| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Angel[BTL]
Romania345 Posts
I'm giving you a response for traditional medicine in the views of the documentary Sicko by Michael Moore in which they actually present for a fact that even some natural medicine is based on placebo effect :D. And when you have some disease, maybe even flu I suggest you to go to a homeopath doctor and just test it for yourself to see if it's right or wrong. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:52 MasterOfChaos wrote: The question is do we really need to convert religious people to atheism. Perhaps they are happier believing in their faith with the certainity or at least hope of an afterlife. I don't know that, because I never believed in these things, evenso I am technically a Christian. So we have some questions we need to answer before trying to convince relgious people that there is no god. 1) Will they be happier once they lost their faith? 2) If not, is it better for them to live in a happier delusion or in a less happy reality? Giving them the choice is theoretically the best option. But you can't simply go back to a believer once you are convinced there is no god. 3) How sure are we that there is no christian(or similar) god? If there is a finite chance left that there is such a good, and as believers we get an infinite gain(afterlife), but as non believers only a finite gain(potentially happier life) the expectany value is higher for a believer. (See Blaise Pascal) I am an atheist, and that will probably not change. But should we really try to convert other people? well regarding your third point, I would doubt that believing exclusively in the christian god would do any good for you if the millions of muslims, jews or hindus turned out to be right. Or 'god' help us, the mormons. Regarding the rest of your post; I think it's an interesting concept. I would first of all get rid of your unfortunate use of the word 'convert' in regards to atheism. Atheism is by definition not a religion. If you say people would maybe be better off in life being deluded rather than cognisant I can't say either way. Someone like Dawkins, who so (almost) completely disbelieves religious notions; he would say that going to mass every single Sunday is a waste of a LOT of time which could be spent doing other things you enjoy. His purpose is essentially philanthropic, he wants to 'free' people from the delusion. I would personally be a little more tentative than him. If someone has had a personal experience of talking to Jesus or something; I would really question whether any rational scientific argument should be able to persuade them that that deep impression in them of his existence is phony. I think that the atheist agenda is currently to make sure that people who are currently religious who would, in possession of all the facts, choose against religion; are aware of those facts. The bible is a really rather odd thing. The gospels, the left out stuff, the original gospel being a lot less 'sexed up'. That people take for example their King James bible as the absolute truth of God's message is to me a little weird...Dawkins says in his book the God Delusion that 'virgin' was a mistranslation of 'young', and likens it to mixing up 'maid' and 'maiden'. So the whole concept of the virgin Mary is immediately cast into doubt and great swathes of Spanish culture are sundered lol... I think as a basic philanthrope, one should strive to create as much harmony as possible in one's society and the world. And I think people like Dawkins believe that, while there is much good done by religion, the evil done by it is greater. This is where the territory becomes a little unsettling. I am personally more worried by nihilistic, drug-abusing, violent gangs of men who roam streets than my local pastor. I also think that a lot of religious violence really is motivated by more than just religion. I think that if one were to remove religion from the middle east, the young men and women would be blowing themselves up for their race or culture. The domination of young minds doesn't require religion any more, as we can see with today's overbearingly negative media. So in the end, I completely agree with you about trying to avoid ruining the devotion of people to their potentially imaginary lord. But I would like to say that I think all people should be given the facts, and then make their decision about religion. I don't think it's fair to people to just refuse to enlighten them because they are born into a deeply religious family in the bible belt. I don't it's necessarily fair to humanity. What if an intelligent person decided to be a priest instead of a doctor, because he were convinced that God could heal wounds rather than medicine? I would hope that the atheist agenda would be to show him the world of science and humanitarianism and then let him decide whether the strength of the bible outweighs the strength of medicine. I extend this point to religion when I say that I personally feel that going out with the intent, regardless of the circumstance, of making people think the way you do, is totally lame; but I do think that going out with the intent of presenting the facts about any belief system you subscribe to, including science and reason, to anyone who can observe them and make their own opinions about them; is perfectly fair and valid, regardless of what you are preaching (even if you are 'preaching' Darwinism) edit: DoctorHelvetic got to the debunking of Pascal's Wager first  . | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:53 travis wrote: It doesn't matter if you call the antagonist religion or science. The problem is people thinking for theirselves. They don't. This is another problem I have with Dawkins, his promotion of science as a religion. When he talk about the superiority of the scientific method, he's not saying, "Go out and do science!" he's saying, "If you're not a scientist, don't question us. We're smarter than you and better at figuring stuff out." He's saying, "We are the priesthood, and you are laymen. We hear the voice of God. You don't. Listen when we speak, and obey us when we say it is important." And never mind that some scientific fields are more mature than others, that some attract a higher quality of mind than others, that some tend to attract people with a bias, that some have higher standards of evidence than others, or that funding policy can create a sort of Darwinian evolution among scientists toward a certain conclusion. We are supposed to give the same deference and respect to an evolutionary biologist who theorycrafts vague principles about the lifestyles of things that died out hundreds of millions of years ago based on the way a handful of their bones look, as we do to physicist who can run a test of an important, useful phenomenon a million times and predict the exact result every single time. Well, fuck that. Evolutionary biology is an amusing pasttime, I'm sure, but the standard of proof is basically, "Well, that sounds plausible." There can never be any definitive test. That goes triple for cosmology and climatology. When you look at something huge and incredibly old, and there is only one, you're very limited in your power to experiment on it. Observational science is grossly inferior to experimental science, and historical science is grossly inferior to observational science. A lot of the time, the man on the street who knows how to shrug and say "I don't know." is a better policy advisor than the top man in a scientific field. | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1904 Posts
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took." (Thomas Henry Huxley) Watching it now, seems interesting so far. Thanks for the vids  | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On July 14 2008 02:06 travis wrote: this is what science does. it changes the way people view the world. just like religion. but the problem is, when people change the way they view the world they close up to other possibilities. science does nothing to hint at the nature of the universe. science just says what rules are in effect. your entire parapgraph is assumption with, honestly, no basis. Yes it is an assumption. But it is not an assumption with no basis. My basis is scientific fact. What we think and feel have been scientifically proven to be what chemical reactions are currently occuring in our body. An example, I cut off my blood supply to my arm, it will go numb, I will have deprived the cells of oxygen, which in turn prevents cellular respiration (a chemical reaction vital to life) to take place. I have no feeling of my arm, I cannot control my arm, it would be dead. The same goes for nerves and my brain. Stop certain chemical reactions and I will lose the power to feel and think in the areas where those specific chemical reactions are not taking place. Science tries to understand the universe, which includes the nature of the universe so it does not close up any possibilities. In science all possibilities are plausable, but must be proven to become fact. If you dont need proof for something to be fact, then there is an infinite number of possibilites which you must also agree as fact. God cannot be proven by any scientific experiment, this is something that all modern religions agree on. Because god cannot be proved, we have no choice but to carry on life as though god does not exist. | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 14 2008 02:32 Fen wrote: Yes it is an assumption. But it is not an assumption with no basis. My basis is scientific fact. What we think and feel have been scientifically proven to be what chemical reactions are currently occuring in our body. no they have not. only a correlation has been shown. An example, I cut off my blood supply to my arm, it will go numb, I will have deprived the cells of oxygen, which in turn prevents cellular respiration (a chemical reaction vital to life) to take place. I have no feeling of my arm, I cannot control my arm, it would be dead. The same goes for nerves and my brain. Stop certain chemical reactions and I will lose the power to feel and think in the areas where those specific chemical reactions are not taking place. we didn't even need science to tell us that much! Science tries to understand the universe, which includes the nature of the universe so it does not close up any possibilities. In science all possibilities are plausable, but must be proven to become fact. If you dont need proof for something to be fact, then there is an infinite number of possibilites which you must also agree as fact. God cannot be proven by any scientific experiment, this is something that all modern religions agree on. Because god cannot be proved, we have no choice but to carry on life as though god does not exist. science builds up, not down. it's like a giant skyscraper of cause and effect. eventually it gets tall enough that part of the foundation ends up being wrong and the whole thing has to be rebuilt. science is practical, and it is useful. but explaining what follows what does nothing to declare meaning or value or purpose. does science have any clue, even just a small guess, at why we consciously think and feel? | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On July 14 2008 02:41 travis wrote: science is practical, and it is useful. but explaining what follows what does nothing to declare meaning or value or purpose. True. But don't go on saying that religion has any more claim to answering questions about meaning, value and purpose. | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On July 14 2008 02:41 travis wrote: does science have any clue, even just a small guess, at why we consciously think and feel? Ask again in 10-20 years when neuroscience gets its act together. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 14 2008 02:45 DrainX wrote: True. But don't go on saying that religion has any more claim to answering questions about meaning, value and purpose. Religion and spirituality is a topic pondered by many people their entire lives. In fact, some people devote their entire lives solely to the question of "why?". Who are you to say there has never been a buddha. (not meant as an attack  ) | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
Travis Says science builds up, not down. it's like a giant skyscraper of cause and effect. eventually it gets tall enough that part of the foundation ends up being wrong and the whole thing has to be rebuilt. science is practical, and it is useful. but explaining what follows what does nothing to declare meaning or value or purpose. does science have any clue, even just a small guess, at why we consciously think and feel? You approach the subject with a view that concious thought and feeling are not part of biological function. That they are something that exists beyond that. And therefore if that is your belief, its impossible for me to argue against you using science and logic, the same as trying to debate the existance of god. Science says that concious thought and feeling are the result of the combined chemical reactions going on in your brain. Having a concious thought is really not dissimilar from having an unconcious thought. We sense all of these chemical reactions and the result is what we think. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On July 14 2008 02:48 travis wrote: Religion and spirituality is a topic pondered by many people their entire lives. In fact, some people devote their entire lives solely to the question of "why?". Who are you to say there has never been a buddha. (not meant as an attack )I would call them philosophers. I don't see how invoking fairy tales helps you in any way if you are looking for answers to questions like that. Just because science can't (and doesn't try to) answer questions like that doesn't automatically shift that right to religion. | ||
|
Romance_us
Seychelles1806 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:20 Haemonculus wrote: I'm always torn on Dawkins. In a lot of ways, I agree with what he says. I've got some pretty strong views on organized religion, and Dawkins says publicly what I'm often limited to saying on the internets. And I absolutely agree with his views on science and what can happen to a nation when the clergy starts to intermingle with the government. However, the way he says a lot of his stuff is well... really frustrating. He goes around nigh-insulting anyone religious. Which in my opinion really undermines his message. Going to a religious school and telling everyone that they need to go to a "real" university, is well, mean. He's probably the like atheist equivalent of those radical Christians who go around preaching that "(insert minority group of your choice) is going to burn in hell forever." I would just like to point out that he was at a non-religious school doing the lecturing, and the religious university students actually CAME to his lecture to specifically attempt to trip him up and embarrass him in front of an atheist-dominate crowd. I just think that this makes his rough statement towards them that they should find a "real" university more legitimate. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On July 14 2008 02:48 travis wrote: Who are you to say there has never been a buddha. No-one can say that there has not ever been a buddha, just as no-one can say that there really isnt a flying spagetthi monster. But both are equally probable. And the probability of either of those being true are VERY low. | ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:10 MasterOfChaos wrote: The main problem with science and atheism is, that it does not provide an answer for the meaning of life. Just maximizing happiness seems a bit shallow. You are simply presented with the facts that in a hundred years you don't exist anymore, and with great probability(unless you did something really remarkable) nobody remembers you another hundred years later. This is very depressing imo. Read the God delusion it has a pretty interesting theory about the problem that humans have. We naturally need to know the answer to everything, and if we do not get an answer we make shit up (ie the bible) to try to fulfill our need for answers. This is the reason for religion, its human nature to be curios and correct. And dont you think that health limits what you can do anyways? I mean when you are like 80 your not going to want to pursue new endeavors you just want to be able to walk. Annnnd i think there is such thing as "old souls" and "new souls". For example: you know those people that are really good at things naturally? They participated in those things or similar things in past lives, so they are "naturals". People that are bad at most things are "new souls".. I cant explain it, and it makes sense but its sort of a bullshit theory. See i made something up to justify my ignorance of life, does it mean its true? hardly. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On July 14 2008 02:07 Angel[BTL] wrote: Black Star you are forgetting that many of this documentaries are american. You mean 'many of his'? They aren't American and how am I forgetting something? Dawkins only presents his own opinion supported by the facts of science. He doesn't have a split personality. And it's not like others never say things he doesn't agree with. He never tried to do an 'equal time' thing on religion. Not to mention that the whole idea of 'equal time' is stupid and unscientific and therefore something a distinguished scientist like Dawkins would never do. And when you have some disease, maybe even flu I suggest you to go to a homeopath doctor and just test it for yourself to see if it's right or wrong. We already know the placebo effect exists and we already know homeopathy doesn't add anything to that and we know homeopathy is in conflict with the idea that water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Also, your proposed test is bad. It doesn't test homeopathy or placebo. It tests me. And since I know it won't work I actually get a negative placebo, I guess. If that exists in the first place, which it may not. Also, who will pay? Why should I pay for a flawed test to see something I can easily get a proper answer to by using scholar.google? | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:11 Funchucks wrote: He's a polarizer, not a persuader, and therefore a bad influence in the world. You couldn't be more wrong. Dawkins has brought hope and understanding to a vast amount of disillusioned individuals. There needs to be people like him willing to speak the truth. You expect Dawkins to talk half-truths and mixed up middle ground ideals? Then people like myself would have nowhere to turn to. The truth he speaks is enlightening, entertaining and essential to those who struggled with disbelief of their religious upbringing. How can anyone take a man seriously who holds back for fear of standing out? It's important for any world view to have a figurehead, or a banner to rally under. People need to feel they are part of something, and not a lone outsider. Dawkins and others have given respect to an argument many come to realise by themselves. Just as their needs to be a middle ground to persuade people over, there also needs to be a hard line that speaks the real truth. If you are interested in Dawkins I really suggest you listen to Sam Harris as well. Sam Harris is one of the best debaters I have ever heard. | ||
|
Polemarch
Canada1564 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:11 Funchucks wrote: If you don't already agree with him, he just makes you mad. He's a polarizer, not a persuader, and therefore a bad influence in the world. Furthermore, he has a dangerously naive view of humanity. Civilization is not based on reason and natural goodwill, it is based on getting cooperation and appropriate behavior by hook or by crook. We need the cooperation of people who are fundamentally incapable of good reasoning and uncoerced decency, because they exist in large numbers. Religion is one of the essential tools for the reasoners to control the unreasoning. The people who will follow bad reasoning and plausible lies easily had better be given some productive bad reasoning and plausible lies to follow before they latch onto some destructive ones. And nobody can come out and say this in response to his attacks. They'd only help him undermine what they're trying to accomplish. I'm not a fan. Your posts are very well written and thought-out, but I disagree with the assertion that we need religion as a tool to control the unreasoning masses. I'll ignore the fact that this viewpoint is arguably more offensive than anything Dawkins would say. Secular systems like the legal and economic systems (i.e. getting a job) in developed countries are good enough that the average person doesn't need any deep rational thinking to be "controlled". Being an atheist correlates with lower divorce rates, crime rates, etc. You might argue that it's a selection bias -- people who are smart enough to be atheists are also smarter in other ways... but it's also true at the national level -- countries with more religion have more crime and other bad things. Maybe it's education too, as these atheistic countries look like they tend to have higher average IQ's, but either way religion isn't necessary to control people. In fact, I'd argue that being able to control masses with religion is a bad thing. Like in Lennon's song Imagine, a world without religion would have one fewer thing to kill or die for. Religion also replaces the natural ignorance (or vague, uncertain, superstition) with some definite sounding but false answers. This can kill. I do think there are some good things about religion. Churches comfort people and encourage charity, volunteering, and a sense of community. But I think most of these can also be handled in a secular way, and on balance, we'd be better off without religion. I do agree Dawkins polarizes too much to sway many religious people though. On the other hand, wishy-washy writers with moderate opinions (like me) tend not to be heard beyond TeamLiquid. | ||
KwarK
United States42957 Posts
An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
2v2
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
