* please watch at least 1 video before posting. so far there have been too many posts which are answerable by any of these vids.
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist at Oxford University and one of the leading proponents in the understanding of Darwinism. Dawkins is most well known for standing up against non scientific forms of thought such as superstition, spiritualism and religion. He's been one of my favorite intellectuals to read and listen to so i figured there were probably other people on this forum who might enjoy some of his work. I've complied a list of his documentaries and videos of him. There is well over four hours of stuff to watch here. I found Dawkins about a year ago by an older TL.net thread so i figured i'd post a more comprehensive list of his stuff here.
DISCLAIMER: As you might have guessed already there are topics in this video that involve religion. I realize religion threads on tl.net tend to be a bit explosive. I don't want this thread to be closed. Please keep any discussion here civil or don't post at all.
"The Enemies of Reason" focuses on superstitious belief and it's negative ramifications on society. Dawkins attacks astrology, spiritual consulting and other such methods which conflict with science. This is the first video of Dawkins i ever saw and i found it quite interesting. i recommend you watch this 1st Part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017&q=richard dawkins&ei=ogF6SICQIJHWwgPO9ZT0BA
Here's a video where Dawkins takes an hour of questions from audience members after a lecture; many of which are challenges to his questions on religion. There are also many appearances from Liberty University students here (the only university which teaches Creationism as fact).
This is a debate held between Dawkins and Alister McGrath. Alister McGrath is a very well respected professor of historical theology at oxford university. i found this debate very engaging, definitely check it out. There is a moderator who (while isn't filmed for most of this) stops the two and makes sure they are actually answering each others questions.
"The Four Horsemen" is a two hour unmoderated discussion amongst four of the most prominent atheistic writers in the world: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Here they discuss what they are trying to achieve from debating this issue. If you watch this, check it out last on the list.
Mr. Dawkins is quite right to be vehemently opposed to intrusions of science upon religion. Creationism and its better dressed counter part Intelligent Design are not science and do not deserve any merit.
He has gone too far in his attacks though, adding as much creedence to the idea of Intelligent design by opening the debate, rather than a simpler and more effecient out of hand rejection.
Furthermore, his attacks on religion verge into a hysterical and blind disregard that is ironically very nearly religious in its tone. Dawkins is every bit the fundamentalist that Pat Robertson is, just on the other side.
I distrust anybody who claims to have an unambiguous and correct approach to religion, and fundamentalist atheism is no different. There is no basis to disbelieve God, as much as there is no basis to believe.
His association of religion and various negative commonly ascribed to religion are incorrect as well. Being bigoted and unwilling to listen to contradictory evidence are often evinced by religious people, but just as often shown by non-religious folks (you can't tell me the Communists didn't have the same traits that Dawkins so reviles in religion). In the end, the problems Dawkins ascribes to religion are not problems that are exclusive to religion, they are just the general downfall of humanity itself.
God and Humanity are inextricably woven together; indeed it is difficult to picture one without the other. To dismiss a cornerstone of the collective human experience is deeply misguided. It is also deeply offensive to me to suggest that religion is incapable of good. Whatever the motivation, either a foolish fear of divine retribution, or a balanced understand of God, people who have found faith often tend to a generosity, calmness, and sobriety which they might not otherwise have. I'd rather see people scared of acting badly than people acting badly. The psychosomatic power of prayer has been well documented, and there already is one solid plus to religion (and after all, the effects of prayer only come into effect if you truly believe they will work. Mind you, I'm not saying God is intervening in these cases, but that the sick can truly get better through prayer, or any average person overcome challenges feeling that God is helping them)
Most of all, it's perfectly possible to have a balance of religion and reason, to give each its natural sovereignty. For questions that can be answered by observation and the scientific method, those answers are accepted. For the fundamental mysteries, only religion works there.
Neil Tyson is the shit, I completely agree. I like Richard dawkins but SOMETIMES the way he goes about by "putting it out there" is not a great thing for me, he should be more of an educator then trying to 'deliver truth to the public' like as tyson said
i'd recommend you watch the videos generalstan since your response was posted 10 minutes after i made this. although you and jibba are both right about dawkins being too barbed as far as his writings go. i remember my philosophy teacher and me talking about that over beers about a year ago. i suppose it's his ideas that actually count.
if you guys like people who deliver less offensively try, sam harris or daniel dennet. they're better at that part in my opinion. they're also in the final video which i find to be better than all of these.
You're right that I haven't had time to watch the particular videos you've posted, but I doubt that they're radically different than the dawkins I know from the God Delusion and other prior experience.
I will watch them later on today when I find time.
I also want to say that I find Dawkins to be brilliantly articulate, I find very much to agree with him on, even on the subject of religion (especially our shared contention that religion shouldn't be indoctrinated in children from a young age, that the young should have freedom when it comes to their religious choices). He's also a singularly brilliant scientist, who has made great contributions to evolutionary biology (the concept of a meme is simply revolutionary).
In the end, the problems Dawkins ascribes to religion are not problems that are exclusive to religion, they are just the general downfall of humanity itself.
Agreed.
I think he has addressed many of your points in his writings, however. He has acknowledged the mental comfort and security that science cannot currently provide, but believes there are other alternatives to religion and that medicine is making its way into that realm. Humanism is another positive alternative.
He is not positive that God doesn't exist, but he has seen no proof that he does, and part of his skepticism stems from the fact that most peoples' religions are a product of their birth location rather than their own being. Scientists can be wrong, and certainly there are corrupt ones who do a poor job, but science constantly goes through peer review, while religion does not.
But no, he doesn't think science and religion can coexist peacefully and I agree.
On July 13 2008 23:25 MyLostTemple wrote: if you guys like people who deliver less offensively try, sam harris or daniel dennet. they're better at that part in my opinion.
My guess is for Christians, Sam Harris is actually the most offensive. His books are pretty nasty, and are a good read.
On July 13 2008 23:25 MyLostTemple wrote: if you guys like people who deliver less offensively try, sam harris or daniel dennet. they're better at that part in my opinion.
My guess is for Christians, Sam Harris is actually the most offensive. His books are pretty nasty, and are a good read.
i've only read 'a letter to a christian nation'. but in debates he seems the least offensive. you can google vid them.
You have to read "The God Delusion" to understand what Dawkins is about, this man is a genius. I will watch the videos later, but I think Dawkins is a revolutionary man.
good luck with the book, its heavy shit!!
thanks for bringing attention to this man Tasteless
On July 13 2008 23:54 Hypnosis wrote: You have to read "The God Delusion" to understand what Dawkins is about, this man is a genius. I will watch the videos later, but I think Dawkins is a revolutionary man.
good luck with the book, its heavy shit!!
thanks for bringing attention to this man Tasteless
I would say "The Selfish Gene" is really what Dawkins is about. He's a scientist first and foremost, and his theory of the selfish gene really is the basis of his atheism, and now mine as well.
edit - On a side note, I just wanted to add the ironic thing is everyone who reads Dawkins probably is already an atheist that is just looking for some rational justification, whereas those who are not atheist (and more importantly, don't want to be) will probably never read his books. In the end, you believe what you want to believe.
I like this thread already. Ive read three of Dawkins books and I'm currently reading "The Selfish Gene". I prefer his older books but "The God Delusion" is great too. If you like Dawkins I think you should check out books/talks etc by Daniel Dennett too. He is my favorite philosopher who just like Dawkins (and me) loves evolution. Daniel Dennet also have a lot of interesting ideas about our conscience and the philosophy of science in general.
It should be mentioned too that Dawkins was the man who invented the word "meme" and thereby founded memetics.
On July 13 2008 23:18 GeneralStan wrote: Mr. Dawkins is quite right to be vehemently opposed to intrusions of science upon religion. Creationism and its better dressed counter part Intelligent Design are not science and do not deserve any merit.
He has gone too far in his attacks though, adding as much creedence to the idea of Intelligent design by opening the debate, rather than a simpler and more effecient out of hand rejection.
Furthermore, his attacks on religion verge into a hysterical and blind disregard that is ironically very nearly religious in its tone. Dawkins is every bit the fundamentalist that Pat Robertson is, just on the other side.
I distrust anybody who claims to have an unambiguous and correct approach to religion, and fundamentalist atheism is no different. There is no basis to disbelieve God, as much as there is no basis to believe.
His association of religion and various negative commonly ascribed to religion are incorrect as well. Being bigoted and unwilling to listen to contradictory evidence are often evinced by religious people, but just as often shown by non-religious folks (you can't tell me the Communists didn't have the same traits that Dawkins so reviles in religion). In the end, the problems Dawkins ascribes to religion are not problems that are exclusive to religion, they are just the general downfall of humanity itself.
God and Humanity are inextricably woven together; indeed it is difficult to picture one without the other. To dismiss a cornerstone of the collective human experience is deeply misguided. It is also deeply offensive to me to suggest that religion is incapable of good. Whatever the motivation, either a foolish fear of divine retribution, or a balanced understand of God, people who have found faith often tend to a generosity, calmness, and sobriety which they might not otherwise have. I'd rather see people scared of acting badly than people acting badly. The psychosomatic power of prayer has been well documented, and there already is one solid plus to religion (and after all, the effects of prayer only come into effect if you truly believe they will work. Mind you, I'm not saying God is intervening in these cases, but that the sick can truly get better through prayer, or any average person overcome challenges feeling that God is helping them)
Most of all, it's perfectly possible to have a balance of religion and reason, to give each its natural sovereignty. For questions that can be answered by observation and the scientific method, those answers are accepted. For the fundamental mysteries, only religion works there.
There is a reason why athiests are generally much smarter individuals than other people. They can be good people on there own, and i believe that is what Dawkins is trying to get at. He would like people to be on a higher level of thinking and its great that there are people like him at that level of intelligence now.
On July 13 2008 23:25 MyLostTemple wrote: if you guys like people who deliver less offensively try, sam harris or daniel dennet. they're better at that part in my opinion.
My guess is for Christians, Sam Harris is actually the most offensive. His books are pretty nasty, and are a good read.
i've only read 'a letter to a christian nation'. but in debates he seems the least offensive. you can google vid them.
his writing is definitely more pointed and insulting, but ya dennet goes almost to the point of absurdity to avoid anything that could be viewed as a direct attack on religion in his book.
On July 13 2008 23:24 lokiM wrote: Neil Tyson is the shit, I completely agree. I like Richard dawkins but SOMETIMES the way he goes about by "putting it out there" is not a great thing for me, he should be more of an educator then trying to 'deliver truth to the public' like as tyson said
?????
Dawkins is a distinguished professor with full tenure at arguably one of the world's best university. You don't obtain such a position without being an educator first...
And its precisely because Dawkins is a scientist first, public advocate 2nd, that I respect him. I listen to facts, data, and clear and rigorous analysis. Not charisma and petty rhetoric.
On July 13 2008 23:24 lokiM wrote: Neil Tyson is the shit, I completely agree. I like Richard dawkins but SOMETIMES the way he goes about by "putting it out there" is not a great thing for me, he should be more of an educator then trying to 'deliver truth to the public' like as tyson said
You really should read some of Dawkins older books about biology and evolution. He is the master of making complex things understandable to the general public. That's one of the major reasons he got famous for in the first place.
But yeah Neil Tyson is nice too. I loved his talk at the 2006 Beyond Belief conference (Where that clip is taken from). Where he goes through some of 'gods' Unintelligent Design Ill see if I can find it...
The point is that he was an educator at first, but now he sometimes acts as a lightning rod.
What you said earlier is largely true.
On a side note, I just wanted to add the ironic thing is everyone who reads Dawkins probably is already an atheist that is just looking for some rational justification, whereas those who are not atheist (and more importantly, don't want to be) will probably never read his books. In the end, you believe what you want to believe.
On July 13 2008 23:24 lokiM wrote: Neil Tyson is the shit, I completely agree. I like Richard dawkins but SOMETIMES the way he goes about by "putting it out there" is not a great thing for me, he should be more of an educator then trying to 'deliver truth to the public' like as tyson said
?????
Dawkins is a distinguished professor with full tenure at arguably one of the world's best university. You don't obtain such a position without being an educator first...
And its precisely because Dawkins is a scientist first, public advocate 2nd, that I respect him. I listen to facts, data, and clear and rigorous analysis. Not charisma and petty rhetoric.
well actually he's quite charismatic, just watch some of the clips of him. the problem is with his writing. basically he's so hard on religion that if you were remotely religious at all you would probably put down his books after a few paragraphs. to an atheist it isn't something that's upsetting, but try reading thru a few chapters of 'The God Delusion' pretending to be a religious person (if your not one already) and imagine yourself not being offended right away and disregarding the book entirely. Daniel Dennet, one of his friends (seen in the last video) has even openly criticized his writing style.
I have read his book "The Selfless Gene", currently reading "The Extended Phenotype". I always find him to be pretty aggressive to the religious people. Why spend so much energy to change their minds..
while we're on the topic of religion, i would just like to ask a Christian (or anyone else that believes the earth is only a few thousand years old) to justify how we are able to see the Andromeda galaxy. It must be understood that light does indeed travel at a very quick pace in fact Light covers 186,000 miles every second (keep in mind the universe is a really really big place ). The nearest large galaxy to the Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy lies about 2 1/2 million light years from Earth. The light we see from it tonight left it more than 2 million years ago, when our species was just beginning to establish its fragile foothold on planet Earth.
Many of you state that you think Dawkins is over the top. Some of you even state that he is as fundamentalist as Pat Robertson. I believe these accusations, especially the latter, are, at best, misguided.
As for the former, do you all realize how many people hold the exact same views as Dawkins, yet refuse to say anything that could actually offend religious people? If this method of persuasion has been consistently failing to convince most people, even when the evidence against creationism is so overwhelming, why complain about Dawkins approach?
Dawkins does open the debate, he does allow other people to make their points about creationism, and then he obliterates their arguments. He doesn't shallowly dismiss them as just being nonsensical, it just appears that way because of how unsound their arguments always are. In comparison to ANY of the american conservative talking heads, he's actually quite reasonable.
I believe it's incredibly misleading to call Dawkins a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists base their beliefs on faith, or on a single book, or anything else that is not credible evidence. If Jesus came down today and performed miracles and said all the things Pat Robertson teaches, it would be hardly fair to call even Pat Robertson a fundamentalist. However, there is this enormous imbalance between the amount of evidence for Dawkins believes relative to the evidence for creationism.
As for Dawkins statements about religion causing harm, I don't believe he has ever stated that religion always causes harm or that it is always a problem. Most of his statements have been that religion causes more harm than good.
In many instances I have seen him tell people it's fine if they have beliefs that make them act in better ways or helps them sleep at night. So long as these people don't try to convince anyone that these beliefs are true, and realize that their beliefs are nothing but faith, he seems to be accepting.
On July 14 2008 00:21 KrAzYfoOL wrote: while we're on the topic of religion, i would just like to ask a Christian (or anyone else that believes the earth is only a few thousand years old) to justify how we are able to see the Andromeda galaxy. It must be understood that light does indeed travel at a very quick pace in fact Light covers 186,000 miles every second. The nearest large galaxy to the Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy lies about 2 1/2 million light years from Earth. The light we see from it tonight left it more than 2 million years ago, when our species was just beginning to establish its fragile foothold on planet Earth.
Well I don't believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old but there a severe logical fallacy in your argument. As long as the Andromeda Galaxy has existed for more than 2 million years it doesn't really matter how long the earth has existed...that light has already reached earth. Earth could not come into existence until tomorrow and that light would still be here
Your argument would work better if it was regarding the age of the universe...(or the age of the Andromeda Galaxy) but then again the universe started at a small point and then expanded right? So maybe that light got pulled apart. Alternatively any creationist can just argue "well God made it so we could see the light already." And really, you can't use logic to argue against God, since he's not bound by logic
On July 13 2008 23:13 Juicyfruit wrote: He is a little extreme,
DeGrasse's criticism is that Dawkins isn't 'wicked' enough to try to 'trick' people in believing/accepting that what they don't want to.
Calling Dawkins 'extreme' is totally missing the point and falling for Fox news propaganda, since Tasteless made this thread. He is probably the most moderate of all intellectual atheists out there.
And really, you can't use logic to argue against God, since he's not bound by logic.
No one can prove that a god exists. So how can you ever dream of proving this? You just made this up on the spot because it's convenient.
And because of the wording the criticism you got later doesn't apply. According to his claim, God can follow logic. Just sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Even if you can prove god isn't bound by logic you still have to prove that a specific type of logic is 'out of bounds' while other logic concerning god, whatever a god is in the first place because no atheists has any idea about what it is supposed to be and I bet the same goes for probably every non-atheist, isn't and does apply. So it's clear this is just made up, like the idea of god itself, for convenience.
On July 14 2008 00:21 KrAzYfoOL wrote: while we're on the topic of religion, i would just like to ask a Christian (or anyone else that believes the earth is only a few thousand years old) to justify how we are able to see the Andromeda galaxy. It must be understood that light does indeed travel at a very quick pace in fact Light covers 186,000 miles every second. The nearest large galaxy to the Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy lies about 2 1/2 million light years from Earth. The light we see from it tonight left it more than 2 million years ago, when our species was just beginning to establish its fragile foothold on planet Earth.
Well I don't believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old but there a severe logical fallacy in your argument. As long as the Andromeda Galaxy has existed for more than 2 million years it doesn't really matter how long the earth has existed...that light has already reached earth. Earth could not come into existence until tomorrow and that light would still be here
Your argument would work better if it was regarding the age of the universe...(or the age of the Andromeda Galaxy) but then again the universe started at a small point and then expanded right? So maybe that light got pulled apart. Alternatively any creationist can just argue "well God made it so we could see the light already." And really, you can't use logic to argue against God, since he's not bound by logic
I've only watched "Enemies of Reason", don't know anything else from him. It was informative, funny and also scary.
My view is this: As science gets more and more complex and people can't understand anymore what's going on, there's the threat that the common people will instead go and find their "answers" in the realm of superstition/faith etc., that they will begin to question science and see it as "just another religion". In the USA, which have big problems in the area of education, there's also the rise of Intelligent Design and similar bullshit. Some US states want to start teaching it in schools. This is ridiculous and also dangerous, because ID is not scientific at all. They can discuss it in religion courses but not as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. Teaching ID in a biology course would be a huge step back to middle-age-like thinking where religion and superstition dominated everything. "Retarded" would be the perfect word for it. How dare these people even suggest something like this. That's religious fundamentalism, these people are as bad as Islamists.
Having said that, I think it's good that some people like Dawkins make an effort to bring science closer to the people again, and to show how stupid and also dangerous superstition/faith can be sometimes. I think what he's doing is important.
He is pretty good at converting all those semi-theists in the US who have just grown up with a christian tradition and who haven't given their faith much thought. People who would probably already be atheists if they lived in say... Sweden
Oh another thing that has to be mentioned about Dawkins. He was a good friend of Douglas Adams, the author of the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy.
On July 13 2008 23:24 lokiM wrote: Neil Tyson is the shit, I completely agree. I like Richard dawkins but SOMETIMES the way he goes about by "putting it out there" is not a great thing for me, he should be more of an educator then trying to 'deliver truth to the public' like as tyson said
?????
Dawkins is a distinguished professor with full tenure at arguably one of the world's best university. You don't obtain such a position without being an educator first...
And its precisely because Dawkins is a scientist first, public advocate 2nd, that I respect him. I listen to facts, data, and clear and rigorous analysis. Not charisma and petty rhetoric.
well actually he's quite charismatic, just watch some of the clips of him. the problem is with his writing. basically he's so hard on religion that if you were remotely religious at all you would probably put down his books after a few paragraphs. to an atheist it isn't something that's upsetting, but try reading thru a few chapters of 'The God Delusion' pretending to be a religious person (if your not one already) and imagine yourself not being offended right away and disregarding the book entirely. Daniel Dennet, one of his friends (seen in the last video) has even openly criticized his writing style.
Don't get me wrong. I think Dawkins is incredibly charismatic. I was just emphasizing that charisma and superficial things like it can only take you so far, especially with learned individuals.
No matter what your beliefs, I think we can all agree that we occupy a space for a limited period of time on this Earth, and after that we die. Other than that, you believe what you want to believe, and hopefully, your beliefs are ones that allow you enjoy life and help others enjoy life as well.
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.
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.
The fundamental mistake that Atheists like Dawkins (as in, the ones that try to convert people to Atheism) make is this: They seem to think that every religion in the world is fundamentalist Christianity or Islam. They seem to think that all religious people are creationist and reject evolution. And they're making the same essential crime by trying to convert people to Atheism, which is the fundamental problem of Christianity and Islam. They can not be happy practicing their own religions and letting other people practice what they want... they have to go "enlighten" everyone with their oh-so-superior viewpoints. Arrogance at it's finest. Sure, I can understand wanting to get rid of creationism. Creationists are blind. But if you take me, a very religious (yet, not Christian) person, and lump me in the same grouping as fundamentalist right-wing creationist Christians, I am UNDERSTANDABLY offended. If you take me, a religious person, and lump me into the same grouping as the Christians that engaged in the crusades, I am UNDERSTANDABLY offended. Would YOU want to be put into the same grouping as those people? Why do you feel such a need to insult me?
On July 13 2008 23:57 Hypnosis wrote: There is a reason why athiests are generally much smarter individuals than other people.
That sentence is a fine example of arrogance. How can you expect people to listen to you if you insult their intelligence.
edit: Just on the subject of y'all talking about Catholic upbringings and whatnot. I was raised in an Atheist household. My mother and brother both with very Dawkins-like viewpoints, although I never heard the name until later and not from them. My father I've never been sure about. I know that for years he was a practicing Muslim but I'm not sure if it was an act or not, as he had to get a job in Saudi Arabia and with discrimination and all there... I don't know. I know that if he is still, he hides it from my mother as she would never stand for it.
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."
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.
the problem is that mainstream religions are not designed to be productive, theyre designed to give control to the people preaching them and alot of the methods/results of gaining that control have very unproductive results for society ('radical' islam and the red states most noticeably right now)
and you cant really blame him and the others for polarizing when addressing issues like that, because anyone who buys into the sort of religion that is most dangerous (the fundamentalists) will necessarily be deeply offended by ANY sort of criticism on their religion, no matter how nicely put or reasonable it is.
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.
well your misery on this concept has little to do with the subject mater. from an athiest standpoint you are lucky to have the opportunity to live, to take an existentialist approach and manifest your own meanings from this life.
Nice to see your opinion on the matter tasteless. I always enjoy the dawkins' and hitchens' and dennets of the world. Sometimes I can go on into the wee hours of the morning watching their debates and speeches.
My only criticism of Dawkins is that his sense of humour is really...
really...
REALLY
lame ><
I also think that the more you watch and read Dawkins, the more you realise he doesn't mean to simply insult religion, but convey the extent to which many of the intelligentsia of the world deride the concept of believing something extremely vehemently for which you have no substantial scientific evidence.
I just watched the Q&A session he had where all the students from Liberty Uni asked him questions. He destroyed them. I agree however that his style wont win over many religious people.
Love Dawkins, he's great. I think I've watch mostly everything on youtube, as well as a few good anti-creationist and pro-evolution videos to boot. He's a great place to start for any prospective atheist.
I'm not too big a fan of christopher hitchens though. That guy was a big supporter of the war on terror, and I can't reconcile that with any of his witty atheist comments. Yes, fundamentalism can be extremely dangerous, but you can't win minds by fighting constant warfare.
The thought of death without an afterlife doesn't have to be depressing. You can try to make the best of your life, and have a positive influence on the world somehow. Change the world somehow. Sounds like a naive proposal made in movies. But it's true. You can use your life to make the world a better place. Or just use your time to have the most fun possible. Doesn't that sound even better than just living by some more or less stupid rules of your religion and then "hoping" to die so that you get to a better place? That's just like daydreaming.
And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :>
I've watched Enemies of Reason the whole 2 parts. He enphasizes that we should trust the normal medicine. He goes against homeopathic medicine. On many interviews in his documentary he simply doesn't acknowledge the existence of other possibilites for treating the diseases.
I mean at the end when the lady asks him why then people come to homeopathic medicine and not normal medicine and they get a lot better he doesn't give any real answer. So what if it's placebo effect? From my knowledge the homeopathic medicine is a lot cheaper too and with greater effects on the long run. Why should I pay more for the same effect?
He doesn't seem to be open minded to me at all. There are more ways to achieve the same results. Sure one of them is through scientific proof. But there are others.
On July 14 2008 01:32 0xDEADBEEF wrote: And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :>
Im not scared of death, but the thought of death does frustrate me. To think that there is all this stuff to see and learn, yet your not given a hope of actually getting around to seeing and learning about it. I want to see what the world is like in 500 years time. Too bad I will (most likely) not get that chance. Its not scary, its just frustrating.
EDIT: To krazyfool, ever had one of those nights where you hit the pillow, blink and its morning?
I think Dawkins acknowledges that he doesn't try to butter up staunch religionists. His prime target is people sitting on the fence. He definitely wants all people to essentially cast religion back into the theoretical realm, along with communism etc; however the way he argues is generally about opening up the strength of the hand of science; and showing how it completely obliterates basic religious reasoning etc.
I think there is a great use for religion in society. I personally am very touched, profoundly so, by very good religious art. Something about the genuine, or even feigned, certainty that there is an amazing person who sacrificed himself for the human race watching over us all; and then writing poems, music and painting pictures in his name, is very moving to me. Good religious art has a sense of purpose and certainty into which artists can pour all of their emotions. A song like jesu, joy of man's desiring (including the lyrics by martin jahn) is just simply beautiful and one of the most perfect songs in the world imo, and even if the creators of the work are not entirely religious, I can still feel the emotion far stronger than I can with many great songs which have less eternal and epic subjects.
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.
well your misery on this concept has little to do with the subject mater. from an athiest standpoint you are lucky to have the opportunity to live, to take an existentialist approach and manifest your own meanings from this life.
I think the issue with Chaos' argument, is that just because something provides an answer, does not make it correct. Santa Claus is an answer for the appearance of gifts under the christmas tree. To a child who has no other way of explaining this phenomenon, they will latch onto the only answer they know.
Religion is much the same way.
Besides, I agree with Tasteless, the point of life is not to be remembered. If you have a happy life, who gives a toss if anyone remembers it? You did, and you lived it, and that is all that matters.
On July 14 2008 01:32 0xDEADBEEF wrote: And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :>
Im not scared of death, but the thought of death does frustrate me. To think that there is all this stuff to see and learn, yet your not given a hope of actually getting around to seeing and learning about it. I want to see what the world is like in 500 years time. Too bad I will (most likely) not get that chance. Its not scary, its just frustrating.
EDIT: To krazyfool, ever had one of those nights where you hit the pillow, blink and its morning?
In regards to what happens after death not even science can explain it (other than the fact that our physical body dies). Sure I admit the possibility that maybe when you die you just die and that's it. But I also like to admit that there's a possibility that something happens when you die. Just because science doesn't have enough proofs of what happens, doesn't mean that life doesn't continue after you die in some sort of form or maybe even reincarnation.
Does anyone know if Richard Dawkins made some kind of documentary about the Philadelphia Experiment or maybe The Bermuda Triangle? Cause I would like to know his opinions on this strange phenomenas.
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?
It doesn't matter if you call the antagonist religion or science. The problem is people thinking for theirselves. They don't.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. Science doesn't even acknowledge investigation of the self, which is absolutely ridiculous imo. Yeah, alot of use our technology is when we can't even control ourselves.
On July 14 2008 01:32 0xDEADBEEF wrote: And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :>
Im not scared of death, but the thought of death does frustrate me. To think that there is all this stuff to see and learn, yet your not given a hope of actually getting around to seeing and learning about it. I want to see what the world is like in 500 years time. Too bad I will (most likely) not get that chance. Its not scary, its just frustrating.
EDIT: To krazyfool, ever had one of those nights where you hit the pillow, blink and its morning?
In regards to what happens after death not even science can explain it (other than the fact that our physical body dies). Sure I admit the possibility that maybe when you die you just die and that's it. But I also like to admit that there's a possibility that something happens when you die. Just because science doesn't have enough proofs of what happens, doesn't mean that life doesn't continue after you die in some sort of form or maybe even reincarnation.
Well of course, no-one can truely tell us what happens beyond death, however the chances are, that not much is going to happen. Everything I think, feel and know is because I have cells in my body going about their chemical reactions. A thought process is transported by an influx of Sodium into cells and eflux of Potassium. You stop these chemical reactions, and the chances are, the resulting phenomenon that they create is also going to stop, leaving me with no thought and no feeling.
I disagree with Dawkins on many things. He isn't a good writer, I don't find him to be particularly interesting, and I find some of his theories to be a tad... wonky for lack of a better word.
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.
It's not it's problem. It's yours and it may be mine.
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.
There's tons of philosophers, historians and sociologists that would state a polarizing debate reduces violence in a society. And you state exactly why.
You need to accept that there are people who have an opinion that make you mad. If there is no polarization then there can also be no acceptance or tolerance since there is nothing to accept or tolerate. And then when the two sides of something can no longer ignore each other there may be violence and dehumanization.
Furthermore, he has a dangerously naive view of humanity.
This can't be stated often enough: naivety is a virtue. Your view is incredibly cynic. Even if you are right, it's bad.
The fundamental mistake that Atheists like Dawkins (as in, the ones that try to convert people to Atheism) make is this: They seem to think that every religion in the world is fundamentalist Christianity or Islam.
Your two usages of 'fundamental' is ironic. For centuries all religion has been what we would now call 'fundamentalism'. And the non-fundamentalist believers, which are something totally new, are either in transition towards atheism or they remain in a status quo using Orwellian double think. The only reason we now have these 'liberal theists' is because there are now also atheists'.
Fundamentalists are the foundation of modern religion. Fundamentalism is the true nature of religion.
You can't convert people to atheism. And I don't understand why you think Dawkins does that. I mean, it's an moronical statement.
And wasn't Dawkins attacked earlier in this topic for not trying hard enough to convince people but rather presenting people the blunt results of science? Now he gets the exact opposite criticism?
That sentence is a fine example of arrogance. How can you expect people to listen to you if you insult their intelligence.
Yeah. Actually, the more educated a person is or becomes, the more likely that person is an atheist. Stats show this. And stats go up all the way. Each step from a high school drop-out to a science Nobel prize winner the percentage of atheists increase. Totally consistent. At least I saw those stats for the US. Probably uneducated people in the other industrialized/western countries are more reasonable.
I've watched Enemies of Reason the whole 2 parts. He enphasizes that we should trust the normal medicine. He goes against homeopathic medicine. On many interviews in his documentary he simply doesn't acknowledge the existence of other possibilites for treating the diseases.
You know what homeopathy is right?
Apparently not. I guess that was in part 1.
[edit]
Wait. I misread. I thought you said you saw part 2 only. So I don't understand why you say what you say. By definition of what they are both homeopathy and astrology must be wrong.
And once something is proven to work and live up to the very high standards, it's mainstream medicine.
Well of course, no-one can truely tell us what happens beyond death
We know very well what happens after death. Our cognition/consciousness is the product of a neural network made up of our brain cells. Once the brain stops getting oxygen brain activity starts to cease and neural net patterns degrade. Our bodies, including the brain cells, get eaten/digested by other organisms. The cells get broken down into bare molecules and are used as nutrition.
And that's it. We stop existing.
It's like saying a computer program is still running somewhere beyond in some void after you have literally evaporated the hardware it was running on in a 10,000 degrees hot oven because 'suddenly' the program is gone and no where to be found.
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?
No, because religion is a reflection of humanities need for comfort. About issues of death, and life. Many people cannot cope with life, without the belief they are eternally protected by a god.
However religion causes many bad things to happen as well.
If we were to convert everyone immediately there would be a problem, but a gradual dissipation of the irrationality of religion, I certainly believe there would be a positive outcome.
Also, Pascals wager makes very little sense. If I believe in the christian god, I could easily go to the hell of Anubis, Zeus, Odin, Allah, etc. There are thousands of gods, and there have been thousands of successful religions. If one of them is right, it isn't necessarily the christian faith which seems to be synonymous with the word "religion" in most arguments.
On July 14 2008 01:32 0xDEADBEEF wrote: And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :>
Im not scared of death, but the thought of death does frustrate me. To think that there is all this stuff to see and learn, yet your not given a hope of actually getting around to seeing and learning about it. I want to see what the world is like in 500 years time. Too bad I will (most likely) not get that chance. Its not scary, its just frustrating.
EDIT: To krazyfool, ever had one of those nights where you hit the pillow, blink and its morning?
In regards to what happens after death not even science can explain it (other than the fact that our physical body dies). Sure I admit the possibility that maybe when you die you just die and that's it. But I also like to admit that there's a possibility that something happens when you die. Just because science doesn't have enough proofs of what happens, doesn't mean that life doesn't continue after you die in some sort of form or maybe even reincarnation.
Well of course, no-one can truely tell us what happens beyond death, however the chances are, that not much is going to happen. Everything I think, feel and know is because I have cells in my body going about their chemical reactions. A thought process is transported by an influx of Sodium into cells and eflux of Potassium. You stop these chemical reactions, and the chances are, the resulting phenomenon that they create is also going to stop, leaving me with no thought and no feeling.
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.
Black Star you are forgetting that many of this documentaries are american. They always present yourself one side of the story, which usual is the one's who's making it in this case Richard Dawkins. I like more the documentaries that presents the con's and pro's and let the viewer decide on the whole debate or if the reader is encouraged to study more.
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.
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 .
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.
"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
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
On July 14 2008 01:32 0xDEADBEEF wrote: And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :>
Im not scared of death, but the thought of death does frustrate me. To think that there is all this stuff to see and learn, yet your not given a hope of actually getting around to seeing and learning about it. I want to see what the world is like in 500 years time. Too bad I will (most likely) not get that chance. Its not scary, its just frustrating.
EDIT: To krazyfool, ever had one of those nights where you hit the pillow, blink and its morning?
In regards to what happens after death not even science can explain it (other than the fact that our physical body dies). Sure I admit the possibility that maybe when you die you just die and that's it. But I also like to admit that there's a possibility that something happens when you die. Just because science doesn't have enough proofs of what happens, doesn't mean that life doesn't continue after you die in some sort of form or maybe even reincarnation.
Well of course, no-one can truely tell us what happens beyond death, however the chances are, that not much is going to happen. Everything I think, feel and know is because I have cells in my body going about their chemical reactions. A thought process is transported by an influx of Sodium into cells and eflux of Potassium. You stop these chemical reactions, and the chances are, the resulting phenomenon that they create is also going to stop, leaving me with no thought and no feeling.
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.
On July 14 2008 01:32 0xDEADBEEF wrote: And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :>
Im not scared of death, but the thought of death does frustrate me. To think that there is all this stuff to see and learn, yet your not given a hope of actually getting around to seeing and learning about it. I want to see what the world is like in 500 years time. Too bad I will (most likely) not get that chance. Its not scary, its just frustrating.
EDIT: To krazyfool, ever had one of those nights where you hit the pillow, blink and its morning?
In regards to what happens after death not even science can explain it (other than the fact that our physical body dies). Sure I admit the possibility that maybe when you die you just die and that's it. But I also like to admit that there's a possibility that something happens when you die. Just because science doesn't have enough proofs of what happens, doesn't mean that life doesn't continue after you die in some sort of form or maybe even reincarnation.
Well of course, no-one can truely tell us what happens beyond death, however the chances are, that not much is going to happen. Everything I think, feel and know is because I have cells in my body going about their chemical reactions. A thought process is transported by an influx of Sodium into cells and eflux of Potassium. You stop these chemical reactions, and the chances are, the resulting phenomenon that they create is also going to stop, leaving me with no thought and no feeling.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?".
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.
"Buddha" is not something like a god, there have been many "Buddhas" historically. It's just a term for "having reached enlightenment" in Buddhism. Which, by the way, is very different from other religions, although it's counted as one. There is no omnipotent being which you worship...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
On July 14 2008 02:11 HamerD wrote: 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...
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.
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.
naw, im not denying the possibility, in fact I have kinda theorized a model explaining how conscious thought could arise as one facet of cosmic evolution.
I am just saying that science has uncovered what science has uncovered, and it has done absolutely nothing to reveal how the process of experiencing works.
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.
They do not show that feeling and thought are the result of chemical reactions. They only show that one correlates to the other.
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.
On July 14 2008 02:56 0xDEADBEEF wrote: "Buddha" is not something like a god, there have been many "Buddhas" historically. It's just a term for "having reached enlightenment" in Buddhism. Which, by the way, is very different from other religions, although it's counted as one. There is no omnipotent being which you worship...
I know what a buddha is, you didn't get my point.
On July 14 2008 03:00 Fen wrote: 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.
well, I don't believe in enlightenment as "perfect", myself. I do believe it is entirely possible that there has been 1 or more buddhas who had the correct view regarding the fundamental nature of the universe.
On July 14 2008 02:11 HamerD wrote: 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...
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.
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.
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.
What exactly is the meaning of life then?
Following the ten commandments and praying at the dinner table is hardly "meaning". The time I spent attempting to believe in a God did not provide answers, merely more questions.
On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote: 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.
yes it does.
why wouldn't it?
If Bob makes up some bullshit and Joe says he doesn't know... that doesn't make Bob right. Being the only game in town doesn't mean you're right.
On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote: 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.
yes it does.
why wouldn't it?
If Bob makes up some bullshit and Joe says he doesn't know... that doesn't make Bob right. Being the only game in town doesn't mean you're right.
On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote: 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.
yes it does.
why wouldn't it?
If Bob makes up some bullshit and Joe says he doesn't know... that doesn't make Bob right. Being the only game in town doesn't mean you're right.
I didn't say anything makes anyone right.
What did you mean by saying religion has a right to answer those sorts of questions then? Does just anyone have that right, or is there something special about religion?
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.
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.
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.
What exactly is the meaning of life then?
Following the ten commandments and praying at the dinner table is hardly "meaning". The time I spent attempting to believe in a God did not provide answers, merely more questions.
thats because u aren't stupid, not because religion fails to assign meaning to life. it clearly does.
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.
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.
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.
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.
yes it does.
why wouldn't it?
Why would it? Why doesn't philosophy do?
Philosophy works fine too. I don't care what you call it. They are the same thing.
A philosopher and a monk investigate the same thing (if the monk is true to himself that is).
My suspicion is that we agree and just had a misunderstanding about what I meant by "religion".
On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote: 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.
yes it does.
why wouldn't it?
If Bob makes up some bullshit and Joe says he doesn't know... that doesn't make Bob right. Being the only game in town doesn't mean you're right.
I didn't say anything makes anyone right.
Remember, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
Here's my secular attempt at answering questions about meaning, etc.
There's no external source of meaning. In effect, it's pretty much up to any given individual to find what matters to them and extract meaning out of that. Different people might come up with different answers.
Things that are important to me are: - Living happily and honestly - Continually learning and understanding things - Helping others to achieve what's important to them (rather than imposing my values)
On July 14 2008 04:00 DrainX wrote: By religion I mean an organized institution claiming the existence of some supernatural being which they worship.
i meant(taken from dictionary.com)
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
AKA a non-bastardized meaning of religion
My definition was taken from Dan Dennetts book Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. Your definition sounds more like a worldview to me :S But I guess that's where we disagree then. For an example I don't think Buddhism is a religion.
Or actually now that I look it up his definition is:
Daniel Dennett wrote: Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose aproval is to be sought.
On July 14 2008 04:05 Polemarch wrote: Here's my secular attempt at answering questions about meaning, etc.
There's no external source of meaning. In effect, it's pretty much up to any given individual to find what matters to them and extract meaning out of that. Different people might come up with different answers.
Things that are important to me are: - Living happily and honestly - Continually learning and understanding things - Helping others to achieve what's important to them (rather than imposing my values)
There is no point in getting involved in that argument. It achieves nothing and isn't a sensible approach.
By allowing yourself to be drawn into that argument you make a big mistake. It's part of the smokescreen that religion puts up to cloud the real question with enough nonsense it never gets answered.
The only way to debate is to start from the point of view that you won't disagree there might be a God, but that it is religion that is most unlikely.
Ask what brand of religion they adhere, then ask why they are so sure that their SPECIFIC type is right. Is there historic evidence? Is there evidence in todays world that their God exists? Is there evidence that their actions, such as prayer, make a difference?
Of course there isn't any evidence, at which point they will claim to have had a religious "experience".
There's many ways to tackle that, I like to point out that every other religion has followers that claim the same. So there isn't anything special or meaningful about their experience.
Although you will stump them you will still most likely won't have an effect. Because the perspective they come from is one that says "What have I forgotten?" "What rebuttal have I missed out?" They will most likely never consider the possibility they are wrong. That's just the way the human mind thinks.
This evidence causes them to feel unhappy, I like to think it's a form of trauma. Certainly it was applicable to myself. The stages are shock/denial, anger/blame, grief/fear, bargaining, and acceptance/resolution.
Getting past the denial stage is effectively almost impossible if you don't want to get past it. You can then become very angry at being tricked, you can become afraid etc....
On July 14 2008 04:00 DrainX wrote: By religion I mean an organized institution claiming the existence of some supernatural being which they worship.
i meant(taken from dictionary.com)
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
AKA a non-bastardized meaning of religion
oh ok... that explains the differences previously then, it's pretty much a tautology. i think in the context of this thread most other people are using the word religion differently though, so it might make discussion easier if we follow the bastardized definition.
so everybody basically agrees. this thread might be imba because all the more religious people are at church, haha.
On July 14 2008 04:05 Polemarch wrote: Here's my secular attempt at answering questions about meaning, etc.
There's no external source of meaning. In effect, it's pretty much up to any given individual to find what matters to them and extract meaning out of that. Different people might come up with different answers.
Things that are important to me are: - Living happily and honestly - Continually learning and understanding things - Helping others to achieve what's important to them (rather than imposing my values)
There is no point in getting involved in that argument. It achieves nothing and isn't a sensible approach.
By allowing yourself to be drawn into that argument you make a big mistake. It's part of the smokescreen that religion puts up to cloud the real question with enough nonsense it never gets answered.
The only way to debate is to start from the point of view that you won't disagree there might be a God, but that it is religion that is most unlikely.
Ask what brand of religion they adhere, then ask why they are so sure that their SPECIFIC type is right. Is there historic evidence? Is there evidence in todays world that their God exists? Is there evidence that their actions, such as prayer, make a difference?
Of course there isn't any evidence, at which point they will claim to have had a religious "experience".
There's many ways to tackle that, I like to point out that every other religion has followers that claim the same. So there isn't anything special or meaningful about their experience.
Although you will stump them you will still most likely won't have an effect. Because the perspective they come from is one that says "What have I forgotten?" "What rebuttal have I missed out?" They will most likely never consider the possibility they are wrong. That's just the way the human mind thinks.
This evidence causes them to feel unhappy, I like to think it's a form of trauma. Certainly it was applicable to myself. The stages are shock/denial, anger/blame, grief/fear, bargaining, and acceptance/resolution.
Getting past the denial stage is effectively almost impossible if you don't want to get past it. You can then become very angry at being tricked, you can become afraid etc....
I agree with your tips in the context of a debate, but the questions of meaning/purpose are interesting even in a discussion among non-religious people. What do you think about those?
Dawkins spoke here a few months back, and it was pretty interesting. I really really get the feeling, though, that he knows he struck a chord with the whole God thing and is just doing it to be controversial at this point. The guy has an aura of pure hatred and anger about him when he walks around a room. He was in the middle of a big college speech tour though, so maybe he was just burnt out.
The stuff that made him famous is super solid research and well worth a read, but a lot of the shit he preaches publicly is just as dogmatic and single minded as the things he is against. Modern western science is a religion. Discuss.
The emphasis the western world likes to place on rational thought is ridiculous when applied to social structure and theory. Humans are not rational beings and so trying to "fix" society with rational progressions rarely has positive effects. I highly disagree with his thinking of "superstitious belief" and how it impacts society - there is just as much good as bad, and a certain amount of public "thought viruses" are needed in order to keep a cohesive society. Traditional religious instutions exist to tie people together, whereas current science tends to pull them apart and ultimately results in disconnected society and skyrocketing rates of mental illness.
On July 14 2008 04:05 Polemarch wrote: Here's my secular attempt at answering questions about meaning, etc.
There's no external source of meaning. In effect, it's pretty much up to any given individual to find what matters to them and extract meaning out of that. Different people might come up with different answers.
Things that are important to me are: - Living happily and honestly - Continually learning and understanding things - Helping others to achieve what's important to them (rather than imposing my values)
There is no point in getting involved in that argument. It achieves nothing and isn't a sensible approach.
By allowing yourself to be drawn into that argument you make a big mistake. It's part of the smokescreen that religion puts up to cloud the real question with enough nonsense it never gets answered.
The only way to debate is to start from the point of view that you won't disagree there might be a God, but that it is religion that is most unlikely.
Ask what brand of religion they adhere, then ask why they are so sure that their SPECIFIC type is right. Is there historic evidence? Is there evidence in todays world that their God exists? Is there evidence that their actions, such as prayer, make a difference?
Of course there isn't any evidence, at which point they will claim to have had a religious "experience".
There's many ways to tackle that, I like to point out that every other religion has followers that claim the same. So there isn't anything special or meaningful about their experience.
Although you will stump them you will still most likely won't have an effect. Because the perspective they come from is one that says "What have I forgotten?" "What rebuttal have I missed out?" They will most likely never consider the possibility they are wrong. That's just the way the human mind thinks.
This evidence causes them to feel unhappy, I like to think it's a form of trauma. Certainly it was applicable to myself. The stages are shock/denial, anger/blame, grief/fear, bargaining, and acceptance/resolution.
Getting past the denial stage is effectively almost impossible if you don't want to get past it. You can then become very angry at being tricked, you can become afraid etc....
I agree with your tips in the context of a debate, but the questions of meaning/purpose are interesting even in a discussion among non-religious people. What do you think about those?
Personally I don't think it's an interesting discussion, I don't believe it's a question with an answer. I think religious people would have you believe that you need a purpose and then even more astoundingly claim they have one themselves.
In reality I don't think a person needs a purpose, I think we should be content to fulfill our own goals as dictated by our own emotions. Every person has a certain amount of logic(some more than others), but then alongside that lies emotions and feelings that create goals, drive to complete those goals and a sense of achievement when done. These can perhaps be called personality.
To give yourself an overwhelming purpose is to predict your emotions. I find it quite exciting that I don't know how I'm going to feel at any time.
On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote: Dawkins spoke here a few months back, and it was pretty interesting. I really really get the feeling, though, that he knows he struck a chord with the whole God thing and is just doing it to be controversial at this point. The guy has an aura of pure hatred and anger about him when he walks around a room. He was in the middle of a big college speech tour though, so maybe he was just burnt out.
The stuff that made him famous is super solid research and well worth a read, but a lot of the shit he preaches publicly is just as dogmatic and single minded as the things he is against. Modern western science is a religion. Discuss.
On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote: Dawkins spoke here a few months back, and it was pretty interesting. I really really get the feeling, though, that he knows he struck a chord with the whole God thing and is just doing it to be controversial at this point. The guy has an aura of pure hatred and anger about him when he walks around a room. He was in the middle of a big college speech tour though, so maybe he was just burnt out.
The stuff that made him famous is super solid research and well worth a read, but a lot of the shit he preaches publicly is just as dogmatic and single minded as the things he is against. Modern western science is a religion. Discuss.
If I claimed something to be true because science teaches me that and you challenged me on it I'd not have to resort to violence in order to prove my point. I could simply find the research that led science to the consensus in question and demonstrate the experiment. People don't accept science because they believe in it, there is no faith involved, the core is always solid repeatable research.
On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote: Dawkins spoke here a few months back, and it was pretty interesting. I really really get the feeling, though, that he knows he struck a chord with the whole God thing and is just doing it to be controversial at this point. The guy has an aura of pure hatred and anger about him when he walks around a room. He was in the middle of a big college speech tour though, so maybe he was just burnt out.
The stuff that made him famous is super solid research and well worth a read, but a lot of the shit he preaches publicly is just as dogmatic and single minded as the things he is against. Modern western science is a religion. Discuss.
If I claimed something to be true because science teaches me that and you challenged me on it I'd not have to resort to violence in order to prove my point. I could simply find the research that led science to the consensus in question and demonstrate the experiment. People don't accept science because they believe in it, there is no faith involved, the core is always solid repeatable research.
This is less true than people want to believe. Coronary bypass surgery and intensive care units have no empirical evidence that they help people at all, yet they are done tends of thousands of times a year throughout the country. Science is governed by the same notions of how popular thoughts spread that religion is attacked for.
Regardless, I was referring to the fact that what Dawkins tends to speak of lately is idealogical in nature and he been backing away from the more concrete things his original books were about. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but rather the way in which he tries to accomplish it.
(also i added another paragraph to my original post ok)
On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote: The emphasis the western world likes to place on rational thought is ridiculous when applied to social structure and theory. Humans are not rational beings and so trying to "fix" society with rational progressions rarely has positive effects. I highly disagree with his thinking of "superstitious belief" and how it impacts society - there is just as much good as bad, and a certain amount of public "thought viruses" are needed in order to keep a cohesive society. Traditional religious instutions exist to tie people together, whereas current science tends to pull them apart and ultimately results in disconnected society and skyrocketing rates of mental illness.
In my country there are around 85% atheists/agnostics and it works perfectly fine. And even if religion made people happier, which I highly doubt (Wouldn't make me happier at least), that doesn't make it true.
There is Science that can be applied using the Scientific Method and Science that you can't (Theories) other than just assuming and this involves Faith, no matter how "logical/ intelligent" you think it is, a certain amount of faith has to be involved in order to justify your theory . Im not saying thats a bad thing, but faith is involved. Generalizing that all science can be observed, experimented, etc its just not true.
btw im not here to debate anymore, this religion debates are extremely time-consuming for me as and doesn't change people's original stands no matter how long or how right people think they are. ill go to sleep now ;]
On July 14 2008 04:42 Klive5ive wrote: Personally I don't think it's an interesting discussion, I don't believe it's a question with an answer. I think religious people would have you believe that you need a purpose and then even more astoundingly claim they have one themselves.
In reality I don't think a person needs a purpose, I think we should be content to fulfill our own goals as dictated by our own emotions. Every person has a certain amount of logic(some more than others), but then alongside that lies emotions and feelings that create goals, drive to complete those goals and a sense of achievement when done. These can perhaps be called personality.
To give yourself an overwhelming purpose is to predict your emotions. I find it quite exciting that I don't know how I'm going to feel at any time.
I think the answer we share of there being no set meaning/purpose is an extremely interesting statement. It doesn't have enough truthiness to really spread as-is though.
I do think a person should choose long-term goals that are akin to purpose/meaning though. I say this not in a dogmatic way... but based on the observation that on average, people who do have solid long-term goals feel seem more satisfied and happy over the long run, and more likely to make a positive impact on others. I know it was definitely true for me. Long-term goals/purpose help people push through the trap of doing only the immediately most enjoyable things and ending up as drug addicts or just bored and mediocre.
The problem with dawkins is that he often bares iggnorance himself, he uses random fanatisim to support his arguments. Alot of the points he raises only people like Ted Haggert would actualy agree with. In his video "The root of all evil?" He interviews creationists and homophobic eveangleical preahcers but doesnt dare step into a thelogical college or have an a peice of a interview with some-one like McGraph. Personaly Peter Hitchen's debates and points make much more sense to me rather than the almost ideoligy richard dawkin's abides by. Many ecomplished authors and sceintist and intelectuals have written books in counter to his and he fails to react or give them a proper answer to thier counter argument. In fact I'll quote his arrogance "A dog doesn't statisfy his fleas". I understand that many would be fustrated when arguing with close minded people and end up ignorning them. And I'm sure Richard Dawkins belives that he says things like this becasue "he's heard all the counter arugemnts before" or "Its stupid to argue at all because.." But I'd like to know when he actually started this idea where he thinks thats hes thought out every possibilty and idea so hes not going to gratify others with answers. But i think that perhaps hes always had this idea, from the age of about 10-15. Like most others, the idea of rebelling against society and his parents, having a knoweldege that others dont, not feeling insecure about being the naive one.
I alost despise the way athiest rationalise emotion , marriage and the law. I'm sorry but its totaly flawed. The feeling that stops you from killing disabeld people to better the human race is not some dam chemical in your head which is meant for another purpose. The reason we don't have sex with children who have gone through puberty who are under 16 when we are over 20 is not because again of a confusion of a chemical that's meant to better teamwork. We don't marry, love, have children with, (in alot of cases) stay faithfull, and even die for a loved one just because of a chemcal in our head. Emotion doesnt feel the same as hormores, love doesnt feel the same as sexual desire or hunger, they arn't the same.
The funniest comment though are the so called "logic" people come up with religion because of course it can't be that your happier. I love this one especaily "they want to control you" .... lol. Or "It's a way of making money" or even "It's a joke".
But let me digress. I by no-means would ever say that you should pick up the bible, read it, and belive. I think only a fool would do this. Basicly you have to ask questions to start with before you confirm to religions. Why are we here, and the msot important one is how did we get here. By this i mean reseraching the big bang, thinking long deep hours about logic and emotion, forumalting your dessicsion. One major part is wether you belive or not that emotion is beyond normal human everything things. Also you have to question the existance of your conciousness and wether it as well is specail and unique, and wether something as brutal and sceintificaly mathamicaly logical as nature could produce a concious and emotions.These questions when reading sound stupid im sure, you can't sum up even the questions in writing let alone the answers, but i would hope you understand what questions i mean(philosophy is the nearest to describing them i guess). Once you decide this, IF you decide that there has to be at least soem sort of greater being you can then look at dominations of religion. Personnaly i found the denomination to be the one i was born into, and i can see how this sounds very much like "ah he didnt differ from his parents" . Trust me i question my faith ALOT. But it came down really to my religous expeirence. If you don't know what it is here goes. Just imagine a feeling thats better than happyness, better than love, better than freindship, infact its not just a "feeling". It's a bit like a fucking happiness nuke going off inside, its like nothing you've ever friggin felt on this earth. You can't move, you cant speak, you can only smile and feel like the happiest man alive. It's much better than any adreline rush you've ever felt, infact its not in the same bullpark. There is no word AT ALL on this world ever invented to explain what the holy spirit feeling like.Trust me I've questioned it countless times during and after these expeirnces, and im usually skeptical myself but i just CANNOT deny that this feeling is not of this world. Trust me i really struggle with it, i always have problems with the fact i don't have prayers answered and i pretty much never see "signs". I prayed about everything important in my life from career chocies to emotions and got nothing. But again i go back to that feeling and i can't deny, i can't even question. And i can understand why this means nothing to you but it should explain party why i cant be told its not true, because i didnt "decide it" it's just true, its mroe real than anything on this earth.
I'm not try to get you to reconsider you're beliefs/ lack there-of, but im just trying to explain where i am coming from in my standpoint on this issue.
Sorry for the masive amount of typos but im very tierd right now.
On July 14 2008 05:13 ilj.psa wrote: There is Science that can be applied using the Scientific Method and Science that you can't (Theories) other than just assuming and this involves Faith,
This is very very very very wrong. I can't stress it enough. You don't know what science is. Now I could try to explain it, but it would be a waste of time because it's such common knowledge you can find all over.
On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote: The emphasis the western world likes to place on rational thought is ridiculous when applied to social structure and theory. Humans are not rational beings and so trying to "fix" society with rational progressions rarely has positive effects. I highly disagree with his thinking of "superstitious belief" and how it impacts society - there is just as much good as bad, and a certain amount of public "thought viruses" are needed in order to keep a cohesive society. Traditional religious instutions exist to tie people together, whereas current science tends to pull them apart and ultimately results in disconnected society and skyrocketing rates of mental illness.
In my country there are around 85% atheists/agnostics and it works perfectly fine. And even if religion made people happier, which I highly doubt (Wouldn't make me happier at least), that doesn't make it true.
His point stands though, religion is only one of many possible placebo pills the general public needs in order to act reasonably enough, and it is true that religion works more or less, as has been tested for several thousands of years (humankind still exists). So it is natural to expect the usual uneasiness people have when dumping something that has served its purpose for so long.
It would be interesting to know by the way, how the percentage of religious people has changed in your country over the past say 100 years, just to have an idea how long an atheism/agnosticism (which are different things actually) dominated society has been tested to exist harmonioulsy.
On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote: The emphasis the western world likes to place on rational thought is ridiculous when applied to social structure and theory. Humans are not rational beings and so trying to "fix" society with rational progressions rarely has positive effects. I highly disagree with his thinking of "superstitious belief" and how it impacts society - there is just as much good as bad, and a certain amount of public "thought viruses" are needed in order to keep a cohesive society. Traditional religious instutions exist to tie people together, whereas current science tends to pull them apart and ultimately results in disconnected society and skyrocketing rates of mental illness.
In my country there are around 85% atheists/agnostics and it works perfectly fine. And even if religion made people happier, which I highly doubt (Wouldn't make me happier at least), that doesn't make it true.
You made that number up, and provide no basis for it. I thought you represented the scientific side?
And as for science being the new western religion, that is a very interesting idea. Now, it will all come down to how we decide to define religion, and I am pretty sure that we will reach no consensus on the matter. My own definition would be in line with "a teaching that tries answer the questions about the MEANING of life and death, without ever explicitly doing so." I bet quite a few here would argue otherwise, but none of the "big" religions will give an explicit answer to the meaning of life.
Now, as far as science goes, the "meaning" of just about anything is a pointless subject. Not because humans doesn't have a very real need to discuss "the meaning," but because it is something that can neither be verified, nor falsified, and therefor outside the scope of science. To use a scientific therm, they are incommensurable.
Now, the problem, imho, begins when some people, such as Dawkins, try and actually make their scientific agnostisism in to a religion, something it cannot reasonably by said to be. The next problem is that various religious groups, in the us and otherwise, try and to the opposite thing, i.e. making religion into science, which is even worse. With the very agressive rhetorics that Dawkins use, he is driving this debate on, where it should just have been publicly renounced, and then ignored. When you so openly challange religious people the way he does, he is bound to spark this kind of reaction, actually strengthening the cause he is figthing.
As for he incredibly silly debate between religion/atheism, I'm sure that no side are more likely to be persuaded than the other, and that neither like the other side activly trying to convert them.
Lastly, all religion starts in the question about a meaning, and a search for that meaning. Just because you, in this part of your life, do not feel the need to search for an answer, does not mean that that need doesn't exist, for others, or wont exist for you in the future. Whatever answer you find in the end is surely better than never asking that question at all.
On July 14 2008 05:13 ilj.psa wrote: There is Science that can be applied using the Scientific Method and Science that you can't (Theories) other than just assuming and this involves Faith,
This is very very very very wrong. I can't stress it enough. You don't know what science is. Now I could try to explain it, but it would be a waste of time because it's such common knowledge you can find all over.
When people defend science they describe an idealized process of knowledge seeking and constant awareness of the impossibility of perfect knowledge.
When people use what they call "science" to support their political positions or sell products, they reference people who call themselves scientists without living up to that ideal, and act as if they are offering perfect knowledge.
You can't blame people for distrusting science when a quarter of what is presented to them as such in their daily lives is unmitigated bullshit and another half is rampant speculation.
RedMourn can you name a few of the books that counter the ones from Richard Dawkins? I've seen the lecture from 2006 and I must say he is pretty solid :D.
But I'd like to see many facets of his viewing of the world so that's why I'm asking for other opinions except himself.
I can't blame him for getting his education in Burundi, if he did.
On July 14 2008 06:00 Fwmeh wrote: You made that number up, and provide no basis for it. I thought you represented the scientific side?
Sweden is famous for that number. He didn't make it up.You just made up he made it up. I also remember 85%. But if it's actually off a bit it's because he misremembered.
Of course you shouldn't trust his word if you think it's an absurd number. But I think it was a safe assumption on his part that people wouldn't dispute it. He mentioned it only to remember us.
On July 14 2008 06:10 Angel[BTL] wrote: RedMourn can you name a few of the books that counter the ones from Richard Dawkins? I've seen the lecture from 2006 and I must say he is pretty solid :D.
But I'd like to see many facets of his viewing of the world so that's why I'm asking for other opinions except himself.
The Dawkins Delusion is a book written by a fellow professor of RIchard at oxford, he was an athiest and converted to CoE. Theres loads of others, look it up on amazon.
On July 14 2008 05:13 ilj.psa wrote: There is Science that can be applied using the Scientific Method and Science that you can't (Theories) other than just assuming and this involves Faith,
This is very very very very wrong. I can't stress it enough. You don't know what science is. Now I could try to explain it, but it would be a waste of time because it's such common knowledge you can find all over.
Basically I agree with you that science owns and there's essentially no place for religion, but you need to question why that's the case instead of just assuming it or calling it common knowledge - it's not.
I hate to give ammunition to the religious camps, but there are some things that in principle the scientific method might not be very good for. The scientific method depends on measuring repeatable things. This depends on an assumption/axiom of natural law -- that things are basically repeatable.
If there really was some genuine miracle that made no sense and couldn't be reproduced... science wouldn't be able to explain it. One guy would report his findings, then it'd get shot down in peer-review because nobody else could reproduce it or explain it.
Now, the observed fact that science has extraordinary predictive power (even if it's probabilistic under quantum theory) and lets us understand and control the world to an amazing degree is STRONG evidence for natural law. Like if the gajillions of calculations going on in your computer while you read TL.NET didn't all go right, your computer would crash or magically turn into a purple elephant... but this doesn't generally happen unless your RAM goes bad or you download the elephant virus or something.
On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote: The emphasis the western world likes to place on rational thought is ridiculous when applied to social structure and theory. Humans are not rational beings and so trying to "fix" society with rational progressions rarely has positive effects. I highly disagree with his thinking of "superstitious belief" and how it impacts society - there is just as much good as bad, and a certain amount of public "thought viruses" are needed in order to keep a cohesive society. Traditional religious instutions exist to tie people together, whereas current science tends to pull them apart and ultimately results in disconnected society and skyrocketing rates of mental illness.
In my country there are around 85% atheists/agnostics and it works perfectly fine. And even if religion made people happier, which I highly doubt (Wouldn't make me happier at least), that doesn't make it true.
You made that number up, and provide no basis for it. I thought you represented the scientific side?
I didn't make it up. It has been quoted in every religion thread on TL since two years back. I also said "around" because it could have changed the last few months.
Of cause the number varies between difference polls and exactly how the questions are phrased etc. I cant find the study that the 85% figure came from right now but ill give you 80:
"Several studies have found Sweden to be one of the most secular countries in the world. According to Davie (1999), 80% of Swedes do not believe in God."
My point was that the majority, basically everyone here except some old people and some people on the countryside don't even think about faith. They probably don't even call themselves atheists since religion is such a non issue here.
On July 14 2008 06:00 Fwmeh wrote: You made that number up, and provide no basis for it. I thought you represented the scientific side?
Sweden is famous for that number. He didn't make it up.You just made up he made it up. I also remember 85%. But if it's actually off a bit it's because he misremembered.
Of course you shouldn't trust his word if you think it's an absurd number. But I think it was a safe assumption on his part that people wouldn't dispute it. He mentioned it only to remember us.
You know that I live in sweden too? And since it is such a famous number, you will of course have no problem presenting the scientific article where that number is from, so that I can for myself judge the credibilty of the method used in obtaining that number?
And I really do not put words in his mouth, but if he really presented that number hoping that people wouldn't dispute it, wouldn't that be rather shady? Is that not exactly what his side would argue against? I'm sure that was not how he meant it, but still...
On topic. I think that Dawkins could do worse than to study the example of Edward O. Wilson, as a person who would much rather do things than fight over useless issues.
edit, to drainX. Please read that again more carefuly. In the Eurostat survey, 23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", whereas 53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 23% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force". As for the study that presented 80% as agnostic/atheist, the link doesn't have a reference anymore. Someone should report that.
As for DrainX point, if I understood it, was that religion is not needed as an "opium of the people," presenting sweden, being a markedly secular country as support.
That, I agree 100% with. I'm sure that there can a healthy society with 0% religious people. I do not believe Dawkins will get us there.
And I do not think that 0% religious people would in itself make it a better place.
On July 14 2008 07:00 Jyvblamo wrote: If Dawkins is as extreme as atheists get, then I'd much rather deal with militant fundamental extremist atheism than the religious counterparts.
On July 14 2008 07:00 Jyvblamo wrote: If Dawkins is as extreme as atheists get, then I'd much rather deal with militant fundamental extremist atheism than the religious counterparts.
there are atheist terrorists, too
They usually don't do their acts in the name of disbelief though :D
On July 14 2008 06:48 Polemarch wrote: So your source says 77% instead of 85%... that's not really a material difference.
Read again.
We're probably just disagreeing over semantics. The standard definition is an atheist is the opposite of a theist... i.e. someone who doesn't believe in a God or Gods. They can still believe in some other superstitious mumbo-jumbo, although more hardcore atheists like Dawkins and others in this thread generally don't. There's probably a better word for that... but I can't think of it offhand.
Your source says 23% of Swedish people believe in a God. That means 77% don't, so are atheists. The 53% who don't believe in a God but some mysterious spirit/life-force are soft-core atheists. They'd probably also fall under "agnostics" the way most people use that word.
So your source says 77% of Swedes are atheists, which isn't very different from the original claim that 85% are atheists/agnostics.
I'm pretty pleasantly surprised at how high that number is though! Thanks for providing another source.
I think almost all atheists really are agnostics. Agnostic means you're an atheist as long as it is proven that a god exists. Atheists are scientific-minded people, so if it could ever be proven that a higher being exists and this being is also pretty much exactly like a god described in our various religions, they would have to accept it. But until such a being makes some kind of direct contact with us, which probably never happens (either because such a being doesn't exist or because such a being doesn't care about us), agnostics are basically atheists. And even if we should meet a higher being, it's much more likely that it's simply a more advanced alien species from somewhere else, but nothing close to the Christian image of an omnipotent god. True omnipotence can't exist anyway ("can a god create a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?").
The way Wikipedia has it, "atheism" is the general term for lack of a belief in a God or Gods, and things like agnosticism are subsets of it. You have weak and strong atheism, weak and strong agnosticism, theological noncognitivism, etc. as parts of atheism.
Thus, someone can be both an agnostic and an atheist, which would certainly seem to help clear up confusion over the terms.
First hit from google gives 85% according to Zuckerman, 2005. And how did I have to be Swedish to remember that?
Also, agnosticism has little to do with the theism-atheism thing. You can be an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist.
Also, many atheists don't identify themselves as atheists. They just answer they don't believe in god, which of course makes them fulfill the requirements. As always with surveys it matters how the question is asked.
Polemarch, let's say you are right. Then someone needs to make a topic: "BlackStar, please explain what science is." Then I, or someone else does. And then a mod can close the thread because there's nothing really to discuss.
there are atheist terrorists, too
At first I thought this was sarcastic. But then it hit me you may be mixing up an atheistic terrorist and a terrorist that is also an atheist. Of course atheism only prevents one from doing one thing: being a theist.
On July 14 2008 07:30 0xDEADBEEF wrote: I think almost all atheists really are agnostics. Agnostic means you're an atheist as long as it is proven that a god exists. Atheists are scientific-minded people, so if it could ever be proven that a higher being exists and this being is also pretty much exactly like a god described in our various religions, they would have to accept it. But until such a being makes some kind of direct contact with us, which probably never happens (either because such a being doesn't exist or because such a being doesn't care about us), agnostics are basically atheists. And even if we should meet a higher being, it's much more likely that it's simply a more advanced alien species from somewhere else, but nothing close to the Christian image of an omnipotent god. True omnipotence can't exist anyway ("can a god create a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?").
I think that to be honest all athiests are agnostic otherwise they are more dogmatic than christains. At least christaisn can claim to have expeirenced something that is clearly out of this world, while athiest cannot produce on a logical, physical or personal level any evidence because your claiming there's a lack of evidence.
Now for the lvoely niave "can a god create a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?". I saulte you for trying but its completely void. Lets break the sentence down shall we: "can soemthing thats all powerfull and can lift any rock of any density create a rock of a density larger than it can lift." Well no, of course not, you have contradicted yourself. You start the sentence by using the noun god which implies an all-powerfull being and then you claim he isn't all powefull. You create an instance of soemthing more powerfull than him after saying he is the most powerfull, or something that breaks the previous statement.
heres a quote from another guy i found:
He CAN create the stone. It's just that he can lift it too. Through being omnipotent, he is capable of creating ANY stone. Through being omnipotent, he is also capable of lifting ANY stone. There cannot exist stones which he cannot lift. In order to make such a stone, he would first have to nullify his own omnipotence, at least in the field of stone-lifting. The key here is that God being able to lift the rock (or not, as the case may be) is NOT a property of the rock, it is a property of God. Rocks do not carry any mystical 'can't-be-lifted-by-God-ness' in them, they simply are what they are and whether or not God can lift them depends on God's lifting ability (which, if he is omnipotent, is infinite).
Was thinking of making a thread like this of my own. Nice to see that someone beat me to it. Ill try to tread thru most of the posts. And ofc im Pro-Dawkins or whatever you want to call it.
"The Enemies of Reason" focuses on superstitious belief and it's negative ramifications on society. Dawkins attacks astrology, spiritual consulting and other such methods which conflict with science.
i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: "The Enemies of Reason" focuses on superstitious belief and it's negative ramifications on society. Dawkins attacks astrology, spiritual consulting and other such methods which conflict with science.
i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
Some people probably do...
But science and peer-review judges evidence and results. If Astrology or spirituality or religion can find a cure for cancer or create a formula that we don't know, I'm sure it would be widely explored. No scientist will ever get famous by "trying" to explore unique fields.
On July 14 2008 07:48 redmourn wrote: I think that to be honest all athiests are agnostic otherwise they are more dogmatic than christains. At least christaisn can claim to have expeirenced something that is clearly out of this world, while athiest cannot produce on a logical, physical or personal level any evidence because your claiming there's a lack of evidence.
In 1982 Isaac Asimov wrote: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
I love this movie and it sums up a lot of my feelings about God. "An atheist meets God"
Edit:
About questions like "Can God create a stone that he can't carry?" The problem is not with God, it's just that the question produces a paradox with the all-mighty in the discussion.
It's very easy to create questions like this and it proves nothing.
Edit2:
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
There is nothing to explore about religion, you have a set of rules to follow and that's it no questions asked.
(Don't want to spam this thread with posts so im trying to bunch them up)
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
Since isn't a set of dogmas. It's a method for making models that describe reality.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
Without stemcell research being banned and without creationism being taught in schools then yes science can progress faster.
Another example is the Islamic Golden Age. Between the 8th and the 13th century Islamic scholars were among the finest in the world.
Take a peek at this 3 minute video.
That's what happens when we lose faith in the scientific method.
I found all that talk about alternative medicine in part2 quite interesting. I recently saw a documentary where a Chinese had a heart surgery. Because he was not able to effort regular sedatives, acupuncture was used. He was awake and showed no pain. As far as I know science can't explain how acupuncture works. But you should not condemn it as superstition just because you don't understand how something works.
To start a new point of discussion: What annoys me the most with religion is also something Dawkins talks about a lot. And it's about the way some religious people assume that their children will have the same religion as themselves. Which in turn directly leads to indoctrination of the "family religion" to that child. And because of this combined with rules of apostasy in most religions (especially Christianity which I absolutely have no understanding for, dont you read the bible??) the children won't even dare to explore other alternatives.
And of course I can't stand christians in the US trying to enforce creationism onto the school curriculum, basically people trying to force other people to believe their own naive religion.
On July 14 2008 08:26 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: I found all that talk about alternative medicine in part2 quite interesting. I recently saw a documentary where a Chinese had a heart surgery. Because he was not able to effort regular sedatives, acupuncture was used. He was awake and showed no pain. As far as I know science can't explain how acupuncture works. But you should not condemn it as superstition just because you don't understand how something works.
You should also not be incredulous and assume something is 'supernatural' just because you do not yet understand how something works. There is an explanation out there for how acupuncture works, and science, not religion, will reveal it.
On July 14 2008 08:29 Bozali wrote: To start a new point of discussion: What annoys me the most with religion is also something Dawkins talks about a lot. And it's about the way some religious people assume that their children will have the same religion as themselves. Which in turn directly leads to indoctrination of the "family religion" to that child. And because of this combined with rules of apostasy in most religions (especially Christianity which I absolutely have no understanding for, dont you read the bible??) the children won't even dare to explore other alternatives.
And of course I can't stand christians in the US trying to enforce creationism onto the school curriculum, basically people trying to force other people to believe their own naive religion.
Yeh I agree Basically most of my Cristian friends' parents are Christians and they introduced them to children, forcing them to go to churches at a young age. I hope that some will be brave enough to discover the arguments of atheists one day.
Usually only people who are saddened will convert to Christianty, seeking comfort maybe...
Absolutely love Dawkins. I have all the time in the world for him. Thoroughly enjoyed 'The God Delusion' and would recommend any of Dawkins' works to anybody.
that black dude is always on that Universe show on the history channel :D very cool dude..
Anyway, Sam Harris is definitely an extremist "skeptic". the reason most find him less offensive than Dawkins is because his strategy is much more subtle and calculated. in the End of Faith, he attacks faith by attacking Islam with arguments that Christians love to agree with, then he turns it around and reformulates the same argument against Christianity--in the end creating a complete paradigm shift for most Christians that any reasonable being just can't deny. I love sam harris, he recently published an article through Dawkin's site (I believe) about the highly controversial dutch documentary Fitna which was just absolutely brilliant. And from those videos in the OP, he is very well spoken which is nice to see : )
On July 14 2008 08:26 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: I found all that talk about alternative medicine in part2 quite interesting. I recently saw a documentary where a Chinese had a heart surgery. Because he was not able to effort regular sedatives, acupuncture was used. He was awake and showed no pain. As far as I know science can't explain how acupuncture works. But you should not condemn it as superstition just because you don't understand how something works.
The point of the video was to tell people not to resort to alternate medicine, not because scientists are 100% sure that they don't work, but because they have not shown that they work as consistently as modern medicine. If anything, scientists will take acupuncture, explore it far further than any acupuncturist would ever be able to do and make sure that it lives up to the standard of modern medicine.
On July 14 2008 07:48 redmourn wrote: Now for the lvoely niave "can a god create a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?". I saulte you for trying but its completely void. Lets break the sentence down shall we: "can soemthing thats all powerfull and can lift any rock of any density create a rock of a density larger than it can lift." Well no, of course not, you have contradicted yourself. You start the sentence by using the noun god which implies an all-powerfull being and then you claim he isn't all powefull. You create an instance of soemthing more powerfull than him after saying he is the most powerfull, or something that breaks the previous statement.
He CAN create the stone. It's just that he can lift it too. Through being omnipotent, he is capable of creating ANY stone. Through being omnipotent, he is also capable of lifting ANY stone. There cannot exist stones which he cannot lift. In order to make such a stone, he would first have to nullify his own omnipotence, at least in the field of stone-lifting. The key here is that God being able to lift the rock (or not, as the case may be) is NOT a property of the rock, it is a property of God. Rocks do not carry any mystical 'can't-be-lifted-by-God-ness' in them, they simply are what they are and whether or not God can lift them depends on God's lifting ability (which, if he is omnipotent, is infinite).
Uh... that doesn't make any sense. :p And no it's not naive. It's blunt, but it proves that there can't ever be omnipotence. Of course, there might be incredible power which we can't measure, which might be enough power to be called a god, but it still means that there can't ever be a being who can do *everything*. Because it's impossible to fulfill both tasks. And if you can fulfill only one of the two, you're not almighty. Simple as that. What I wanted to say with this is that a god's power has its limits. This limit might be very high, but it's still there, so the "omnipotence" thing is a lie/exaggeration.
And then there are of course other questions which not even our typical religions can "answer", e.g. why god would exist at all, and why he should even care for such a pathetic species like us, except for comedy purposes.
As for myself my stance is that i'm open to everything. I was raised in in "christian family" which in Norway goes as far as being in church once a year for christmas and having church weddings. So i was pretty much just allowed to make up my own mind through education and experiences and i really can't decide on anything , i follow every scientific channel of information i know of and while science today really is fantastic. I'd actually say that beliving science will help us understand everything and dictate the path that humanity should take require more faith that any religious belief in these times. Science is fact but it's also what is known, and what is known ain't that much when it comes to life and death and all that.
I generally can't stand organized religion, but it's not the religious part that disgusts me, it's the human. But i also see it everywhere else. I really can't see how human problems orginate from some fucking religious belief. Actually if the world was ruled after whats jesus said and expressed through his actions i think the world would be a pretty damn fine place, so whatever it is the word of a absolute god or fairytales for grownups it does pretty much hit spot on at the core of what it teaches. what i can't stand is the manfiestation of human stupidity,greed, power hunger, etc the things that makes us all here bash the fucking joke that is modern politics and many other matters. Maybe in 50 years we found the essence of life through quantum physics but until then i'd rather bash people for being stupid and take religion with that little grain of salt that is free thinking and work to get it incorporated in e healthy scientific modern society.
On July 14 2008 09:10 Xan wrote: I generally can't stand organized religion, but it's not the religious part that disgusts me, it's the human. But i also see it everywhere else. I really can't see how human problems orginate from some fucking religious belief. Actually if the world was ruled after whats jesus said and expressed through his actions i think the world would be a pretty damn fine place, so whatever it is the word of a absolute god or fairytales for grownups it does pretty much hit spot on at the core of what it teaches. what i can't stand is the manfiestation of human stupidity,greed, power hunger, etc the things that makes us all here bash the fucking joke that is modern politics and many other matters. Maybe in 50 years we found the essence of life through quantum physics but until then i'd rather bash people for being stupid and take religion with that little grain of salt that is free thinking and work to get it incorporated in e healthy scientific modern society.
Yeah I wish Jesus' words could be taken just as secular moral advice from a wise man, like Gandhi. We don't need religion for morality/decency at all (e.g. see social contract theories of morality)
I don't think any scientific discovery will make people stop acting stupidly though... maybe some discoveries in neuroscience will help us find ways we can better understand and manage emotions like anger, etc., but I wouldn't hold out for some mega-discovery entirely changing human nature. It's pretty much an organizational and cultural problem.
On July 14 2008 09:06 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Uh... that doesn't make any sense. :p And no it's not naive. It's blunt, but it proves that there can't ever be omnipotence. Of course, there might be incredible power which we can't measure, which might be enough power to be called a god, but it still means that there can't ever be a being who can do *everything*. Because it's impossible to fulfill both tasks. And if you can fulfill only one of the two, you're not almighty. Simple as that.
This is nothing more than a semantic argument. You're saying that "omnipotent" and "almighty" and "can do anything" necessarily include the power to commit logical inconsistencies, and that's arbitrary.
Why not say, "If God is omnipotent, then can he xpxdofisu furious purple indeterminacy? If he can't do that, then he can't do everything and therefore he's not omnipotent!"
There's no reason for the term "omnipotent" to include the ability to commit logical inconsistencies or perform the actions described by nonsense utterances. Both nonsense and self-contradictory action descriptions are meaningless.
It is a basic semantic principle that we should define words to have useful meanings. If your interpretation of the word "omnipotent" leads you to the conclusion that the concept is senseless, then that should be a hint to you that your interpretation goes against convention. And language is nothing but convention.
Anyway, there's a better answer to the question: Yes, an omnipotent God could create a stone he couldn't lift, but after he did, he wouldn't be omnipotent anymore, since there would exist a stone which he couldn't lift.
Step 1: create stone (can do anything, check) Step 2: impose limitation on his own power (can do anything, check) Step 3: attempt to lift stone and fail (is no longer omnipotent, check)
A more interesting point would be could anything or anyone convince all believers in 'god' that he were their god? Is god just an ultimate manifestation of the intangible perfection all humans strive to seek?
See the interpretation of 'Adoration of the Magi' that hangs in the chapel in Trinity college, Cambridge, for my opinion.
BTW: the whole medicine topic brings back a thought of mine: If mankind gets more and more used to medicine wouldn't it weaken our own immune system in the long run? Like our body expects some drugs to help him but once there are no drugs anymore, for whatever reason, we may be weaker than before... another thought is, that the survival-of-the-fittest gets kinda tricked with medicine...but this sound too much like eugenics now...
So basically my question is if anything of this might be true, because I have no idea if immune system information is in the genes of if drugs might weaken it. So if someone who studies medicine or stuff has a clue, plz tell
On July 14 2008 09:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: BTW: the whole medicine topic brings back a thought of mine: If mankind gets more and more used to medicine wouldn't it weaken our own immune system in the long run? Like our body expects some drugs to help him but once there are no drugs anymore, for whatever reason, we may be weaker than before... another thought is, that the survival-of-the-fittest gets kinda tricked with medicine...but this sound too much like eugenics now...
So basically my question is if anything of this might be true, because I have no idea if immune system information is in the genes of if drugs might weaken it. So if someone who studies medicine or stuff has a clue, plz tell
some medicines your body gets used to over repeated use. a lot of scientists are against ahibitual use of specific drugs such as penicillin. although i think in general medicine and religion don't bash unless it's something like Scientology.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: "The Enemies of Reason" focuses on superstitious belief and it's negative ramifications on society. Dawkins attacks astrology, spiritual consulting and other such methods which conflict with science.
i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
On July 14 2008 09:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: BTW: the whole medicine topic brings back a thought of mine: If mankind gets more and more used to medicine wouldn't it weaken our own immune system in the long run? Like our body expects some drugs to help him but once there are no drugs anymore, for whatever reason, we may be weaker than before... another thought is, that the survival-of-the-fittest gets kinda tricked with medicine...but this sound too much like eugenics now...
So basically my question is if anything of this might be true, because I have no idea if immune system information is in the genes of if drugs might weaken it. So if someone who studies medicine or stuff has a clue, plz tell
Medicine has been around for maybe 100 years and our immune systems haven't changed much at all for many thousands of years. Modern developments are so vastly insignificant in evolutionary time that it isn't really relevant. Sure in maybe 10,000 years the average immune system (whatever that means) may have changed by a tiny little bit due to medicine, but by then who knows where we'll be. Unless you're talking about the kind of change that happens when you get immunized, for instance, in which case it isn't really "evolution being tricked".
oh and this is sorta funny (not that bill o'riely represents religion well at all). dosn't really have much to add to this debate though. anyways i'll be back to post on this forum soon.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
On July 14 2008 09:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: BTW: the whole medicine topic brings back a thought of mine: If mankind gets more and more used to medicine wouldn't it weaken our own immune system in the long run? Like our body expects some drugs to help him but once there are no drugs anymore, for whatever reason, we may be weaker than before... another thought is, that the survival-of-the-fittest gets kinda tricked with medicine...but this sound too much like eugenics now...
So basically my question is if anything of this might be true, because I have no idea if immune system information is in the genes of if drugs might weaken it. So if someone who studies medicine or stuff has a clue, plz tell
Medicine has been around for maybe 100 years and our immune systems haven't changed much at all for many thousands of years. Modern developments are so vastly insignificant in evolutionary time that it isn't really relevant. Sure in maybe 10,000 years the average immune system (whatever that means) may have changed by a tiny little bit due to medicine, but by then who knows where we'll be. Unless you're talking about the kind of change that happens when you get immunized, for instance, in which case it isn't really "evolution being tricked".
Evolution does not follow any particular clock. It happens due to events.
If a disease kills everyone who does not carry a particular immunity-causing gene over the course of a year, then the evolution of immunity to that disease takes a year. Nobody who didn't have it survives to become an ancestor to future humans.
If 50% of the population died or otherwise failed to breed under normal conditions due to serious genetic defects generated by mutationss, and a new system of healthcare comes along that allows them to all survive and breed as successfully as the other 50% of the population lacking these defects, then after 4 generations (let's say 100 years), about 94% of new children now carry these genetic defects which would otherwise have been elminated by natural selection.
You don't need millions of years for evolution to happen, it's just that dramatic, species-changing events are rare.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
And really, you can't use logic to argue against God, since he's not bound by logic.
I just love this sentence.
God is not bound by logic. If this is true then your logic of reasoning doesn't apply to god. Therefor you cannot claim what you just said, for that would be a logical conclusion of God's abilities.
As for the former, do you all realize how many people hold the exact same views as Dawkins, yet refuse to say anything that could actually offend religious people? If this method of persuasion has been consistently failing to convince most people, even when the evidence against creationism is so overwhelming, why complain about Dawkins approach?
There's actually fairly few. Attacking a belief is the easy route to take, especially with something like ID, but it takes a lot more work to actually draw someone away from their convictions to side with your view. The Socratic method is excellent for non-emotional issues when people are willing to learn, but it is not a teaching tool when it comes to religious discussion, it's an argument-winning tool. I see it practiced every day on these forums, often very poorly by myself, and the end result is that someone leaves really pissed off and everyone else laughs at them, but the "loser" generally doesn't concede or learn anything.
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.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. Science doesn't even acknowledge investigation of the self, which is absolutely ridiculous imo. Yeah, alot of use our technology is when we can't even control ourselves.
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.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is.
Super string theory. Theory of Evolution. Theory of the universe. Big Bang Theory. Quantum theory.
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.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. Science doesn't even acknowledge investigation of the self, which is absolutely ridiculous imo. Yeah, alot of use our technology is when we can't even control ourselves.
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.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is.
Super string theory. Theory of Evolution. Theory of the universe. Big Bang Theory. Quantum theory.
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.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. Science doesn't even acknowledge investigation of the self, which is absolutely ridiculous imo. Yeah, alot of use our technology is when we can't even control ourselves.
ok i mgoing off topic ill stop
Uh... neuroscience and psychology?
no ?
They're beginning to.
If you want to know why you exist, I'm afraid the further you delve the closer you'll come to the non-answer. It's disheartening at first, but deal with it.
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.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is.
Super string theory. Theory of Evolution. Theory of the universe. Big Bang Theory. Quantum theory.
these all answer how, none of them answer why
Actually they do explain why things happends, Mostly cause and effect. B happend because A happned and affected B in this way etc.
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.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is.
Super string theory. Theory of Evolution. Theory of the universe. Big Bang Theory. Quantum theory.
these all answer how, none of them answer why
not only does religion not answer how, it doesnt answer why either. It proposes ideas but not answers.
It depends on your sense of 'why'. "Why is the sky blue", for instance, is a question that science can answer.
On July 14 2008 01:53 travis wrote: Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is.
Although science doesn't really have anything to say about meaning, it's hardly done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. It doesn't set out to contribute anything to meaning, but anyone can draw meaning from its conclusions. It's told us that the earth isn't at the center of the universe and that humans are just animals with a vastly complicated brain. Don't say that that hasn't contributed *anything* to your worldview.
On July 14 2008 10:21 Funchucks wrote: [...]You don't need millions of years for evolution to happen, it's just that dramatic, species-changing events are rare.
I guess that all of these modern things might be a stronger "selection pressure" than anything in our ancestral environment, but I still don't think that it'd speed up evolution to a point where it'd become relevant to us.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama)
there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
On July 14 2008 11:22 Wonders wrote: I guess that all of these modern things might be a stronger "selection pressure" than anything in our ancestral environment, but I still don't think that it'd speed up evolution to a point where it'd become relevant to us.
Problem is that 75% of the people have missunderstood how broad the term evolution really is. Evolution is about adaptation. And it goes beyond just changes to a species body, like growing out hair because its colder. The most rapid evolution is Information Technology. 20 years ago it was none-existent. Today people get rabid if their high speed connection goes down a whole week.
We are also growing smarter for every year. And not just IQ-wise. If you go to youtube you will find self made movies. Some of them are very well made. The creators are also very young. This has caused problems since the creators are using already existing content that is copyrightet and simply re-create new content from already existing content. And sometimes the quality is just as good as the original content. This didn't exist before the Internet. Nor did previous generation have the tools, the know how or the brains to execute it. This is also evolution, even though it has nothing to do with body evolution.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
I would like to ask yourself a question that Sam Harris raises in one of his debates. Can you think of any question that earlier has been answered by science to which there now is a better answer coming from religion? The opposite is easy of course.
What I mean is that religion is a static set of rules to which there is no real development. People blindly believe that it's true and don't really care about what other people believe since what they believe is not appreciated by their Gods.
Science however is dynamic and changes with time new models and theories are discussed all the time and a little now and then it takes a leap forward with new evidence.
So for not having evolution taught in schools (Yes, evolution is considered fact if you still don't believe this please watch the videos people have offered.) is just a leap backward in science and consciousness about the world around us.
On July 14 2008 11:22 Wonders wrote: Although science doesn't really have anything to say about meaning, it's hardly done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. It doesn't set out to contribute anything to meaning, but anyone can draw meaning from its conclusions. It's told us that the earth isn't at the center of the universe and that humans are just animals with a vastly complicated brain. Don't say that that hasn't contributed *anything* to your worldview.
You are assuming that life has to have a meaning and based on this assumption you conclude that God has to exist. The fault is in the assumption.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
Since isn't a set of dogmas. It's a method for making models that describe reality.
isnt a method similiar to a dogma in a way btw anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a fixed set of ideas it could be a method for making models that science doesnt describe
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
Since isn't a set of dogmas. It's a method for making models that describe reality.
isnt a method similiar to a dogma in a way btw anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a fixed set of ideas it could be a method for making models that science doesnt describe
Ask yourself, what is science?
It is a method for making models based on theories and then trying to prove / disprove them.
On July 14 2008 11:22 LuckyOne wrote: there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
Science has actually been "wrong" on various subjects.
One of the biggest i believe was provened by relativity theory, which proved that allot of the fundamentals of physics had allot of errors in it. however these errors would only show up if you examined extremes. Like the speed of light or some other phenomena that you never would try to do in a normal situation.Furthermore the new way of actually calculating was wayy to complicated. Since the error actually didn't show up in normal calculations physics kept the faulty bit of physics while the more correct part only was used for calculations that it was actually needed.
On July 14 2008 11:36 LuckyOne wrote: isnt a method similiar to a dogma in a way btw anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a fixed set of ideas it could be a method for making models that science doesnt describe
A method is the scientific way of describing something.... if you can't describe it in a scientific way then it isn't a method
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
I would like to ask yourself a question that Sam Harris raises in one of his debates. Can you think of any question that earlier has been answered by science to which there now is a better answer coming from religion? The opposite is easy of course.
What I mean is that religion is a static set of rules to which there is no real development. People blindly believe that it's true and don't really care about what other people believe since what they believe is not appreciated by their Gods.
Science however is dynamic and changes with time new models and theories are discussed all the time and a little now and then it takes a leap forward with new evidence.
So for not having evolution taught in schools (Yes, evolution is considered fact if you still don't believe this please watch the videos people have offered.) is just a leap backward in science and consciousness about the world around us.
anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a static set of rules and can be dynamic and evolve even religion are evolving, belief in ghosts, ufo, astrology etc..
btw im not saying i dont believe in evolution. i do atm till proven wrong so its not really a fact just a "atm fact"
On July 14 2008 11:22 LuckyOne wrote: there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
Science has actually been "wrong" on various subjects.
One of the biggest i believe was provened by relativity theory, which proved that allot of the fundamentals of physics had allot of errors in it. however these errors would only show up if you examined extremes. Like the speed of light or some other phenomena that you never would try to do in a normal situation.Furthermore the new way of actually calculating was wayy to complicated. Since the error actually didn't show up in normal calculations physics kept the faulty bit of physics while the more correct part only was used for calculations that it was actually needed.
what if those faulty bits that keep accumulating create bugs at some point.
On July 14 2008 11:36 LuckyOne wrote: isnt a method similiar to a dogma in a way btw anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a fixed set of ideas it could be a method for making models that science doesnt describe
A method is the scientific way of describing something.... if you can't describe it in a scientific way then it isn't a method
method (plural methods) 1. A process by which a task is completed; a way of doing something.
I think the second video brings up a really interesting point if you're a rationalist... if tricking people into believing you're curing them with hocus-pocus can actually help them recover faster and save lives via the placebo effect... is it actually better if the majority of people are ignorant & gullible?
Maybe it's actually optimal if only the brightest 10-20% of the world (with a chance to contribute to the advancement of science) were educated and the rest of the people are easily tricked into believing in crackpot healthcare.
Does education kill? At what price do we want mass rationality?
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
I would like to ask yourself a question that Sam Harris raises in one of his debates. Can you think of any question that earlier has been answered by science to which there now is a better answer coming from religion? The opposite is easy of course.
What I mean is that religion is a static set of rules to which there is no real development. People blindly believe that it's true and don't really care about what other people believe since what they believe is not appreciated by their Gods.
Science however is dynamic and changes with time new models and theories are discussed all the time and a little now and then it takes a leap forward with new evidence.
So for not having evolution taught in schools (Yes, evolution is considered fact if you still don't believe this please watch the videos people have offered.) is just a leap backward in science and consciousness about the world around us.
anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a static set of rules and can be dynamic and evolve even religion are evolving, belief in ghosts, ufo, astrology etc..
btw im not saying i dont believe in evolution. i do atm till proven wrong so its not really a fact just a "atm fact"
Well of course we only believe things until they're proven wrong. So everything we believe is what you call "atm fact".
I would like you to give me examples of how these things you brought up evolve. Because I can't really think of any.
On July 14 2008 11:54 LuckyOne wrote: method (plural methods) 1. A process by which a task is completed; a way of doing something.
doesnt say it has to be a scientific way
What are the main reasons for creating a process?
1) to be able to measure the result. 2) to be able to get feedback from the measurments.
1 and 2 leads to that the process can be maintained and improved so each result to be as close as the ideal thougth out result.
What do yo think is the best way to go on about for 1 and 2. what would provide the best reliable measurements and feedback. Maybe a scientific approach??
I feel that there is only LuckyOne over here who challenging the way of science. We have no other none-science and/or pro-religous people to step up? All tho I am going to bed soon
On July 14 2008 11:57 Bozali wrote: I would like you to give me examples of how these things you brought up evolve. Because I can't really think of any.
Well, to take belief in ghosts for example, it used to be that people only reported sightings of traditional sorts of ghosts. But that superstition has evolved. Now people are starting to report sightings of ghosts which were invented especially for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, such as allips and liches.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
I would like to ask yourself a question that Sam Harris raises in one of his debates. Can you think of any question that earlier has been answered by science to which there now is a better answer coming from religion? The opposite is easy of course.
What I mean is that religion is a static set of rules to which there is no real development. People blindly believe that it's true and don't really care about what other people believe since what they believe is not appreciated by their Gods.
Science however is dynamic and changes with time new models and theories are discussed all the time and a little now and then it takes a leap forward with new evidence.
So for not having evolution taught in schools (Yes, evolution is considered fact if you still don't believe this please watch the videos people have offered.) is just a leap backward in science and consciousness about the world around us.
anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a static set of rules and can be dynamic and evolve even religion are evolving, belief in ghosts, ufo, astrology etc..
btw im not saying i dont believe in evolution. i do atm till proven wrong so its not really a fact just a "atm fact"
Well of course we only believe things until they're proven wrong. So everything we believe is what you call "atm fact".
I would like you to give me examples of how these things you brought up evolve. Because I can't really think of any.
religion being more loose on the texts(yeah but by 7days we mean 1 day= xxxx year) , religious rock band, religious documentary, see they try to attract new crowd to not die out.
they cant update the bible but what they do is say these text are vague , hidden meaning so in fact they update the meanings in a dynamic way whenever they see fit.
On July 14 2008 12:05 Bozali wrote: I feel that there is only LuckyOne over here who challenging the way of science. We have no other none-science and/or pro-religous people to step up? All tho I am going to bed soon
hmmmm im pro science and not religious funny how i get thrown in the other "camp" lol
On July 14 2008 11:57 Bozali wrote: I would like you to give me examples of how these things you brought up evolve. Because I can't really think of any.
Well, to take belief in ghosts for example, it used to be that people only reported sightings of traditional sorts of ghosts. But that superstition has evolved. Now people are starting to report sightings of ghosts which were invented especially for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, such as allips and liches.
If you ask me this is just silly. To a reasonable person the obvious explanation would be something in the lines of mind tricks. Basically you're tired, drugged or whatever and you probably see it from a distance in the dark (which as you might know, for some reason most ghost sightings are at night?). So basically you see something that you can't make out what it is. And you misinterpret it as a ghost of something you have imagined beforehand.
I fail to see the ghosts place in our discussion about science.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
I would like to ask yourself a question that Sam Harris raises in one of his debates. Can you think of any question that earlier has been answered by science to which there now is a better answer coming from religion? The opposite is easy of course.
What I mean is that religion is a static set of rules to which there is no real development. People blindly believe that it's true and don't really care about what other people believe since what they believe is not appreciated by their Gods.
Science however is dynamic and changes with time new models and theories are discussed all the time and a little now and then it takes a leap forward with new evidence.
So for not having evolution taught in schools (Yes, evolution is considered fact if you still don't believe this please watch the videos people have offered.) is just a leap backward in science and consciousness about the world around us.
anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a static set of rules and can be dynamic and evolve even religion are evolving, belief in ghosts, ufo, astrology etc..
btw im not saying i dont believe in evolution. i do atm till proven wrong so its not really a fact just a "atm fact"
Well of course we only believe things until they're proven wrong. So everything we believe is what you call "atm fact".
I would like you to give me examples of how these things you brought up evolve. Because I can't really think of any.
religion being more loose on the texts(yeah but by 7days we mean 1 day= xxxx year) , religious rock band, religious documentary, see they try to attract new crowd to not die out.
they cant update the bible but what they do is say these text are vague , hidden meaning so in fact they update the meanings in a dynamic way whenever they see fit.
If you ask me, and I believe any reasonable person. Choosing and picking in for instance the Bible is directly contradictory to what it stands for. The word of God who is all-knowing and of course perfect, so it astonishes me that people actually do this and keep calling themselves Christians.
And this is what terrifies me. If you truly believe in the Bible, you are supposed to kill all Gays. You are supposed to kill women who aren't virgin when they marry. You are supposed to kill people who don't believe in Jesus. And so on.
On July 14 2008 12:05 Bozali wrote: I feel that there is only LuckyOne over here who challenging the way of science. We have no other none-science and/or pro-religous people to step up? All tho I am going to bed soon
hmmmm im pro science and not religious funny how i get thrown in the other "camp" lol
Hehe I merely stated that you're currently the only one challenging science. Not necessarily that you're in one of those camps I presented, all thought it did seem like it .
Edit: I'm off to bed now and won't check this thread for probably 10 or so hours. Please don't expect a fast answer from me!
On July 14 2008 11:54 LuckyOne wrote: method (plural methods) 1. A process by which a task is completed; a way of doing something.
doesnt say it has to be a scientific way
What are the main reasons for creating a process?
1) to be able to measure the result. 2) to be able to get feedback from the measurments.
1 and 2 leads to that the process can be maintained and improved so each result to be as close as the ideal thougth out result.
What do yo think is the best way to go on about for 1 and 2. what would provide the best reliable measurements and feedback. Maybe a scientific approach??
Processes are by nature Scientific.
it says a way of doing something=process. so the way a cat catch a mouse is scientific? the way you try to get in a girls pant?
On July 14 2008 11:54 LuckyOne wrote: method (plural methods) 1. A process by which a task is completed; a way of doing something.
doesnt say it has to be a scientific way
What are the main reasons for creating a process?
1) to be able to measure the result. 2) to be able to get feedback from the measurments.
1 and 2 leads to that the process can be maintained and improved so each result to be as close as the ideal thougth out result.
What do yo think is the best way to go on about for 1 and 2. what would provide the best reliable measurements and feedback. Maybe a scientific approach??
Processes are by nature Scientific.
it says a way of doing something=process. so the way a cat catch a mouse is scientific? the way you try to get in a girls pant?
One last post for LuckyOne before I go to bed. Stop asking questions like "What is Science?" and go read for yourself at, for intsance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science and determine the answers yourself. It's not that hard.
He's right though, not all processes have to be scientific. There are lots of loony processes that people use, e.g. to pick lottery numbers. It's a pretty banal statement, I don't see why there's controversy over that.
On July 14 2008 10:59 Integra wrote: Travis, if neuroscience and psychology is not the science of self then what is it?
I didn't say anything about the "science of the self" but I would say that I believe buddhism is more rigorous scientifically than psychology, thats for sure. So that is a partial answer to your question I guess. But I don't get where the question came from.
On July 14 2008 11:00 Integra wrote:
Actually they do explain why things happends, Mostly cause and effect. B happend because A happned and affected B in this way etc.
I believe that is "how".
I think "why" concerns motive.
Perhaps there is a linguist on the board who would know.
On July 14 2008 11:05 HamerD wrote:
not only does religion not answer how, it doesnt answer why either. It proposes ideas but not answers.
yeah well that's the problem with the whole argument. whatever reason could there be other than "because".
so I guess it comes down to whatever method gives you the best description.
On July 14 2008 11:22 Wonders wrote: It depends on your sense of 'why'. "Why is the sky blue", for instance, is a question that science can answer.
On July 14 2008 01:53 travis wrote: Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is.
Although science doesn't really have anything to say about meaning, it's hardly done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. It doesn't set out to contribute anything to meaning, but anyone can draw meaning from its conclusions. It's told us that the earth isn't at the center of the universe and that humans are just animals with a vastly complicated brain. Don't say that that hasn't contributed *anything* to your worldview.
I do not disagree with your point, though I think that the drawing of those conclusions is the realm of "philosophy", and science is just providing more material to work with.
You are talking about things that happends random. That is just events. Processes are Structured and follows certain rules. if the process isnt structured and doesn't have rules then it is not an process. It is only a event or an happenings. I'm walking down the street and i trip on my shoelace, I just triped om my shoelae, that is what I did. That doesn't mean it's a process. It's just an event or an happening.
On July 14 2008 12:27 Integra wrote: You are talking about things that happends random. That is just events. Processes are Structured and follows certain rules. if the process isnt structured and doesn't have rules then it is not an process. It is only a event or an happenings. I'm walking down the street and i trip on my shoelace, I just triped om my shoelae, that is what I did. That doesn't mean it's a process. It's just an event or an happening.
no that is definitely a process by at least some definitions of the word
I told myself I'd read the entire thread before posting but I came across this at about page 7 and decided to reply.
There is nothing to explore about religion, you have a set of rules to follow and that's it no questions asked.
To be qualified enough to be able to write sentences such as this is, in your beliefs, impossible, since you quite vigorously disbelieve in any sort of religious or spiritual enlightenment. A more logical and acceptable way to word this statement would be to prefix it with "Atleast, in my attempts and experiences,"
Of course, you will close your eyes and ears anyway, and instead of adopting a more sensitive and logical attitude, you will continue to conduct yourself in such an arrogant way, because you have science to justify your insensitivity. Why be socially understanding if you are in the social majority, and have the boundless word of "science" to protect you.
"Atheism is not the majority!" I already hear you saying. But it is. It is in this thread. Majority is wherever you hear such arrogant insensitivity. On both sides.
As I was reading through this thread, I noticed a great lacking of intelligent theistic opinion. I've seen many posters blame it on the fact that there are very few intelligent Theists out there to begin with which is just ludicrous. It's clear that not many Theists want to speak up because it would be so easily for them to be attacked or ridiculed for their beliefs. I just read through 7 pages of people, for the most part, describing their absolute disrespect for religious institution and belief. Along with the self-admitted barbarous remarks from a known religious critic.
A lot of the lack of respect that many of you Atheists have spoken of in this thread, of the religious intolerance of atheism, your complaints of narrow-minded fanatical zealots like Pat Robertson or a figure in your life growing up, can be seen in your own attitude towards "opposing" thought. The arrogant, "we know the answer, dumbass!" attitude.
One of my favorite hypocrisies is the generalizations that both groups tend to use. Just because there's an Atheist out there who knows shit-all about science, trying to prove logical explanations to life's finest mysteries, doesn't mean that there is an illegitimacy to scientific method. Just like if there is a religious advocate in this thread, in your house, or in the Q&A video with Dawkins, that cannot appropriately word his sentences, or bring reason enough for sensitivity and social understanding, doesn't mean that there is an implied illegitimacy to spiritual exploration.
I, as a Christian, have never claimed authority over the explanations of scientific study. Atheists always challenge me to a "burden of proof' claim, saying I have to prove to them the existence of God. Well, my answer is:
No I fucking don't.
I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could."
What surprises me is the general lack of sensitivity from both sides. Well, I shouldn't say it surprises me. Rather, it impresses me. It's really an intense hypocrisy that should be fully enjoyed an appreciated.
This should hopefully clarify a(singular) Christian perspective, since I saw a few dozen posts ask for a Christian perspective. I'm fully aware of the responses I will receive, also the fact that my view is not shared with every Christian, every Theist, etc.. I also haven't read the entire thread yet, I'm on like.. page 7.. so I'm off to do that.
I find his arguments quite interesting. Not that I agree with his theories on science (I think now most scientists agree that evolution is in punctuated equilibrium rather than slow gradual change) but that his attack on organized religion makes sense. The illogical aspect of religion which seeks to explain the unexplainable is what is so tempting I guess.
On July 14 2008 12:30 Integra wrote: Travis, I included a WHY in there, maybe you missed it.
yes and I am saying that you are using the word "why" when the word "how" should be used.
Processes usually are usually extreme complex. That's why you need it to be a process in the first place. It woulnd't make sense otherwise... falling over your own shoelace.... isnt that complex to measure or to repeat
Problem with motives is this: There are an endless numbers of them on various spectrums.
on the personal side people have different reasons as why they exist. Some people their reason is that they were created by god and they should be good bla bla. Others believe if they arent good they will go to hell bla bla bla. Others believe they exist to fullfill their own dreams etc etc. Anything you can think of from being an angel to running around killing people are reasons as to why. To top it all off they change their reasons as to why serveal times during their lifetime.
on another spectrum we have socities. they also have an endless of reasons of "why" some socities Simply want to evolve since they are in a very good period of growth, other societies are in war and simply try to surive. Other socities just consist of witch doctors and shamans and all they think about is to please the gods and what sacrifies to be made next summer to prevent the cold weather to come... again... Also as the societies change with time so does their why or reason to be.
Then we have other spectrums. Like evolution, movement, energy, we have the micro comso the macro comso and so fortf. Science could map all the various reasons for as motives for things. problem is that it wouldn't lead anywhere. Specially if you start talking about things that are not humans. their reasons for being can be conceived by mathematics and physics but not by our emotions which is how we percieve the world. And certaintly not by god.
On July 14 2008 11:34 Bozali wrote: You are assuming that life has to have a meaning and based on this assumption you conclude that God has to exist. The fault is in the assumption.
I think you leapt a little too quickly to this conclusion. You make a meaning for yourself. I was saying that science informs the meaning that you decide to make for yourself.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
No, it's not the same thing because here we're killing astrology by showing WHY astrology is stupid (watch the documentary for instance), not by putting all the astrologers under house arrest.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama)
there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
to respond to nitu. obviously there are christian factions which are faith based. there are also many which are not. creationists are an example of this. dawkins is more interested in the fact that religion is imposed on young children before they have a right to chose for themselves. also that religion is not revisable in the same way science is. while he obviously feels that they are all wrong on some level his area of concern seems to be when religion/superstitious concepts are applied instead of science to real world issues.
MyLostTemple, Since I am on "WHY" WHY on earth did you start this topic?? I mean it's great to have an discussion and all but this is just the same as starting a discussion if Santa exists or not.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama)
there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
I agree that for these reasons, Science should be the mechanism for our reasoning. But not for our Spiritual exploration. To question the legitimacy of something which is inherently unquestionable by scientific reasoning, using scientific reasoning, can feel offensive to those who believe and explore a world that isn't relevant to human scientific understanding. Much like science is offended when religious dynamics are applied to a world bound by Science. For instance, Intelligent design.
I agree the thread should be kept civil, and I respect and enjoy the philosophical insight. =)
Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
On July 14 2008 13:03 Integra wrote: MyLostTemple, Since I am on "WHY" WHY on earth did you start this topic?? I mean it's great to have an discussion and all but this is just the same as starting a discussion if Santa exists or not.
i said keep it civil...
i started this so people could watch some documentaries. and while i agree with you that god may be only as real as santa you're doing a terrific job of sending this thread towards getting closed. arrogantly making a statement like that and then adding a cocky little winky face at the end isn't going to further this debate.
if you can't manage to keep this discussion civil kindly shut the fuck up and stay out of it. i am happy to say the same to anyone else who is starting to send this thread towards a flame war.
I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could."
Here is the problem as I see it. As an Atheist, I have no qualms with you believing in Christianity if it improves your quality of life and happiness. I do not believe there is any eternal consequence, so there is no obligation to "convert" someone who is already content and happy.
Most religions not work that way, including most sects of Christianity. They attempt to convince people of things without using reason at all, as you have admitted reason does not apply to religion. They may attempt to do so by faith, a deeply personal and subjective experience, by which there should be NO POSSIBLE way to convince someone else of, and then by fear, superstition and repetition.
If you have faith that your feelings are correct, then so be it, but it's absolute bullshit to attempt to convince someone else of your faith, when they have zero access to the personal experience that you feel.
Furthermore, how can you possibly disparage a Muslim who has faith in Allah or a Japanese person who has faith in shinto (not that any exist anymore.) Maybe you don't personally, but many religious people do.
I would submit that if faith is enough reason to believe in God, why not try out all the world's religions because I'm sure each of them has their own sort of faith based experience that confirms their beliefs.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote: Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
This is a weak argument and can be used for eveything and not just religion.
Religion and Science is a tool that can be used for good or for bad.
True religion has killed lots of people. But so has science. Atomic bombs is an example.
Science can be used by humans to cure diseases and to improve our world or to make weapons and bombs.
Religion can be used by humans to give people hope or to give them death.
EDIT: in fact science has helped kill more people that religion.
On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote: Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
There has never been a case of God making anyone kill anyone else. Infact, if you're right, and God doesn't exist, then the person is a Loony for hearing God, right?...
But if God does exist, then I doubt you should question his authority to act through people.. Y'know, cause he can create worlds and do crazy shit like that.
In all seriousness, When what.. 80% of the world are "adherents" to a religion, some of them are gonna be nut jobs who use "religion" as a safety net or justification...
It's like being charged with Murder and saying the Russians put you up to it. Even if it's not true, people are going to believe it because it's what they're most afraid of.(Extremism) (Atleast, during the Cold war, that analogy would apply. I'm really too young to make weird references to the Cold War.)
I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could."
Here is the problem as I see it. As an Atheist, I have no qualms with you believing in Christianity if it improves your quality of life and happiness. I do not believe there is any eternal consequence, so there is no obligation to "convert" someone who is already content and happy.
Most religions not work that way, including most sects of Christianity. They attempt to convince people of things without using reason at all, as you have admitted reason does not apply to religion. They may attempt to do so by faith, a deeply personal and subjective experience, by which there should be NO POSSIBLE way to convince someone else of, and then by fear, superstition and repetition.
If you have faith that your feelings are correct, then so be it, but it's absolute bullshit to attempt to convince someone else of your faith, when they have zero access to the personal experience that you feel.
Furthermore, how can you possibly disparage a Muslim who has faith in Allah or a Japanese person who has faith in shinto (not that any exist anymore.) Maybe you don't personally, but many religious people do.
I would submit that if faith is enough reason to believe in God, why not try out all the world's religions because I'm sure each of them has their own sort of faith based experience that confirms their beliefs.
I entirely agree with you my friend. "Most sect's" of Christianity is arguably, statistically and what-not, but I do believe with the thought behind your words. I do not believe there is 1 "right" denomination of Christianity. In every congregation, there will be bad people. And I entirely accept the fact that many bad things have been done under the name of Christianity. I don't condone it, and it's really very sad. I've never accepted the forceful application of beliefs from one person to another, on either side of this 'argument.' I respect your opinions and your rights to believe in what you believe. =)
On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote: Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
well technically most religious people don't think god is murdering people either. they generally say it's people who are going against gods will (then again a lot of people have been killed in the name of god too).
I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could."
Here is the problem as I see it. As an Atheist, I have no qualms with you believing in Christianity if it improves your quality of life and happiness. I do not believe there is any eternal consequence, so there is no obligation to "convert" someone who is already content and happy.
Most religions not work that way, including most sects of Christianity. They attempt to convince people of things without using reason at all, as you have admitted reason does not apply to religion. They may attempt to do so by faith, a deeply personal and subjective experience, by which there should be NO POSSIBLE way to convince someone else of, and then by fear, superstition and repetition.
If you have faith that your feelings are correct, then so be it, but it's absolute bullshit to attempt to convince someone else of your faith, when they have zero access to the personal experience that you feel.
Furthermore, how can you possibly disparage a Muslim who has faith in Allah or a Japanese person who has faith in shinto (not that any exist anymore.) Maybe you don't personally, but many religious people do.
I would submit that if faith is enough reason to believe in God, why not try out all the world's religions because I'm sure each of them has their own sort of faith based experience that confirms their beliefs.
I entirely agree with you my friend. "Most sect's" of Christianity is arguably, statistically and what-not, but I do believe with the thought behind your words. I do not believe there is 1 "right" denomination of Christianity. In every congregation, there will be bad people. And I entirely accept the fact that many bad things have been done under the name of Christianity. I don't condone it, and it's really very sad. I've never accepted the forceful application of beliefs from one person to another, on either side of this 'argument.' I respect your opinions and your rights to believe in what you believe. =)
Fair enough, then we're at the best agreement possible until I experience something faith worthy myself.
On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote: Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
well technically most religious people don't think god is murdering people either. they generally say it's people who are going against gods will (then again a lot of people have been killed in the name of god too).
Allot of people have died in the name of freedom and liberation as well.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote: Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
This is a weak argument and can be used for eveything and not just religion.
Religion and Science is a tool that can be used for good or for bad.
True religion has killed lots of people. But so has science. Atomic bombs is an example.
Science can be used by humans to cure diseases and to improve our world or to make weapons and bombs.
Religion can be used by humans to give people hope or to give them death.
EDIT: in fact science has helped kill more people that religion.
Yes, evils have been helped along by both science and religion; evil has been comitted in the NAME of science and religion as well. But, in our modern world, do you see more atrocities being comitted in the NAME of religion, or in the NAME of science?
In fact, in our modern world, religious groups USE science to perpetuate their evils, while science using religion, in this era, is much less common.
On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote: Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
(then again a lot of people have been killed in the name of god too).
True, but in those cases religion was used as a tool by the corrupt to manipulate the masses, just as Stalin and Hitler did with nationalism.
Human nature and bad environments lead us to do bad things more than anything else.
something i've always wondered is: if god exists, why would he necessarily care that people believed in him?
if i was the omnipotent being that created the universe and had a vested interest in people acting in a Good way, why would people buying into me existing matter? Arn't they going to find out either way? Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote: Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
well technically most religious people don't think god is murdering people either. they generally say it's people who are going against gods will (then again a lot of people have been killed in the name of god too).
Allot of people have died in the name of freedom and liberation as well.
yeah but those are human based rights. freedom of speech and thought are quite important. there is a diffrence between that and dying via suicide bombing because someone drew a cartoon character of your god and you think you'll get 70 virgins in paradise if you do so.
On July 14 2008 13:28 MyLostTemple wrote: something i've always wondered is: if god exists, why would he necessarily care that people believed in him?
if i was the omnipotent being that created the universe and had a vested interest in people acting in a Good way, why would people buying into me existing matter? Arn't they going to find out either way? Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
It's obvious isn't? GOD EXISTS and he is watching us and millions of other planets sitting in his tv couch laughing his head off. we are gods Soap opera show.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
On July 14 2008 13:30 MyLostTemple wrote: yeah but those are human based rights. freedom of speech and thought are quite important. there is a diffrence between that and dying via suicide bombing because someone drew a cartoon character of your god and you think you'll get 70 virgins in paradise if you do so.
No, its both ideals. and it depends from person to person how drastic you will be to protect them.
How much freedom can be sacrifised before we can go to war. Same with religion.
On July 14 2008 13:28 MyLostTemple wrote: something i've always wondered is: if god exists, why would he necessarily care that people believed in him?
if i was the omnipotent being that created the universe and had a vested interest in people acting in a Good way, why would people buying into me existing matter? Arn't they going to find out either way? Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
It's obvious isn't? GOD EXISTS and he is watching us and millions of other planets sitting in his tv couch laughing his head off. we are gods Soap opera show.
ok seriously integra, just get off the forum. please. your not funny and your not helping this discussion. i already told you to shut up once for cocky and useless remarks. your cynicism is going to stifle this entire conversation. keep in mind this is coming from someone who's in the same atheist camp as you.
please don't post again unless it's going to be mature or i'll ask for a temp ban. these topics are volatile enough as it is and your not helping in keeping this civil.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
I'll start first with abortion. Anti-abortionists have generally done exactly what they're supposed to do regarding the matter. For the most part, they exercise their freedom of speech and that's it. Not for a while has it gotten violent, and I'd be willing to wager that overall they have been less so than many secular political groups.
Young girls are raped in the name of religion? What?
Thinking 9/11 occurred because of religion is an overly simplistic and naive view point. 9/11 and many, many "terrorist/freedom fighter" complaints are based on secular issues such as poverty, exploitation, corruption and having one's family killed by an F16. Religion, particularly fundamentalism, is a symptom of the problem, but it is not the cause.
On July 14 2008 11:34 Bozali wrote: You are assuming that life has to have a meaning and based on this assumption you conclude that God has to exist. The fault is in the assumption.
I think you leapt a little too quickly to this conclusion. You make a meaning for yourself. I was saying that science informs the meaning that you decide to make for yourself.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
No, it's not the same thing because here we're killing astrology by showing WHY astrology is stupid (watch the documentary for instance), not by putting all the astrologers under house arrest.
they would probably show you WHY science is stupid by quoting the bible or something. which for them was proof.
On July 14 2008 13:30 MyLostTemple wrote: yeah but those are human based rights. freedom of speech and thought are quite important. there is a diffrence between that and dying via suicide bombing because someone drew a cartoon character of your god and you think you'll get 70 virgins in paradise if you do so.
No, its both ideals. and it depends from person to person how drastic you will be to protect them.
How much freedom can be sacrifised before we can go to war. Same with religion.
Freedom and religion are different in this case; if populations were being severely oppressed, they would fight since it threatens their existence and right to existence. Drawing a single cartoon, that would've had basically no effect on your life otherwise, will not kill you.
And on the topic of the cartoon incident of Muhammed, there were numerous miscommunications and misunderstandings and misinterpretations that lead to the riots and chaos. You chould read the God Delusion (forgot where in it) which basically summarizes all of the idiodic things that made the riots and killings possible.
On July 14 2008 13:30 MyLostTemple wrote: yeah but those are human based rights. freedom of speech and thought are quite important. there is a diffrence between that and dying via suicide bombing because someone drew a cartoon character of your god and you think you'll get 70 virgins in paradise if you do so.
No, its both ideals. and it depends from person to person how drastic you will be to protect them.
How much freedom can be sacrifised before we can go to war. Same with religion.
well i'll take my own athiest approach to answer this. Basically as far as i can see you have one life to live. so you should have as much freedom as possible without infringing on the freedoms of others to explore that life. in other words i think my fellow apes should not be caged up and their one chance at living exploited.
This is radically different from wars which are fought due to unprovable deities existing in unprovable universes with, at times, illogical laws that may even impede on the freedoms of others. As i said before, blowing yourself up and killing others because you think your god really cares if someone draws a cartoon of him is a little problematic. especially when you think you'll be rewarded with the best possible eternal afterlife if you do his bidding.
On July 14 2008 13:28 MyLostTemple wrote: something i've always wondered is: if god exists, why would he necessarily care that people believed in him?
if i was the omnipotent being that created the universe and had a vested interest in people acting in a Good way, why would people buying into me existing matter? Arn't they going to find out either way? Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
It is in Christian Belief that God created us in his image. It's not simply that we exist in a world he created, but he created us. I know you probably wanted a more wordy response but in Christian belief, it's simply the case that He created us. It's not as if me or you were granted Omnipotent powers and could do whatever we wanted. He is not bound by selfish desires, or human self-interest. He created us. We are his world.
Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
I don't believe God punishes those who disobey him. Not directly. This of course varies between all the denominations, and through each individual of each religion, but I do not believe he actively attacks those who disobey him.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
It is absolutely evident that people can behave well without religion. If there was an immediately evident correlation like this, Religion would seem logical, wouldn't it? Nothing Necessitates it. It's very nature means that it requires faith. You clearly want answers that nobody can give. If Religion was a necessity, it would be fundamentally flawed. (even more-so than most of you think it is.. )
As I said earlier, I cannot make others believe in what I believe in, but I can attempt to explain enough of what I believe to advocate understanding and sensitivity.
On July 14 2008 12:45 Nintu wrote: I told myself I'd read the entire thread before posting but I came across this at about page 7 and decided to reply.
There is nothing to explore about religion, you have a set of rules to follow and that's it no questions asked.
To be qualified enough to be able to write sentences such as this is, in your beliefs, impossible, since you quite vigorously disbelieve in any sort of religious or spiritual enlightenment. A more logical and acceptable way to word this statement would be to prefix it with "Atleast, in my attempts and experiences,"
Of course, you will close your eyes and ears anyway, and instead of adopting a more sensitive and logical attitude, you will continue to conduct yourself in such an arrogant way, because you have science to justify your insensitivity. Why be socially understanding if you are in the social majority, and have the boundless word of "science" to protect you.
Basically all you say is that I'm crude and illogical yet you give me no argument to that I'm actually wrong about what I wrote. And, to be completely honest, I do not feel that I'm insensitive. I'm simply stating the fact about religion in that sentence, and I never ever said anything about majority so please stop putting words in my mouth.
On July 14 2008 12:45 Nintu wrote: I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could."
This is what terrifies me about religion. You say that God is unprovable and yet you (not talking to you personally all thought this might apply) go to church every Sunday, read the Bible, spend countless hours praying. For something that is not even provable. Thankfully, for some reason, you've decided to become somewhat of a half christian and you don't believe everything in the Bible, hence you're not on your way to Sweden to stone me. But every religious person isn't.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
I'll start first with abortion. Anti-abortionists have generally done exactly what they're supposed to do regarding the matter. For the most part, they exercise their freedom of speech and that's it. Not for a while has it gotten violent, and I'd be willing to wager that overall they have been less so than many secular political groups.
Young girls are raped in the name of religion? What?
Thinking 9/11 occurred because of religion is an overly simplistic and naive view point. 9/11 and many, many "terrorist/freedom fighter" complaints are based on secular issues such as poverty, exploitation, corruption and having one's family killed by an F16. Religion, particularly fundamentalism, is a symptom of the problem, but it is not the cause.
In some country in the middle east (forgot which), there are bands of men who seek out women/young girls who arent wearing shawls, and consider them fair game because they do not follow the rules of their majority religion. Some girls as young as 8 (or 12 was it?) have been raped by these bands of men (in one case there were over eighty of them).
The more I reply, the more I think you and others should read the God Delusion; if you and others read it, you will find many, many of your questions, ideas, and thoughts answered.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
Again, you're missing the point. Religion didn't CAUSE it. The people themselves DECIDED to KILL. The terrorists in 9/11 DECIDED TO KILL. It was not due to God, or Islam. It was because somebody taught them that that is what they should do. It wasn't God. It was a terrible islamic extremist. Someone (yes, some person) who wished harm on people who weren't like him. Much like Abortionist deaths. Somebody taught them that they should go kill these doctors. It wasn't God. It may have been a preacher, but that preacher was a human. A human who wished others to die because they were not like him.
These human beings USED belief, and religious teachings to murder other human beings. Religion is the most powerful force in the world, I believe. So yes, it also has potential to be used terribly. It's sad, and I pray for all those are hurt in the name of Christianity, or any other religion that is being used as a TOOL to hurt others. Please understand this.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
It's when people start believing in nonsense for no apparent reason with no critical thinking that humans does irrational things. And believing in something unprovable is very much that.
edit: Dang this thread is to active, hard to keep up.
BTW, Ken Miller gave a talk at my school last year and he absolutely killed. The presentation was hilarious, informative for those who haven't studied evolution and ID and he ended it by telling us that he was a Catholic, believing in a single deck stacking creator, based on faith alone. There's not much more to it than that because you can't really argue with personal faith very well, but I thought it was interesting.
For those who don't know, Ken Miller is a molecular biologist from Brown who tore apart Intelligent Design in court. He was also on the Colbert Report.
I suggest you watch if you have time (not my school.) There was a literal creationist on the panel so Miller quoted Samuel 23:2 and asked him if God was igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
Again, you're missing the point. Religion didn't CAUSE it. The people themselves DECIDED to KILL. The terrorists in 9/11 DECIDED TO KILL. It was not due to God, or Islam. It was because somebody taught them that that is what they should do. It wasn't God. It was a terrible islamic extremist. Someone (yes, some person) who wished harm on people who weren't like him. Much like Abortionist deaths. Somebody taught them that they should go kill these doctors. It wasn't God. It may have been a preacher, but that preacher was a human. A human who wished others to die because they were not like him.
These human beings USED belief, and religious teachings to murder other human beings. Religion is the most powerful force in the world, I believe. So yes, it also has potential to be used terribly. It's sad, and I pray for all those are hurt in the name of Christianity, or any other religion that is being used as a TOOL to hurt others. Please understand this.
Why this is important is the question "Why did they believe this?". And they believed this based on exactly the same rationality as any other religion is believed in. People always have to think critically and have a real view of the world to make healthy decisions. It would not surprise me if equivalent acts such as 9/11 which happen to be somewhat of Islamic origin will happen with Christian origin.
On July 14 2008 12:45 Nintu wrote: I told myself I'd read the entire thread before posting but I came across this at about page 7 and decided to reply.
There is nothing to explore about religion, you have a set of rules to follow and that's it no questions asked.
To be qualified enough to be able to write sentences such as this is, in your beliefs, impossible, since you quite vigorously disbelieve in any sort of religious or spiritual enlightenment. A more logical and acceptable way to word this statement would be to prefix it with "Atleast, in my attempts and experiences,"
Of course, you will close your eyes and ears anyway, and instead of adopting a more sensitive and logical attitude, you will continue to conduct yourself in such an arrogant way, because you have science to justify your insensitivity. Why be socially understanding if you are in the social majority, and have the boundless word of "science" to protect you.
Basically all you say is that I'm crude and illogical yet you give me no argument to that I'm actually wrong about what I wrote. And, to be completely honest, I do not feel that I'm insensitive. I'm simply stating the fact about religion in that sentence, and I never ever said anything about majority so please stop putting words in my mouth.
On July 14 2008 12:45 Nintu wrote: I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could."
This is what terrifies me about religion. You say that God is unprovable and yet you (not talking to you personally all thought this might apply) go to church every Sunday, read the Bible, spend countless hours praying. For something that is not even provable. Thankfully, for some reason, you've decided to become somewhat of a half christian and you don't believe everything in the Bible, hence you're not on your way to Sweden to stone me. But every religious person isn't.
I say that God is unprovable to others. From one person to another. Your insinuation that my lack of bloodlust somehow makes me a "half-Christian" is ridiculously offensive. And instead of responding in kind and ripping you a new one for this, I'm just going to explain to you that it is this kind of insensitivity that causes flame wars in threads, and flame wars in real life.
Thank you for demonstrating my favourite hypocrisy of all. That the arrogant and insensitive nature towards someone who believes differently from you, is on the Atheist side of the fence aswell.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
Again, you're missing the point. Religion didn't CAUSE it. The people themselves DECIDED to KILL. The terrorists in 9/11 DECIDED TO KILL. It was not due to God, or Islam. It was because somebody taught them that that is what they should do. It wasn't God. It was a terrible islamic extremist. Someone (yes, some person) who wished harm on people who weren't like him. Much like Abortionist deaths. Somebody taught them that they should go kill these doctors. It wasn't God. It may have been a preacher, but that preacher was a human. A human who wished others to die because they were not like him.
These human beings USED belief, and religious teachings to murder other human beings. Religion is the most powerful force in the world, I believe. So yes, it also has potential to be used terribly. It's sad, and I pray for all those are hurt in the name of Christianity, or any other religion that is being used as a TOOL to hurt others. Please understand this.
Why this is important is the question "Why did they believe this?". And they believed this based on exactly the same rationality as any other religion is believed in. People always have to think critically and have a real view of the world to make healthy decisions. It would not surprise me if equivalent acts such as 9/11 which happen to be somewhat of Islamic origin will happen with Christian origin.
On July 14 2008 13:28 MyLostTemple wrote: something i've always wondered is: if god exists, why would he necessarily care that people believed in him?
if i was the omnipotent being that created the universe and had a vested interest in people acting in a Good way, why would people buying into me existing matter? Arn't they going to find out either way? Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
It is in Christian Belief that God created us in his image. It's not simply that we exist in a world he created, but he created us. I know you probably wanted a more wordy response but in Christian belief, it's simply the case that He created us. It's not as if me or you were granted Omnipotent powers and could do whatever we wanted. He is not bound by selfish desires, or human self-interest. He created us. We are his world.
Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
I don't believe God punishes those who disobey him. Not directly. This of course varies between all the denominations, and through each individual of each religion, but I do not believe he actively attacks those who disobey him.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
It is absolutely evident that people can behave well without religion. If there was an immediately evident correlation like this, Religion would seem logical, wouldn't it? Nothing Necessitates it. It's very nature means that it requires faith. You clearly want answers that nobody can give. If Religion was a necessity, it would be fundamentally flawed. (even more-so than most of you think it is.. )
As I said earlier, I cannot make others believe in what I believe in, but I can attempt to explain enough of what I believe to advocate understanding and sensitivity.
well i understand the dogma behind it because i was catholic for about 18 years and i come from a well educated religious family. i think your views tend to be much looser than those of other christian factions.
some of the most educated and modernized countries in the world are rapidly becoming non religious. Sweeden, Switzerland and Japan to name a few. I tend to predict that as the world becomes more educated and modernized we will see atheism spread more heavily in north america and asia. i suppose i'm curious if religious people feel threatened by this concept or if they actually believe a rapture would ever come of it.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
I'll start first with abortion. Anti-abortionists have generally done exactly what they're supposed to do regarding the matter. For the most part, they exercise their freedom of speech and that's it. Not for a while has it gotten violent, and I'd be willing to wager that overall they have been less so than many secular political groups.
Young girls are raped in the name of religion? What?
Thinking 9/11 occurred because of religion is an overly simplistic and naive view point. 9/11 and many, many "terrorist/freedom fighter" complaints are based on secular issues such as poverty, exploitation, corruption and having one's family killed by an F16. Religion, particularly fundamentalism, is a symptom of the problem, but it is not the cause.
In some country in the middle east (forgot which), there are bands of men who seek out women/young girls who arent wearing shawls, and consider them fair game because they do not follow the rules of their majority religion. Some girls as young as 8 (or 12 was it?) have been raped by these bands of men (in one case there were over eighty of them).
The more I reply, the more I think you and others should read the God Delusion; if you and others read it, you will find many, many of your questions, ideas, and thoughts answered.
I've read it and many of Dawkins' essays. What you're missing is that religion isn't making them do it. A set of rules, formed by a shitty society with likely a shitty standard of living, have been enacted and called religion. If there were supposed to be wearing a shawl made out of their country's flag, it would be no different.
Religion is a man made tool crafted by different societies. Islam didn't just spring up as the way Afghans interpret it today. For several centuries, Islamic cultures were more advanced and tolerant than any others because of the societies themselves. As society changes, so does religion.
On July 14 2008 12:45 Nintu wrote: I told myself I'd read the entire thread before posting but I came across this at about page 7 and decided to reply.
There is nothing to explore about religion, you have a set of rules to follow and that's it no questions asked.
To be qualified enough to be able to write sentences such as this is, in your beliefs, impossible, since you quite vigorously disbelieve in any sort of religious or spiritual enlightenment. A more logical and acceptable way to word this statement would be to prefix it with "Atleast, in my attempts and experiences,"
Of course, you will close your eyes and ears anyway, and instead of adopting a more sensitive and logical attitude, you will continue to conduct yourself in such an arrogant way, because you have science to justify your insensitivity. Why be socially understanding if you are in the social majority, and have the boundless word of "science" to protect you.
Basically all you say is that I'm crude and illogical yet you give me no argument to that I'm actually wrong about what I wrote. And, to be completely honest, I do not feel that I'm insensitive. I'm simply stating the fact about religion in that sentence, and I never ever said anything about majority so please stop putting words in my mouth.
On July 14 2008 12:45 Nintu wrote: I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could."
This is what terrifies me about religion. You say that God is unprovable and yet you (not talking to you personally all thought this might apply) go to church every Sunday, read the Bible, spend countless hours praying. For something that is not even provable. Thankfully, for some reason, you've decided to become somewhat of a half christian and you don't believe everything in the Bible, hence you're not on your way to Sweden to stone me. But every religious person isn't.
ok we've already had pages of discussion on this and i already told this guy to keep it civil, u too plz.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
Again, you're missing the point. Religion didn't CAUSE it. The people themselves DECIDED to KILL. The terrorists in 9/11 DECIDED TO KILL. It was not due to God, or Islam. It was because somebody taught them that that is what they should do. It wasn't God. It was a terrible islamic extremist. Someone (yes, some person) who wished harm on people who weren't like him. Much like Abortionist deaths. Somebody taught them that they should go kill these doctors. It wasn't God. It may have been a preacher, but that preacher was a human. A human who wished others to die because they were not like him.
These human beings USED belief, and religious teachings to murder other human beings. Religion is the most powerful force in the world, I believe. So yes, it also has potential to be used terribly. It's sad, and I pray for all those are hurt in the name of Christianity, or any other religion that is being used as a TOOL to hurt others. Please understand this.
Why this is important is the question "Why did they believe this?". And they believed this based on exactly the same rationality as any other religion is believed in. People always have to think critically and have a real view of the world to make healthy decisions. It would not surprise me if equivalent acts such as 9/11 which happen to be somewhat of Islamic origin will happen with Christian origin.
It has happened! It's called the Crusades. but why stop there? How about Roman Republic days! Let's conquer Greece and then kill Archimedes because he practices a level of science that is feared by our many Gods!
Everywhere religion has been, there has been violence. Why? Because ever since humans could communicate, they pondered their existence and the existence of their fore-fathers.
Religion has ALWAYS been used as a tool by politicians. It sickens me, and it skews the very nature of most religious teachings, such as "DO NOT FUCKING MuRDER" a commandment that was skewed quite liberally in the crusades.
You cannot convince me that Religion has not been used as a tool to do harm. That makes the wielder of the tool responsible, not the tool itself. While we're at it, let's take away every gun in the world, because they cause most deaths now-a-days right? Fuck, let's keep putting the responsibility on the tools instead of the wielders. I feel more logical already.
For the record, before I hit post, I really do apologize for being so frustrated with your posts. I'm sorry if it was uncivil, which I'm certain it was. I respect critical thinking, scientific thinking, and the logical mind state that Atheists are in. The trouble seems to be with convincing you to have the same level of sensitivity in interacting with someone who believes in the same thing, but also something else.
On July 14 2008 13:28 MyLostTemple wrote: something i've always wondered is: if god exists, why would he necessarily care that people believed in him?
if i was the omnipotent being that created the universe and had a vested interest in people acting in a Good way, why would people buying into me existing matter? Arn't they going to find out either way? Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
It is in Christian Belief that God created us in his image. It's not simply that we exist in a world he created, but he created us. I know you probably wanted a more wordy response but in Christian belief, it's simply the case that He created us. It's not as if me or you were granted Omnipotent powers and could do whatever we wanted. He is not bound by selfish desires, or human self-interest. He created us. We are his world.
Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
I don't believe God punishes those who disobey him. Not directly. This of course varies between all the denominations, and through each individual of each religion, but I do not believe he actively attacks those who disobey him.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
It is absolutely evident that people can behave well without religion. If there was an immediately evident correlation like this, Religion would seem logical, wouldn't it? Nothing Necessitates it. It's very nature means that it requires faith. You clearly want answers that nobody can give. If Religion was a necessity, it would be fundamentally flawed. (even more-so than most of you think it is.. )
As I said earlier, I cannot make others believe in what I believe in, but I can attempt to explain enough of what I believe to advocate understanding and sensitivity.
well i understand the dogma behind it because i was catholic for about 18 years and i come from a well educated religious family. i think your views tend to be much looser than those of other christian factions.
some of the most educated and modernized countries in the world are rapidly becoming non religious. Sweeden, Switzerland and Japan to name a few. I tend to predict that as the world becomes more educated and modernized we will see atheism spread more heavily in north america and asia. i suppose i'm curious if religious people feel threatened by this concept or if they actually believe a rapture would ever come of it.
Same situation actually, raised Roman Catholic for the first 12 or so years, then questioned it and moved away from it, and after years of spiritual exploration, came back to "Christianity" but am not an adherent to any particular denomination right now.
It's true, I am a bit "looser" because of this. I am aware of what "most" of my Christian friends believe, and what they were taught. But I also am well aware of many Christians who may seem "loosely christian" when in fact, they are simply "evolved" Christians. Okay, that's a few too many quotes, so lemme re-articulate.
I agree that there are many issues regarding skewed religious teachings in Christianity. Many people are raised to "believe" something because it was where they were born. I never believed that going to church every sunday somehow saved your eternal Soul. As I mentioned earlier, in every congregation, there are those who are there out of obligation and social habit, and others who are there to explore their spiritual curiosity. I am personally found greater fulfillment in my exploration of Christianity than anything else in my life. Of course, this means nothing to you or anyone else on this forum, and I don't pretend it does. I am merely clarifying that I, as a Christian, am also aware of the sad state that Religious teachings has been brought to. Whether you believe in the teachings or not, I think we can agree that we share a lot of the same morals. And a lot of those teachings, whether you believe them to be the word of God or not, have been skewed and used for terrible, personal and political purposes. From an objective standpoint, we can observe that and look poorly on it together. But I have to speak up if I feel it, as a core, is being accused of these terrible acts, instead of those responsible for turning it into what it is.
That paragraph was way too long, and hopefully you've been able to navigate it in the way I intended..
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
Again, you're missing the point. Religion didn't CAUSE it. The people themselves DECIDED to KILL. The terrorists in 9/11 DECIDED TO KILL. It was not due to God, or Islam. It was because somebody taught them that that is what they should do. It wasn't God. It was a terrible islamic extremist. Someone (yes, some person) who wished harm on people who weren't like him. Much like Abortionist deaths. Somebody taught them that they should go kill these doctors. It wasn't God. It may have been a preacher, but that preacher was a human. A human who wished others to die because they were not like him.
These human beings USED belief, and religious teachings to murder other human beings. Religion is the most powerful force in the world, I believe. So yes, it also has potential to be used terribly. It's sad, and I pray for all those are hurt in the name of Christianity, or any other religion that is being used as a TOOL to hurt others. Please understand this.
Why this is important is the question "Why did they believe this?". And they believed this based on exactly the same rationality as any other religion is believed in. People always have to think critically and have a real view of the world to make healthy decisions. It would not surprise me if equivalent acts such as 9/11 which happen to be somewhat of Islamic origin will happen with Christian origin.
It has happened you ignorant fuck. It's called the Crusades. but why stop there? How about Roman Republic days! Let's conquer Greece and then kill Archimedes because he practices a level of science that is feared by our many Gods!
Everywhere religion has been, there has been violence. Why? Because ever since humans could communicate, they pondered their existence and the existence of their fore-fathers.
Religion has ALWAYS been used as a tool by politicians. It sickens me, and it skews the very nature of most religious teachings, such as "DO NOT FUCKING MuRDER" a commandment that was skewed quite liberally in the crusades.
You cannot convince me that Religion has not been used as a tool to do harm. That makes the wielder of the tool responsible, not the tool itself. While we're at it, let's take away every gun in the world, because they cause most deaths now-a-days right? Fuck, let's keep putting the responsibility on the tools instead of the wielders. I feel more logical already.
For the record, before I hit post, I really do apologize for being so frustrated with your posts. I'm sorry if it was uncivil, which I'm certain it was. I respect critical thinking, scientific thinking, and the logical mind state that Atheists are in. The trouble seems to be with convincing you to have the same level of sensitivity in interacting with someone who believes in the same thing, but also something else.
Quote has been edited.
I understand that you probably got frustrated by my last post and I will try to be more civilized.
If I may summarize you're recent post as I see it: Basically you say that mankind has always been pounding on each other and religion has just been a tool with which to do this, just as a gun.
I guess I would be called an optimist in your eyes. I don't see war as a necessary part of the mankind future and I do believe removing religion would be one step in the right direction. And yeah if it was that easy, why not remove guns too?
Edit: Just a small clarification. I do not believe that you are a bad person at all. It is just the fact that you're doing things which have no apparent effect (ex. praying) for an unprovable reason that I think we have to address in the 21st century.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama)
there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis
science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense.
nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge.
also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now)
what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives.
also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
In response to LuckyOne: Eventually it comes down to cause and effect. Things happen for a reason. If someone moved a piece of paper with their mind I would not surrender and say science isn't always applicable. I would start investigating it and try to find out how it happened.
To me it seems like you don't understand how dynamic the scientific model is. If it were to happen that it actually was magic that moved the paper, then that would be included in new scientific theories.
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote: I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
Again, you're missing the point. Religion didn't CAUSE it. The people themselves DECIDED to KILL. The terrorists in 9/11 DECIDED TO KILL. It was not due to God, or Islam. It was because somebody taught them that that is what they should do. It wasn't God. It was a terrible islamic extremist. Someone (yes, some person) who wished harm on people who weren't like him. Much like Abortionist deaths. Somebody taught them that they should go kill these doctors. It wasn't God. It may have been a preacher, but that preacher was a human. A human who wished others to die because they were not like him.
These human beings USED belief, and religious teachings to murder other human beings. Religion is the most powerful force in the world, I believe. So yes, it also has potential to be used terribly. It's sad, and I pray for all those are hurt in the name of Christianity, or any other religion that is being used as a TOOL to hurt others. Please understand this.
Why this is important is the question "Why did they believe this?". And they believed this based on exactly the same rationality as any other religion is believed in. People always have to think critically and have a real view of the world to make healthy decisions. It would not surprise me if equivalent acts such as 9/11 which happen to be somewhat of Islamic origin will happen with Christian origin.
It has happened you ignorant fuck. It's called the Crusades. but why stop there? How about Roman Republic days! Let's conquer Greece and then kill Archimedes because he practices a level of science that is feared by our many Gods!
Everywhere religion has been, there has been violence. Why? Because ever since humans could communicate, they pondered their existence and the existence of their fore-fathers.
Religion has ALWAYS been used as a tool by politicians. It sickens me, and it skews the very nature of most religious teachings, such as "DO NOT FUCKING MuRDER" a commandment that was skewed quite liberally in the crusades.
You cannot convince me that Religion has not been used as a tool to do harm. That makes the wielder of the tool responsible, not the tool itself. While we're at it, let's take away every gun in the world, because they cause most deaths now-a-days right? Fuck, let's keep putting the responsibility on the tools instead of the wielders. I feel more logical already.
For the record, before I hit post, I really do apologize for being so frustrated with your posts. I'm sorry if it was uncivil, which I'm certain it was. I respect critical thinking, scientific thinking, and the logical mind state that Atheists are in. The trouble seems to be with convincing you to have the same level of sensitivity in interacting with someone who believes in the same thing, but also something else.
I understand that you probably got frustrated by my last post and I will try to be more civilized.
If I may summarize you're recent post as I see it: Basically you say that mankind has always been pounding on each other and religion has just been a tool with which to do this, just as a gun.
I guess I would be called an optimist in your eyes. I don't see war as a necessary part of the mankind future and I do believe removing religion would be one step in the right direction. And yeah if it was that easy, why not remove guns too?
I appreciate your respectful new approach and once again apologize for my lack of tact.
The summary is mostly accurate in my eyes. Some genius figured out how strongly people feel about religion and used it to hurt others, or to win an election, or to kick somebody out of a country, or murder someone like Socrates. That genius, and there are millions of them, is using his influence to skew beliefs that are fundamentally peaceful and loving. I speak about christianity at this Moment but other religions aswell that share a peaceful and loving nature. Christianity is about love and peace. Jesus, also known as Christ, taught love, acceptance, and peace. He was put on a cross and killed for it.
Is it Ironic that Christianty was started from a man who was crucified because of religious intolerance? Christianity, that went on to be used as a political tool, and also has many sects go on to kill others in religious intolerance?
Yes, it is ironic. It's fucking terrible and hurts me.
An irony similar to owning a gun to protect your family, only to end up hurting your family with it.
An analogy only needs to have 1 intended similarity, an exaggerated scenario to illustrate a point, and that is how I use this analogy. I don't mean, in any other way, to compare Christianity to a Gun. It doesn't even necessarily reflect my opinion on gun control. I'm merely drawing a parallel between something with an intended noble purpose, can be used to do just the opposite
Yeah there are things that we don't know the causes for, like the placebo effect. That's basically magic (to the best of my knowledge). But because it's measurable and provable, it's accepted scientifically, and people are looking for explanations as to the mechanisms. The same thing would happen with telekinesis. The fact that almost every phenomenon we've discovered so far has had physical mechanisms discovered is the main reason why many of us are naturalists.
Nintu, don't worry about how others can abuse the religion. How an idea is used has no impact on whether or not it's true. Darwinism has been misused to start genocides too (social Darwinism).
Just a small clarification. I do not believe that you are a bad person at all. It is just the fact that you're doing things which have no apparent effect (ex. praying) for an unprovable reason that I think we have to address in the 21st century.
Well, first of all, also in the same post, I just want to say that I don't believe war is a necessity for the future either. I don't understand why you think I would.
Why does it affect you if I pray, ESPECIALLY if it has no purpose that you see? I mean, if I started praying for shit, and I started manipulating world events, then yeah, then maybe we've had a problem we have to Address. But especially seeing as how it has no effect for you, isn't that, literally and scientifically, harmless? I admit I pray for a reason that I cannot prove to you, but I defend quite strongly my right to do it... especially seeing as how it does not affect you.
Your wish to deprive me, or others of this harmless act, is similar to me trying to take SC away from you because you play too much. Is SC bad simply because people spend so much time with it? Is world of Warcraft evil? Absolutely not. They are harmless, and indeed have a lot of benefits within them if you try it, but there are correlations between the activity level of computer gamers and, say, soccer players. I mean, you really have to look past the shallow associations and see the good, instead of focusing on the bad cases and trying to lobby an activist movement against it.
Just a small clarification. I do not believe that you are a bad person at all. It is just the fact that you're doing things which have no apparent effect (ex. praying) for an unprovable reason that I think we have to address in the 21st century.
Well, first of all, also in the same post, I just want to say that I don't believe war is a necessity for the future either. I don't understand why you think I would.
Why does it affect you if I pray, ESPECIALLY if it has no purpose that you see? I mean, if I started praying for shit, and I started manipulating world events, then yeah, then maybe we've had a problem we have to Address. But especially seeing as how it has no effect for you, isn't that, literally and scientifically, harmless? I admit I pray for a reason that I cannot prove to you, but I defend quite strongly my right to do it... especially seeing as how it does not affect you.
Your wish to deprive me, or others of this harmless act, is similar to me trying to take SC away from you because you play too much. Is SC bad simply because people spend so much time with it? Is world of Warcraft evil? Absolutely not. They are harmless, and indeed have a lot of benefits within them if you try it, but there are correlations between the activity level of computer gamers and, say, soccer players. I mean, you really have to look past the shallow associations and see the good, instead of focusing on the bad cases and trying to lobby an activist movement against it.
You are absolutely right, in the instance of you praying it doesn't hurt me. What does (or might) hurt me is why you do it.
Doing things based on faith without any rationality behind it leads to a very unstable world. All thought faith to you is, from what I understand, a wonderful thing. I believe that from "healthy" religion "bad" religion is born, if you will. Because of the healthy religion faith is generally accepted and because of that "bad" religion can exist freely.
And by "bad" religion I of course mean people that take their faith one step further (or in the wrong direction) and does terrible things for no rational reason.
Since I had no response yet I would like to add a personal question if I may to Nintu. You say yourself that God is unprovable and that you believe in a faith based God. What convinced you to believe in him in the first place?
Ah i love richard dawkins. I read The Selfish Gene like four times or something. Everyone who is interested in Biology or Science in general has to read his books. He is maybe the best living science writer in the world and of course a very good biologist. I also liked his stuff about atheism, although i was an atheist way before i heard about him.
On July 14 2008 14:36 Polemarch wrote: Yeah there are things that we don't know the causes for, like the placebo effect. That's basically magic (to the best of my knowledge).
It is of course not magic. We allready know quite a bit about its effects and possible causes. Its just a very diffuse effect so there is not just one cause. And of course there are aspects of it that are not understood at the moment.
And thanks for the Ken Miller lecture. I had not seen the new one. It is really a shame that scientists have to waste their time for something like that. This whole creationism debate is really just ridiculous.
Just a small clarification. I do not believe that you are a bad person at all. It is just the fact that you're doing things which have no apparent effect (ex. praying) for an unprovable reason that I think we have to address in the 21st century.
Well, first of all, also in the same post, I just want to say that I don't believe war is a necessity for the future either. I don't understand why you think I would.
Why does it affect you if I pray, ESPECIALLY if it has no purpose that you see? I mean, if I started praying for shit, and I started manipulating world events, then yeah, then maybe we've had a problem we have to Address. But especially seeing as how it has no effect for you, isn't that, literally and scientifically, harmless? I admit I pray for a reason that I cannot prove to you, but I defend quite strongly my right to do it... especially seeing as how it does not affect you.
Your wish to deprive me, or others of this harmless act, is similar to me trying to take SC away from you because you play too much. Is SC bad simply because people spend so much time with it? Is world of Warcraft evil? Absolutely not. They are harmless, and indeed have a lot of benefits within them if you try it, but there are correlations between the activity level of computer gamers and, say, soccer players. I mean, you really have to look past the shallow associations and see the good, instead of focusing on the bad cases and trying to lobby an activist movement against it.
You are absolutely right, in the instance of you praying it doesn't hurt me. What does (or might) hurt me is why you do it.
Doing things based on faith without any rationality behind it leads to a very unstable world. All thought faith to you is, from what I understand, a wonderful thing. I believe that from "healthy" religion "bad" religion is born, if you will. Because of the healthy religion faith is generally accepted and because of that "bad" religion can exist freely.
And by "bad" religion I of course mean people that take their faith one step further (or in the wrong direction) and does terrible things for no rational reason.
It is true, that since the nature of Religion is illogical, that it gives way to actions that are not based on logic, which is a terrifying thing I admit. This is what I was talking about earlier about Religion being the strongest force in the world. It has the potential to do great harm, since it works in a way that is supernatural.
The fear associated with this, I understand, and be assured I am just as afraid of this extremism as you are. I've seen extremism to non-violent but still harmful extents in my spiritual exploration which made me very sad and disappointed.
This does not, however, say that you cannot trust religion. If you were to learn specifically what I believe, and how I pray, you would quickly learn that I only have good intentions, and am not capable of any sort of harm or danger to anybody. The things I pray for, are the same things you wish for. Etc.. Of course, there is no way for you to feel comfortable with everyone in the world, as you would have to assess each one, so it's easier for you to just want it all to go away.
I guess I want you to understand that I am not a bad guy. And though the concept of prayer and faith is frightening to you because of how it inherently is, I want you to know that I myself, and the Christianity me and everyone I know practices, is something you should not be afraid of. I respect and understand your lack of trust towards this, and that others have. Hopefully we can reach enough of an understanding towards each other that some of the uncertainty and mistrust we initially have towards eachother, can dissolve.
On July 14 2008 14:53 Bozali wrote: Since I had no response yet I would like to add a personal question if I may to Nintu. You say yourself that God is unprovable and that you believe in a faith based God. What convinced you to believe in him in the first place?
Edit: I decided to Spoiler it for those who don't want to read it. + Show Spoiler +
I was raised Catholic. I was taught a strict code of ethics and rules. I grew up thinking that this is just "the way it is."
When I hit 13 I questioned my beliefs. I never made any decisions about what I believe for myself and it frustrated me. I had no reason to believe in God, so I decided that I would figure out what I believe for myself.
My family separated and my entire family stopped practicing catholicism and stopped going to Church. I felt liberated at first. I didn't feel guilty for questioning what I believed anymore. No more obligation.
I was about 15 or so and you know how Teenage years are...
I had issues with Anxiety disorders and Depression all my life, and my mom's side of the family is deeply impacted with mental disorders like those. After some years of frustration and a lack of understanding from peers and family, I became quite depressed and angry. I became suicidal and angry at my mother for having kids when she knew she'd pass on these issues with Anxiety and Depression. As I decided to kill myself I reached a final plea with myself. I gave myself a week to try and find God, as that would be a reason to live and I had nothing to lose. After 6 and a half days of exploration, I tried everything. Doctrine, passages, etc.. didn't help. The final thing I read was a teaching on faith. Without faith, Christianity is nothing. It's all just words. Faith is being pushed to the edge, and then pushed some more. When the world gives you every reason to disbelieve in God, and yet bringing yourself to him anyway. So I was pushed to my limits, and finally when I was pushed even further, I prayed. I took faith when God gave me every reason to let go.
What followed was a religious experience that I won't detail because I will probably just be mocked, but it was something more powerful than anything I could every articulate. It was too powerful to ignore or push aside. It was too powerful to explain or try and argue... So I took it, and I walked away.
Religious teachings now mean something, when before they were just words. Being born and raised Catholic didn't give me anything, and in the end, I had to find it for myself for it to be what it was meant to be.
In the end, what does this mean to you? Very little, and I realize that. But I want you to know, that my faith will never cause me to hurt someone else. And my prayers make me happy, and have no ill effect. I promise =P
im getting sick of threads like this, not because of "Dawkins", everyone has a right to a belief.. But I never encounter a site with so many religious debates apart from the ones that were specifically made for "Religion.
On July 14 2008 14:20 Bozali wrote: In response to LuckyOne: Eventually it comes down to cause and effect. Things happen for a reason. If someone moved a piece of paper with their mind I would not surrender and say science isn't always applicable. I would start investigating it and try to find out how it happened.
To me it seems like you don't understand how dynamic the scientific model is. If it were to happen that it actually was magic that moved the paper, then that would be included in new scientific theories.
magic things that cant be explained by science. or else it would be science. if you could do anything you want with magics what would you need science for
On July 14 2008 14:36 Polemarch wrote: Yeah there are things that we don't know the causes for, like the placebo effect. That's basically magic (to the best of my knowledge). But because it's measurable and provable, it's accepted scientifically, and people are looking for explanations as to the mechanisms. The same thing would happen with telekinesis. The fact that almost every phenomenon we've discovered so far has had physical mechanisms discovered is the main reason why many of us are naturalists.
Nintu, don't worry about how others can abuse the religion. How an idea is used has no impact on whether or not it's true. Darwinism has been misused to start genocides too (social Darwinism).
how is the placebo effect magic?
we might not understand every little detail of how it works, but that doesnt make it magic.
On July 14 2008 14:36 Polemarch wrote: Yeah there are things that we don't know the causes for, like the placebo effect. That's basically magic (to the best of my knowledge). But because it's measurable and provable, it's accepted scientifically, and people are looking for explanations as to the mechanisms. The same thing would happen with telekinesis. The fact that almost every phenomenon we've discovered so far has had physical mechanisms discovered is the main reason why many of us are naturalists.
Nintu, don't worry about how others can abuse the religion. How an idea is used has no impact on whether or not it's true. Darwinism has been misused to start genocides too (social Darwinism).
how is the placebo effect magic?
we might not understand every little detail of how it works, but that doesnt make it magic.
(Also @Dagor)
haha OK to the best of my very limited knowledge. Forgive me for being loose with my prose. I was definitely not trying to say that it's actually unexplainable, just magic in the Clarkeian sense that it's sufficiently advanced that I don't get it (and had the impression that nobody else really does either, but I guess that was partially wrong).
I'm curious though, does anyone have any better examples of well-known, replicable, phenomena that don't have a good scientific explanation yet?
On July 14 2008 14:36 Polemarch wrote: Yeah there are things that we don't know the causes for, like the placebo effect. That's basically magic (to the best of my knowledge). But because it's measurable and provable, it's accepted scientifically, and people are looking for explanations as to the mechanisms. The same thing would happen with telekinesis. The fact that almost every phenomenon we've discovered so far has had physical mechanisms discovered is the main reason why many of us are naturalists.
Nintu, don't worry about how others can abuse the religion. How an idea is used has no impact on whether or not it's true. Darwinism has been misused to start genocides too (social Darwinism).
how is the placebo effect magic?
we might not understand every little detail of how it works, but that doesnt make it magic.
(Also @Dagor)
haha OK to the best of my very limited knowledge. Forgive me for being loose with my prose. I was definitely not trying to say that it's actually unexplainable, just magic in the Clarkeian sense that it's sufficiently advanced that I don't get it (and had the impression that nobody else really does either, but I guess that was partially wrong).
I'm curious though, does anyone have any better examples of well-known, replicable, phenomena that don't have a good scientific explanation yet?
On July 14 2008 14:36 Polemarch wrote: Yeah there are things that we don't know the causes for, like the placebo effect. That's basically magic (to the best of my knowledge). But because it's measurable and provable, it's accepted scientifically, and people are looking for explanations as to the mechanisms. The same thing would happen with telekinesis. The fact that almost every phenomenon we've discovered so far has had physical mechanisms discovered is the main reason why many of us are naturalists.
Nintu, don't worry about how others can abuse the religion. How an idea is used has no impact on whether or not it's true. Darwinism has been misused to start genocides too (social Darwinism).
how is the placebo effect magic?
we might not understand every little detail of how it works, but that doesnt make it magic.
(Also @Dagor)
haha OK to the best of my very limited knowledge. Forgive me for being loose with my prose. I was definitely not trying to say that it's actually unexplainable, just magic in the Clarkeian sense that it's sufficiently advanced that I don't get it (and had the impression that nobody else really does either, but I guess that was partially wrong).
I'm curious though, does anyone have any better examples of well-known, replicable, phenomena that don't have a good scientific explanation yet?
Polemarch: The problems of observed acceleration and gravitation that don't fit our current understanding of physics. Our best "scientific explanations" are dark energy and dark matter, respectively. Not very good explanations, are they?
"Oh, everything is accelerating, and that takes energy.... but we don't see what's causing it, so let's call it dark energy."
"Oh, we can measure that some stuff out there seems to be experiencing higher gravity fields than our measured mass of the surrounding area seems to indicate, which means that there must be more gravity-generating stuff (mass) out there that we can't see.... let's call it dark matter."
Hum.... how about awareness? We don't know what it is, other than that for us, it happens in the brain. Probably. We know it exists. And we know the mechanisms by which the brain operates, kind of. But we still have no clue as to what causes consciousness, or how it works, or whether or not its possible to reproduce it in a machine (is a self-aware machine possible?).
These three have definite answers in that a valid one won't be "it's impossible to tell," at least in principle. In contrast to "Is there a god?" which is in principle (and in practice) impossible to show either way.
Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
On July 14 2008 14:53 Bozali wrote: Since I had no response yet I would like to add a personal question if I may to Nintu. You say yourself that God is unprovable and that you believe in a faith based God. What convinced you to believe in him in the first place?
Edit: I decided to Spoiler it for those who don't want to read it. + Show Spoiler +
I was raised Catholic. I was taught a strict code of ethics and rules. I grew up thinking that this is just "the way it is."
When I hit 13 I questioned my beliefs. I never made any decisions about what I believe for myself and it frustrated me. I had no reason to believe in God, so I decided that I would figure out what I believe for myself.
My family separated and my entire family stopped practicing catholicism and stopped going to Church. I felt liberated at first. I didn't feel guilty for questioning what I believed anymore. No more obligation.
I was about 15 or so and you know how Teenage years are...
I had issues with Anxiety disorders and Depression all my life, and my mom's side of the family is deeply impacted with mental disorders like those. After some years of frustration and a lack of understanding from peers and family, I became quite depressed and angry. I became suicidal and angry at my mother for having kids when she knew she'd pass on these issues with Anxiety and Depression. As I decided to kill myself I reached a final plea with myself. I gave myself a week to try and find God, as that would be a reason to live and I had nothing to lose. After 6 and a half days of exploration, I tried everything. Doctrine, passages, etc.. didn't help. The final thing I read was a teaching on faith. Without faith, Christianity is nothing. It's all just words. Faith is being pushed to the edge, and then pushed some more. When the world gives you every reason to disbelieve in God, and yet bringing yourself to him anyway. So I was pushed to my limits, and finally when I was pushed even further, I prayed. I took faith when God gave me every reason to let go.
What followed was a religious experience that I won't detail because I will probably just be mocked, but it was something more powerful than anything I could every articulate. It was too powerful to ignore or push aside. It was too powerful to explain or try and argue... So I took it, and I walked away.
Religious teachings now mean something, when before they were just words. Being born and raised Catholic didn't give me anything, and in the end, I had to find it for myself for it to be what it was meant to be.
In the end, what does this mean to you? Very little, and I realize that. But I want you to know, that my faith will never cause me to hurt someone else. And my prayers make me happy, and have no ill effect. I promise =P
Well I'm with you nintu. You have every right to this one unshakeable faith, and damn anyone who tries to force their agenda on you; when you are hurting no one.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
Give me evidence for civil behaviour, then? If you cannot find any, will you agree that there is no reason to behave civil? And "because others will treat you the same" is really inconsequential, it does not say anything about right or wrong.
Most of our everyday actions are based on belief and feeling. It means that they cannot be measured by science, but it does not make them pointless, or even uninteresting.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
Give me evidence for civil behaviour, then? If you cannot find any, will you agree that there is no reason to behave civil? And "because others will treat you the same" is really inconsequential, it does not say anything about right or wrong.
Most of our everyday actions are based on belief and feeling. It means that they cannot be measured by science, but it does not make them pointless, or even uninteresting.
There are many reasons, other than religious or moral reasons to act civil to one another. To be taken seriously, to stimulate creative thought, etc.. All require yourself to conduct yourself respectfully and courteously. Most of our everyday actions are based on instinct, habit and pattern. People who were raised to be courteous are more likely to maintain that sort of lifestyle.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic. In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
This is pretty lame tbh. Logical people are afraid of dangerous things. Nintu does not seem dangerous. Plus, why is he illogical? You can't possibly know how serious his experience with 'God' was. If you were like basically approached in your dreams by a character that, for example, said 'your mum is going to die in three days' time of a stroke, your brother will be run over by a car, your father will be crushed by a falling stone; I am sorry but they will be happy with me in the afterlife; now go and spread the word that I exist- I will bless everyone you enlighten' and then all that shit happened, surely you would trust that more than you would anything else?
Surely there is a limit we can all reach a point at which a personal experience just overthrows any actual scientific empirical repeatable evidence we have- logically.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic. In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
It's okay to have faith in something that is inherently unable to be explained by logic. As long as you do not force your beliefs on others and are understanding and respectful, then yes, it is not harmful to have faith in something. You may draw an analogy of someone believing in a floating pink elephant if you like as well. It's their right to.
You do not understand the "set of beliefs" in my mind, so no, you cannot intelligently make that claim. If you understood my "set of beliefs" you'd have a better understanding and sensitivity towards other belief systems that do not harm or endanger anyone.
You do not need a God to "justify" horrific acts. Many of the recent school shootings were done by Atheists aswell. I recall a manifesto based completely on the "Survival of the Fittest", by a troubled teenager who murdered plenty of students.
People will use anything to justify their crimes. They will use religion, just as they will use evolution, or politics. It's narrow-minded for you to speak the way you do. Religion is just one of the many tools people will use to "justify" their heinous crimes.
"You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this."
If I spoke with this level of arrogance but in a reverse context, you'd rip me apart. This level of bigotry is indeed the reason we need to have discussions such as this. What I'm trying to say is.. From your last sentence... You scare me too.
Klive5ive, I am still waiting for your answer. You have yet to tell me the basis for the moral structure of our society. If you can't explain that basis to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
A part of the problem is that most people need something to have faith in in order to live. They need to see an order in this world, or a justification for everything, and the fact is, without religion 90% of the time another faith appears.
Oh, its not called a "religion", still it exists. Like those people who have faith in science : basically science become their religion, a faith they blindly follow, thinking it will solve every problem in this world, they don't try to understand it for it is an incomprehensible power beyond their knowledge. There are many other replacement solutions: astrology, no-religious sects, communism, anarchism... it just has to be something wich can describe our world/future/goals/whatnot, it will always lose its essence (if there was one in the begining anyway) since people aren't here to learn but want something to believe in .
And smart peoples will always find ways to use these belivers to have some power should they have faith or not.
The sad thing is that it will never change because living truly without have faith in something is hella difficult, it raise a ridiculous amount of painful question. One cannot blame people for believing in something, at least they've got something to build their live on.
I'll also ads that believers are not always "evil", people are quite eager to forget what they brought to us. Like, in france christianism spread with monks who created monasterys everywhere, once they were created, monks taught people farming, safer way to build, they dried a lot of swamps (and their were plenty here back in the dark age), while building church everywhere they gave employment to the population during centuries. The list could go on. And for every major religion it is the same.
Nah the problem is those who surrender their free will to other humans, losing their criticism thus accepting everything even if its plainly stupid (ie: "dont vaccinates your childs") or will harm other people who had nothing to do with you (ie: "go crash a plane on this tower", "lets beat the shit out of saddam, he has weapon of mass destruction and he ordered 09/11").
Now, one can wonder: what kind of people is Dawkins? Is he someone wanting people to use their brain or does he believe he knows the Truth and that all should listen to him? One attitude would make him a great man, the othe would lower him to the same level as some lambda religious zealot.
On July 14 2008 18:15 Nintu wrote: You do not need a God to "justify" horrific acts. Many of the recent school shootings were done by Atheists aswell. I recall a manifesto based completely on the "Survival of the Fittest", by a troubled teenager who murdered plenty of students.
Yes, but the problem here is the criminal himself, not that he's either atheist or not. There are numerous non-religious causes for a person to become a murderer. And Religion has done far more crime than anything else on Earth anyway, so it's really stupid to think atheists could be "theoretically more dangerous". Why do we now have islamist terrorists, or other more or less dangerous religious fundamentalists? Because they take everything in their religion or "holy writings" 100% seriously. In the case of Islam this means they think theirs is the true religion and all others are worthless (yes, that is in the Quran). Combine this with a generally bleak outlook on life, unhappiness about something, anger about something, and the result may be one fanatical terrorist. Now take the religious things aside, but keep the unhappiness and anger, and the result may be a murderer or amok runner or similar.
On July 14 2008 18:15 Nintu wrote: You do not need a God to "justify" horrific acts. Many of the recent school shootings were done by Atheists aswell. I recall a manifesto based completely on the "Survival of the Fittest", by a troubled teenager who murdered plenty of students.
Yes, but the problem here is the criminal himself, not that he's either atheist or not. There are numerous non-religious causes for a person to become a murderer. And Religion has done far more crime than anything else on Earth anyway, so it's really stupid to think atheists could be "theoretically more dangerous". Why do we now have islamist terrorists, or other more or less dangerous religious fundamentalists? Because they take everything in their religion or "holy writings" 100% seriously. In the case of Islam this means they think theirs is the true religion and all others are worthless (yes, that is in the Quran). Combine this with a generally bleak outlook on life, unhappiness about something, anger about something, and the result may be one fanatical terrorist. Now take the religious things aside, but keep the unhappiness and anger, and the result may be a murderer or amok runner or similar.
I never said that ATheists are theoretically more dangerous. I never said anything even remotely like that. I clearly stated that Religion is the most powerful force in the world, and therefore, also has the greatest potential to be mis-used. Please read my posts.
That statement I made was in response to someone making the same claim about terrorism. My point is, it's the human beings themselves, as you said. As long as there are murderous human beings, there will be murders.
When most the world is religious, then most of the world's murders will be by religious people. Especially when there is so much power and emotion invested in religion.
It's pretty laughable that some argue that atheists are more dangerous than theists. seriously..wat? that's like saying people who don't believe in santa claus are more dangerous than those who do? Sorry if we want to ground our beliefs with reality, it's not like we get to pick and choose how the universe works--Men of science just try to understand it the best we can. And the argument that there is no morality outside religion is even more laughable and not even worthy of examination D:~
People will use anything to justify their crimes. They will use religion, just as they will use evolution, or politics. It's narrow-minded for you to speak the way you do. Religion is just one of the many tools people will use to "justify" their heinous crimes.
Yeah I guess my post was redundant then. I just felt that paragraph needed more clarification.
People will use anything to justify their crimes. They will use religion, just as they will use evolution, or politics. It's narrow-minded for you to speak the way you do. Religion is just one of the many tools people will use to "justify" their heinous crimes.
Yeah I guess my post was redundant then. I just felt that paragraph needed more clarification.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama)
there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis
science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense.
nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge.
also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now)
what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives.
also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video.
"what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing.
and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making.
I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly.
On July 14 2008 14:36 Polemarch wrote: Yeah there are things that we don't know the causes for, like the placebo effect. That's basically magic (to the best of my knowledge). But because it's measurable and provable, it's accepted scientifically, and people are looking for explanations as to the mechanisms. The same thing would happen with telekinesis. The fact that almost every phenomenon we've discovered so far has had physical mechanisms discovered is the main reason why many of us are naturalists.
Nintu, don't worry about how others can abuse the religion. How an idea is used has no impact on whether or not it's true. Darwinism has been misused to start genocides too (social Darwinism).
magic? what?
take an intro to psychology course. it's when you attribute results that have nothing to do with the medicine/practice you preformed. for instance lets imagine i take a sugar pill but i'm told it's a new drug developed that will improve my mood over the week. i may very well end up convincing myself that i'm feeling better because i know i'm taking that pill which is supposed to work. yet in fact it's not doing anything chemically at all. a lot of people argue that prayer is the same thing.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
well i agree that morality and science are not the same. but philosophically it seems pretty easy to explain why people should have freedom of thought and expression without needing religion to back that up.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic. In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
ok this is another example of someone being a dumb ass on the fourm.
stop posting if you can't make coherent arguments. don't get my thread closed.
On July 14 2008 18:27 Groslouser wrote: A part of the problem is that most people need something to have faith in in order to live. They need to see an order in this world, or a justification for everything, and the fact is, without religion 90% of the time another faith appears.
Oh, its not called a "religion", still it exists. Like those people who have faith in science : basically science become their religion, a faith they blindly follow, thinking it will solve every problem in this world, they don't try to understand it for it is an incomprehensible power beyond their knowledge. There are many other replacement solutions: astrology, no-religious sects, communism, anarchism... it just has to be something wich can describe our world/future/goals/whatnot, it will always lose its essence (if there was one in the begining anyway) since people aren't here to learn but want something to believe in .
And smart peoples will always find ways to use these belivers to have some power should they have faith or not.
The sad thing is that it will never change because living truly without have faith in something is hella difficult, it raise a ridiculous amount of painful question. One cannot blame people for believing in something, at least they've got something to build their live on.
I'll also ads that believers are not always "evil", people are quite eager to forget what they brought to us. Like, in france christianism spread with monks who created monasterys everywhere, once they were created, monks taught people farming, safer way to build, they dried a lot of swamps (and their were plenty here back in the dark age), while building church everywhere they gave employment to the population during centuries. The list could go on. And for every major religion it is the same.
Nah the problem is those who surrender their free will to other humans, losing their criticism thus accepting everything even if its plainly stupid (ie: "dont vaccinates your childs") or will harm other people who had nothing to do with you (ie: "go crash a plane on this tower", "lets beat the shit out of saddam, he has weapon of mass destruction and he ordered 09/11").
Now, one can wonder: what kind of people is Dawkins? Is he someone wanting people to use their brain or does he believe he knows the Truth and that all should listen to him? One attitude would make him a great man, the othe would lower him to the same level as some lambda religious zealot.
did you watch any of the videos? if so; which ones?
you need to avoid the linguistic error of saying "people put faith in science" faith is trusting something which can't be proven. i don't have "faith" that when i drop my pen it will fall, i have overwhelming evidence that i can drop my pen a million times and it will fall to the ground. Dawkins isn't arguing that science should replace everything. he's just saying that beliefs imposed by religion that can be disproven by scientific claims should hold more weight. Science can't fill every void, but it may have much better, cleaner and more reviseable facts that religion can offer.
why don't you just watch the videos if you want to know what type of person he is. this is not a thread where you get the beg a question as if there isn't information right in front of your face where you can educate yourself about it.
On July 14 2008 14:20 Bozali wrote: In response to LuckyOne: Eventually it comes down to cause and effect. Things happen for a reason. If someone moved a piece of paper with their mind I would not surrender and say science isn't always applicable. I would start investigating it and try to find out how it happened.
To me it seems like you don't understand how dynamic the scientific model is. If it were to happen that it actually was magic that moved the paper, then that would be included in new scientific theories.
magic things that cant be explained by science. or else it would be science. if you could do anything you want with magics what would you need science for
Here's something i wrote awhile back in a blog. When it comes to religion, i use a passive stance because although i don't believe in a religion or a god, some good does come out of it. I also have such a stance because i accept that i know nothing. Anyway:
When someone says, "I believe in God" i think..."ok and out of the thousands of gods created, which one do you believe in again?" Many civilisations throughout time have their own collections of gods. If they haven't created their own, then they probably worship a batch that has been introduced to them by a different nation. All of these gods have their own stories of how they came about, what they can do and such, and i rate all of these stories, just because the sheer amount of them, to be all on the same level, even as modern religions such as christianity. You might think a monkey king helping out a blue person is insane, but to me i rate that just as insane as jesus coming back to life. I'm not saying they are 100% false, but are just as likely to be wrong as each other, no matter how jazzed up it is. That's not to say i don't believe in anything like that though. It's the same with people that are certain that there is no afterlife, no gods, no soul no nothing. If we don't exactly know how we got here or what the universe is, then i think it's pretty stupid to rule absolutely anything that you can't see as false. That being said, you could use that to argue the case of God, but i believe that for endless amount of anything that is entwined with life, i think it's pretty stupid to limit that thing as to one entity such as God. It could be so much more than God (no matter how all powerful you say he is) or it could be so much less.
"Richard Dawkins considers himself able to eliminate the possibility of anything outside the range of the current human conceptual system having any reality by pointing out that the concept of God held by large populations of people did not prevent them from doing various things to one another of which modern politically correct academics disapprove." - Celia Green
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic. In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
ok this is another example of someone being a dumb ass on the fourm.
stop posting if you can't make coherent arguments. don't get my thread closed.
I'm dissapointed you feel that way. Dawkins would agree with my position. I agree my post was stinging but I hope the mods will see that it is in context with the discussion. Sam Harris talks alot about the rules we allow in conversation. We should challenge those who hold beliefs that cannot be explained. If someone says they don't believe the Holocaust happened, you can't take them seriously from then on. The same rule should be applied to those who claim a man was born of a virign.
Just a small clarification. I do not believe that you are a bad person at all. It is just the fact that you're doing things which have no apparent effect (ex. praying) for an unprovable reason that I think we have to address in the 21st century.
Well, first of all, also in the same post, I just want to say that I don't believe war is a necessity for the future either. I don't understand why you think I would.
Why does it affect you if I pray, ESPECIALLY if it has no purpose that you see? I mean, if I started praying for shit, and I started manipulating world events, then yeah, then maybe we've had a problem we have to Address. But especially seeing as how it has no effect for you, isn't that, literally and scientifically, harmless? I admit I pray for a reason that I cannot prove to you, but I defend quite strongly my right to do it... especially seeing as how it does not affect you.
Your wish to deprive me, or others of this harmless act, is similar to me trying to take SC away from you because you play too much. Is SC bad simply because people spend so much time with it? Is world of Warcraft evil? Absolutely not. They are harmless, and indeed have a lot of benefits within them if you try it, but there are correlations between the activity level of computer gamers and, say, soccer players. I mean, you really have to look past the shallow associations and see the good, instead of focusing on the bad cases and trying to lobby an activist movement against it.
personally i'm all about freedom of thought. no one has the right to tell someone else how to organize their thought process. i think dawkins raises some larger points though about how religion can end up damaging to the thought process. for instance one of the super rules for most religions is that it's critical you believe and adhere to it's rule set. now imagine if you were a homosexual but were raised (perhaps even indoctrinated) into believing that God hates homosexuality; that you'll burn in hell for eternity if you give in to your temptations which are generated by the devil. imagine the amount of guilt and shame you would carry with you everywhere you went.
people are unlikely to think this way unless these ideas are forced upon them when they are younger. many people may never be able to escape this cage of thought their entire lives simply out of fear that they will be punished harshly by the creator of the universe.
as far as i see it, prayer is just an internal monologue, but it's critical that that internal monologue be set up in a healthy fashion. either way i think it's healthiest to believe your just talking to yourself. that way your more likely to focus on problem solving and less likely to end up asking for help from something/someone that might not exist at all.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic. In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
ok this is another example of someone being a dumb ass on the fourm.
stop posting if you can't make coherent arguments. don't get my thread closed.
I'm dissapointed you feel that way. Dawkins would agree with my position. I agree my post was stinging but I hope the mods will see that it is in context with the discussion. Sam Harris talks alot about the rules we allow in conversation. We should challenge those who hold beliefs that cannot be explained. If someone says they don't believe the Holocaust happened, you can't take them seriously from then on. The same rule should be applied to those who claim a man was born of a virign.
i just thought the last line was a bit harsh, then again i suppose it's not that bad. i do agree with you though. someone should be challenged if they believe in a virgin birth but also think that science and religion are somehow completely separate.
anyways i'm gona go clubbing, i'll be back tonight or tomorrow.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
Give me evidence for civil behaviour, then? If you cannot find any, will you agree that there is no reason to behave civil? And "because others will treat you the same" is really inconsequential, it does not say anything about right or wrong.
Most of our everyday actions are based on belief and feeling. It means that they cannot be measured by science, but it does not make them pointless, or even uninteresting.
In the some Richard Dawkins videos (not sure if it's listed) they thoroughly go through how social behaviors can have evolved the darwin way and I can try to give you examples if you want. How it can be a good feat in the process of natural selection to be good to one and another. It feels to me that you just say that actions are based on beliefs and feeling with no evidence or argument to support it.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama)
there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis
science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense.
nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge.
also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now)
what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives.
also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video.
"what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing.
and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making.
I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly.
maybe its not correct because it hasnt evolved enough yet
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama)
there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis
science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense.
nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge.
also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now)
what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives.
also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video.
"what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing.
and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making.
I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly.
maybe its not correct because it hasnt evolved enough yet
Believing in astrology is showing complete arrogance to the world since there is no evidence at all to support it. And yeah that is why it is not correct. Currently there is nothing scientific or anything strange about it at all so I fail to understand where it fit in our discussion.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic. In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
This post is absurd. No single person follows logic all of the time, and failing to do so is not a slippery slope to suicide bombing.
If someone says they don't believe the Holocaust happened, you can't take them seriously from then on. The same rule should be applied to those who claim a man was born of a virign.
These are gravely different examples, one based on recent, recorded history.
If you want irrationality at its finest, look at most football fans. There's a number of social factors that cause people to be dangerous moreso than faith, and in same cases faith can have the opposite effect. Your earlier post essentially has no merit.
Longish post coming. I only read about eight also pages (4 in the beginning, and 4 in the end) so please bear with me if I've actually repeated what a few people have said previously.
First, from the posts that I've read, it's clear that a lot of people from both sides of this argument (although notably more from one side than the other and also towards bystanders do not really understand what science is. I've seen a lot of 'place faith in science,' 'place faith in theories,' and the such, and statements like this make me cringe simply by nature of myself being a science major and doing fun fun lab work just about every weekday. I'd like to invite people to do a little digging on what science means through the use of Wiki and other sources but for those of you too lazy, or require my definitions as bits for your own rebuttals (to my incoming points), here it is.
Science is a form of analyzing and explaining data made from empirical observation. In my limited understanding of science, there are two main facets to this; falsifiability and reproducibility. Conjecture and theoretical work aside, science cannot address things that it cannot prove wrong and science generally cannot address things that cannot be reproduced in a controlled environment. The latter is easy to explain; generally things that cannot be reproduced do not work off of one distinct variable, making science rather useless in being able to explain the factors that cause such a natural phenomena; hence, it is fruitless to try and perform a real 'scientific investigation' if one cannot bring it down to something one can repeat over and over and control factors each time to determine the mechanism and so forth and so one.
The former is harder to explain, but essentially, science does not deal with things one cannot prove wrong. The existence of God falls squarely in this category, which is why 'faith based' pseudoscience such as Creationism, etc, are not really scientific theories and are dismissed by most of the world's scientists as useless pieces of dribble. If you cannot prove something wrong, you cannot check its validity; therefore, there is no systematic way to prove whether your initial hypothesis was right or wrong to begin with. In other words, in order to measure the accuracy of one's problems within inductive reasoning, one must be able to find a hypothetical 'possible observation' that would prove it wrong; it must be able to be proven false. In the case of God, there is no singular way to prove God is wrong (at least, not a way that we know now as a bone to throw to the more creative-minded among you), and therefore God is not part of science in this fashion.
The classic example is the 'all swans are white' statement. If one encounters a billion swans in their lifetime, one would believe all swans are white through inductive reasoning. However, if one can find a black swan, this proves the above reasoning false, and the statement is shown to be falsifiable. Hence, in order to test one's belief that all swans are white, one might travel around the world to look for a non-white colored swan because the possibility still exists and can be verified through observation evidence. Incidentally, this above process is similar to how a theory develops, which is after say five trillion swans, there is still no black swan.
With God, however, there is no counterstatement; thus, it isn't a valid scientific discussion. If one encounters God in their lifetime, one would believe that there is a God; however, one cannot then 'not encounter' a God to prove the ideal false. The idea is not falsifiable, but the reverse is (again, a bone to throw at the more creative minded among you), that is to say that you can go through life not encountering God and suddenly encounter Him to prove your previous inductive reasoning is false. However, please note that these statements tie in with the reproducibility of science, and thus, cannot be valid if they cannot be reproduce. If one could 'reproduce' a holy encounter, then it suggests that God is more of a manifestation of different factors and that detracts from the original notion. I don't think I need to go on in this vein, but God is not an ideal or an object able to be proven by science.
Thus, if God and science are separate, the issue then arises on whether the two can coexist; indeed, I believe they can. One can have faith in God and yet still be a man of logic and science, as neither interferes with the other. I feel that conflicts only occur when one starts mixing the two together, being unable to handle perhaps the fact that faith intrinsically requires no basis. Thus, I do not believe that creationists and the like are truly faithful, simply because they require some form of 'justification' or 'evidence' for their faith; if there is no proof, then it somehow 'disappears'? Must faith be validated through hard evidence? This is not a facet of religion, which requires some sort of 'physicality' of faith to maintain legitimacy, that I agree with or subscribe to. Faith can be held by anyone without a shred of evidence at all.
That said, it is also important in my view to look at things objectively and through logic. Perhaps faith requires no justification, but one must be careful about what they believe in solely because if a given ideal that one believes in can be proven right or wrong through the use of empirical evidence, that should supercede any form of 'faith.' In cases like the existence of a divine being, this point is moot. In smaller cases, like the belief that dogs and cats rain from the sky, or that we can fly if we really want to, logic and the scientific mindset should prevail. Often times, people fall into the trap of mixing what they have faith in (if I do/do not do this, I believe so and so will/will not happen) instead of learning about the given situation and applying newfound knowledge to how to run their lives. I suppose the best parallel I can come up with this early in the morning while slacking off at work is science itself.
People claim to have 'faith' in science when it is something that one should explore the validity of, read up about, and so forth; this causes a form of 'mysticism' to pervade through popular culture of science being similar to a religion and so forth and so on. To those of you who believe that science is somehow a mystical thing, or a new form of religion (colloquially used as a 'faith based' belief system or organization), I ask you read and explore science yourself if you have the time. I assure that it is both more accessible and easily understandable than the average layman believes. One does not 'believe' in science any more than one has faith that a pen will fall; one reaches science through logic, and knows a pen will fall because a billion times before, the pen has fallen. However, there is always the chance that the pen will not fall, and any real scientists encountering this would jump for joy as it means a new revolutionary paper and possibly a Nobel prize.
Logic, falsifiability, and reproducibility are all aspects of science. They should not be mixed up with this big construct we call 'faith;' in the end, the two are separate.
What do I believe about Dawkins? I think Dawkins has some great ideas and despite the bitter delivery, in the end, he probably is about as spiritual as some of the pastors Christians go to. In one of this books, Dawkins addresses his own belief on whether or not God can or cannot exist; he chose a 9/10 that God doesn't exist but also was clear that he didn't know. It is possible that he suddenly has a revelation, and the implication is that Dawkins both knows and understands this fact, but based on the rest of his observations, God doesn't exist.
It is perfectly alright to have faith in something that is illogical; it is not alright when there is empirical evidence. People are people; we are all prone to being irrational at different times and perhaps it is our hallmark as living things that there is a randomness that pervades our lives. At times, we require guidance and we require the feeling that things are going to be alright; I think this aspect of what faith lends us (not necessarily religion) is a beautiful thing, and something science doesn't offer comfort on. However, on the flip side, one must not cling onto their faith in the face of logic as the domain and definition of faith itself requires no empirical basis. When there is evidence for the contrary, one must discard their faith and adopt a rational view.
To the kid who mentioned suicide bombers, it is not the fact that someone has faith that caused them to go off and kill people. I do not believe faith is the sole factor in these sorts of actions; it is, instead, the overwhelming disregard for the empirical evidence that doing this will hurt someone else. The fact that people choose faith over logic is the problem, not that faith exists.
I guess the brain is a magical artifact as well since there is a lot we can't understand about it yet. Therefore, it must be magic.
You say placebo can be measured. So how can it be magical? How is the placebo effect inherently in defiance with the laws of nature? You call yourself a naturalist? Doesn't that exclude all 'magic'?
On July 14 2008 18:27 Groslouser wrote: A part of the problem is that most people need something to have faith in in order to live. They need to see an order in this world, or a justification for everything, and the fact is, without religion 90% of the time another faith appears.
Oh, its not called a "religion", still it exists. Like those people who have faith in science : basically science become their religion, a faith they blindly follow, thinking it will solve every problem in this world, they don't try to understand it for it is an incomprehensible power beyond their knowledge. There are many other replacement solutions: astrology, no-religious sects, communism, anarchism... it just has to be something wich can describe our world/future/goals/whatnot, it will always lose its essence (if there was one in the begining anyway) since people aren't here to learn but want something to believe in .
And smart peoples will always find ways to use these belivers to have some power should they have faith or not.
The sad thing is that it will never change because living truly without have faith in something is hella difficult, it raise a ridiculous amount of painful question. One cannot blame people for believing in something, at least they've got something to build their live on.
I'll also ads that believers are not always "evil", people are quite eager to forget what they brought to us. Like, in france christianism spread with monks who created monasterys everywhere, once they were created, monks taught people farming, safer way to build, they dried a lot of swamps (and their were plenty here back in the dark age), while building church everywhere they gave employment to the population during centuries. The list could go on. And for every major religion it is the same.
Nah the problem is those who surrender their free will to other humans, losing their criticism thus accepting everything even if its plainly stupid (ie: "dont vaccinates your childs") or will harm other people who had nothing to do with you (ie: "go crash a plane on this tower", "lets beat the shit out of saddam, he has weapon of mass destruction and he ordered 09/11").
Now, one can wonder: what kind of people is Dawkins? Is he someone wanting people to use their brain or does he believe he knows the Truth and that all should listen to him? One attitude would make him a great man, the othe would lower him to the same level as some lambda religious zealot.
did you watch any of the videos? if so; which ones?
you need to avoid the linguistic error of saying "people put faith in science" faith is trusting something which can't be proven. i don't have "faith" that when i drop my pen it will fall, i have overwhelming evidence that i can drop my pen a million times and it will fall to the ground. Dawkins isn't arguing that science should replace everything. he's just saying that beliefs imposed by religion that can be disproven by scientific claims should hold more weight. Science can't fill every void, but it may have much better, cleaner and more reviseable facts that religion can offer.
why don't you just watch the videos if you want to know what type of person he is. this is not a thread where you get the beg a question as if there isn't information right in front of your face where you can educate yourself about it.
I've watched The Enemies of Reason , The Virus of Faith and the debate in lynchburg so its not like i've spoken without knowing the subject, still i won't dare to say i know who he is and what he thinks.
Besides, i totally agree with what he says for i am an atheist and scientist so i'm not arguing with the ability of science to prove that most religion/superstition are wrong.
As for the faith point, i was not mistaken with my choice of words. Of course dealing with simple subjects people will roughly understand but when they are in front of more complicated issues its not the case. When talking about faith in science i was thinking about medicine: most people believe is should be able to cure everything and are hopeless if a treatment don't work. So what's left to them? Rational people would think about a smart way to spend their remaining time, other will find its a good occasion to come back to the church.
This exemple to show that science can do a lot, explain a lot, but its answer to question are often harsh to hear: it's highly probable you'll die soon, you're nothing but a pack of oxygen carbon hydrogen nitrogen and some metals, you're here for a second in this universe and nothing will follow, etc etc etc... After that science in fact tells you that you have to find your own way to live, your own way to stand in our world, that no providence will back you. Dawkins said in The Virus of Faith that religion (in the catolicism part) is a confortable belief and that it gives a huge group feeling, he may never be more right, this sole assertion explain the fundamental goal of religion.
So superstitions will never disappear and it's up to us (scientist) to deal with obscuratism even if it's not a fair fight. Do you really think a scientist could gather several thousand people every weeks like this american pastor (this one erally piss me off, speaking of arrogance when he belongs to the worst kind of arrogant asshole) and convince them? it's quite unlikely even if i'am glad there are people like him to do debates on the subject.
To sum up: i think he's right even if he may win one or two battles against obscuratism, but not the war. Then again, the desesperate fights are the one wich need the most to be run.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama)
there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis
science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense.
nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge.
also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now)
what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives.
also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video.
"what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing.
and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making.
I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly.
maybe its not correct because it hasnt evolved enough yet
Hmm before we go any further I'd like to add something. I think some people don't think about the implications of excepting athiesm as alot, or absoulte fact. And also the implactions of the responsibility of an athiest to be envovled in eugenics, somthing that I've always struggled to undersatnd is the arbitaryness of athiests to say "I don't have to belive in spirituality to have a morality.". An the whole "you can't tell me I can't have morals because i am an athiest". Well yes, i can. There are very serious questions to be asked about evolution and what accepting it with no spirituality involves (btw im not a creationist and im not on about that).I'm not saying that you cant belive in evolution and not belive in a God but i am sayimng you can no way by any means accept the society of "you should help others", this is surely COMPLETELY against what you belive, and any refute of that is just denial. Here's a better explaination of what i mean:
On July 14 2008 23:55 redmourn wrote: Hmm before we go any further I'd like to add something. I think some people don't think about the implications of excepting athiesm as alot, or absoulte fact. And also the implactions of the responsibility of an athiest to be envovled in eugenics, somthing that I've always struggled to undersatnd is the arbitaryness of athiests to say "I don't have to belive in spirituality to have a morality.". An the whole "you can't tell me I can't have morals because i am an athiest". Well yes, i can. There are very serious questions to be asked about evolution and what accepting it with no spirituality involves (btw im not a creationist and im not on about that).I'm not saying that you cant belive in evolution and not belive in a God but i am sayimng you can no way by any means accept the society of "you should help others", this is surely COMPLETELY against what you belive, and any refute of that is just denial. Here's a better explaination of what i mean:
why did i even bother, last time in a religion thread + Show Spoiler +
luckyone, you are giving astrology as much credibility as science that it simply does not and cannot deserve. what i'm about to post has been repeated over and over in this thread but i hope to make the point as simple as possible.
to build a castle, you need a foundation, which all the discoveries and research that collectively make up 'science' always back up with attempts at understanding and replication of results. with a system like this, it's easy to see how it can build upon itself to where it is now.
looking at astrology, has anything in that 'field' ever been found to be consistent and practical to be applied in everyday use? i am not very familiar with the origins of astrology but hasn't it remained stagnant despite enormous improvement in education over the past several thousand years? there is nothing there to build upon, because the fundamentals are already so doubted.
science was not simply given a chance and by blind luck made it to the mainstream. there is always a mind-boggling amount of work put first into finding the basis behind phenomena, and then many times more that effort put into convincing other intelligent human beings that what you believe is true. it is slow but very powerful, a complete opposite from the disciplines you seem to be blindly supporting.
On July 14 2008 23:55 redmourn wrote: Hmm before we go any further I'd like to add something. I think some people don't think about the implications of excepting athiesm as alot, or absoulte fact. And also the implactions of the responsibility of an athiest to be envovled in eugenics, somthing that I've always struggled to undersatnd is the arbitaryness of athiests to say "I don't have to belive in spirituality to have a morality.". An the whole "you can't tell me I can't have morals because i am an athiest". Well yes, i can. There are very serious questions to be asked about evolution and what accepting it with no spirituality involves (btw im not a creationist and im not on about that).I'm not saying that you cant belive in evolution and not belive in a God but i am sayimng you can no way by any means accept the society of "you should help others", this is surely COMPLETELY against what you belive, and any refute of that is just denial. Here's a better explaination of what i mean:
are you christian? are you responsible for the crusades? the inquisition? centuries of discrimination against jews? god knows how much else? (if you're not christian just substitute in atrocities commited in the name of your religion of choice)
why do you have to be spiritual to have morals? i know i dont like it when people steal from me, so i dont steal from other people because it would make them feel bad and i have no desire to make other people feel bad. or, if you want to be more cynical, i know if i steal from someone its gonna piss them off (because being stolen from pisses me off) and theyd likely seek revenge, which would be harmful to me. where does spirituality enter in to any of that?
where is god needed in evolution? all thats needed are the mechanics of genetics/reproduction and the selective pressure caused by limited resources in any given environment, and both of those are accounted for.
Hitler never mentioned anything related with Darwinism in his Mein Kampf or his speeches. Never he speaks of genetics, selection or anything of that kind. It's clear he wasn't at all familiar with Darwinian evolution. Certainly he didn't support it at all. I mean, he was a pretty serious Christian after all.
Hitler's antisemitism is in the line of that of Luther. And it all goes back to Jews being 'Jesuskillers'.
The Darwinism related with eugenics did exist. But only in Britain, not in Germany. It's sometimes referred to as 'Social Darwinism'. And it's pretty stupid.
On July 14 2008 23:55 redmourn wrote: Hmm before we go any further I'd like to add something. I think some people don't think about the implications of excepting athiesm as alot, or absoulte fact. And also the implactions of the responsibility of an athiest to be envovled in eugenics, somthing that I've always struggled to undersatnd is the arbitaryness of athiests to say "I don't have to belive in spirituality to have a morality.". An the whole "you can't tell me I can't have morals because i am an athiest". Well yes, i can. There are very serious questions to be asked about evolution and what accepting it with no spirituality involves (btw im not a creationist and im not on about that).I'm not saying that you cant belive in evolution and not belive in a God but i am sayimng you can no way by any means accept the society of "you should help others", this is surely COMPLETELY against what you belive, and any refute of that is just denial. Here's a better explaination of what i mean:
are you christian? are you responsible for the crusades? the inquisition? centuries of discrimination against jews? god knows how much else? (if you're not christian just substitute in atrocities commited in the name of your religion of choice)
why do you have to be spiritual to have morals? i know i dont like it when people steal from me, so i dont steal from other people because it would make them feel bad and i have no desire to make other people feel bad. or, if you want to be more cynical, i know if i steal from someone its gonna piss them off (because being stolen from pisses me off) and theyd likely seek revenge, which would be harmful to me. where does spirituality enter in to any of that?
where is god needed in evolution? all thats needed are the mechanics of genetics/reproduction and the selective pressure caused by limited resources in any given environment, and both of those are accounted for.
For a start you clearly have watched the video so you obviosuly dotn care to much to actually undersatand my point as it is an hour long and i only posted this about 20 mintues ago. Secondly the bible is an interprative book, everyone takes from it different, no one can understand what it says fully. You cannot comapre this to evolution absence of God. Because this is not a book. I can claim that the crusades was a potical agenda which used religion as an excuse, or that they inturpreted different verses wrong. You cannot deny the point that the speaker is making because its formed by logic, it isnt an inturpretaion of a historical writings, it is an ideology that has implications. You agree with an ideology, therefore you agree with its implications, a book is open to interpretaion, they are totaly different things. And its not just an ideolgy infact, its just a conculsion i am saying you are forced to draw from the facts of evolution and the decision to decide there is no God. "i know if i steal from someone its gonna piss them off (because being stolen from pisses me off) and theyd likely seek revenge" Not nessacrily, this is a flawed argument, there is a difference between not doing soemthing because you get something bad back, and not doing something because you think its wrong. Think up a situation that no-one could possibly know that you stole this thing therefore the person can't take revenge, in this case you could justify it.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
Give me evidence for civil behaviour, then? If you cannot find any, will you agree that there is no reason to behave civil? And "because others will treat you the same" is really inconsequential, it does not say anything about right or wrong.
Most of our everyday actions are based on belief and feeling. It means that they cannot be measured by science, but it does not make them pointless, or even uninteresting.
In the some Richard Dawkins videos (not sure if it's listed) they thoroughly go through how social behaviors can have evolved the darwin way and I can try to give you examples if you want. How it can be a good feat in the process of natural selection to be good to one and another.
No he does not. It is conjecture, and no studies have been made to support them. If you think otherwise, please present them, so that I may study them for myself. If Dawkins wants to believe that society and behaviour is created by memes, he is sure in his full right, but he cannot actually make a study to prove it. From what I have seen regarding that theory, it is actually impossible to set up a series of tests to either verify, or falsify, that theory. And if a theoriy cannot be tested, it is useless to science.
And again, we are left where it comes to belief. Note that I have not said one word whether that is religious belief, of philosophical, just at it is based on belief. I have still not had that refuted in an acceptable fassion. And it is somewhat relevant, since some people feel the need, just like Dawkins, to insult those who do things based on beliefs.
On July 15 2008 00:20 BlackStar wrote: Hitler never mentioned anything related with Darwinism in his books, which explain his motivation.
Hitler's antisemitism is in the line of that of Luther. And it all goes back to Jews being Jezuskillers.
The Darwinism related with genetics did exist. But only in Britain, not in Germany. And it's pretty stupid.
Hmm you should try actually speaking to hsitorains and seeing the facts. I have actually been to the Wannsee Conference House Museum were hitler and his freinds decided on the final solution. They have a whole section on evolution and the historains there talked to us about it, they actually showed us the ss mintues of the meetings and were it was actually written by an ss soldier attending the meetings about how evolution plays a role. I have seen the type-writed and hand written documents myself, so unless the historain translator was lying i think i know what im talking about. Infact alot of the people i knew there who were athiest said they were quite thrown aback by this, and this vist is what first sparked my interest in this subject.
You don't explain how what you saw supports your position. Just that you saw it. So how am I supposed to respond to it?
The three big social Darwinists are Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton. All Englishmen. Do you have a speech of Hitler mentioning them? Supporting their ideas? Paraphrasing what these men said?
Basically the only people that relate Hitler with social Darwinism are creationists. And of course relating social Darwinism with the theory of Darwinian evolution is already stupid.
Mein Kampf is pretty clear. If you search for the term 'evolution' in that book you will only find it used in a context that has nothing to do with the origin of species. Clearly nothing to do with Darwin. Also, it contains several examples of creationist dogma.
Just one quote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
Also, what has this to do with atheism? Why would atheists be shocked at Hitler being a social Darwinist, if he had been?
I remember Hitler did have something to do with evolution. (I could have been misinformed though since it was a while back so correct me if I'm wrong.) I believe he tried to use "evolution" to create a superior race... Although I have no idea how this is relevant in the slightest...
why did i even bother, last time in a religion thread + Show Spoiler +
a few things first. redmourn, i'm not trying to be insulting but if you truly believe that a person without religion cannot have any principles and that all of them are somehow empty inside, don't even bother reading the rest of my post. next, it would greatly help your point if you at least put some effort into spelling correctly.
there is a great wealth of research related to why humans would bother adhering to ANY sort of principles without god. there is a wide range of investigation, for example animal behaviorists watching the behavior of individuals within a pack of wild dogs, or analysis of almost universal preferential treatment of family members within species. the observations that come out of these, when combined with other established fields such as economics leads to theories such as the one suggesting humans may be inclined to maintain good relationships with those around them simply because in the long-term, it is a net profit. there is also an idea that the reason organisms are so willing to sacrifice for kin is because they share some of our genetic content, and it isn't so bad if one of us dies so that the others survive.
these sound extremely obvious, but that's the point. research is showing that very basic human decency can be rooted deeply in our biological construction, not stemming from anything outside of our own bodies.
as for your obsession with eugenics, the people you are so quick to pursue are NOT representative of the scientific community at large, or even atheists. it's like me saying... 'all religious people like to wear ridiculous hats, because the pope was wearing one last week, and i saw some muslims wearing turbans on tv.' true, advances in genetic technologies will allow us to remove (fix) many present-day illnesses from the gene pool hopefully before children are born, but it will not be by killing all mentally retarded people or anything of the like. this is such a nitpicky and fear-mongering point you're singling out, and i'm not really sure why.
On July 15 2008 00:36 BlackStar wrote: You don't explain how what you saw supports your position. Just that you saw it. So how am I supposed to respond to it?
The three big social Darwinists are Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton. All Englishmen.
Basically the only people that relate Hitler with social Darwinism are creationists. And of course relating social Darwinism with the theory of Darwinian evolution is already stupid.
You ahve listened at all to my argument you've just arrogant dismissed it by ebing prejudice and calling em a creationist and saying "you must belong to an irational group, purely on the basis you disagree with em" Your being irrational yourself, your just deamonising and pre-judging thos that disagree with you ratehr than adressing any of my points. You also haven't read what is said either, i know this by the fact you said "Basically the only people that relate Hitler with social Darwinism are creationists. ". You making conculsions without logical basis, or any basis, thats pretty stupid as far as im concerned.
On July 15 2008 00:39 Sentynal wrote: I remember Hitler did have something to do with evolution. (I could have been misinformed though since it was a while back so correct me if I'm wrong.) I believe he tried to use "evolution" to create a superior race... Although I have no idea how this is relevant in the slightest...
Of course Hitler was a racist. But Ill let you in on one thing. You can't be both a supporter of Darwinian evolution and a racist while being consistent.
According to biology there are no human races. Sure, Hitler talked a lot about the Aryan race and about certain others being 'untermenschen'. But how does this fit in with natural selection? Again, Hitler shows no signs of being familiar with any of this. Not with Darwin and not even with Darwinian socialism or so-called 'scientific racism'.
On July 15 2008 00:39 Sentynal wrote: I remember Hitler did have something to do with evolution. (I could have been misinformed though since it was a while back so correct me if I'm wrong.) I believe he tried to use "evolution" to create a superior race... Although I have no idea how this is relevant in the slightest...
no he didn't try to use 'evolution' to create a superior race. if you don't know what evolution is you should read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
On July 14 2008 23:55 redmourn wrote: Hmm before we go any further I'd like to add something. I think some people don't think about the implications of excepting athiesm as alot, or absoulte fact. And also the implactions of the responsibility of an athiest to be envovled in eugenics, somthing that I've always struggled to undersatnd is the arbitaryness of athiests to say "I don't have to belive in spirituality to have a morality.". An the whole "you can't tell me I can't have morals because i am an athiest". Well yes, i can. There are very serious questions to be asked about evolution and what accepting it with no spirituality involves (btw im not a creationist and im not on about that).I'm not saying that you cant belive in evolution and not belive in a God but i am sayimng you can no way by any means accept the society of "you should help others", this is surely COMPLETELY against what you belive, and any refute of that is just denial. Here's a better explaination of what i mean:
are you christian? are you responsible for the crusades? the inquisition? centuries of discrimination against jews? god knows how much else? (if you're not christian just substitute in atrocities commited in the name of your religion of choice)
why do you have to be spiritual to have morals? i know i dont like it when people steal from me, so i dont steal from other people because it would make them feel bad and i have no desire to make other people feel bad. or, if you want to be more cynical, i know if i steal from someone its gonna piss them off (because being stolen from pisses me off) and theyd likely seek revenge, which would be harmful to me. where does spirituality enter in to any of that?
where is god needed in evolution? all thats needed are the mechanics of genetics/reproduction and the selective pressure caused by limited resources in any given environment, and both of those are accounted for.
For a start you clearly have watched the video so you obviosuly dotn care to much to actually undersatand my point as it is an hour long and i only posted this about 20 mintues ago. Secondly the bible is an interprative book, everyone takes from it different, no one can understand what it says fully. You cannot comapre this to evolution absence of God. Because this is not a book. I can claim that the crusades was a potical agenda which used religion as an excuse, or that they inturpreted different verses wrong. You cannot deny the point that the speaker is making because its formed by logic, it isnt an inturpretaion of a historical writings, it is an ideology that has implications. You agree with an ideology, therefore you agree with its implications, a book is open to interpretaion, they are totaly different things. And its not just an ideolgy infact, its just a conculsion i am saying you are forced to draw from the facts of evolution and the decision to decide there is no God. "i know if i steal from someone its gonna piss them off (because being stolen from pisses me off) and theyd likely seek revenge" Not nessacrily, this is a flawed argument, there is a difference between not doing soemthing because you get something bad back, and not doing something because you think its wrong. Think up a situation that no-one could possibly know that you stole this thing therefore the person can't take revenge, in this case you could justify it.
no, suprisingly i did not watch an hour long lecture by someone who supports intelligent design. shocker. present information from someone credible and it'll be considered.
as for morality, i was simplifying it since you're clearly pretty dumb. the 'theyre gonna get revenge' is selection pressure. individuals who feel bad about doing mean things are less likely to get killed/have their balls chopped off in retribution (because they wouldnt do the mean thing). this means they would be more likely to reproduce, the gene that causes them to feel bad about doing mean things becomes more common in the gene pool, and so on. hence we 'grew' a sense of morality with absolutely no need for spiritualism or god.
On July 15 2008 00:39 Sentynal wrote: I remember Hitler did have something to do with evolution. (I could have been misinformed though since it was a while back so correct me if I'm wrong.) I believe he tried to use "evolution" to create a superior race... Although I have no idea how this is relevant in the slightest...
no he didn't try to use 'evolution' to create a superior race. if you don't know what evolution is you should read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
consider yourself corrected.
Thanks, I understand what evolution is. I think I've heard way too many creationists say that it was "evolution" rather than racism. I did put the evolution in quotes considering that Hitler's evolution probably was completely false anyways.
Hitler used the main idea of Darwinism, that species who are "stronger" than the rest will prevail while others will perish, to justify his crimes and everything. But that doesn't mean that Darwinism is somehow bad or wrong or anything. It's definitely true for evolution on the whole: the species which is adapted best to their environment (not really "the strongest", but simply the one which is most suited for living in that particular environment), will survive, and others will either die off or move to a new area. That's simply a fact, and it also makes perfect sense. Of course, applying this to humans of different nationalities or humans with certain "undesirable" qualities (nationality, belief, political interests, ...) like Hitler did is just plain stupid. He simply misused the ideas of Darwinism to fuel his propaganda against jews, disabled people, and pretty much everyone else he didn't like.
On July 14 2008 22:44 BlackStar wrote: Lol placebo effect is magic? Haha.
I guess the brain is a magical artifact as well since there is a lot we can't understand about it yet. Therefore, it must be magic.
You say placebo can be measured. So how can it be magical? How is the placebo effect inherently in defiance with the laws of nature? You call yourself a naturalist? Doesn't that exclude all 'magic'?
damn I guess I really said that too strongly, but I thought the rest of the post would make that clear; apologies to all who were confused. Not literally unexplainable magic. Magic the way Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- I don't know the exact mechanisms behind it. And as others clarified, it's partially understood, so it wasn't a great example.
On July 14 2008 16:48 BottleAbuser wrote: Polemarch: The problems of observed acceleration and gravitation that don't fit our current understanding of physics. Our best "scientific explanations" are dark energy and dark matter, respectively. Not very good explanations, are they?
"Oh, everything is accelerating, and that takes energy.... but we don't see what's causing it, so let's call it dark energy."
"Oh, we can measure that some stuff out there seems to be experiencing higher gravity fields than our measured mass of the surrounding area seems to indicate, which means that there must be more gravity-generating stuff (mass) out there that we can't see.... let's call it dark matter."
Hum.... how about awareness? We don't know what it is, other than that for us, it happens in the brain. Probably. We know it exists. And we know the mechanisms by which the brain operates, kind of. But we still have no clue as to what causes consciousness, or how it works, or whether or not its possible to reproduce it in a machine (is a self-aware machine possible?).
These three have definite answers in that a valid one won't be "it's impossible to tell," at least in principle. In contrast to "Is there a god?" which is in principle (and in practice) impossible to show either way.
Thank you. I'll keep looking for more commonplace examples, though. Some people might think of gravitation as a fundamental axiom/force, universal acceleration is really hard to observe, and awareness is pretty mushy, e.g. it's hard to really say when a given thing is aware.
On July 15 2008 01:17 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Hitler used the main idea of Darwinism, that species who are "stronger" than the rest will prevail while others will perish, to justify his crimes and everything. But that doesn't mean that Darwinism is somehow bad or wrong or anything. It's definitely true for evolution on the whole: the species which is adapted best to their environment (not really "the strongest", but simply the one which is most suited for living in that particular environment), will survive, and others will either die off or move to a new area. That's simply a fact, and it also makes perfect sense. Of course, applying this to humans of different nationalities or humans with certain "undesirable" qualities (nationality, belief, political interests, ...) like Hitler did is just plain stupid. He simply misused the ideas of Darwinism to fuel his propaganda against jews, disabled people, and pretty much everyone else he didn't like.
Yup QFT. These (bad) arguments are called Social Darwinism or Eugenics. The main flaw I'd say is equating what's natural with what's good. (It's more a bad moral argument than a logical argument.) For example, finding out that the rate of murder was much higher in ancestral times doesn't mean that we should allow murder now.
But whether or not an idea can be abused doesn't tell us whether or not it's true. Social Darwinism is to Darwinism as Holy Wars are to Religion.
Oh and I think someone said that the world can't function without the idea of a God and that is fucking retarded. The concepts of gods since the beginning of man has been here for 2 reasons...
A) To explain something we couldn't at the time B) To keep the less educated, or easily controllable people in line
and if you bring up the whole "finding purpose" or "being spiritual" or whatever you think your reason for being involved with religion is, then you probably fall into the B category.
Prime example is the Spanish Inquisition. Anyone caught or presumed doing something that was against the church was tortured and imprisoned and/or killed. I don't want hear that bullshit that all the shit that happened in the past with religion was from some misunderstanding and I don't want to hear shit about all the atheists who have slaughtered, I understand both.
Religious Slaughtering usually are a group of people who either think they are holier than everyone else and think they know what is best for the people and are just fucking retarded, or people who want power and use the concept of God to scare / keep people in line.
Non Religious slaughtering is usually just someone or group who is power hungry as all people who do things like mass killings. They want some sort of control.
The difference is the non religious have nothing to hide behind. and that is a good thing, because well, religion tends to keep people from getting involved or speaking up when something is definitely wrong.
edited to be civil >_<! ^ that above is as civil as I get
Morality does not come from religion, what we human call morality changes and evolves as we human evolve. The standards of moral in different Times have huge difference. For example if you talk to people some few hundred years ago, they would agree that slavery is acceptable, and they would all be religious people, WHERE IS THE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THAT? WHERE IS THE MORALITY IN THAT? But today we don't belief in things such as salvery, it is not accaptable as moraly permissible. If you look into the bible ( new testament) and pick and chooses bits and pieces that agrees with today's moral standard for a social equity issues, In the same time we can also point out bits and pieces from the bible where it is totally unaccaptable by today's standard of moral. and if you try to cherry pick from your bible to pick out the good parts and throw away the bad parts, THE CRITERION by which you do that cherry picking has nothing to do with your religion, and most certainly got nothing to do with any other religion at all(they all got a holy book or something like it).
Quote from wikipedia:
The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, on any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)
It has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.[6] They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics'[7] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip, and reputation management.
Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mind abilities. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion suggested that our morality is a result of our biological evolutionary history and that the Moral Zeitgeist helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time within a culture.
On July 15 2008 01:32 suresh0t wrote: I missed a dawkins thread posted by nick? damn
this is simple
dawkins > god
Oh and I think someone said that the world can't function without the idea of a God and that is fucking retarded. The concepts of gods since the beginning of man has been here for 2 reasons...
A) To explain something we couldn't at the time
B) To keep the less educated, or easily controllable people in line
I seriously doubt that is the reason religion came about.
and if you bring up the whole "finding purpose" or "being spiritual" or whatever you think your reason for being involved with religion is, then you probably fall into the B category.
wow that's arrogant
The difference is the non religious have nothing to hide behind.
That isn't true at all. Patriotism, race, "anti-terrorism", are some examples of tools people in positions of power can use to persuade others to fight.
On July 15 2008 03:13 rei wrote: For example if you talk to people some few hundred years ago, they would agree that slavery is acceptable, and they would all be religious people
There has always been atheists. There has always been spiritual people. There have always been good, kind people. And there have always been sad empty people that only care about wealth and power.
On July 15 2008 00:39 Sentynal wrote: I remember Hitler did have something to do with evolution. (I could have been misinformed though since it was a while back so correct me if I'm wrong.) I believe he tried to use "evolution" to create a superior race... Although I have no idea how this is relevant in the slightest...
Of course Hitler was a racist. But Ill let you in on one thing. You can't be both a supporter of Darwinian evolution and a racist while being consistent.
Wat?
According to biologypolitically motivated statements by some people who call themselves biologists there are no human races.
FTFY
There is a point there, but not a good one. In biology jargon, "race" has a meaning distinct from the common usage of "race". The jargon is not "more scientific" or more accurate somehow, it is just part of the irritating habit of scientists of taking established words and using them to mean something odd, for their own temporary convenience, despite the confusion it creates.
To give another example, in biology jargon, the word "bug" refers an insect of Order Hemiptera. In the common usage, which is far better established and accepted, the word "bug" is a general term which includes insects, arachnids, and other small unpleasant creatures. Jargon is just jargon, and deserves less respect than conventional English, not more.
Homo sapiens defies ordinary biological subdivision due to intelligence and technology. A biological "race" is an inbreeding group within a species, a group within which the members do not normally breed with members of the species who are not members of the group. A race may be formed by things such as geographical isolation, distinctive appearance coupled with sexual preference, or intentional breeding control by humans.
It is a vague term. It is hard to dispute that the human races developed their obvious differences through reproductive isolation as biological "races", but as technology and culture developed, the power to travel and the acceptance of interbreeding have ended, or at least reduced, this breeding isolation.
The criteria of subspecies (one type of "race") is that: 1) the members of one subspecies are clearly distinguishable from members of other subspecies 2) members of different subspecies will not normally breed when they come in contact with each other, preferring members of their own subspecies as mates
The definition is partly behavioral, and human behavior is more determined by culture and individual philosophy (traits unique to humanity) than by genetics, which is something the conventional concepts of biology are simply not equipped to handle.
So it is not that race is scientifically invalid, it is that biology is not conceptually adequate for commenting on human races, since humanity is so exceptional.
Sure, Hitler talked a lot about the Aryan race and about certain others being 'untermenschen'. But how does this fit in with natural selection? Again, Hitler shows no signs of being familiar with any of this. Not with Darwin and not even with Darwinian socialism or so-called 'scientific racism'.
It is easy to find a bad defense of either position on the internet, due to Godwin's Law and the hostility between militant atheist evolutionists and fundamentalist christian creationists. To listen only to those groups, you would have to choose between Hitler as a mad darwinist and atheist inventor of pseudoreligious rituals, or Hitler as a religious fanatic and antiscientific mystic.
Of course, like most men, the real Hitler was not overly concerned with logical consistency, and was influenced by many opposing ideas, and like most politicians, he changed his arguments to please the people he was talking to, from discussion to discussion.
But Hitler was certainly influenced strongly by Darwinian concepts. It is absurd to suggest that he was not familiar with Darwin or with "scientific racism". At the time, eugenics was very popular in liberal circles, and it was certainly supported by the growing understanding of genetics. The Nazis certainly had strong eugenics programs, and they weren't driven by different ideals than eugenics in other countries.
It is not that people had no concept of breeding (even human breeding) before Darwin, but Darwin told them in the absence of artificial selection, natural selection would take place. Christian charity, modern medicine, and technological ease of living were recognized to promote the survival and reproduction of the weak, a selection pressure toward inferiority. Thanks to Darwin, now the way they saw it was: if they did not push forward, they would slide backward.
Beyond that, the concept of competition for survival was not new, but Darwin put a new emphasis on it. Darwinian reasoning was seen as the basis by many for a new morality that overruled religious principles such as charity and the brotherhood of all mankind. You can convert foreigners to your religion, but you can't convert them to your race. If you want your religion to prevail, you can attack the ideas of your opponents. If you want your genes to prevail, you must attack their lives.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (chapter 6) + Show Spoiler +
He continues: "At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
One could rightly argue that Darwin did not explicitly advocate the extermination of "inferior" races by "superior" ones, but he certainly spoke in a way that implied a danger of extinction for those who fell behind or lacked the will to compete to their utmost potential.
He put all of nature in the context of brutal competition between species and races, with extinction as the penalty for failure, and placed man firmly in this merciless arena of nature.
To deny the effects, both direct and indirect, this had on extreme philosophies and political movements is to stick one's head in the sand.
On July 15 2008 03:24 rei wrote: Travis read my post!
I did read your post. I am just saying that I do not think that the collective moral decisions made by humanity necessarily reflect the opinions of thinking individuals at the time.
Most people are sheep, and it is rarely the good guys that herd them.
Race, Patriotism, "anti terror" reasons only work to make wars and such acceptable to your race, or your country. While religion doesn't always make other countries accept what you are doing, they also tend not to argue with it because it's religion, and in our world religion is often used as a trump card, when it should really be looked upon as less than nothing.
On July 15 2008 03:34 Bozali wrote: Funchucks, in those really long posts, please add a summary or something in the end . I'll try to read through it now.
I'd have to read it to summarize it. I don't have time for that.
On July 15 2008 04:49 BlackStar wrote: Funchucks, give me a Hitler quote that shows knowledge of the theory of evolution.
And I'm not talking about the Nazi's. I'm talking about Hitler.
"In the limitation of this living space lies the compulsion for the struggle for survival, and the struggle for survival, in turn, contains the precondition for evolution." - Adolf Hitler, Zweites Buch
This was a sequel to Mein Kampf which Hitler chose not to publish, due to his concern that it revealed too many of his plans. It was kept secret, placed in secure storage, and eventually discovered by an American soldier after the war.
Here is a copy of the translated text (please excuse the source, I have dodged to a google HTML version): Zweites Buch full text (edited to fix broken link)
You don't have to read more than the first two pages to see that Hitler was heavily influenced by the theory of evolution.
Here's another fun quote: "No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state." + Show Spoiler +
On July 15 2008 05:30 Funchucks wrote: "No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state." - Richard Dawkins
Exactly. I think most of Hitlers ideas came from general breeding such as in dogs or grains or pigeons that was around far before Darwinism. But in the end it really doesn't matter where Hitler got his idea from. What some people try to say is that Eugenics is a natural moral consequence of believing in natural selection. That is just as stupid as saying that because I believe wars have been a large part in shaping our history that I would think that war is a good thing. Believing in natural selection as in that it happened and is happening is not the same thing as believing in it in the sense that its a good thing which we should base our morals on.
It's interesting he mentions Sparta regarding eugenics.
The first time he uses 'evolution' it could mean Darwinian evolution of species. But the second and third time surely not. It's about the evolution of an individual throughout life.
On July 15 2008 00:20 BlackStar wrote: Hitler never mentioned anything related with Darwinism in his Mein Kampf or his speeches. Never he speaks of genetics, selection or anything of that kind. It's clear he wasn't at all familiar with Darwinian evolution. Certainly he didn't support it at all. I mean, he was a pretty serious Christian after all.
Hitler's antisemitism is in the line of that of Luther. And it all goes back to Jews being 'Jesuskillers'.
The Darwinism related with eugenics did exist. But only in Britain, not in Germany. It's sometimes referred to as 'Social Darwinism'. And it's pretty stupid.
No one kwows if he was Familiar with "darwinism" but certainly he subscribed to the concept of "Evolution" in general, "Darwinism" its just a specific "branch" that its Evolution. There are a lot of Evolutionist theories, that doenst necesarily has to be from Darwin. About Hitler being a christian its a joke and a contradiction, If a person states himself as a "Christian" and does not follow Christianity teachings and principles he isn't no matter how many times he declares himself as one
On July 15 2008 05:48 BlackStar wrote: It's interesting he mentions Sparta regarding eugenics.
The first time he uses 'evolution' it could mean Darwinian evolution of species. But the second and third time surely not. It's about the evolution of an individual throughout life.
He still does not mention genetics or Darwin.
I'm not convinced.
Hitler almost never attributed his favored ideas to anyone. He wanted to present himself as an original thinker. He never acknowledges Nietzsche, either, for example, who was surely a large influence on his thinking (and also profoundly influenced by Darwin himself).
The word "genetic" did not appear in The Origin of Species, which was published years before Gregor Mendel published the first work on genetics. DNA was not discovered until the 1950s.
"The essential characteristic of a good and healthy aristocracy, however, is that it experiences itself not as a function (whether of the monarchy or the commonwealth) but as their meaning and highest justification-that it therefore accepts with a good conscience the sacrifice of untold human beings who, for its sake, must be reduced and lowered to incomplete human beings, to slaves, to instruments." -Friedrich Nietzsche, Happiness is Having Power
The structure of the DNA molecule, and that DNA was actually DNA, was discovered in 1953. But that has nothing to do with genetics itself. I mean, if one talked about Darwinian evolution in 1935 one ought to have mentioned genetics.
On July 15 2008 06:30 BlackStar wrote: The structure of the DNA molecule, and that DNA was actually DNA, was discovered in 1953. But that has nothing to do with genetics itself.
...and this has no bearing on the fact that genetics is a post-Darwinian concept. Mendel published his work after Darwin published his, and nobody even noticed until the 20th century, decades later.
There was a whole body of Darwinist work before anyone heard of genetics, and it was seen by many as a rather trivial detail.
I just mentioned the discovery of DNA to put the time scale in perspective.
I found an interesting video interview with Richard Dawkins. Maybe not so focused on religion. Apparently he is now working on a book that will contain proofs of evolution. I bet it will be a good read The interviewer is a Computer Scientist and many of the questions are different from what he is usually asked in interviews today. The questions stretch from things like artificial intelligence to the effect the bacteria in our body's might have on our evolution. A 40 minute good watch:
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama)
there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis
science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense.
nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge.
also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now)
what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives.
also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video.
"what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing.
and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making.
I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly.
maybe its not correct because it hasnt evolved enough yet
what?
its like saying would you be able to fly with cavemen technology, no is it because technology is the wrong way to go about it?, no just that it hasnt evolved enough yet
On July 14 2008 14:20 Bozali wrote: In response to LuckyOne: Eventually it comes down to cause and effect. Things happen for a reason. If someone moved a piece of paper with their mind I would not surrender and say science isn't always applicable. I would start investigating it and try to find out how it happened.
To me it seems like you don't understand how dynamic the scientific model is. If it were to happen that it actually was magic that moved the paper, then that would be included in new scientific theories.
magic things that cant be explained by science. or else it would be science. if you could do anything you want with magics what would you need science for
wut? magic things don't exist.
out of all the universe? in the future? how do you know it doesnt exist , will not exist?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama)
there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis
science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense.
nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge.
also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now)
what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives.
also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video.
"what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing.
and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making.
I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly.
maybe its not correct because it hasnt evolved enough yet
what?
its like saying would you be able to fly with cavemen technology, no is it because technology is the wrong way to go about it?, no just that it hasnt evolved enough yet
Probably repeating what someone else said already, but science and religion are totally different and not necessarily mutually exclusive.
By different I don't mean that they do things differently. They're as different as rocks and Christmas.
Religion is a belief. Or a set of beliefs. That's it. There's simply nothing more to it. Some people try to shake this belief using "evidence" or "proof." They fail horribly because such things are irrelevant. There is nothing but the belief. As such, religion can never "fail."
Science is a process. More specifically, it's a process for creating belief. Since these beliefs are mutable and temporary, the preferred term is "hypothesis" or "theory." In principle, this process may fail to create a consistent, lasting belief, and can be said to fail. Some may argue that this has already happened. However, science has been hugely, unilaterally successful so far. If this data doesn't convince you, you're not a scientist. Catch-22, huh?
i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
On July 14 2008 14:20 Bozali wrote: In response to LuckyOne: Eventually it comes down to cause and effect. Things happen for a reason. If someone moved a piece of paper with their mind I would not surrender and say science isn't always applicable. I would start investigating it and try to find out how it happened.
To me it seems like you don't understand how dynamic the scientific model is. If it were to happen that it actually was magic that moved the paper, then that would be included in new scientific theories.
magic things that cant be explained by science. or else it would be science. if you could do anything you want with magics what would you need science for
wut? magic things don't exist.
out of all the universe? in the future? how do you know it doesnt exist , will not exist?
do me and yourself a favor:
define the scientific method and then define what magic is. Otherwise i'm giving up on you.
Whenever you get unbanned redmourn you might want to do a little bit of research on that clown who's giving the lecture in your video. he's been very VERY criticized by the scientific community for skewing Darwinism. He's also appeared in a multitude of creationist propaganda movies including an up and coming one called: Expelled. Dawkins, like other major evolutionary biologists are not interested in applying social Darwinism. Darwinism is a description not a prescription.
Also, Hitler did similar things to Fredrick Nietzsches Nihilism. He even had Nietzsche's sister rewrite some of his works so they held a more Nazish tone. Anyways i think the subject is rather hackneyed and disproven by now.
Without Darwin, there would have been no Nietzsche. Without Nietzsche, there would have been no Hitler. Without Hitler, no Nazis. Without Nazis, no Holocaust. And all for the want of a nail.
Perhaps without Ford and the Model T, Hitler would not have believed in the potential for mass-produced tanks.
A butterfly flapped its wings and Hiroshima blew up.
Why are people fighting to prevent any sort of connection between Darwin's teachings and Hitler's politics? It is hardly news that science and technology are dangerous, and the Nazis certainly applied both technology and scientific ideals toward inhumane ends in innumerable ways.
Is it somehow more troubling that science supplies ideological weapons than that it supplies physical weapons? Personally, I am more frightened of the latter sort.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
Now that we have the physical capability to destroy a significant portion of ourselves, I'm more concerned with the ideological aspects. It didn't take much for America to OK two wars. I'm hoping we'll never find out how little it takes for America (or anyone else) to OK an ABC one.
I cannot comprehend this thread. Why do you guys insist so much? Why bother trying to give logical explanation to someone who openly admits not accepting reason as an argument?
Saying "I believe in god" or "I don't believe in science" or any of it's variants is precisely the same as saying "I cannot comprehend logic, therefore trying to convince me with logical arguments is futile". How do you argue with someone like this?
Until we find a cure for stupidity, all of you in this thread, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever are all just wasting your time (well them at least are making money off it).
On July 15 2008 17:13 Funchucks wrote: Nietzsche was certainly inspired by Darwin.
Without Darwin, there would have been no Nietzsche. Without Nietzsche, there would have been no Hitler. Without Hitler, no Nazis. Without Nazis, no Holocaust. And all for the want of a nail.
Perhaps without Ford and the Model T, Hitler would not have believed in the potential for mass-produced tanks.
A butterfly flapped its wings and Hiroshima blew up.
Why are people fighting to prevent any sort of connection between Darwin's teachings and Hitler's politics? It is hardly news that science and technology are dangerous, and the Nazis certainly applied both technology and scientific ideals toward inhumane ends in innumerable ways.
Is it somehow more troubling that science supplies ideological weapons than that it supplies physical weapons? Personally, I am more frightened of the latter sort.
i think the point is that neither darwin nor neitzsche would have supported Hitlers ideas. both thinkers had their ideas manipulated for a nationalist hate mongering party. it's like associating karl marx with stallion.
all advancements in human thought and technology are at risk of being abused for negative purposes.
On July 15 2008 17:26 VIB wrote: I cannot comprehend this thread. Why do you guys insist so much? Why bother trying to give logical explanation to someone who openly admits not accepting reason as an argument?
Saying "I believe in god" or "I don't believe in science" or any of it's variants is precisely the same as saying "I cannot comprehend logic, therefore trying to convince me with logical arguments is futile". How do you argue with someone like this?
Until we find a cure for stupidity, all of you in this thread, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever are all just wasting your time (well them at least are making money off it).
The real problem and real stupidity is not when one is religious (although one might argue that's the case too then :p ), but only when one believes that his religion is "the real truth" or "better than science". In that case, this person is a retard (maybe even a dangerous one. Fundamentalists and terrorists are always potentially dangerous). Questioning certain scientific methods is OK, otherwise there would be no advancements, but you have to come up with a logical, scientific argument then. Religious people should never question science just because their religious fantasies tell a different story. As long as this is the case, I believe that religion and science can coexist peacefully (lol, just had to think of that one Bush quote). But stupidity never dies, and so we have many fundamentalists today who are basically one of the biggest threats to modern society with their medieval thinking. If they manage to be somehow more convincing to the general public than scientists are (and they really got far in the US with their Intelligent Design crap), we're in for some bad time once again.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
On July 15 2008 17:58 MyLostTemple wrote: speaking of which, would anyone be interested in me compiling some Nietzsche documentaries?
I'd love it if you did so. Ive been interested in Nietzsche for some time but ive only seen one documentary and havnt read any of his books. Could you recommend me one of them that is good to start out with? Also Sprach Zarathustra?
Btw Nick did you watch the video I linked on the last page?
On July 15 2008 09:05 DrainX wrote: I found an interesting video interview with Richard Dawkins. Maybe not so focused on religion. Apparently he is now working on a book that will contain proofs of evolution. I bet it will be a good read The interviewer is a Computer Scientist and many of the questions are different from what he is usually asked in interviews today. The questions stretch from things like artificial intelligence to the effect the bacteria in our body's might have on our evolution. A 40 minute good watch:
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
You make it sound like evolution is a conscious process. Species don't aim for some ability, evolution just happens and has to happen once you have its prerequisites. They probably did get selected for their running/hiding abilities too, that doesn't exclude the bloody eyes.
How big an advantage do you think eyebrows are? They might keep drops of sweat out of your eyes but how often is that necessary? Maybe there is a lion standing in a bush near you and the human with the eyebrows has a slightly higher chance of seeing it in time. The selection pressure needed isn't really that big since we are talking about millions of years of natural selection. To me its much more grand and amazing how wales and hippos have a recent common ancestor. Hippos are closer relatives to wales than they are to pigs.
On July 15 2008 17:26 VIB wrote: I cannot comprehend this thread. Why do you guys insist so much? Why bother trying to give logical explanation to someone who openly admits not accepting reason as an argument?
Saying "I believe in god" or "I don't believe in science" or any of it's variants is precisely the same as saying "I cannot comprehend logic, therefore trying to convince me with logical arguments is futile". How do you argue with someone like this?
Until we find a cure for stupidity, all of you in this thread, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever are all just wasting your time (well them at least are making money off it).
The real problem and real stupidity is not when one is religious (although one might argue that's the case too then :p ), but only when one believes that his religion is "the real truth" or "better than science". In that case, this person is a retard (maybe even a dangerous one. Fundamentalists and terrorists are always potentially dangerous). Questioning certain scientific methods is OK, otherwise there would be no advancements, but you have to come up with a logical, scientific argument then. Religious people should never question science just because their religious fantasies tell a different story. As long as this is the case, I believe that religion and science can coexist peacefully (lol, just had to think of that one Bush quote). But stupidity never dies, and so we have many fundamentalists today who are basically one of the biggest threats to modern society with their medieval thinking. If they manage to be somehow more convincing to the general public than scientists are (and they really got far in the US with their Intelligent Design crap), we're in for some bad time once again.
I'm not talking about questioning any specific methods. But about anyone who claim to believe in "religion", which by definition means "believing with no need of concrete evidence" or any variant. Someone who admits to be religious is also admitting to not understand reason". So you can't convince someone, who admits being religious, with logical arguments. Which is senseless therefore dumb. Their problem is not believing X and not Y, their problem is that they're dumb.
So I can't understand how is there so many people trying to "bring light" to religious people showing them logical arguments. They're admittedly dumb, they cannot understand logic. Not matter how reasonable and well thought your arguments are, they won't understand because they already told you they don't need scientific evidence to believe in X or Y. How are you gonna convince them of anything with logic?
Just tell them Darwin is right because God said so. That's your best shot.
The theory of evolution has so far been able to explain the rich variance of species we are seeing. But that is not the truly great thing about it. The great thing is, that if such a phenomenon would appear, that evolution could not explain it, the theory of evloution would be carefully revised, and no scientist worth his salt would protest. That ability to adapt is the greatest strength of science, something that religion and philosophy both could do well in following.
And trust me, you will not debunk evolution any time soon.
On July 15 2008 17:26 VIB wrote: I cannot comprehend this thread. Why do you guys insist so much? Why bother trying to give logical explanation to someone who openly admits not accepting reason as an argument?
Saying "I believe in god" or "I don't believe in science" or any of it's variants is precisely the same as saying "I cannot comprehend logic, therefore trying to convince me with logical arguments is futile". How do you argue with someone like this?
Until we find a cure for stupidity, all of you in this thread, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever are all just wasting your time (well them at least are making money off it).
The real problem and real stupidity is not when one is religious (although one might argue that's the case too then :p ), but only when one believes that his religion is "the real truth" or "better than science". In that case, this person is a retard (maybe even a dangerous one. Fundamentalists and terrorists are always potentially dangerous). Questioning certain scientific methods is OK, otherwise there would be no advancements, but you have to come up with a logical, scientific argument then. Religious people should never question science just because their religious fantasies tell a different story. As long as this is the case, I believe that religion and science can coexist peacefully (lol, just had to think of that one Bush quote). But stupidity never dies, and so we have many fundamentalists today who are basically one of the biggest threats to modern society with their medieval thinking. If they manage to be somehow more convincing to the general public than scientists are (and they really got far in the US with their Intelligent Design crap), we're in for some bad time once again.
I'm not talking about questioning any specific methods. But about anyone who claim to believe in "religion", which by definition means "believing with no need of concrete evidence" or any variant. Someone who admits to be religious is also admitting to not understand reason". So you can't convince someone, who admits being religious, with logical arguments. Which is senseless therefore dumb. Their problem is not believing X and not Y, their problem is that they're dumb.
So I can't understand how is there so many people trying to "bring light" to religious people showing them logical arguments. They're admittedly dumb, they cannot understand logic. Not matter how reasonable and well thought your arguments are, they won't understand because they already told you they don't need scientific evidence to believe in X or Y. How are you gonna convince them of anything with logic?
Just tell them Darwin is right because God said so. That's your best shot.
Well there are quite a few scientists who believe in a god because as long as science can't explain everything yet, there's still room for it, and I don't see a problem there and I don't see why one should call such persons stupid.
On July 15 2008 19:10 Fwmeh wrote: The theory of evolution has so far been able to explain the rich variance of species we are seeing. But that is not the truly great thing about it. The great thing is, that if such a phenomenon would appear, that evolution could not explain it, the theory of evloution would be carefully revised, and no scientist worth his salt would protest. That ability to adapt is the greatest strength of science, something that religion and philosophy both could do well in following.
And trust me, you will not debunk evolution any time soon.
Yes... hopefully. It's true that religion basically never adapts. The "holy writings" like the Bible are ancient by now, and many things in it are just plain ridiculous considering our vast knowledge in comparison, but religious people just interpret the texts differently, like they want to, because even they know that a lot of it is stupid. This pic is so true:
Second best flowchart ever, after bacon-eating flowchart.
And VIB, please stop. None here has yet refuted that everyone makes action based on beliefs they will never be able to prove, either because finding the proof is too hard, or because it is simply impossible to prove. A part of being a scientist is knowing what science can be applied to, and anything for which you cannot formulate repeatable tests to either prove, or disprove your theory is pointless to science.
And fyi, I have spent 5 years of my life graduating as what would be equivalent of a Mphys, and don't really like being called an idiot because I realise that that will not tell me everything about life.
On July 15 2008 18:46 LuckyOne wrote: btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
Gene that know where he want to evolve? You are missing the point of evolution, evolution is an effect of psychics laws and that is it you don't have to assume anything new for it.
Explaining unknown whit unknown does not lead to any explanation, it is just an illusion of explaining something.
I actually worship Darwin as a deity who causes mutations by divine intervention, and who created the universe according to his design so it would select for the traits he desires.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
You make it sound like evolution is a conscious process. Species don't aim for some ability, evolution just happens and has to happen once you have its prerequisites. They probably did get selected for their running/hiding abilities too, that doesn't exclude the bloody eyes.
How big an advantage do you think eyebrows are? They might keep drops of sweat out of your eyes but how often is that necessary? Maybe there is a lion standing in a bush near you and the human with the eyebrows has a slightly higher chance of seeing it in time. The selection pressure needed isn't really that big since we are talking about millions of years of natural selection. To me its much more grand and amazing how wales and hippos have a recent common ancestor. Hippos are closer relatives to wales than they are to pigs.
btw is behavior coded in the genes like how does a spider know its supposed to build a web? with this exact design?
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
You make it sound like evolution is a conscious process. Species don't aim for some ability, evolution just happens and has to happen once you have its prerequisites. They probably did get selected for their running/hiding abilities too, that doesn't exclude the bloody eyes.
How big an advantage do you think eyebrows are? They might keep drops of sweat out of your eyes but how often is that necessary? Maybe there is a lion standing in a bush near you and the human with the eyebrows has a slightly higher chance of seeing it in time. The selection pressure needed isn't really that big since we are talking about millions of years of natural selection. To me its much more grand and amazing how wales and hippos have a recent common ancestor. Hippos are closer relatives to wales than they are to pigs.
btw is behavior coded in the genes like how does a spider know its supposed to build a web? with this exact design?
Yes, yes it is. That is exactly what Richard Dawkins second book The Extended Phenotype is about.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
You make it sound like evolution is a conscious process. Species don't aim for some ability, evolution just happens and has to happen once you have its prerequisites. They probably did get selected for their running/hiding abilities too, that doesn't exclude the bloody eyes.
How big an advantage do you think eyebrows are? They might keep drops of sweat out of your eyes but how often is that necessary? Maybe there is a lion standing in a bush near you and the human with the eyebrows has a slightly higher chance of seeing it in time. The selection pressure needed isn't really that big since we are talking about millions of years of natural selection. To me its much more grand and amazing how wales and hippos have a recent common ancestor. Hippos are closer relatives to wales than they are to pigs.
btw is behavior coded in the genes like how does a spider know its supposed to build a web? with this exact design?
Yes, yes it is. That is exactly what Richard Dawkins second book The Extended Phenotype is about.
Some behaviours are, some behaviours are not. In the case of a spider's web, it is.
On July 15 2008 20:26 IdrA wrote: luckyone is beyond hope, just ignore him.
actually im kinda waiting for him to ask how the eyeball could have evolved.
hehe actually i believe in everything you do(science,evolution, not religious) + some(that noone gets) funny how ppl are formatted to think us vs them 2 camp thing.
Great thread, Richard Dawkins is awesome and is really the spearhead of reason, science and logic in the present intellectual community. Especially considering his contribution to the popular understanding of science and the "proper" understanding of religion.
Many here seem to find Richard Dawkins too violent in his attacks on religion and unwilling to compromise, which is exactly what makes him so great. In the God Delusion he clearly states that he is well aware of the aggressive stance he has taken towards religion and that he does so because he is genuinley concerned about the effects of religion on humanity today and especially it's negative effect on kids. He also argues that the agnostic position so many basically atheist intellectuals and indeed atheist people in general, take in the face of religion is completely illogical.
Just because the existance of God can't be entirely disproved does'nt mean it's as likely as the actual existance of a God! It does'nt make it a close 50/50 between a supernatural force that has absolutely no place in modern science anywhere, and an presently unknown scientific explanation of, most prominently i guess, the creation of the universe. To be agnostic about something as unlikely as an omnipotent- /scient -/present force is plain... dumb I have to say. Sorry if someone is offended by this.
On July 15 2008 18:24 MyLostTemple wrote:
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
Earth is not 65 billion years old, it's more like 4.5 billion years. Though your numbers are pretty exaggerated this is a great explanation of how evolution works with natural selection.
On July 15 2008 20:26 IdrA wrote: luckyone is beyond hope, just ignore him.
actually im kinda waiting for him to ask how the eyeball could have evolved.
hehe actually i believe in everything you do(science,evolution, not religious) + some(that noone gets) funny how ppl are formatted to think us vs them 2 camp thing.
it has nothing to do with camps you're just really stupid and if you understand evolution are you just failing at playing devil's advocate or what?
On July 15 2008 20:26 IdrA wrote: luckyone is beyond hope, just ignore him.
actually im kinda waiting for him to ask how the eyeball could have evolved.
hehe actually i believe in everything you do(science,evolution, not religious) + some(that noone gets) funny how ppl are formatted to think us vs them 2 camp thing.
it has nothing to do with camps you're just really stupid and if you understand evolution are you just failing at playing devil's advocate or what?
was just asking a few questions that had nothing to do with what i was saying before. im out.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
You make it sound like evolution is a conscious process. Species don't aim for some ability, evolution just happens and has to happen once you have its prerequisites. They probably did get selected for their running/hiding abilities too, that doesn't exclude the bloody eyes.
How big an advantage do you think eyebrows are? They might keep drops of sweat out of your eyes but how often is that necessary? Maybe there is a lion standing in a bush near you and the human with the eyebrows has a slightly higher chance of seeing it in time. The selection pressure needed isn't really that big since we are talking about millions of years of natural selection. To me its much more grand and amazing how wales and hippos have a recent common ancestor. Hippos are closer relatives to wales than they are to pigs.
btw is behavior coded in the genes like how does a spider know its supposed to build a web? with this exact design?
Yes, yes it is. That is exactly what Richard Dawkins second book The Extended Phenotype is about.
Some behaviours are, some behaviours are not. In the case of a spider's web, it is.
I would say that in animals other than humans especially in the more primitive forms of life almost all behavior is coded into the genes. A lot of human behavior has its roots in our genes too but of course we unlike other animals have culture and language from which a lot of our thinking and behavior stems. But culture and language can be given evolutionary explanations too through Memetics
On July 15 2008 20:24 zizou21 wrote: Excellent BBC Documentary on Nietzsche
On July 15 2008 17:13 Funchucks wrote: Nietzsche was certainly inspired by Darwin.
Without Darwin, there would have been no Nietzsche. Without Nietzsche, there would have been no Hitler. Without Hitler, no Nazis. Without Nazis, no Holocaust. And all for the want of a nail.
Perhaps without Ford and the Model T, Hitler would not have believed in the potential for mass-produced tanks.
A butterfly flapped its wings and Hiroshima blew up.
Why are people fighting to prevent any sort of connection between Darwin's teachings and Hitler's politics? It is hardly news that science and technology are dangerous, and the Nazis certainly applied both technology and scientific ideals toward inhumane ends in innumerable ways.
Is it somehow more troubling that science supplies ideological weapons than that it supplies physical weapons? Personally, I am more frightened of the latter sort.
The interesting part of the discussion on weapon-based science is that through developing more and more sofisticated weapons, the science surrounding it has provided the general scientific community with priceless data concerning several scientific subjects. One example is the fact that the development of the atomic bomb actually provided priceless information concerning particle physics which helped the scientists Gamov and Alpher understand the nucleosynthesis.
I just have to say that I don't fully understand your view of history. Chaos theory does'nt really go well with history. F.e I personally think the second world war and the holocaust would've happened without the existance of Nietzsche, even without Hitler. It's not about people it's about greater factors like economy, culture, politics and history that make and break events like these. The nazi-party was not dependent on neither Nietzsche nor Hitler.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
You make it sound like evolution is a conscious process. Species don't aim for some ability, evolution just happens and has to happen once you have its prerequisites. They probably did get selected for their running/hiding abilities too, that doesn't exclude the bloody eyes.
How big an advantage do you think eyebrows are? They might keep drops of sweat out of your eyes but how often is that necessary? Maybe there is a lion standing in a bush near you and the human with the eyebrows has a slightly higher chance of seeing it in time. The selection pressure needed isn't really that big since we are talking about millions of years of natural selection. To me its much more grand and amazing how wales and hippos have a recent common ancestor. Hippos are closer relatives to wales than they are to pigs.
btw is behavior coded in the genes like how does a spider know its supposed to build a web? with this exact design?
Yes, yes it is. That is exactly what Richard Dawkins second book The Extended Phenotype is about.
Some behaviours are, some behaviours are not. In the case of a spider's web, it is.
I would say that in animals other than humans especially in the more primitive forms of life almost all behavior is coded into the genes. A lot of human behavior has its roots in our genes too but of course we unlike other animals have culture and language from which a lot of our thinking and behavior stems. But culture and language can be given evolutionary explanations too through Memetics
nice post and for evolved animals i guess parenting+social+gene code behavior
On July 15 2008 20:48 Makhno wrote: Many here seem to find Richard Dawkins too violent in his attacks on religion and unwilling to compromise, which is exactly what makes him so great. In the God Delusion he clearly states that he is well aware of the aggressive stance he has taken towards religion and that he does so because he is genuinley concerned about the effects of religion on humanity today and especially it's negative effect on kids.
Yeah that's true.
Just because the existance of God can't be entirely disproved does'nt mean it's as likely as the actual existance of a God! It does'nt make it a close 50/50 between a supernatural force that has absolutely no place in modern science anywhere, and an presently unknown scientific explanation of, most prominently i guess, the creation of the universe. To be agnostic about something as unlikely as an omnipotent- /scient -/present force is plain... dumb I have to say. Sorry if someone is offended by this.
Is agnosticism even defined like this, that you think it's equally likely that there is a god or not? I don't think so... besides, agnosticism has many forms anyway.
I'm not sure what my position would be called exactly but I think it's very unlikely that a god exists (although I don't rule out the possibility), and extremely unlikely that a god like the Christian or Islamic one exists. And overall the question is largely irrelevant because it can't be proven or disproven anyway, so why even bother thinking about it. Whether you believe in it or not also has no verifiable advantages or disadvantages except subjective beliefs. So the question of god or no god is quite irrelevant. What is very relevant, though, is that religious zealots pose a threat to society.
On July 15 2008 20:48 Makhno wrote: Many here seem to find Richard Dawkins too violent in his attacks on religion and unwilling to compromise, which is exactly what makes him so great. In the God Delusion he clearly states that he is well aware of the aggressive stance he has taken towards religion and that he does so because he is genuinley concerned about the effects of religion on humanity today and especially it's negative effect on kids.
Just because the existance of God can't be entirely disproved does'nt mean it's as likely as the actual existance of a God! It does'nt make it a close 50/50 between a supernatural force that has absolutely no place in modern science anywhere, and an presently unknown scientific explanation of, most prominently i guess, the creation of the universe. To be agnostic about something as unlikely as an omnipotent- /scient -/present force is plain... dumb I have to say. Sorry if someone is offended by this.
Is agnosticism even defined like this, that you think it's equally likely that there is a god or not? I don't think so... besides, agnosticism has many forms anyway.
I'm not sure what my position would be called exactly but I think it's very unlikely that a god exists (although I don't rule out the possibility), and extremely unlikely that a god like the Christian or Islamic one exists. And overall the question is largely irrelevant because it can't be proven or disproven anyway, so why even bother thinking about it. Whether you believe in it or not also has no verifiable advantages or disadvantages except subjective beliefs. So the question of god or no god is quite irrelevant. What is very relevant, though, is that religious zealots pose a threat to society.
Well you're right about agnosticism taking many different forms, I was just refering to the one I encounter most often in discussions, the view that it could be either way, a supernatural force or a scientific explanation. It's this belief that I find the most annoying because it is generally secular, intelligent people that have it and they have adopted this view that all the gaps in the scientific explanation of reality can be filled with either more science or a supernatural force.
I just can't understand why someone would think that just because science hasn't reached the level of complete understanding it automatically aknowledges any idea to make it get there. Has'nt science proved, again and again, that holding a dogmatic and irrational belief in something that has not been proven is like begging to be completely intellectually destroyed when new observations come around?
The only agnosticism I find rational is the strong agnosticism which argues that supernatural things might exist but we simply cannot grasp them with our limited tools and understanding. But even this sort of thinking has flaws. Up to this point science has never run in to a complete cul-de-sac and believing that it has, as previously stated, has always made the conservative view-holders (as in dogmatic) look foolish in retrospect. And even though the notion of something supernatural that cannot, by it's very nature, be understood by man is irrelevant until we percieve some indication of it's existance.
I'm rambling, sorry, I just really like this discussion.
Until we find a cure for stupidity, all of you in this thread, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever are all just wasting your time (well them at least are making money off it).
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (ultimate badass) touches on this a bit.
Look it's really simple: People believes in god/mysticism -> people does not accept logic/reason as an argument -> arguing with said people using logical arguments makes no sense
This is simple math, as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not gonna argue back to the ones trying to argue with me saying "but I'm not dumb" or "but I believe in both" because it's the whole point of what I'm saying that arguing back is futile.
There is no excuse to not use scientific method in any circumstance. Those saying the contrary simply cannot comprehend logic and will believe whatever the feel the most fuzzy with no matter what evidence says. So this whole thread and any other discussion trying to convince mystical people that mysticism does not exist will always fail.
Just look at the chart someone just posted, it represents what I'm saying perfectly:
If that doesn't convince you that arguing with the ones on the right is futile. Then nothing will. C'mon you guys are circling around the same people explaining some basic stuff such as Darwinism that takes only a couple of seconds to explain and understand, and you are still circling around those same people for over 20 pages in this thread. You're wasting your time.
You say that, yet there are scientists in the National Academy of Science and people with doctorates who are far more educated than you or I, who still believe there is a supernatural being.
Until we find a cure for stupidity, all of you in this thread, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever are all just wasting your time (well them at least are making money off it).
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (ultimate badass) touches on this a bit.
i dont think that really applies to the whole intelligent design in the classroom thing, which hes addressing. its not that scientists are saying god fucked with the genes because they cant understand how it happened, the church is pushing it to give god a role. lack of knowledge has nothing to do with it.
That's what I'm saying. The hope is that by educating the public we can eliminate those who follow frivolous ideas, but there's an underlying issue that causes even the highly educated to believe in God. So rooting out idiots is not the answer.
this stuff is so simple to me: yin, yang and needs. (need = from where the god 'must' come) we give introvert people the value yin and extrovert people value yang. (see introvert and extrovert as basic/dominant expresions of self, without the complications/modifications brought on by 'living'. ).
introverts are immersed in their inner self thus god is within (nietchze, dawkin, scientists, philosophers &co) and extroverts are more preoccupied by the outside world thus their god is/comes from outside (pope, hot blooded latinas who need men as their gods &co). those are the needs of each type of personality and they fight for superiority.
we all know what yin and yang means (but just in case) - "two opposing and, at the same time, complementary aspects of any one phenomenon (object or process)", "two complementary qualities", "two aspects in a dynamic equilibrium. As one aspect declines, the other increases to an equal degree".
so i guess it's just time for yin to become the dominant aspect. it's evolution. who knows if it will bring more good than bad but carry on, speculate. + Show Spoiler +
i did assume a degree of knowledge/education of people. the fact that an 100% introvet or extrovert person doesn't exist doesnt change a thing. yin and yang will always exist. it never was, it isn't and it will never be about something else except ourselfs and our needs. god is just a currency.
Uhh sorry that's a nice, pat sounding theory, but it sounds totally hokey to me.
e.g. you could make the same argument the other way around. Scientists are more concerned with being able to predict the outside world (outer yang), whereas religious people are more about dealing with the inner souls and personal redemption/consolation (inner yin).
I wouldn't even really call these two complementary... the naturalist and religious worldviews seem pretty much one-or-the-other to me, at least for those who have their minds made up.
On July 16 2008 01:38 VIB wrote: Look it's really simple: People believes in god/mysticism -> people does not accept logic/reason as an argument -> arguing with said people using logical arguments makes no sense
This is simple math, as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not gonna argue back to the ones trying to argue with me saying "but I'm not dumb" or "but I believe in both" because it's the whole point of what I'm saying that arguing back is futile.
There is no excuse to not use scientific method in any circumstance. Those saying the contrary simply cannot comprehend logic and will believe whatever the feel the most fuzzy with no matter what evidence says. So this whole thread and any other discussion trying to convince mystical people that mysticism does not exist will always fail.
No. You are not answering me not because I cannot be argued with, but because you have no arguments. If you do in fact have scientific proof that man should have freedom of speech, let us hear it. And I want a proof worthy of being put in Nature. If you cannot comply with this, you either admit that man should not have freedom of speech, since it cannot be proven we must, due to your arguing that nothing should be done unless there is scientific proof for it, or you just shut up. Both might boil down to the same thing.
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote: i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators? i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
i'm really starting to question your background in education. this is easily explainable.
the earth is 65 billion years old. lets say this lizard species in some where in the later half of this 65 billion years. mutations occur in evolution, so in lets say we have a bunch of brown lizards but every once and a while there is one that is closer to black. now lets say that the environment that these lizards grew up in is very dark and predators have a harder time seeing the darker brown lizards. Over time there are more dark brown lizards left over than the lighter brown ones since the more visible lizards are easier to get spoted and eaten. imagine how many how many mutations may occur over the hundreds of billions of years life has existed.
now lets take your example. a mutation occurs where we have a lizard that has oddly wired blood vessels in the eyes. at times blood shoots out of his eye sockets during stressful moments because of increased blood pressure via adrenaline. As it turns out the predator has, via evolution, learned to avoid red because he too has a predator or something in his environment that causes him to avoid this color. over time the predators end up eating all the other lizards while this small group of mutated lizards manages to survive via it's genetic mutation. now we end up with almost all the lizards shooting blood out of their eyes since it was passed on in their gene pool. some can shoot a lot of blood, others can shoot only a small amount. maybe there are even ones who shoot so much blood out of their eyes that they end up with a massive amount of blood loss and die because of it. Those lizards are then weeded out of the gene pool too due to their genetic mutation working negatively for them. what we are left with over time are the lizards you are talking about today.
i'm still asking you to define the scientific method and the "magic" you're talking about.
well it would be more obvious if they got selected for their running / hide hability this is something so specific they even have to aim for it to work.btw i believe in evolution just that i think there must be something more to it like adaptation modifying genes.
as for the definitions i agree with wikipedia. but you dont try to understand the main idea.
You make it sound like evolution is a conscious process. Species don't aim for some ability, evolution just happens and has to happen once you have its prerequisites. They probably did get selected for their running/hiding abilities too, that doesn't exclude the bloody eyes.
How big an advantage do you think eyebrows are? They might keep drops of sweat out of your eyes but how often is that necessary? Maybe there is a lion standing in a bush near you and the human with the eyebrows has a slightly higher chance of seeing it in time. The selection pressure needed isn't really that big since we are talking about millions of years of natural selection. To me its much more grand and amazing how wales and hippos have a recent common ancestor. Hippos are closer relatives to wales than they are to pigs.
btw is behavior coded in the genes like how does a spider know its supposed to build a web? with this exact design?
Yes, yes it is. That is exactly what Richard Dawkins second book The Extended Phenotype is about.
Some behaviours are, some behaviours are not. In the case of a spider's web, it is.
I would say that in animals other than humans especially in the more primitive forms of life almost all behavior is coded into the genes. A lot of human behavior has its roots in our genes too but of course we unlike other animals have culture and language from which a lot of our thinking and behavior stems. But culture and language can be given evolutionary explanations too through Memetics
Please describe to me how the model of memetics can be either proven or disproved. I am genuinely curious, because I do not see how you can.
On July 16 2008 02:59 Fwmeh wrote: Please describe to me how the model of memetics can be either proven or disproved. I am genuinely curious, because I do not see how you can.
Memetics is just a way of looking at things. I think it is demonstrably true from logical principles and indisputable facts alone.
Ideas (memes) are generated in the brains of individuals. The ideas (memes) are conveyed to other individuals through communication (meme reproduction). In the passage of time, some ideas are remembered and spread (memes flourish) while others are forgotten (memes go extinct). Sometimes, ideas inspire new ideas or are misremembered (memes mutate). Those ideas which are more memorable to the minds they have access to are more likely to be remembered, and the opposite also holds true (survival of the fittest memes).
Memetics is just a particular way of looking at things, not a falsifiable scientific theory.
On July 16 2008 02:41 Jibba wrote: That's what I'm saying. The hope is that by educating the public we can eliminate those who follow frivolous ideas, but there's an underlying issue that causes even the highly educated to believe in God. So rooting out idiots is not the answer.
ah sorry i wasnt even addressing how you were using it, just responding to the video itself.
On July 16 2008 01:55 Jibba wrote: You say that, yet there are scientists in the National Academy of Science and people with doctorates who are far more educated than you or I, who still believe there is a supernatural being.
Are you confusing intelligence with knowledge? Both are not mutually inclusive. The first is a physiological consequence of genetic data and the second is the result of your memory (a different genetics) interacting with the environment. Environmental interaction won't affect your born genetics physiology (well, unless someone cut your brain into pieces, but that's beyond the point).
On July 16 2008 01:38 VIB wrote: Look it's really simple: People believes in god/mysticism -> people does not accept logic/reason as an argument -> arguing with said people using logical arguments makes no sense
This is simple math, as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not gonna argue back to the ones trying to argue with me saying "but I'm not dumb" or "but I believe in both" because it's the whole point of what I'm saying that arguing back is futile.
There is no excuse to not use scientific method in any circumstance. Those saying the contrary simply cannot comprehend logic and will believe whatever the feel the most fuzzy with no matter what evidence says. So this whole thread and any other discussion trying to convince mystical people that mysticism does not exist will always fail.
No. You are not answering me not because I cannot be argued with, but because you have no arguments. If you do in fact have scientific proof that man should have freedom of speech, let us hear it. And I want a proof worthy of being put in Nature. If you cannot comply with this, you either admit that man should not have freedom of speech, since it cannot be proven we must, due to your arguing that nothing should be done unless there is scientific proof for it, or you just shut up. Both might boil down to the same thing.
I already answered you in the first line of the post you quoted. I had answered you before in the post you quoted before. You're still arguing with me and want me to post it again, so you can not understand again, ask me to argue again ad infinitum. There is no better proof that you cannot be argued with reason than this argument we're having.
On July 16 2008 01:55 Jibba wrote: You say that, yet there are scientists in the National Academy of Science and people with doctorates who are far more educated than you or I, who still believe there is a supernatural being.
Are you confusing intelligence with knowledge? Both are not mutually inclusive. The first is a physiological consequence of genetic data and the second is the result of your memory (a different genetics) interacting with the environment. Environmental interaction won't affect your born genetics physiology (well, unless someone cut your brain into pieces, but that's beyond the point).
On July 16 2008 01:38 VIB wrote: Look it's really simple: People believes in god/mysticism -> people does not accept logic/reason as an argument -> arguing with said people using logical arguments makes no sense
This is simple math, as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not gonna argue back to the ones trying to argue with me saying "but I'm not dumb" or "but I believe in both" because it's the whole point of what I'm saying that arguing back is futile.
There is no excuse to not use scientific method in any circumstance. Those saying the contrary simply cannot comprehend logic and will believe whatever the feel the most fuzzy with no matter what evidence says. So this whole thread and any other discussion trying to convince mystical people that mysticism does not exist will always fail.
No. You are not answering me not because I cannot be argued with, but because you have no arguments. If you do in fact have scientific proof that man should have freedom of speech, let us hear it. And I want a proof worthy of being put in Nature. If you cannot comply with this, you either admit that man should not have freedom of speech, since it cannot be proven we must, due to your arguing that nothing should be done unless there is scientific proof for it, or you just shut up. Both might boil down to the same thing.
I already answered you in the first line of the post you quoted. I had answered you before in the post you quoted before. You're still arguing with me and want me to post it again, so you can not understand again, ask me to argue again ad infinitum. There is no better proof that you cannot be argued with reason than this argument we're having.
"Look it's really simple:" That was the first line of the post I quoted. I fail to see how that scientifically proves that humans need the freedom of speech. I doubt anyone else here does either.
You have still posted no proof. A scientist must be required to present proofs, so that his fellow scientists can study it at their leisure, and find anything that might be missing. You calling me names will not change this.
On July 16 2008 02:59 Fwmeh wrote: Please describe to me how the model of memetics can be either proven or disproved. I am genuinely curious, because I do not see how you can.
Memetics is just a way of looking at things. I think it is demonstrably true from logical principles and indisputable facts alone.
Ideas (memes) are generated in the brains of individuals. The ideas (memes) are conveyed to other individuals through communication (meme reproduction). In the passage of time, some ideas are remembered and spread (memes flourish) while others are forgotten (memes go extinct). Sometimes, ideas inspire new ideas or are misremembered (memes mutate). Those ideas which are more memorable to the minds they have access to are more likely to be remembered, and the opposite also holds true (survival of the fittest memes).
Memetics is just a particular way of looking at things, not a falsifiable scientific theory.
That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
On July 15 2008 18:24 MyLostTemple wrote: the earth is 65 billion years old.
Lol, where did you get this figure from?
The universe is estimated to be only ~14 billion years old. Earth is estimated to have formed ~4.5 billion years ago.
You're probably thinking of the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event ~65 million years ago, which caused the (non-avian) dinosaurs to go extinct as well as many other species.
On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote: That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.
Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.
On July 16 2008 02:54 Polemarch wrote: Uhh sorry that's a nice, pat sounding theory, but it sounds totally hokey to me.
e.g. you could make the same argument the other way around. Scientists are more concerned with being able to predict the outside world (outer yang), whereas religious people are more about dealing with the inner souls and personal redemption/consolation (inner yin).
I wouldn't even really call these two complementary... the naturalist and religious worldviews seem pretty much one-or-the-other to me, at least for those who have their minds made up.
you're mising the point. it's not about what you do, it's about what/whom you satisfy doind what you do. the means of achieveing ones needs depends on so many things and it's different from person to person on so many levels that it becames useless to drag it in conversations thus irrelevant. still, doesn't it seem fair to you that yin would satisfy it self trough yang and vice-versa?.
actually i dont understand your point . the meaning doesnt change if you switch names (yin with yang). they will still be different and have different ways to satisfy their needs. it's so subjective everything you said that i dont know where to put it. you would not have said the last phrase if you viewed some of those videos. (ex. in the debate dawkin with the mcgrath) i dont care about how. i care about why, because if i know why i can trigger how. and i know why.
On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote: That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.
Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.
I do not disagree, but I feel reluctant to acknowledge any canon that explicitly answers the question of Job as a religion, but rather as a quasi-religion. I feel that his question is one that must be raised, as most people will ask it, but to give it a "complete and unique" answer is impossible in my view.
On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote: That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.
Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.
I do not disagree, but I feel reluctant to acknowledge any canon that explicitly answers the question of Job as a religion, but rather as a quasi-religion. I feel that his question is one that must be raised, as most people will ask it, but to give it a "complete and unique" answer is impossible in my view.
I call what he promotes "religion" because he asks for unquestioning deference. As I complained before, he doesn't tell people to go out and do science, he proclaims the virtues of the scientific method for the sake of demanding that people not only accept the findings of scientists, whose work they haven't personally audited, but also defer to their opinions outside of their field.
That's not science. That's the Cult of the Expert.
On July 16 2008 04:00 Funchucks wrote: Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
nice post I have wanted to say exactly this multiple times, but have never been able to put it quite as concisely as this.
On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote: That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.
Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.
I do not disagree, but I feel reluctant to acknowledge any canon that explicitly answers the question of Job as a religion, but rather as a quasi-religion. I feel that his question is one that must be raised, as most people will ask it, but to give it a "complete and unique" answer is impossible in my view.
I call what he promotes "religion" because he asks for unquestioning deference. As I complained before, he doesn't tell people to go out and do science, he proclaims the virtues of the scientific method for the sake of demanding that people not only accept the findings of scientists, whose work they haven't personally audited, but also defer to their opinions outside of their field.
That's not science. That's the Cult of the Expert.
I'm not aware of dawkins ever asking people or explicitly suggesting that they should follow the leader on non-scientific issues so much as that they should be independantly rational in their forming of all opinions. Is that really true?
As for his leading of a religion, i think he means well, he just gets carried away, he's a fairly good debater and one of few loud voices speaking for popular atheist issues, and as proof that there are dumb people in all followings even if they're based on rationallity, some take his more sensational banterings too seriously and he ends Up with a cult following and just goes along with it 'cause he likes the attention or something. Not that it really matters since i suppose in the end he's kind of a dick that way.
What i really find strange about him is that he seems to uncommonly if ever mention philosophy as an alternative to religion. He never says that there's no objective force guiding the universe to define a purpose for us, but being self-respecting persevering creatures that we are we can find it in ourselves to live meaningful lives in a reasonable subjective sense. He just says that science itself is beautiful, and talks about it as if that is our main purpose in life. Which i find somehow naive and hypocritical.
On July 16 2008 01:55 Jibba wrote: You say that, yet there are scientists in the National Academy of Science and people with doctorates who are far more educated than you or I, who still believe there is a supernatural being.
Are you confusing intelligence with knowledge? Both are not mutually inclusive. The first is a physiological consequence of genetic data and the second is the result of your memory (a different genetics) interacting with the environment. Environmental interaction won't affect your born genetics physiology (well, unless someone cut your brain into pieces, but that's beyond the point).
On July 16 2008 02:56 Fwmeh wrote:
On July 16 2008 01:38 VIB wrote: Look it's really simple: People believes in god/mysticism -> people does not accept logic/reason as an argument -> arguing with said people using logical arguments makes no sense
This is simple math, as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not gonna argue back to the ones trying to argue with me saying "but I'm not dumb" or "but I believe in both" because it's the whole point of what I'm saying that arguing back is futile.
There is no excuse to not use scientific method in any circumstance. Those saying the contrary simply cannot comprehend logic and will believe whatever the feel the most fuzzy with no matter what evidence says. So this whole thread and any other discussion trying to convince mystical people that mysticism does not exist will always fail.
No. You are not answering me not because I cannot be argued with, but because you have no arguments. If you do in fact have scientific proof that man should have freedom of speech, let us hear it. And I want a proof worthy of being put in Nature. If you cannot comply with this, you either admit that man should not have freedom of speech, since it cannot be proven we must, due to your arguing that nothing should be done unless there is scientific proof for it, or you just shut up. Both might boil down to the same thing.
I already answered you in the first line of the post you quoted. I had answered you before in the post you quoted before. You're still arguing with me and want me to post it again, so you can not understand again, ask me to argue again ad infinitum. There is no better proof that you cannot be argued with reason than this argument we're having.
"Look it's really simple:" That was the first line of the post I quoted. I fail to see how that scientifically proves that humans need the freedom of speech. I doubt anyone else here does either.
You have still posted no proof. A scientist must be required to present proofs, so that his fellow scientists can study it at their leisure, and find anything that might be missing. You calling me names will not change this.
On July 16 2008 02:59 Fwmeh wrote: Please describe to me how the model of memetics can be either proven or disproved. I am genuinely curious, because I do not see how you can.
Memetics is just a way of looking at things. I think it is demonstrably true from logical principles and indisputable facts alone.
Ideas (memes) are generated in the brains of individuals. The ideas (memes) are conveyed to other individuals through communication (meme reproduction). In the passage of time, some ideas are remembered and spread (memes flourish) while others are forgotten (memes go extinct). Sometimes, ideas inspire new ideas or are misremembered (memes mutate). Those ideas which are more memorable to the minds they have access to are more likely to be remembered, and the opposite also holds true (survival of the fittest memes).
Memetics is just a particular way of looking at things, not a falsifiable scientific theory.
That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
there is ethical proff. it's not a scientific matter. don't swap categories.
On July 15 2008 18:24 MyLostTemple wrote: the earth is 65 billion years old.
Lol, where did you get this figure from?
The universe is estimated to be only ~14 billion years old. Earth is estimated to have formed ~4.5 billion years ago.
You're probably thinking of the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event ~65 million years ago, which caused the (non-avian) dinosaurs to go extinct as well as many other species.
sorry i miss typed it, i was writing in a hurry. the earth is definately not that old lol. but anyways the point i was making was still there.
Sorry if this is now off-topic, but I feel a need to make this VERY clear.
Science is not a religion. Science is nothing like a religion. The systems of the scientific method are used in every aspect of life whether we realize it or not, and it is absolutely critical to every creature's understanding of their world.
For clarity, Science does not 'disprove' God. If you've ever taken a statistics course, you'd know it's actually impossible to completely disprove something, merely to reject a given hypothesis in favor of a more likely one. We use probability and logic to make these choices.
The way belief systems work: you don't believe something unless you have evidence. If I said there's a magic bag in my house that's always full of money, you'd probably be pretty skeptical. You'd want to believe its true, but you'd want verification before you actually assigned any credence to it. Evidence comes in many forms: body language, trust developed from previous experience, and physical raw data taken in by your senses. You need evidence before you assign a truth value to a statement, and the same holds for religious beliefs.
The notion of a god doesn't has to be 'disproven'. By default it is not accepted as truth, nor was the bag of money. I taught several Sunday school classes for young 4-5 year old children back when I was a Christian, and I don't think I've ever heard so clearly how unreasonable an idea god is. So until I see reasonable, logical proof of a deity, I simply choose not to believe, which makes me not an agnostic, but an atheist.
There is a problem with Christianity. It has a history of establishing itself as a rational faith. This believf that Christianity is ultimately a rational choice that leads it to disaster and conflict with science.
Most Christians I talk to reject the mystical and mysterious appreciation of God and insist that he must be understood in the head (I thuink that's a load of crap, but that's irrelevant at the moment).
The main reason Christians put their God in the logical sphere is to give a logical precedence for Biblical morality. In their reasoning, God's existence is logically justifiable and therefore the weight of Morality comes from a solid and logically based entity.
Evolution is the single most dangerous scientific princple to come around . . . ever. Evolution seems to establish random chance is the precipitator of life and to destroy the notion of a plan and therefore the base of morality that Christians base their lives around.
Rather than adapting to this new way of being, Christians have chosen to fight science here. I think that this is a grave error. Scientifically, Evolution is beyond reproach. Efforts to logically and scientifically combat evolution have been repeatedly proven ridiculous.
The end effect of this misguided crusade is to make Christianity subject to the burderns of proof and logic; a battle that they will clearly lose. So rather than swaing in the wind, Hardcore Christians have made it a choice between their way or science. The evidence continues to pile up for evolution, and this hardcore christianity will die. They might linger for fifty or even a hundred years insisting that evolution is wrong, but no sect that has so vehemently rejected science and progress has survived long.
There is another way. We accept the divine plan and Darwin's theory. We simply reject the notion that evolution has happened by random chance, and see that God's fingerprints are all over evolution. I think evolution is a singularly beautiful theory - and it restores my confidence in God. A god who has a single mechanism to create a biwildering array of life is the sort of God I put my faith into. The essence of God is complexity emerging from simple interations, and evoultino is tops
I think that what you must answer GeneralStan is what type of God you believe in. Does he care about what happens to you in a personal way, or is your deity merely some kind of 'essence of the universe' or 'clockmaker god' who set the universe in its path and let it unwind, withuot interfering?
I could make a case against either, but I will simply say that the 2nd is something like "Spinoza's God" to whom Einstein and many other brilliant thinkers refer, though its not a deity in the traditional sense, merely a 'way of things', or an 'order'. I personally find no need for such a force in the universe, but I do feel a since of wonder when I think about the universe, so maybe what you would call God I would call Awe and Wonder?
I think Stan is referring to a deck stacking God, which is different from Spinoza's God. Spinoza's God is not good or bad, it simply is and we are all part of it (since God is the only thing that exists.)
The deck stacking believer can believe in evolution and any scientific principle, and possible Heaven/Hell as well, because God set everything in motion a certain way from the very beginning (perhaps he caused the Big Bang), and does not interfere in normal life.
I see as much reason to believe Spinosa's crazy theory as I do the deck stacking one. Our bodies are clumsy and inefficient and poorly designed, and 1,000 years from now whatever humans are left will likely be stronger, faster and smarter than we are today.
He's not my God, and I don't know how he operates.
It can't be said that it hasn't forseen all things, nor can it be said that the future is preordained. Time and causality are meaningless to an entity beyond physical being in this universe.
[QUOTE]On July 17 2008 01:49 SirKibbleX wrote: The way belief systems work: you don't believe something unless you have evidence. If I said there's a magic bag in my house that's always full of money, you'd probably be pretty skeptical. You'd want to believe its true, but you'd want verification before you actually assigned any credence to it. Evidence comes in many forms: body language, trust developed from previous experience, and physical raw data taken in by your senses. You need evidence before you assign a truth value to a statement, and the same holds for religious beliefs. QUOTE]
False. A belief doesn't need evidence to become a belief, our brains believe ideas that it repeatedly sees or hears, whether those ideas are true or not is irrelevant.
Belief = an idea with emotion attached to it. The stronger the emotion, the stronger your belief in that idea.
Once you put your faith in an idea your brain will then LOOK for evidence to support that idea and depending on how much faith you have in it, will discard evidence of any other opposing idea.
Why do anorexic girls think that they're fat? Because they repeatedly tell themselves that they are. Over the years they FEEL horrible about themselves, this negative emotion builds and builds until they completely believe they are fat, and no amount of telling them otherwise or having them look in the mirror will change that as the belief system resides prominantly in the emotional brain, not the logical brain.
There is no evidence that God exists, so why do people kill themselves in his name? Because they believe he does. They have so much emotion attached to the idea of a God and redemption in the afterlife conditioned from early childhood. All those years they have been convinced and convinced themselves by putting huge amounts of emotional faith in this idea that no simple intellectual understanding can remove.
you really didn't have to write all that much. the only objectionable jump he made was attributing some validity to religious 'evidence,' by equivocating all forms of evidence. that was the last sentence in his post. the rest is in agreement with your thing.
I'm not so sure about the emotion bit. Does belief necessarily entail emotion? Some fields of study reveal counterintuitive results, with mathematical proofs to back these results. Intuition, one might argue, is an aspect of emotion. Yet people believe the counterintuitive results. Maybe you can explain that again, I'm probably misunderstanding it.
I know but alot of people don't understand how belief systems work, it wasn't really aimed at him directly.
@BottleAbuser It depends on how much you believe it, obviously there are varying degrees. Religious extremists are just a good example becuase it shows how much power a belief can have.
If there is no emotion attached to it, then it's just an idea, not a belief and that idea can be relatively easily changed as it has not been driven into the emotional brain, it will still reside just in the logical brain.
It is only when the idea reaches the emotional brain, which is done by repeatedly hearing or seeing the idea (true or not) and then putting your emotional FAITH in that idea. It takes a fairly long time to make an idea an unshakable belief, usually a few years. Certain things can speed it up, like hearing it from people you trust (parents, priests, teachers, close friends etc.)
You can say that anoyone that believes in God only believes in the idea of a God that was put there by someone or something. They were then convinced and/or convinced themselves that this God exists. The possibility to change this belief will vary, some people that have not had the idea hammered into their emotional brain could read "The God Delusion" once and their belief system could begin to change, by considering the new ideas.
However if a Priest were to read it he would reject almost every idea that was in the book, whether it was true or not, simply because he has so much emotional faith in the opposing idea.
anyway, even granting the point that dawkins mostly generates unproductive controversy, agitating the fundies while stroking an insensitive and narrow base, his presence is not a bad one. agitating the fundies is rather harmless, really. they deserve it. and the generic snide reaction to the excesses of atheists who treat the issue like a crusade are really just as impulsive and sentimental. it is obligatory for the truly srs and mainstream thinkers to take the piss on popular fads. silly noobs! but aside from agitating the srs thinkers and aspiring intellectual elites, crusading for the right to bash the religious is just another thing that people seem to enjoy doing.
although as we have conceded, the direct positives of aggressive atheism are few, there are serious arguments in favor of its cultural presence, among other things. first we can say that, although people who are excited by the idea of 'there is no god!' are cute, they are at least thinking. you can't fault people for being enthusiastic, you only advice them to calm down and gain a broader perspective. second, the drama is hilarious. third, although mobilizing fundies could cause temporary disruptions, with no disrespect to the victims of oppressive social legislations, such reactionary spurts only dig their own grave. much of the negative publicity about religious fundamentalism, and perhaps the image of 'fundies' itself, is constructed from the fundies' own reactions to slights. fourth, it gives scientists excuse to write amateur philosophy and earn something on the side. fifth, it gives philosophers and teh srs thinkers excuse to write about themselves.
going back on the concession, dawkins is not even representative of the 'atheist movement.' the 'movement' is positively described as secular humanism. if we can call it an 'ism' or a 'movement.' the most famous project associated with the 'movement' is called 'enlightenment 2.0,' which has produced some excellent talks that are much more than mere 'atheism.' if you only care to look.
in any case, dawkin's atheism is a small part of the outside world with which some religious folks seem to have little contact. he is not representative of either secular humanism or the real problems of religion as a social and political issue. he is only seen as such by religious folks who are especially ticked off by the aggressive atheism. looking at the broader cultural current of which dawkins is a part, the entire 'movement' is really as old as modern philosophy and science itself. so one of the remarkable things about this dawkins thing is that, there is little originality in dawkins' popular "atheism" work, aside from the much maligned meme theory. even his attitude is not that new. there were always folks who treated their atheism seriously, see david hume, and this so called 'attack on religion' is nothing new. christianity itself is on a gentle decline, and there are no recent 'nuclear' arguments that can mark a particularly eventful episode of its ideological history. serious talks about the existence of god have been relegated to the 'for lulz' section for quite a while, and it isn't going anywhere.
most people who make a big deal out of this mess are either new to the idea that there is no god (much respect for your mighty dwelling under the rock), or religious folks that were fighting the good fight since the beginning. either way, nothing remarkable.
On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote: That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.
Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.
I do not disagree, but I feel reluctant to acknowledge any canon that explicitly answers the question of Job as a religion, but rather as a quasi-religion. I feel that his question is one that must be raised, as most people will ask it, but to give it a "complete and unique" answer is impossible in my view.
I call what he promotes "religion" because he asks for unquestioning deference. As I complained before, he doesn't tell people to go out and do science, he proclaims the virtues of the scientific method for the sake of demanding that people not only accept the findings of scientists, whose work they haven't personally audited, but also defer to their opinions outside of their field.
That's not science. That's the Cult of the Expert.
i see dawkins as mainly reacting, specifically to well publicized atavistic anti-science movements. obviously, dawkins would encourage science education etc, so to say he advocates unthinking devotion is misunderstanding his position. however, dawkins is working against people who tick him off. you say different things to different people, and in dawkins case, his rants are tailored to particular enemy hordes of interest.
On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote: That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.
Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.
I do not disagree, but I feel reluctant to acknowledge any canon that explicitly answers the question of Job as a religion, but rather as a quasi-religion. I feel that his question is one that must be raised, as most people will ask it, but to give it a "complete and unique" answer is impossible in my view.
I call what he promotes "religion" because he asks for unquestioning deference. As I complained before, he doesn't tell people to go out and do science, he proclaims the virtues of the scientific method for the sake of demanding that people not only accept the findings of scientists, whose work they haven't personally audited, but also defer to their opinions outside of their field.
That's not science. That's the Cult of the Expert.
i see dawkins as mainly reacting, specifically to well publicized atavistic anti-science movements. obviously, dawkins would encourage science education etc, so to say he advocates unthinking devotion is misunderstanding his position. however, dawkins is working against people who tick him off. you say different things to different people, and in dawkins case, his rants are tailored to particular enemy hordes of interest.
I am sure his intent is pure and admirable, but in the heat of passion, which he has not mastered, he oversteps the bounds of pure reason and becomes a zealot.
Not hatred of the absurd, of the superstitious, of the false.
Hatred of the inuman.
God can't hurt us. He isn't real. Robots will kill us all.
Give a robot a mind, and you put the human race to death.
Only humans matter. Only humans.
(P.S. if aliens also exist, we should make nice with them. Maybe they'll be generous. But jesus christ, don't encourage the creation of superior rivals. Even if they don't kill us, they'll reduce us to dogs. Human priority abhors a strong AI.)
(P.P.S. Time to eat some fucking chocolate. OH YEAH! FUCKING. CHOCOLATTTTTTEEEE! I AM SO DRUNK!)
I wish people would stop accusing Dawkins of being "extreme" or attacking the style of his arguments instead of the substance. Many ideas were considered quite extreme when first introduced, but would later become widely accepted - just because an idea deviates from the accepted norm by a wide margin does not necessarily mean it is incorrect. For some reason, many people seem to think along the lines of "Hey, here's one extreme, and here's another! I guess the optimal position must be between the two." It seems to me that anything "extreme" is automatically deemed to be A Bad Idea. That's wrong. That's an unthinking reflex, not logic.
I'd say it's because eventually, they'll find out that these useful lies are lies, and it damages the future credibility of the liar. And brings into question everything else he's said, too.
On July 17 2008 01:49 SirKibbleX wrote: Why do anorexic girls think that they're fat? Because they repeatedly tell themselves that they are. Over the years they FEEL horrible about themselves, this negative emotion builds and builds until they completely believe they are fat, and no amount of telling them otherwise or having them look in the mirror will change that as the belief system resides prominantly in the emotional brain, not the logical brain.
There is no evidence that God exists, so why do people kill themselves in his name? Because they believe he does. They have so much emotion attached to the idea of a God and redemption in the afterlife conditioned from early childhood. All those years they have been convinced and convinced themselves by putting huge amounts of emotional faith in this idea that no simple intellectual understanding can remove.
On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote: That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.
Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.
Previously, a lot of efforts are spent on inter-species studying, the selfish gene theory opens a new area of biology/zoology where matters couldn't be explained thoroughly. The morality implication brought by his discoveries may be more concerned by the public though.
He brought science closer to a lot of people. Look at his position at Oxford, he holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science. Surely Oxford must think he is a true scientist before he can spread it to general public... And his position means that his work are more known for their easiness of reading, hence making people think hes not a true scientist...
On July 17 2008 01:49 SirKibbleX wrote: Why do anorexic girls think that they're fat? Because they repeatedly tell themselves that they are. Over the years they FEEL horrible about themselves, this negative emotion builds and builds until they completely believe they are fat, and no amount of telling them otherwise or having them look in the mirror will change that as the belief system resides prominantly in the emotional brain, not the logical brain.
There is no evidence that God exists, so why do people kill themselves in his name? Because they believe he does. They have so much emotion attached to the idea of a God and redemption in the afterlife conditioned from early childhood. All those years they have been convinced and convinced themselves by putting huge amounts of emotional faith in this idea that no simple intellectual understanding can remove.
On July 17 2008 01:49 SirKibbleX wrote: Why do anorexic girls think that they're fat? Because they repeatedly tell themselves that they are. Over the years they FEEL horrible about themselves, this negative emotion builds and builds until they completely believe they are fat, and no amount of telling them otherwise or having them look in the mirror will change that as the belief system resides prominantly in the emotional brain, not the logical brain.
There is no evidence that God exists, so why do people kill themselves in his name? Because they believe he does. They have so much emotion attached to the idea of a God and redemption in the afterlife conditioned from early childhood. All those years they have been convinced and convinced themselves by putting huge amounts of emotional faith in this idea that no simple intellectual understanding can remove.
That's a very attractive theory
it'd be more attractive if it lost a little weight
On July 17 2008 17:10 0z wrote: When I discovered santa klaus wasn't real, i didn't stop believing my parents.
then you should agree with the point that keeping lies around to make people behave better is probably not a good thing or to say the very least, there are better ways to go about teaching people to act justly.
On July 17 2008 17:10 0z wrote: When I discovered santa klaus wasn't real, i didn't stop believing my parents.
then you should agree with the point that keeping lies around to make people behave better is probably not a good thing or to say the very least, there are better ways to go about teaching people to act justly.
How does it follow that I should agree with that point? I would rather interpret my remark as an indicator that I lean towards the opposite opinion. (Actually I don't know if I lean or not, it was just a balancing counterexample to some remark of somebody, i think BottleAbuser)
On July 17 2008 17:10 0z wrote: When I discovered santa klaus wasn't real, i didn't stop believing my parents.
then you should agree with the point that keeping lies around to make people behave better is probably not a good thing or to say the very least, there are better ways to go about teaching people to act justly.
How does it follow that I should agree with that point? I would rather interpret my remark as an indicator that I lean towards the opposite opinion. (Actually I don't know if I lean or not, it was just a balancing counterexample to some remark of somebody, i think BottleAbuser)
i think i may be misunderstanding u then. maybe we're on the same page. can u restate ur point?
I said that using convenient lies to encourage desirable behavior may not be a good thing, because them stupid plebs might someday find out that you were telling them lies. Good-intentioned or not, they may feel that the lies are an indication that them damn lying scientists aren't trustworthy after all, so this strategy is not a strong one in the long term (order of decades, not months).
As a counterexample, 0z points out that his parents lied to him, he realized it, and he does not have diminished faith in his parents. However, how likely would it have been that you believed your parents if they told you some other mystical creature was bringing you your presents, it just wasn't Santa Claus? Consider also that you probably have strong reasons to have faith in your parents other than what they told you before. You have a strong bias towards trusting them, which is the opposite with scientists and politicians. Especially with people who are both.
I think lies for children are part of the way a religion matures.
If someone gets up to the age where they learn about Santa and the Easter Bunny, and that doesn't clue them in about God, they're probably not both intellectually and emotionally equipped to deal with undiluted reality for the rest of their life.
On July 18 2008 09:14 BottleAbuser wrote: I said that using convenient lies to encourage desirable behavior may not be a good thing, because them stupid plebs might someday find out that you were telling them lies. Good-intentioned or not, they may feel that the lies are an indication that them damn lying scientists aren't trustworthy after all, so this strategy is not a strong one in the long term (order of decades, not months).
As a counterexample, 0z points out that his parents lied to him, he realized it, and he does not have diminished faith in his parents. However, how likely would it have been that you believed your parents if they told you some other mystical creature was bringing you your presents, it just wasn't Santa Claus? Consider also that you probably have strong reasons to have faith in your parents other than what they told you before. You have a strong bias towards trusting them, which is the opposite with scientists and politicians. Especially with people who are both.
Have you noticed then, that people usually refer to the priest as 'father'? It might be that most people need some kind of consolation source after they outgrow the age where physical parents can do the job after all. Not scientists of course, their job is totally different, indeed many scientists themselfves follow some kind of religion which underlines this separation. In terms of qualifying this as good or bad I think one has many options, simiarly many people find it bad that the lion needs a good bite of antelope flesh to keep himself going, but another point of view is that this is just how things are.
On July 17 2008 17:10 0z wrote: When I discovered santa klaus wasn't real, i didn't stop believing my parents.
then you should agree with the point that keeping lies around to make people behave better is probably not a good thing or to say the very least, there are better ways to go about teaching people to act justly.
How does it follow that I should agree with that point? I would rather interpret my remark as an indicator that I lean towards the opposite opinion. (Actually I don't know if I lean or not, it was just a balancing counterexample to some remark of somebody, i think BottleAbuser)
i think i may be misunderstanding u then. maybe we're on the same page. can u restate ur point?
The point is that you didn't provide argumentation for your claim that putting people in the dark is always bad and bottleabuser provided an argument which alone doesn't hold, due to the counterexample I gave. Bottleabuser then expanded his argument and the discussion went on - see above.
I want to believe that everyone trained in logic will see the inconsistencies with religion. The evidence doesn't allow me to do so. Logical attacks on religion fail. Dawkins, in this regard, is beating a dead horse. There is no hope for the eternally (or at least until they're dead) damned. Is there?
On July 18 2008 17:41 BottleAbuser wrote: I want to believe that everyone trained in logic will see the inconsistencies with religion. The evidence doesn't allow me to do so. Logical attacks on religion fail. Dawkins, in this regard, is beating a dead horse. There is no hope for the eternally (or at least until they're dead) damned. Is there?
logical attacks on religion can be overriden by faith and brainwashing, they are not entirely useless. dawkins is aimed at the people on the fence or the weakly religious. laying bare religions logical issues can very often 'convert' them.
I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.
Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.
Hahahahahaha. Oh man. you cite some highschool science stuff and because that is easy therefor evolutionary biology is easy. Yeah i alway thought those geneticists get far too much credit. The mendelian Laws are really not that complicated...
Evolutionary Biology today is a very complicated science that involves a lot (and i am talking a lot) of mathematical modelling. You can actually do quite a bit with all the new information from modern molecular biology. Here is one random example Evolution at a multiallelic locus under migration and uniform selection
People like you really crack me up. You clearly don''t know what you are talking about but still you know of course better than those stupid scientist, those pathetic experts. What do they know. Oh and Dawkins did not fail as a scientist. Go to the website of the university of Oxford and download his curriculum vitae, than take a look at the list of his publications in Journals. After that come back and tell us again that he failed as a scientist.
Dawkins provides a counterweight to the outspoken frontfaces of religion and is thus in some ways a favourable speaker for scienece. Just don't make the misstake of regarding his point of view as the general concensus of a theoretical collective of current day scientists.
Dawkins earlier work which he as a point of argument (and in many ways as a Devils Advocate) has decided to stick with later in his career doesn't really fall within the boundaries of science at all as it fails to present actual disputable theories. Without comparing the two, i will make a parallell between his work and that of number mystics. Both are attempts to find a thoughtmodel that 'fits' for a broader scope of collected thoughts. Sure - while we see several evident examples of mathematically perfect shapes appearing in various aspects of nature, putting our finger on this really doesn't lead anywhere, just like declaring that 'genes determine everything' while seemingly accurate in many cases - leads nowhere.
What should be regarded as a Dawkins threads main purpose is its ability to disarm theology. "If Dawkins is so wrong, what's to say your prophet isn't? Dawkins evolutionary drives and functional principles are as valid points of view as Christianitys moral standpoints."
Discussing Dawkins work is off topic in my mind. Yeah, honestly. If you want to do that you're way off and in as deep waters as anyone arguing the Theodosian (no idea if that translates to anglian differently) problem with a spokeseperson for Christianity - something which should be done 1on1 if you want anything fruitful to come of it.
Dawkins is a brilliant man with outstanding academical achievement in his backpack. Concidering his radical theories anything more than a troll for the religious scholars is an insult to his intelligence.
Btw, nothing would have given me more satisfaction than if L. Ron had stated in his will something along the lines of "Oh, guys - scientology? Looool, was just trolling you ffs, damn people are stupid. I'll be laughing at ya throughout eternity." Dawkins doesn't even need to do that seeing how it's so apparent from speaking with the man - he's a thinking human being and not a zealot which you'd have to be to actually believe in some of the stuff he's trolling us with.
I was watching a video of Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss give their Something from Nothing talk at Australian National University on 10 April 2012.
Lo and behold a guy comes up to the microphone to ask a question branding a TL shirt! We are everywhere! Fess up, who was that?
But Dawkins’s theory of the “moral Zeitgeist” clearly does not solve the problem of how to validate moral ideas by reference to reality; it just treats collective opinion as though it were objective fact. That a changing moral consensus exists and that most people unthinkingly absorb their moral views through social osmosis does not mean that the consensus is correct or that people should acquire their moral views this way. Although Dawkins acknowledges that we can and must judge the contents of the Bible by reference to an independent moral standard, he fails to recognize that we can and must judge the social consensus by reference to the same.
This is an excellent article about the "New Atheists". Although they deserve a lot of credit for illuminating why various religions and their dogmas are contradictory and anti-life, they fail to offer a positive alternative to religious ethics, often times invoking faith or some arbitrary reason for their own beliefs.
Full article here. It does an excellent job of showing these atheist's own contradictions and short comings. And offers it's own solutions.
On June 12 2015 10:19 Hier wrote: I was watching a video of Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss give their Something from Nothing talk at Australian National University on 10 April 2012.
Lo and behold a guy comes up to the microphone to ask a question branding a TL shirt! We are everywhere! Fess up, who was that?
But Dawkins’s theory of the “moral Zeitgeist” clearly does not solve the problem of how to validate moral ideas by reference to reality; it just treats collective opinion as though it were objective fact. That a changing moral consensus exists and that most people unthinkingly absorb their moral views through social osmosis does not mean that the consensus is correct or that people should acquire their moral views this way. Although Dawkins acknowledges that we can and must judge the contents of the Bible by reference to an independent moral standard, he fails to recognize that we can and must judge the social consensus by reference to the same.
This is an excellent article about the "New Atheists". Although they deserve a lot of credit for illuminating why various religions and their dogmas are contradictory and anti-life, they fail to offer a positive alternative to religious ethics, often times invoking faith or some arbitrary reason for their own beliefs.
Full article here. It does an excellent job of showing these atheist's own contradictions and short comings. And offers it's own solutions.
I found that to be a pretty terrible article (and not because it criticizes Harris, Hawkins etc. - I don't care much about them even though I'm an atheist myself). First, I disagree with the following statement:
In order to persuade religionists to abandon their dangerous beliefs, one must do more than show what is wrong with religion—one must provide something positive to fill the moral void. One must show that an objective morality exists and that it is based not on revelation or faith but on observable facts.
I don't see why morality has to be "objective". Morality is a social construct and is therefore intersubjective, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Second, the author argues that altruism isn't innate, while research indicates that there may well be an innate component to empathy (see the experiments conducted by Paul Bloom and Karen Wynn, for example), even if our empathy and altruism then develop through our interactions with our environment (to put it concisely, it therefore looks to be a matter of both nature and nurture).
Third, the author argues that egoism is more rationally moral than altruism, which is, to me, nonsense in terms of pretending that the statement has any claim at objectivity. It may be the view of Ayn Rand and others, but there's nothing "objective" about egoism being more moral than altruism, since again morality is intersubjective. Egoism is also only more rational than altruism in some cases and not in others, for example when your objective is self-preservation or self-advancement (and even then, it's not always the more rational behavior), which makes the argument tautological.
EPT
Ill see if I can find it...
You can use your life to make the world a better place. Or just use your time to have the most fun possible.
![[image loading]](http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/9374/lorevirginbirthpr8.gif)
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
![[image loading]](http://nomadcom.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/sciencevsfaith.gif)
