God and social dysfunction

[shunyadragon]

Of course there are people who have promoted Creationism who have lied, but that's a far different claim than that only reason that Evolution remains controversial is because creationists lie about it.

No evolution does not remain controversial among scientists. 98% of ALL scientists accept evolution.

There also a number of instances where Evolutionists have lied to promote their interpretation.

Bizzaro!!! Please document where the science of evolution did not uncover, correct, and reject the scoundrels who perpetrated these lies Scientists have uncovered and correct them, not creationists nor other theists.

For instance, the lost squadron had more layers of ice on top of it than the number of years that they were buried. We have the same evidence, but Creationists interpret this as being because of heating and cooling patterns rather than yearly cycles, so calculations done on other ice cores end up with inflated results if there is a wrong assumption for how long it takes a layer to form.

Ohhhh! This is a very selective dishonest portrayal of the science involved in the study of ice cores. Shame on your for looking for sasquatch in ice cores and rabbits in Cambrian rocks. Did you get this from Ken Ham?

[Outis]

I was simply opening for discussion the work of Gregory S. Paul. The data you want is available at his website. http://www.gspaulscienceofreligion.com/

Argument by weblink does not advance your claims. Mr. Paul's assertions have repeatedly been argued as questionable by other secular sources.

To put the issue succinctly, "You got nothing."

[firstfloor]

I'm fine with the idea that religiosity can meet some of the needs of people, so you still need to show that it is the cause of social dysfunction rather than something that is seeking to fix it.

It certainly tries. It fails at what it attempts to do because it is about two thousand years out of date and is painfully slow at adapting to modern sensibilities. It institutionalizes a misdirection of our natural affections – upwards into the sky instead of towards one another.

[Soyeong]

No evolution does not remain controversial among scientists. 98% of ALL scientists accept evolution.

He didn't claim that the controversy was among scientists.

Bizzaro!!! Please document where the science of evolution did not uncover, correct, and reject the scoundrels who perpetrated these lies Scientists have uncovered and correct them, not creationists nor other theists.

Of course they wouldn't have been known as lies if they hadn't been later corrected.

Ohhhh! This is a very selective dishonest portrayal of the science involved in the study of ice cores. Shame on your for looking for sasquatch in ice cores and rabbits in Cambrian rocks.

I was not claiming that ice cores were the only reason to believe Evolution is true, but that it was an example of how Creationists interpret evidence differently. I'm not particularly interested in debating Cambrian rocks, but Creationists likewise interpret that evidence differently.

[Soyeong]

It certainly tries. It fails at what it attempts to do because it is about two thousand years out of date and is painfully slow at adapting to modern sensibilities. It institutionalizes a misdirection of our natural affections – upwards into the sky instead of towards one another.

Yes, I realize that you're opinion, but you have not shown data to back it.

[shunyadragon]

He didn't claim that the controversy was among scientists.

That is the only way it is meaningful. The normal functional person generally trust engineers to engineer the planes, buildings and bridges, Doctors to generally trust medical matters, with acceptance of imperfections and problems. The foundation of all these and evolution, is to trust the self correcting nature of science and technology in our everyday life. This is the normal view not withstanding the 'social dysfunction' and paranoia of the mentally ill.
[quote]

Of course they wouldn't have been known as lies if they hadn't been later corrected.

Then . . . what's the problem? Science is indeed self correcting in all disciplines, as with engineering and medicine in the REAL world of the sane.

I was not claiming that ice cores were the only reason to believe Evolution is true, but that it was an example of how Creationists interpret evidence differently. I'm not particularly interested in debating Cambrian rocks, but Creationists likewise interpret that evidence differently.

The question here is why??? they interpret the evidence differently? Is it rational, sane and coherent, NO! You missed the sarcasm. They interpret the evidence differently in a socially dysfunctional way out of touch with the honesty of uniformly considering the evidence from an unbiased perspective.

[Tassman]

Progress in national wealth improves quality of life and development. The two are directly related. But my point was that there are many potential nuances that can get lost outside of the data.

It should, morally speaking, but often it doesn't, the US being a case in point.

The U.S. has the worst income inequality in the developed World because of corporate greed and Wall Street corruption.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3762422.html

And, while this is great for the “haves”, it’s not so good for the “have-nots” and undoubtedly accounts in large part to the US having the highest incarceration rates in the world with the resultant social dysfunction among the poorer classes, which in turn affects society as a whole. The end result is that the ‘inequality-adjusted Human Development Index' placed the richest nation on earth (the USA)16th on the HDI in 2013 and 23rd in 2011. The top five, namely: Norway, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands & Germany are all highly secular nations.

[Outis]

The U.S. has the worst income inequality in the developed World because of corporate greed and Wall Street corruption.

That's incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality

Edit: Excuse me, you specified "developed world."

[Tassman]

That's incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality

Edit: Excuse me, you specified "developed world."

You clearly didn’t check the link. The actual quote from the Huffington Post”, which I paraphrased, was: “The U.S. Has The Worst Income Inequality In The Developed World, Thanks To Wall Street: Study”. If you object to it, and the contents of the depressingly illuminating article, complain to the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3762422.html

The Human Development Index, which I referred to, incorporates factors such as:

1) Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity. 2) Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate. 3) Standard of living, as indicated by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity. The figures on the “Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index” for 2011 and 2013, which I presented, can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

As noted, the wealthiest nation in the world, i.e. the USA, only ranked 16th on the UN Human Development Index in 2013 and 23rd in 2011.

[shunyadragon]

We are getting far a field of the problem of social dysfunction and 'ancient religious paradigms.' Yes, cultural dysfunction, economic disparities in our culture and throughout history are real issues, but not related to the thread.

I do believe that the 'social dysfunction' of ancient world views does adversely impact relationships with different religions and cultures, which often leads to violence, and social and cultural isolation. The view of good/evil dualism, ie strongly expressed I the Book of Revelation, leads to this 'social dysfunction' when 'others' are considered evil in one way or another.

The dishonesty of YEC Creationists equates very well with some personality disorders. This cannot be ethically viewed as seeing 'the evidence differently,' because many aspects of the argument for YEC Creationism do reflect outright deliberate dishonesty.

[seasanctuary]

The dishonesty of YEC Creationists equates very well with some personality disorders. This cannot be ethically viewed as seeing 'the evidence differently,' because many aspects of the argument for YEC Creationism do reflect outright deliberate dishonesty.

Are you referring to just the leaders or also the average YEC taking the word of the leaders? I would agree on the first but not the second.

[shunyadragon]

Are you referring to just the leaders or also the average YEC taking the word of the leaders? I would agree on the first but not the second.

This is a problem of the sheep and the goats. The goats do lead (there are a whole host of possibilities 'personality disorders from 'Narcissistic leadership, Spiritual narcissism, or Persecutory delusion.) I find evil conspiracy issues, and paranoid views common in Christian fundamentalism. But the sheep indeed chose to follow. If it is not because they have the will to make the choice, then an involuntary 'social dysfunction, personality disorder, metal illness, or some controlling group dynamic, which would make an even worse problem.