that I have in the past. The reason you see so many diferent views on the same evidence ,men of science all of them are affected by their presuppositions that is human nature. The question is which presuppositions are best supported by the evidence.

We are limited by what we know and can learn because no one was there to see exactly how it was done. No one was there to see how the universe was formed or life began. That said for me personally I have seen enough evidence to believe this didn't all happen by chance. For me someone had to design and put things into motion.

specious speculation no basis in fact!

 

[daws101]

True.

True in the sense that you're going bat shit!

Daws, you need to catch up buddy. All of these posts you are commenting on was me being "Hollie for a day" to show how utterly frustrating her methods are. They weren't really meant to be taken seriously by you but if you want to, go right ahead.

right ...

 

[daws101]

Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.

yes !are you afraid that you're wrong?
since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.

How can you test something that is supernatural??

[For the rest of the observers, this is just me turning Hollie and Daws own words back on them]

more relevant, how can you claim that there is a supernatural being /force when there is no evidence?

 

[Youwerecreated]

you're uncomfortable with the truth. You should be. The creationist agenda is drenched in lies and deceit.

You won't address the above because you can't. To expect you to understand such terms as truth, integrity and honesty is contrary to the christian creationist agenda

but not contrary to your islamic faith?

dumb question as they both believe in the same god... (the god of abraham)

That is true, supposedly but Gods name is not Allah. If they worshipped the same God they would not be mortal enemies.

Who is protecting Israel ? they are surrounded by their enemies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?

Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.

yes !are you afraid that you're wrong?
since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.

I am no fan of organised religion. What unites Gods people is faith in Jesus.

Religion is mans creation not Gods creation. Abraham had no religion,just faith in the Almighty and he lived the best life he could for a sinful man.

 

[Youwerecreated]

View attachment 20439 I don't want my decedents to live in a world that's cold and dark. I hope America never looks like the pix.

(snicker)
that pic shows a world of clean tech!

Yes daws, we know you are a fan of vivid imaginations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

more fact ,less sky god stories!

How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?

another bullshit statement, humans (not just men,) were never perfect. I understand that your fairy says different, but as always you have no evidence proving your "believed" claim.
2. there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise..

What we have proof of is since the fall of adam lifespans of humans greatly decreased. Through research and medicine we increased lifespans but not near what it once was.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ALL READY HAVE...BEEN THERE DONE THAT....One day maybe you'll grow out of your fear and ignorance...

Maybe he is saving you for something special. Why would you do that if he does not exist ?

lol.....what an asshole you really are as ignorant as you seem.
everyone (even you) understands the concept of god.
most people have it spoon fed to them..
the point is that concepts are not allways real ,any reasonably intelligent, curious human will at one time or another test a concept for validity.

It was your comment that lead to my comment,you have the right to disagree.

 

[Youwerecreated]

edited for religious bias, pseudo science and lack of testable evidence.

You must read more daws because he was discussing science. He also does scientific work in labs.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why are your gawds such incompetent "designers" that they would build planned obsolescence into their "designs"?

I have already gave you my opinion on this issue.

oh, so now it an opinion not fact !

What do you think scientific explanations are Daws ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's a belief system, it's real to us, because of our perception. As far as proving there is a God, the tests we run to see if that is correct, is through our feelings, and karma, and being good to others. And we test this to our limits and we find truth. It's kinda like looking into a microscope.

and it's bullshit

Say's who ?