windaelicker

WTF!

Archive for the tag “religion”

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American.

I, and others in the sceptical community, think that a resource that everyone can easily reference whenever Christians, other religious preachers, and I think should include  pseude-science and new ageist charlatans, posit well debunked and refuted talking points ad nauseum. I think I’ll start a category called Refutations, with the appropriate sub headings, for the over-used and oft presented idiocies, along with the places and documents and articles that contain the often well known and well ignored answers.

Advertisements

Re: Weekend Diversion: Opening up about religion and beliefs

An interesting discussion occurs at one of the very best physics writer blogs Starts with a Bang:

Just as I despise calling unusual events miracles, I despise using the word God. The word denotes supernatural consciousness. It is not a term that means, “beyond our ability to know or understand.”
It started as a religious designation and is deeply imbedded in the history of language as meaning exactly this: an entity, a noun, a supreme thing, and furthermore, a supreme consciousness. Brainy Quote, Wikipedia, Ecyclopedia Brittanica.
The only idea of God that approaches non sentience is Taoist.

Anyone can define any word to him/herself any way they want, but it behooves us to understand how that word is construed by thee people we are communicating with or we quickly lose the ability to communicate rationally.

If your chosen term is generally or almost exclusively understood in a certain manner, it is entirely inappropriate to even bother using it in a personally exclusive manner.

The reason the observable universe, and all nature, exists is almost certainly a meaningless question if it’s meaning or understanding is not likely possible.

Ultimately, using the term God proliferates the acceptance of magical and mystical thinking as valid, and that most certainly does not belong in science or rational discourse.

Posted by: mikmik | August 7, 2011 11:04 PM

Post Navigation