So I thought that you misunderstood me there, and since the forum is read by more people I thought it best to clarify that point.
Whatever you say.
There is some scientific evidence claimed to prove the Nibiru theory:
Sure, which is the type of nonsense dealt with on this website.
Just as there is some scientific evidence claimed to prove the existence of god:
Actually, a specific God, not a god. Though you seem to have missed it, I clearly stated in my first post:
What people typically call "God," on the other hand, is not falsifiable through science. So long as you keep your idea of "God" nebulous enough, in fact, I cannot show you a calculation or point to philosophical reasons why your idea is impossible. I don't have access to whatever it is in your head that leads you to subscribe to this notion, until which time you assign some ontology to [this] entity and start to make positive claims about reality.
Emphasis added.
Also, there is no reasonable comparison between making wide-open claims about "intelligent design" and making specific statements about the orbit of an imaginary planet. Intelligent design can apply to Yahweh, Allah, Pangu, Vishnu, the Great Juju or the Magnanimous Magical Toad of Dimension 99. It is unfalsifiable. See Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in My Garage." Applying the laws of planetary motion to a claimed 3,600-year orbit, on the other hand, leaves us with little ambiguity.
I'm not sure why you linked to Hamer's "The God Gene," as it deals with the evolutionary psychology of god-belief, not producing evidence for the actual existence of any particular deity.
Regarding the Shroud of Turin, it involves specific claims about reality (see the emphasized portion of the above self-quote), in relation to a specific deity, that can be tested — possible exception going to claims of magical superimposition, which I categorize with Nibiru believers who take Nancy Lieder's word over Kepler's.
Yet none of the evidence proves either theory
Theories aren't really "proven," except maybe colloquially, and neither the claims about Nibiru nor those about intelligent design or the shroud meet the criteria of a scientific theory. At best, they are hypotheses, and, as noted, intelligent design is unfalsifiable and ergo unscientific.
so my point that a person that believe in either is doing so based on nothing but 'faith', trust, lack of knowledge, or desire still stands.
No, it doesn't stand, and I showed you why in my last message.
Take for example the prospect of believing in Nibiru on the word of alien messengers over mathematical and scientific reasoning, versus believing in Nibiru because some jerk on YouTube pointed at a random dot in Google Sky and the victim lacks the knowledge to refute the claim.
Replace "some jerk on YouTube" with "some charlatan on the History Channel" or whatever floats your boat. Couple that with the Dunning-Kruger Effect (which bikenbeer mentioned a few days ago in another thread), and you're left holding a pathetically simplistic analysis of a phenomenon that can encompass any number of circumstances and factors.
Why exactly are you suddenly equating ignorance to faith, anyway? Your first post deals solely with believing in a 2012 "doomsday by faith," but now you're trying to prop your position up by forcing in other states like ignorance, trust and desire, when none of them necessarily entail the same components, even if there is no limit on the potential overlap between them. It really isn't a good comparison. At all. Even if it works in some cases, your sweeping application is ill-advised in general terms, which is precisely what I told you in my first post. Nothing has changed. At most, you might say that some 2012 proponents operate from beliefs that are akin to some religious beliefs.
I am merely making a comparison among how the people who believe in either or both of this theories are alike in the way of thinking.
And I've explained to you 2+1 times how your comparison is shallow and simplistic.
People with more analytical than emotional reasoning would not believe in either, people who believe in either are trusting emotion over analysis.
Ignorance and gullibility are not emotions.
My original post was just to make a point that while you will believe whatever it is you want to, you should be objective about it and look for some provable or tangible evidence, or accept that you are believing out of faith and nothing else.
And that post has been dealt with. I don't disagree with your contention that people should base their conclusions on evidence (obviously, and preferably falsifiable evidence). I disagree with your simplistic reduction of the issue, as now explained to you in three moderately lengthy posts.
Most proponents or believers of 2012 do not believe in god
Says who? I've dealt with some rather adamant proponents who also happened to be rather adamant theists. I daresay I've encountered more theists who believe in 2012 than atheists, though I don't know how representative my experiences are of the phenomenon in general.
On the other hand most believers of god do not believe in 2012 doomsday
I'm inclined to speculate that most people in general have not sold their minds to doomsayers just yet. It's likely somewhat accurate to say, "Most people X do not believe in a 2012 doomsday," unless the folks of X happen to be conspiracy theorists or doomsayers themselves.
so I wanted to show both groups that they are more alike than they want to think.
Sometimes, sure, but it just ain't that simple.
Seth Rivera (guest) 05 Aug 2010 20:47
