|
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
The only reason atheism seems like a religion is because there are a lot of religious people. Everyone in the world are aflyinghippoists, yet noone consciously admits it. A non-belief cannot have a belief-system and the only reason some religious people are fed up with atheists is because the atheists don't adhere to their rules.
A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
I'm quite sure everything can be approached by science. Do you have any actual fact to back up this claim?
we're kind of getting to the stage of "Pearls before swine", so I will cease to reply any further in this thread.
I am glad you have read your dawkins / average atheist's objections to the bible. I also hope you find out what people from the other side say about these bible passages. If you really want to know why God gave all these "rules" which make no sense / are "evil" to the Israelites, then shoot me a message with the passages you don't like. If you don't trust me, ask a bible-believing friend you have at uni / school, I 'm sure they will be happy to answer your questions. Or ask Jesus Himself - pick up a new testament and read any of the gospels.
Why not ask Krishna, Odin, Zeuz or even Gandalf, Yoda, Bob and Santa?
If you look for scientific meaning in religion you will be incorrect
if you look for spiritual meaning in science you will be disappointed.
Are you some sort of authority in this matter? Have you done any research to back up these claims?
If you think a religion will provide a more accurate answer to scientific questions you will find yourself arguing in vain against very basic findings that contradict your views
If you think science will fulfill any kind of spiritual fulfillment you're seeking, you will find that you're lying to yourself.
I think that you're making claims you cannot back up with facts.
That's how I see the relationship between science and religion. They are two completely separate things and comparing them is as pointless as trying to compare history and mathematics
This is pretty much why religion still exists in society. People fool themselves into thinking religion is in some way something more than just fables and is immune to scrutiny.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
"I know everything about everyone and am therefore holier than though." Ok, please don't waste our time by posting in this thread.
the only thing i dont like about logic is that the only thing you can use to prove logic is true is logic itself. seems kinda self defeating. its not logical to believe something that is proven through circular reasoning
You use -reality- to prove logic. Logic = Reality. (Unless we're talking about instinctual logic)
Sorry if this post is just a bunch of quotemashing but I really don't think a thread about "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" deserves people who post completely unjustified claims.
|
Why not ask Krishna, Odin, Zeuz or even Gandalf, Yoda, Bob and Santa When I die I'll reincarnate in Tolkien's universe. Tolkien was actually a prophet.
|
Mecker I hope you realize that you are doing the exact same thing as the person you're attacking. To help you realize it, let me play devil's advocate to show you:
The only reason atheism seems like a religion is because there are a lot of religious people.
Completely subjective statement and easily ridiculed by something such as "Show me the evidence for this".
I'm quite sure everything can be approached by science. Do you have any actual fact to back up this claim?
Another opinion. You ask for facts to back up his claim, how about you present some facts to back up yours.
And so on and so forth. I think everybody gets the drift by now. What a thread about critical thinking and skepticism really needs is a good discussion, not a disgusting argumentative style that consists of picking posts apart and not trying to understand what the other person is actually saying.
|
Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know?
|
On August 01 2011 15:36 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 15:19 Cyba wrote:On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote:
Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god. I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do. And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind. Evolution as a scientific theory is as good as fact until you find me a a Precambrian chicken. PS. Gravity is also 'just' a theory.. lol... Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 15:31 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On August 01 2011 10:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not. Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two. I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence.  ) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me. Age of the earth is not in the realm of biology but rather geology or physics.
Gravity is a force, Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory, and even if it was prooven corect by tons of measurements it prooved to be untrue in certain cases. => Theory of relativity, which explains even more shit is backed up by more measurements but still has it's blind spots => String Theory, which is a bit abstract and doesn't have that many good measurements.
Science is only something worth believing in because a true scientist understands how little he knows, that's why it's constantly improoving. If you just take everything as it is you belong in the dark ages -.-
|
He's a pretty average philosopher.
|
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it.
prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion.
it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
|
On August 01 2011 19:43 Mecker wrote:Show nested quote +
A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
I'm quite sure everything can be approached by science. Do you have any actual fact to back up this claim?
Actually it's impossible to be sure that 'everything can be approached by science'. Science only deals in the observable, and since it is conceivably possible that something exists which can't be observed you can never make the statement 'everything can be approached by science.
Show nested quote +If you look for scientific meaning in religion you will be incorrect
if you look for spiritual meaning in science you will be disappointed. Are you some sort of authority in this matter? Have you done any research to back up these claims?
First of all, authority is entirely irrelevant in the correctness of an argument. Secondly, not everything requires research/facts to back it up.
The correctness of his two statements: "If you look for scientific meaning in religion you will be incorrect
if you look for spiritual meaning in science you will be disappointed."
can be determined by simply defining the key words in each statement. Religion typically involves belief in the supernatural, and since the supernatural is simply 'beyond natural', and since science deals only in the observation of the natural, his 1st statement could be said to hold some truth.
Anyway, I'm only posting this because I get sick of people who do the whole "Can you back that up? Where are your sources? Which scientific expert told you that?" and somehow think it's a legitimate or, more importantly, useful way of arguing on a forum of non-experts.
|
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote:
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it.
prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion.
it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one.
And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief.
|
Pure logical thinking is for machines. You're not a machine, are you
|
On August 01 2011 20:56 Lassepetri wrote:
Pure logical thinking is for machines. You're not a machine, are you
That is potentially the most dangerous, backwards thinking I have ever seen
|
On August 01 2011 21:26 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 20:56 Lassepetri wrote:
Pure logical thinking is for machines. You're not a machine, are you That is potentially the most dangerous, backwards thinking I have ever seen
Then you are easily scared. Always resolving to logic for answers is as dimwitted as believing the bible.
|
On August 01 2011 20:35 Elementy wrote:
Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know?
Watch this and it explains what we know of currently about the universes origins.
The lecture addresses the 'something from nothing' argument you are putting forward.
Before that, the answer was "I don't' know" ... and what's wrong with that?
Why can't it be OK to say we don't know about a topic, instead of blinding assuming an irrational conclusion?
Making assumptions about a God making something from nothing ( which is a contradiction, if you follow the 'cause and effect' rational, because my next question is, who created God?), will get you nowhere, because there isn't anything to support the claim ... "I can't think of a way it can happen, therefore God".
I realize you never said anything about a God doing it, but I assume that's what your getting at.
Either way, check the video, Lawrence Krauss is a goddamn genius ... hope you enjoy ^_^.
|
On August 01 2011 21:35 Lassepetri wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 21:26 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On August 01 2011 20:56 Lassepetri wrote:
Pure logical thinking is for machines. You're not a machine, are you That is potentially the most dangerous, backwards thinking I have ever seen Then you are easily scared. Always resolving to logic for answers is as dimwitted as believing the bible.
Logic is a far better way to find answers than the bible. Logic allows one to use reason to ascertain facts or evaluate decisions in a structured manner. Perhaps you could provide a decent reason as to why one should use logic. On the other hand, believing the bible fully is putting faith in something unproven, that is of questionable origin; there are no proper thought processes, and information is just blindly accepted.
Just because machines think logically does not imply that pure logical thinking is for machines only. Humans can and should use logical thinking when dealing with facts as well as important situations. Emotions and all do give humans individuality, but are best reserved for personal matters.
|
Well...
Actually... You can actually think religious people are idiots as in terms of acting acording to reason they behave like idiots. That is REASONABLE.
Just don't say it cause you'll never know if your boss is religious 
|
On August 01 2011 20:35 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 15:36 ShadeR wrote:On August 01 2011 15:19 Cyba wrote:On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote:
Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god. I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do. And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind. Evolution as a scientific theory is as good as fact until you find me a a Precambrian chicken. PS. Gravity is also 'just' a theory.. lol... On August 01 2011 15:31 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On August 01 2011 10:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not. Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two. I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence. ) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me. Age of the earth is not in the realm of biology but rather geology or physics. Gravity is a force, Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory, and even if it was prooven corect by tons of measurements it prooved to be untrue in certain cases. => Theory of relativity, which explains even more shit is backed up by more measurements but still has it's blind spots => String Theory, which is a bit abstract and doesn't have that many good measurements. Science is only something worth believing in because a true scientist understands how little he knows, that's why it's constantly improoving. If you just take everything as it is you belong in the dark ages -.-
Hence the "find me a Precambrian chicken" part. Falsifiability.. love it.
|
On August 01 2011 10:07 AraMoOse wrote:
Allow me to be yet another atheist to make this clarification. Atheism is not a Thing. It is not a religion, not a belief, not a belief system. It is the LACK of a belief. Accusing atheists of resorting to science to defend their atheism is nonsensical. There is nothing to defend, no position being asserted. Religious people say `X exists'. I say 'show me' and they can't. Until they can, belief in any of these entities is irrational and unjustified.
If I tell you a purple dog exists and you don't believe me, is it up to you to prove to me that not a single purple dog exists in the entire universe? Or is it up to me to show you a purple dog? What about bigfoot, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns and werewolves, is it up to non believers in these things to show their non existence? What about the gods of other religions, can you prove beyond all doubt they don't exist? Should you believe in Allah and Vishnu and Shiva etc. until you can prove their non existence beyond all doubt? Or would you expect the believer wanting to convince you to provide their evidence?The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person saying an entity exists.
Actually what you`re describing is being agnostic.
|
On August 01 2011 20:35 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 15:36 ShadeR wrote:On August 01 2011 15:19 Cyba wrote:On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote:
Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god. I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do. And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind. Evolution as a scientific theory is as good as fact until you find me a a Precambrian chicken. PS. Gravity is also 'just' a theory.. lol... On August 01 2011 15:31 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On August 01 2011 10:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not. Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two. I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence. ) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me. Age of the earth is not in the realm of biology but rather geology or physics. Gravity is a force, Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory, and even if it was prooven corect by tons of measurements it prooved to be untrue in certain cases. => Theory of relativity, which explains even more shit is backed up by more measurements but still has it's blind spots => String Theory, which is a bit abstract and doesn't have that many good measurements. Science is only something worth believing in because a true scientist understands how little he knows, that's why it's constantly improoving. If you just take everything as it is you belong in the dark ages -.-
That still does not explain your "just a theory" argument. In science there are only facts and theories. And they are different beasts. Theories are models of the world and facts are observations. Theory is as far as you can get in the scientific method.
And just to point out the Newtionian -> relativistic switch was not some total rearrangement. It was just pretty slight (although very important) change in terms of predictions to the Newtonian physics. In well established sciences new theories that replace old ones tend not to be revolutions but evolutions. So even if current theory of evolution was shown to be insufficient, new theory would keep the core of it anyway.
And evolution is also a fact. It was observed.
|
On August 01 2011 21:26 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 20:56 Lassepetri wrote:
Pure logical thinking is for machines. You're not a machine, are you That is potentially the most dangerous, backwards thinking I have ever seen
But he is kind of right. Pure logical thinking is good in epistemological endeavor or to achieve your goals. But to set your goals you need emotions.
|
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote:
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it.
prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion.
it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
I`m intrigued. Who is this leader of atheism? I have never been approached by anyone asking me to fight for atheism. What would we fight for again?
And how does institutionalization mean that something is a belief? Whether something is organized or not, the evidence does not change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
