It's quite simple; if you want to hypothesize the existence of a divine entity, you've got to go about figuring out how to prove it's existence.
For those unaware, there are theologians and religious philosophers trying to do just this.
they're having about as much success as people trying to prove 5th through 9th dimensional space exists outside of the mathematical equations they've developed, AFAIK.
Still, call me weird. I can go out, stare at the sky, and know with fairly good certainty why every star out there shines, what they are made of, and how they behave. I know where they came from, up to a point. But to me, I still see the work of God. I am not a bible thumper, and I don't believe God strikes people down from the heavens. Hell, I don't think God directly interferes with people's lives that often. But I believe he's there. And that's good enough for me. I feel no compulsion to prove he's there.
Haphazard: It's a theory, is it not? Or has my Soviet era education let me down again?
No, you´re absolutely right. But how do you argue against someone who has the truth on his side? Because God made the universe in seven days and there was no big bang.
It's quite simple; if you want to hypothesize the existence of a divine entity, you've got to go about figuring out how to prove it's existence.
For those unaware, there are theologians and religious philosophers trying to do just this.
they're having about as much success as people trying to prove 5th through 9th dimensional space exists outside of the mathematical equations they've developed, AFAIK.
Still, call me weird. I can go out, stare at the sky, and know with fairly good certainty why every star out there shines, what they are made of, and how they behave. I know where they came from, up to a point. But to me, I still see the work of God. I am not a bible thumper, and I don't believe God strikes people down from the heavens. Hell, I don't think God directly interferes with people's lives that often. But I believe he's there. And that's good enough for me. I feel no compulsion to prove he's there.
What are your impressions, if any, of vocal atheists such as Dawkins and their criticisms of moderate religious people?
It's quite simple; if you want to hypothesize the existence of a divine entity, you've got to go about figuring out how to prove it's existence.
For those unaware, there are theologians and religious philosophers trying to do just this.
they're having about as much success as people trying to prove 5th through 9th dimensional space exists outside of the mathematical equations they've developed, AFAIK.
Still, call me weird. I can go out, stare at the sky, and know with fairly good certainty why every star out there shines, what they are made of, and how they behave. I know where they came from, up to a point. But to me, I still see the work of God. I am not a bible thumper, and I don't believe God strikes people down from the heavens. Hell, I don't think God directly interferes with people's lives that often. But I believe he's there. And that's good enough for me. I feel no compulsion to prove he's there.
That's totally fine, I not only support your belief but applaud you for it. This is why religion and belief should not subject itself to a debate with science, it will always lose.
And MV, just because a cause isn't known or agreed upon doesn't mean attributing it to god will lend it any more scientific creedence. Just like my claiming that fairy's bowling caused the big bang doesn't make it a valid theory. Religion and science should just stay the hell out of each other's way.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Haphazard: It's a theory, is it not? Or has my Soviet era education let me down again?
No, you´re absolutely right. But how do you argue against someone who has the truth on his side? Because God made the universe in seven days and there was no big bang.
Did God not say "let there be light?" Do explosions not cause a great deal of light?
This explosion was pretty fucking big. It could have taken seven days.
This is all, of course, assuming that the Genesis presentation is the true one.
MVMosin on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
100% honest: I have never heard any of Dawkin's works. The way I hear people talk about him, I get the impression I wouldn't enjoy what he says, and I haven't had a serious reason to go look them up. As I said, I try to steer clear of religious debate these days. I've seen how much good religion has done in people's lives, and how much good atheists have done. I've just come to the conclusion that religion, or the lack thereof, is no where near as important as how one lives their life.
if you say atheist three times it will summon Loren's vengeful spirit
My action name/vengeful spirit name is "Loco Magnum".
Moderates get alot of flak because they cover for the fundies way too often. When was the last time you saw a moderate pastor tell pat robertson to shut the fuck up eh?
Well, I'm a strong advocate for the position that moderates do offer cover, but it's not because they don't address fundamentalists-- they do --it's because they're unwilling and unable to criticize the core claims on anything other than subjective grounds. The gist of the argument is that their "moderate" interpretation of the bible is somehow more correct than the Pat Robertsons or James Dobsons, rather than that the entire institution is based on subjective reasoning filtered through bronze age/iron age mythology and philosophy.
Moderates give cover for religion as a whole, which implicitly gives cover to fundamentalists (and everyone else under the umbrella of religion).
everyone needs to lighten up and just respect each others different viewpoints. Why do people feel the need to impose their beleifs on each other? This is for both religious people and atheists: quit pretending you know everything.
If someone believes that women are lesser beings than men, and should be treated as something akin to chattel, should we respect that different viewpoint?
How about the astronomer? Should he respect the astrologer's viewpoint? The archaeologist? The philosopher? The biologist?
It's quite simple; if you want to hypothesize the existence of a divine entity, you've got to go about figuring out how to prove it's existence.
For those unaware, there are theologians and religious philosophers trying to do just this.
they're having about as much success as people trying to prove 5th through 9th dimensional space exists outside of the mathematical equations they've developed, AFAIK.
Still, call me weird. I can go out, stare at the sky, and know with fairly good certainty why every star out there shines, what they are made of, and how they behave. I know where they came from, up to a point. But to me, I still see the work of God. I am not a bible thumper, and I don't believe God strikes people down from the heavens. Hell, I don't think God directly interferes with people's lives that often. But I believe he's there. And that's good enough for me. I feel no compulsion to prove he's there.
That's totally fine, I not only support your belief but applaud you for it. This is why religion and belief should not subject itself to a debate with science, it will always lose.
And MV, just because a cause isn't known or agreed upon doesn't mean attributing it to god will lend it any more scientific creedence. Just like my claiming that fairy's bowling caused the big bang doesn't make it a valid theory. Religion and science should just stay the hell out of each other's way.
It's not supposed to lend it more creedence. My point is, it doesn't take any away, thus making it an equally valid theory. No more valid, and no less.
MVMosin on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
Loren, my church was not the norm when I worked there, but for the most part my denomination does interpret the bible through the subjective lens. The whole thing. About the only thing we took as literal was the words of Christ, before he died. And then, only from certain books. All of the Methodist study bibles have notation for when the books were written, who they might have been written by, and what they might have been written for. We try to derive modern meaning and insight from the works of the past, much as one might turn to the Greek philosophers as a foundation for modern philosophy.
As for the sexism comment, I'm not touching that one. I know a lot of religions do that, which is sad.. But that is a cultural stigma that is reinforced by religion. AFAIK, the best way to change that is to change the culture.
What are your impressions, if any, of vocal atheists such as Dawkins and their criticisms of moderate religious people?
Everything I've read by Dawkins screams "STRAWMAN" to me. If he wants to go around saying religion is terrible, he should probably learn a bit more about it first. You'd think someone with a background in science would understand that. You don't go arguing the finer points of Genetics based on what you remember from that Grade 11 Biology class you took 10 years ago.
Well, I'm a strong advocate for the position that moderates do offer cover, but it's not because they don't address fundamentalists-- they do --it's because they're unwilling and unable to criticize the core claims on anything other than subjective grounds. The gist of the argument is that their "moderate" interpretation of the bible is somehow more correct than the Pat Robertsons or James Dobsons, rather than that the entire institution is based on subjective reasoning filtered through bronze age/iron age mythology and philosophy.
The fact that the distinction between moderates and fundies is "soft" also supports the argument that promoting moderation is a better and faster way to reduce fundamentalism than promoting atheism.
Your criticism above assumes some process for reducing fundamentalism that does not involve religious moderates. What is that process? Where do all the fundies go?
It's not supposed to lend it more creedence. My point is, it doesn't take any away, thus making it an equally valid theory. No more valid, and no less.
No. It does make it less valid.
When you talk about what caused the big bang, scientifically speaking, whatever you come up with has to be supported by evidence that we have observed (and it's there, as some folks mentioned upthread.) Saying 'God did it' removes scientific validity because you can't prove or disprove God's existence!
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
It's not supposed to lend it more creedence. My point is, it doesn't take any away, thus making it an equally valid theory. No more valid, and no less.
No. It does make it less valid.
When you talk about what caused the big bang, scientifically speaking, whatever you come up with has to be supported by evidence that we have observed (and it's there, as some folks mentioned upthread.) Saying 'God did it' removes scientific validity because you can't prove or disprove God's existence!
For the record, I've been attacked before for granting what you just said. I believe the person called it a "God of the Gaps" theory. Basically, I acknowledged a certain sphere of the universe as scientifically based, and then placed God out in the extra dimensions and things we have no scientific basis to explore at this point. Call it placing God in the heavens, or whatever. But it gets to me when I concede things and people continue to attack me. Comes across as.. preachy.
It's not supposed to lend it more creedence. My point is, it doesn't take any away, thus making it an equally valid theory. No more valid, and no less.
No. It does make it less valid.
When you talk about what caused the big bang, scientifically speaking, whatever you come up with has to be supported by evidence that we have observed (and it's there, as some folks mentioned upthread.) Saying 'God did it' removes scientific validity because you can't prove or disprove God's existence!
And whatever did cause the big bang, we can't prove or disprove that, either.
You could of course consider that new evidence may come up, but you could also consider that god, if there is one, may decide to just reveal himself/herself/itself/themselves to us.
In my past expierience, I have always found that when faced with two issues ( in this case belief or non-belief in God), that the answer usually lies somewhere in between. In most cases, its the RADICALS of those beliefs who arrogantly profess their side of the story, with no other acceptable possiblities.
Unfortunatly, its people like this (the radicals) who become the "spokesperson" for that side of the issue. In turn, a terrible vision of what that side is "all about" becomes lost in translation. (My best relation to this would be Bill O'Reilly. Or on the other side, Bill Mahr). Lets not get into the details about these two guys, b/c i'm sure there's people from both sides who will tear them apart -- but what matters is that not only do they disagree, but they bash the other side. And that's what radicals do. Normal people (at least everyone i have talked to) are more in the middle of these types of issues.
I'm at a loss ( and most times just don't associate ) with people who are radicals of an issue. From my perspective, I don't think evolution denies creation - its the radicals or inept who believe that it does. In reality, It takes just as much faith to believe that a bing bang occured which was so precise that it allowed for life to begin on earth; as it does to believe that a supreme being created the heavens and earth.
Well, I'm a strong advocate for the position that moderates do offer cover, but it's not because they don't address fundamentalists-- they do --it's because they're unwilling and unable to criticize the core claims on anything other than subjective grounds. The gist of the argument is that their "moderate" interpretation of the bible is somehow more correct than the Pat Robertsons or James Dobsons, rather than that the entire institution is based on subjective reasoning filtered through bronze age/iron age mythology and philosophy.
The fact that the distinction between moderates and fundies is "soft" also supports the argument that promoting moderation is a better and faster way to reduce fundamentalism than promoting atheism.
Your criticism above assumes some process for reducing fundamentalism that does not involve religious moderates. What is that process? Where do all the fundies go?
I have to go learn Chinese now, so I'll try and respond in more detail later, but I prefer that, yes, everyone simply drops the religious ball and stops playing that game.
At the same time, and this is a statement that I have made very often in the past, religious moderation is better than most of the alternatives in the religious sphere. In that respect, I'm all for changing the number of moderates versus the number of conservatives within the population of religious people.
But again, my issue is with religion in general. There's no reason that the problems of moderates should be swept under the rug.
What are your impressions, if any, of vocal atheists such as Dawkins and their criticisms of moderate religious people?
Everything I've read by Dawkins screams "STRAWMAN" to me. If he wants to go around saying religion is terrible, he should probably learn a bit more about it first. You'd think someone with a background in science would understand that. You don't go arguing the finer points of Genetics based on what you remember from that Grade 11 Biology class you took 10 years ago.
You don't have to know the finer points of astrology to call it bullshit.
If someone says that Jesus rose from the dead, you can say that that's almost certainly not true. AKA, bullshit. When someone tries to bring up all the great theology, you can say hey, no, that resurrection thing? That's bullshit.
The definition of god (an all powerful being who I can't in any way detect) excludes me from having absolute faith that he does not exist. Certainly, something that fits that description could exist without my knowing.
I choose to live my life believing that he/she does not exist, knowing that he/she might exist but not really caring either way. My morals, values and beliefs (besides those with are spiritual) match nearly identically with Christian morals, values and beliefs.
What's the harm in that? And why would I want to convince anyone otherwise in their religious views?
I just don't understand why everyone cares so much what everyone else believes.
It's not supposed to lend it more creedence. My point is, it doesn't take any away, thus making it an equally valid theory. No more valid, and no less.
No. It does make it less valid.
When you talk about what caused the big bang, scientifically speaking, whatever you come up with has to be supported by evidence that we have observed (and it's there, as some folks mentioned upthread.) Saying 'God did it' removes scientific validity because you can't prove or disprove God's existence!
And whatever did cause the big bang, we can't prove or disprove that, either.
You could of course consider that new evidence may come up, but you could also consider that god, if there is one, may decide to just reveal himself/herself/itself/themselves to us.
Well, you know, doing new research, discovering new evidence... that's sort of how these things work. If you want to wait on a 60,000 foot hand to come out of the clouds and answer all our questions, then I suppose that's up to you.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And the Christian, in this case, can just as easily say "No, it's not bullshit."
An impasse!
The only way the two parties can possibly agree, is to agree to disagree.
Asking someone to prove a conviction made in faith is like... It's like a bank asking for cash as collateral, when you ask them for a loan. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. At all.
Religion should deal with the metaphysical. This is fine. I'm even ok with people bringing up their children in religious faiths, I think the social and moral aspects outweigh the violations of brainwashing them.
When religion starts dealing with the physical, as in real things, issues arise. See Creationism, ID, Bush declaring his god told him to go to war in Iraq, idiots blowing up busloads of civilians, so on.
The physical world is the world of science, of reality. Decisions should be backed up with actual evidence. This is sorely lacking in religions (and politics, but that's another issue), so they shouldn't play any part in real decisions.
There is also the issue of culture and religion getting messed up, such as religion being used as an excuse to repress women or start a war or whatever. This just complicates the issue.
It's not supposed to lend it more creedence. My point is, it doesn't take any away, thus making it an equally valid theory. No more valid, and no less.
No. It does make it less valid.
When you talk about what caused the big bang, scientifically speaking, whatever you come up with has to be supported by evidence that we have observed (and it's there, as some folks mentioned upthread.) Saying 'God did it' removes scientific validity because you can't prove or disprove God's existence!
And whatever did cause the big bang, we can't prove or disprove that, either.
You could of course consider that new evidence may come up, but you could also consider that god, if there is one, may decide to just reveal himself/herself/itself/themselves to us.
Well, you know, doing new research, discovering new evidence... that's sort of how these things work. If you want to wait on a 60,000 foot hand to come out of the clouds and answer all our questions, then I suppose that's up to you.
My point is: If you gain evidence that clearly points to an origin of the explosion that is irrefutably not caused by a divine entity, then you can say "Look everybody, I proved the secular origins of the universe!" And if that happens, please do tell me.
But until then, there is no scientific basis for not believing in a god/goddess/gods and/or goddesses.
Of course, some snarky kid will probably say (At least to himself) "Yeah, except common sense!" or something to that effect, and then we get back to the supreme arrogance thing.
I think there is an atheist movement going on, but its by no means organized.
The greater our freedom of thought, ideas and debate becomes, the larger the atheistic community will become. The internet has played a large role in this, and as we advance as a society and our children have greater and greater freedom to explore every possibility and mode of thought the greater the atheist population will be.
Like alot of kids, I went to public school. At public school, we are mixed with people of every faith, color, and backround. As I grew up, I realized that I would have been so angry at my parents if I was placed in a Christian school. Pretty much everyone around me agreed, though I came to eventually learn that most of those that went to a Christian school were even angrier than I was. They were the ones having faith shoved down their throats after all.
My point is, except in a few places I think religion is losing the battle to freedom of information. Whether thats a good thing or bad is up to you to decide, but I find it encouraging.
And the Christian, in this case, can just as easily say "No, it's not bullshit."
An impasse!
The only way the two parties can possibly agree, is to agree to disagree.
Asking someone to prove a conviction made in faith is like... It's like a bank asking for cash as collateral, when you ask them for a loan. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. At all.
Which is all well and good, except that you started this argument by saying that religious beliefs belonged on equal footing with scientific theories. Which, as you just said, doesn't make any fucking sense at all.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Well, I'm a strong advocate for the position that moderates do offer cover, but it's not because they don't address fundamentalists-- they do --it's because they're unwilling and unable to criticize the core claims on anything other than subjective grounds. The gist of the argument is that their "moderate" interpretation of the bible is somehow more correct than the Pat Robertsons or James Dobsons, rather than that the entire institution is based on subjective reasoning filtered through bronze age/iron age mythology and philosophy.
The fact that the distinction between moderates and fundies is "soft" also supports the argument that promoting moderation is a better and faster way to reduce fundamentalism than promoting atheism.
Your criticism above assumes some process for reducing fundamentalism that does not involve religious moderates. What is that process? Where do all the fundies go?
I have to go learn Chinese now, so I'll try and respond in more detail later, but I prefer that, yes, everyone simply drops the religious ball and stops playing that game.
At the same time, and this is a statement that I have made very often in the past, religious moderation is better than most of the alternatives in the religious sphere. In that respect, I'm all for changing the number of moderates versus the number of conservatives within the population of religious people.
But again, my issue is with religion in general. There's no reason that the problems of moderates should be swept under the rug.
Here's what I see:
1. You want to reduce fundamentalism.
2. You hold the unproven belief that moderate religion "provides cover" for fundamentalism, despite there being no evidence to support this, and despite the existence of competing hypotheses that are at least equally plausible.
3. On the basis of #2, you take actions that contradict #1. Namely, alienating religious moderates by making categorical statements about religion, and by promoting #2 regardless of your lack of evidence.
It seems to me that the rational alternative to #3 is to accept the uncertainty about the role of moderate religion in reducing fundamentalism, and work with moderates instead of pushing them away. Encourage them to become even more moderate, and encourage them to work even harder on the common goal of reducing fundamentalism.
And the Christian, in this case, can just as easily say "No, it's not bullshit."
An impasse!
The only way the two parties can possibly agree, is to agree to disagree.
Asking someone to prove a conviction made in faith is like... It's like a bank asking for cash as collateral, when you ask them for a loan. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. At all.
Which is all well and good, except that you started this argument by saying that religious beliefs belonged on equal footing with scientific theories. Which, as you just said, doesn't make any fucking sense at all.
Let me be more specific: Religious theories regarding things which we have minimal knowledge of, such as the birth of the universe, deserve to be on equal footing with secular theories, because the issue here cannot be tilted in favour of one side.
What are your impressions, if any, of vocal atheists such as Dawkins and their criticisms of moderate religious people?
Everything I've read by Dawkins screams "STRAWMAN" to me. If he wants to go around saying religion is terrible, he should probably learn a bit more about it first. You'd think someone with a background in science would understand that. You don't go arguing the finer points of Genetics based on what you remember from that Grade 11 Biology class you took 10 years ago.
You don't have to know the finer points of astrology to call it bullshit.
If someone says that Jesus rose from the dead, you can say that that's almost certainly not true. AKA, bullshit. When someone tries to bring up all the great theology, you can say hey, no, that resurrection thing? That's bullshit.
Ok, why is it bullshit? You say it like it's a fact that's been proved or something.
It's arguments like this that are exactly what I'm talking about. You come out saying that it's bullshit as if it's an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
FYI - You do have to understand at least some Astrology before you can call it bullshit. Astrology says that the movements of planets and stars somehow determine our personal future. It says that the relationship between the positions and orientations of Earth and , for instance, Jupiter somehow directly effect the outcome of my relationship with a women. That's why it's bullshit.
I just don't understand why everyone cares so much what everyone else believes.
George Bush has strong republican beliefs that do not coincide with my personal beliefs. George Bush has been elected to President of the United States. The president of the united states appoints Justices of the Supreme Court. The supreme court decides upon laws for the United States, which i in turn have to follow. This means if George Bush is in office long enough, he will appoint like minded people (whos beliefs do not coincide with mine) in seats of power.
(The next statement is not a burn on bush)
No one cared about Hitler till the shit hit the fan. We need to actively participate in society and movements, lest jews, or blacks, or gays, or whites, or mexicans, or straight people, or democrats or republicans or men or women or w/e is thrown into the fucking gas chamber. Our goddamn rights are always at stake, and our ability to CARE (which is lacking) is what keeps us going.
PS -- i don't know how to properly quote somone. I know i know, l2p.
What are your impressions, if any, of vocal atheists such as Dawkins and their criticisms of moderate religious people?
Everything I've read by Dawkins screams "STRAWMAN" to me. If he wants to go around saying religion is terrible, he should probably learn a bit more about it first. You'd think someone with a background in science would understand that. You don't go arguing the finer points of Genetics based on what you remember from that Grade 11 Biology class you took 10 years ago.
You don't have to know the finer points of astrology to call it bullshit.
If someone says that Jesus rose from the dead, you can say that that's almost certainly not true. AKA, bullshit. When someone tries to bring up all the great theology, you can say hey, no, that resurrection thing? That's bullshit.
Ok, why is it bullshit? You say it like it's a fact that's been proved or something.
It's arguments like this that are exactly what I'm talking about. You come out saying that it's bullshit as if it's an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
FYI - You do have to understand at least some Astrology before you can call it bullshit. Astrology says that the movements of planets and stars somehow determine our personal future. It says that the relationship between the positions and orientations of Earth and , for instance, Jupiter somehow directly effect the outcome of my relationship with a women. That's why it's bullshit.
Interestingly enough, you don't have to understand the finer points of English. For example, you don't have to understand that "women" is a fucking plural noun, and effects doesn't mean what you think it means.
What are your impressions, if any, of vocal atheists such as Dawkins and their criticisms of moderate religious people?
Everything I've read by Dawkins screams "STRAWMAN" to me. If he wants to go around saying religion is terrible, he should probably learn a bit more about it first. You'd think someone with a background in science would understand that. You don't go arguing the finer points of Genetics based on what you remember from that Grade 11 Biology class you took 10 years ago.
You don't have to know the finer points of astrology to call it bullshit.
If someone says that Jesus rose from the dead, you can say that that's almost certainly not true. AKA, bullshit. When someone tries to bring up all the great theology, you can say hey, no, that resurrection thing? That's bullshit.
Ok, why is it bullshit? You say it like it's a fact that's been proved or something.
It's arguments like this that are exactly what I'm talking about. You come out saying that it's bullshit as if it's an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
FYI - You do have to understand at least some Astrology before you can call it bullshit. Astrology says that the movements of planets and stars somehow determine our personal future. It says that the relationship between the positions and orientations of Earth and , for instance, Jupiter somehow directly effect the outcome of my relationship with a women. That's why it's bullshit.
finer points
Why do you need to go any finer? It's crap right from the start. It's like saying computers are are acutally cages for really smart hobgoblins and that's how they work. You don't need to go into the finer points of how they feed themselves or how they communicate with the pixies in the monitor to know that it's wrong.
Me saying that a God exists and that he created the universe is not as easily dismissed since you can't really PROVE me wrong.
What are your impressions, if any, of vocal atheists such as Dawkins and their criticisms of moderate religious people?
Everything I've read by Dawkins screams "STRAWMAN" to me. If he wants to go around saying religion is terrible, he should probably learn a bit more about it first. You'd think someone with a background in science would understand that. You don't go arguing the finer points of Genetics based on what you remember from that Grade 11 Biology class you took 10 years ago.
You don't have to know the finer points of astrology to call it bullshit.
If someone says that Jesus rose from the dead, you can say that that's almost certainly not true. AKA, bullshit. When someone tries to bring up all the great theology, you can say hey, no, that resurrection thing? That's bullshit.
Ok, why is it bullshit? You say it like it's a fact that's been proved or something.
It's arguments like this that are exactly what I'm talking about. You come out saying that it's bullshit as if it's an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
FYI - You do have to understand at least some Astrology before you can call it bullshit. Astrology says that the movements of planets and stars somehow determine our personal future. It says that the relationship between the positions and orientations of Earth and , for instance, Jupiter somehow directly effect the outcome of my relationship with a women. That's why it's bullshit.
Why does believing the planets have an impact on our lives or future become bullshit but believe a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead does not?
Because popular opinion says so? That seems like a bullshit answer.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
What are your impressions, if any, of vocal atheists such as Dawkins and their criticisms of moderate religious people?
Everything I've read by Dawkins screams "STRAWMAN" to me. If he wants to go around saying religion is terrible, he should probably learn a bit more about it first. You'd think someone with a background in science would understand that. You don't go arguing the finer points of Genetics based on what you remember from that Grade 11 Biology class you took 10 years ago.
You don't have to know the finer points of astrology to call it bullshit.
If someone says that Jesus rose from the dead, you can say that that's almost certainly not true. AKA, bullshit. When someone tries to bring up all the great theology, you can say hey, no, that resurrection thing? That's bullshit.
Ok, why is it bullshit? You say it like it's a fact that's been proved or something.
It's arguments like this that are exactly what I'm talking about. You come out saying that it's bullshit as if it's an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
FYI - You do have to understand at least some Astrology before you can call it bullshit. Astrology says that the movements of planets and stars somehow determine our personal future. It says that the relationship between the positions and orientations of Earth and , for instance, Jupiter somehow directly effect the outcome of my relationship with a women. That's why it's bullshit.
finer points
Why do you need to go any finer? It's crap right from the start. It's like saying computers are are acutally cages for really smart hobgoblins and that's how they work. You don't need to go into the finer points of how they feed themselves or how they communicate with the pixies in the monitor to know that it's wrong.
Me saying that a God exists and that he created the universe is not as easily dismissed since you can't really PROVE me wrong.
You seemed to be disagreeing with Loren by pointing out that you needed to know something about Astrology to know that it is bullshit. I was pointing out that the information you gave did not qualify as finer points, and thus you didn't really disagree with him.
MVMosin, are you familiar with Occam's razor? When doing science, it is believed that the most parsimonous, or least complicated explanation is the best one. Now, it is true that we can not explain (at least yet...) what caused the universe to come into existance, with our present models breaking down in singularities and so on.
But let's say that we introduce a creator as the original mover. And he/she/it will be just that, an original mover since nothing we observe about the world today with scientific methods indicates that something supernatural is afoot now or has been in the past.
Ok, now we have two theories. One with a creator and one without. In all other aspects they are equivalent. But one is more complex than the other... introducing a god/creator/something that started the universe has no better explanatory power than not introducing god and is less parsimonous.
So from a scientific stand-point, the belief in a creator is not as good a theory. Anyway, english is not my native language and I'm sure one of the more prolific posters here will come up with something better soon...
What are your impressions, if any, of vocal atheists such as Dawkins and their criticisms of moderate religious people?
Everything I've read by Dawkins screams "STRAWMAN" to me. If he wants to go around saying religion is terrible, he should probably learn a bit more about it first. You'd think someone with a background in science would understand that. You don't go arguing the finer points of Genetics based on what you remember from that Grade 11 Biology class you took 10 years ago.
You don't have to know the finer points of astrology to call it bullshit.
If someone says that Jesus rose from the dead, you can say that that's almost certainly not true. AKA, bullshit. When someone tries to bring up all the great theology, you can say hey, no, that resurrection thing? That's bullshit.
Ok, why is it bullshit? You say it like it's a fact that's been proved or something.
It's arguments like this that are exactly what I'm talking about. You come out saying that it's bullshit as if it's an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
FYI - You do have to understand at least some Astrology before you can call it bullshit. Astrology says that the movements of planets and stars somehow determine our personal future. It says that the relationship between the positions and orientations of Earth and , for instance, Jupiter somehow directly effect the outcome of my relationship with a women. That's why it's bullshit.
Why does believing the planets have an impact on our lives or future become bullshit but believe a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead does not?
Because popular opinion says so? That seems like a bullshit answer.
Do it a hundred years ago and see how different your results are from today. Einstein was religous, as were most (if not almost all) of the scientists back then.
It's always seemed like atheist slant of academia is a very recent thing.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
It takes just as much faith to believe that a bing bang occured which was so precise that it allowed for life to begin on earth; as it does to believe that a supreme being created the heavens and earth.
There's a lot of evidence supporting a Big Bang; not so much a "supreme being."
And as a sidenote, the idea that there's only life because of how "precise" the Big Bang was or that the Big Bang was trying to create life or something isn't a scientific viewpoint.
The definition of god (an all powerful being who I can't in any way detect) excludes me from having absolute faith that he does not exist. Certainly, something that fits that description could exist without my knowing.
This is actually the view of most atheists. I really dislike strong atheists (atheists who believe that it is impossible for a god to exist).
The issue of god is still like the issue of Russel's teapot, though, so it's safe to assume that there is no god until evidence is presented supporting the hypothesis that there is one.
Religious theories regarding things which we have minimal knowledge of, such as the birth of the universe, deserve to be on equal footing with secular theories, because the issue here cannot be tilted in favour of one side.
We don't have minimal knowledge; there's a ton of evidence to support the Big Bang.
If someone says that Jesus rose from the dead, you can say that that's almost certainly not true. AKA, bullshit. When someone tries to bring up all the great theology, you can say hey, no, that resurrection thing? That's bullshit.
Ok, why is it bullshit? You say it like it's a fact that's been proved or something.
It's arguments like this that are exactly what I'm talking about. You come out saying that it's bullshit as if it's an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Humans do not rise from the dead. This is an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Interestingly enough, you don't have to understand the finer points of English. For example, you don't have to understand that "women" is a fucking plural noun, and effects doesn't mean what you think it means.
Interestingly enough, isn't criticizing small spelling errors on the internet the equivalent of screaming "Well, your a poo head!". You ignore my argument and make a useless, mocking post.
Interestingly enough, you don't have to understand the finer points of English. For example, you don't have to understand that "women" is a fucking plural noun, and effects doesn't mean what you think it means.
Interestingly enough, isn't criticizing small spelling errors on the internet the equivalent of screaming "Well, your a poo head!". You ignore my argument and make a useless, mocking post.
Yes, it is. The appropriate response is to ignore him and hope he goes away. Trolls live on attention.
It's an obvious fact that something that was alive can not live again, but not obviously untrue at all to believe life can spontaneously come into existance?
Posts
But a secular physicist is not required to prove that it happened "just because."
Haphazard: It's a theory, is it not? Or has my Soviet era education let me down again?
For those unaware, there are theologians and religious philosophers trying to do just this.
they're having about as much success as people trying to prove 5th through 9th dimensional space exists outside of the mathematical equations they've developed, AFAIK.
Still, call me weird. I can go out, stare at the sky, and know with fairly good certainty why every star out there shines, what they are made of, and how they behave. I know where they came from, up to a point. But to me, I still see the work of God. I am not a bible thumper, and I don't believe God strikes people down from the heavens. Hell, I don't think God directly interferes with people's lives that often. But I believe he's there. And that's good enough for me. I feel no compulsion to prove he's there.
No, you´re absolutely right. But how do you argue against someone who has the truth on his side? Because God made the universe in seven days and there was no big bang.
What are your impressions, if any, of vocal atheists such as Dawkins and their criticisms of moderate religious people?
That's totally fine, I not only support your belief but applaud you for it. This is why religion and belief should not subject itself to a debate with science, it will always lose.
And MV, just because a cause isn't known or agreed upon doesn't mean attributing it to god will lend it any more scientific creedence. Just like my claiming that fairy's bowling caused the big bang doesn't make it a valid theory. Religion and science should just stay the hell out of each other's way.
Did God not say "let there be light?" Do explosions not cause a great deal of light?
This explosion was pretty fucking big. It could have taken seven days.
This is all, of course, assuming that the Genesis presentation is the true one.
My action name/vengeful spirit name is "Loco Magnum".
Well, I'm a strong advocate for the position that moderates do offer cover, but it's not because they don't address fundamentalists-- they do --it's because they're unwilling and unable to criticize the core claims on anything other than subjective grounds. The gist of the argument is that their "moderate" interpretation of the bible is somehow more correct than the Pat Robertsons or James Dobsons, rather than that the entire institution is based on subjective reasoning filtered through bronze age/iron age mythology and philosophy.
Moderates give cover for religion as a whole, which implicitly gives cover to fundamentalists (and everyone else under the umbrella of religion).
If someone believes that women are lesser beings than men, and should be treated as something akin to chattel, should we respect that different viewpoint?
How about the astronomer? Should he respect the astrologer's viewpoint? The archaeologist? The philosopher? The biologist?
It's not supposed to lend it more creedence. My point is, it doesn't take any away, thus making it an equally valid theory. No more valid, and no less.
As for the sexism comment, I'm not touching that one. I know a lot of religions do that, which is sad.. But that is a cultural stigma that is reinforced by religion. AFAIK, the best way to change that is to change the culture.
Everything I've read by Dawkins screams "STRAWMAN" to me. If he wants to go around saying religion is terrible, he should probably learn a bit more about it first. You'd think someone with a background in science would understand that. You don't go arguing the finer points of Genetics based on what you remember from that Grade 11 Biology class you took 10 years ago.
The fact that the distinction between moderates and fundies is "soft" also supports the argument that promoting moderation is a better and faster way to reduce fundamentalism than promoting atheism.
Your criticism above assumes some process for reducing fundamentalism that does not involve religious moderates. What is that process? Where do all the fundies go?
No. It does make it less valid.
When you talk about what caused the big bang, scientifically speaking, whatever you come up with has to be supported by evidence that we have observed (and it's there, as some folks mentioned upthread.) Saying 'God did it' removes scientific validity because you can't prove or disprove God's existence!
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
For the record, I've been attacked before for granting what you just said. I believe the person called it a "God of the Gaps" theory. Basically, I acknowledged a certain sphere of the universe as scientifically based, and then placed God out in the extra dimensions and things we have no scientific basis to explore at this point. Call it placing God in the heavens, or whatever. But it gets to me when I concede things and people continue to attack me. Comes across as.. preachy.
And whatever did cause the big bang, we can't prove or disprove that, either.
You could of course consider that new evidence may come up, but you could also consider that god, if there is one, may decide to just reveal himself/herself/itself/themselves to us.
Unfortunatly, its people like this (the radicals) who become the "spokesperson" for that side of the issue. In turn, a terrible vision of what that side is "all about" becomes lost in translation. (My best relation to this would be Bill O'Reilly. Or on the other side, Bill Mahr). Lets not get into the details about these two guys, b/c i'm sure there's people from both sides who will tear them apart -- but what matters is that not only do they disagree, but they bash the other side. And that's what radicals do. Normal people (at least everyone i have talked to) are more in the middle of these types of issues.
I'm at a loss ( and most times just don't associate ) with people who are radicals of an issue. From my perspective, I don't think evolution denies creation - its the radicals or inept who believe that it does. In reality, It takes just as much faith to believe that a bing bang occured which was so precise that it allowed for life to begin on earth; as it does to believe that a supreme being created the heavens and earth.
btw: 300 is the shit.
I have to go learn Chinese now, so I'll try and respond in more detail later, but I prefer that, yes, everyone simply drops the religious ball and stops playing that game.
At the same time, and this is a statement that I have made very often in the past, religious moderation is better than most of the alternatives in the religious sphere. In that respect, I'm all for changing the number of moderates versus the number of conservatives within the population of religious people.
But again, my issue is with religion in general. There's no reason that the problems of moderates should be swept under the rug.
You don't have to know the finer points of astrology to call it bullshit.
If someone says that Jesus rose from the dead, you can say that that's almost certainly not true. AKA, bullshit. When someone tries to bring up all the great theology, you can say hey, no, that resurrection thing? That's bullshit.
I choose to live my life believing that he/she does not exist, knowing that he/she might exist but not really caring either way. My morals, values and beliefs (besides those with are spiritual) match nearly identically with Christian morals, values and beliefs.
What's the harm in that? And why would I want to convince anyone otherwise in their religious views?
I just don't understand why everyone cares so much what everyone else believes.
Well, you know, doing new research, discovering new evidence... that's sort of how these things work. If you want to wait on a 60,000 foot hand to come out of the clouds and answer all our questions, then I suppose that's up to you.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
An impasse!
The only way the two parties can possibly agree, is to agree to disagree.
Asking someone to prove a conviction made in faith is like... It's like a bank asking for cash as collateral, when you ask them for a loan. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. At all.
When religion starts dealing with the physical, as in real things, issues arise. See Creationism, ID, Bush declaring his god told him to go to war in Iraq, idiots blowing up busloads of civilians, so on.
The physical world is the world of science, of reality. Decisions should be backed up with actual evidence. This is sorely lacking in religions (and politics, but that's another issue), so they shouldn't play any part in real decisions.
There is also the issue of culture and religion getting messed up, such as religion being used as an excuse to repress women or start a war or whatever. This just complicates the issue.
My point is: If you gain evidence that clearly points to an origin of the explosion that is irrefutably not caused by a divine entity, then you can say "Look everybody, I proved the secular origins of the universe!" And if that happens, please do tell me.
But until then, there is no scientific basis for not believing in a god/goddess/gods and/or goddesses.
Of course, some snarky kid will probably say (At least to himself) "Yeah, except common sense!" or something to that effect, and then we get back to the supreme arrogance thing.
The greater our freedom of thought, ideas and debate becomes, the larger the atheistic community will become. The internet has played a large role in this, and as we advance as a society and our children have greater and greater freedom to explore every possibility and mode of thought the greater the atheist population will be.
Like alot of kids, I went to public school. At public school, we are mixed with people of every faith, color, and backround. As I grew up, I realized that I would have been so angry at my parents if I was placed in a Christian school. Pretty much everyone around me agreed, though I came to eventually learn that most of those that went to a Christian school were even angrier than I was. They were the ones having faith shoved down their throats after all.
My point is, except in a few places I think religion is losing the battle to freedom of information. Whether thats a good thing or bad is up to you to decide, but I find it encouraging.
Which is all well and good, except that you started this argument by saying that religious beliefs belonged on equal footing with scientific theories. Which, as you just said, doesn't make any fucking sense at all.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Here's what I see:
1. You want to reduce fundamentalism.
2. You hold the unproven belief that moderate religion "provides cover" for fundamentalism, despite there being no evidence to support this, and despite the existence of competing hypotheses that are at least equally plausible.
3. On the basis of #2, you take actions that contradict #1. Namely, alienating religious moderates by making categorical statements about religion, and by promoting #2 regardless of your lack of evidence.
It seems to me that the rational alternative to #3 is to accept the uncertainty about the role of moderate religion in reducing fundamentalism, and work with moderates instead of pushing them away. Encourage them to become even more moderate, and encourage them to work even harder on the common goal of reducing fundamentalism.
Let me be more specific: Religious theories regarding things which we have minimal knowledge of, such as the birth of the universe, deserve to be on equal footing with secular theories, because the issue here cannot be tilted in favour of one side.
Ok, why is it bullshit? You say it like it's a fact that's been proved or something.
It's arguments like this that are exactly what I'm talking about. You come out saying that it's bullshit as if it's an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
FYI - You do have to understand at least some Astrology before you can call it bullshit. Astrology says that the movements of planets and stars somehow determine our personal future. It says that the relationship between the positions and orientations of Earth and , for instance, Jupiter somehow directly effect the outcome of my relationship with a women. That's why it's bullshit.
I just don't understand why everyone cares so much what everyone else believes.
George Bush has strong republican beliefs that do not coincide with my personal beliefs. George Bush has been elected to President of the United States. The president of the united states appoints Justices of the Supreme Court. The supreme court decides upon laws for the United States, which i in turn have to follow. This means if George Bush is in office long enough, he will appoint like minded people (whos beliefs do not coincide with mine) in seats of power.
(The next statement is not a burn on bush)
No one cared about Hitler till the shit hit the fan. We need to actively participate in society and movements, lest jews, or blacks, or gays, or whites, or mexicans, or straight people, or democrats or republicans or men or women or w/e is thrown into the fucking gas chamber. Our goddamn rights are always at stake, and our ability to CARE (which is lacking) is what keeps us going.
PS -- i don't know how to properly quote somone. I know i know, l2p.
finer points
Why do you need to go any finer? It's crap right from the start. It's like saying computers are are acutally cages for really smart hobgoblins and that's how they work. You don't need to go into the finer points of how they feed themselves or how they communicate with the pixies in the monitor to know that it's wrong.
Me saying that a God exists and that he created the universe is not as easily dismissed since you can't really PROVE me wrong.
Why does believing the planets have an impact on our lives or future become bullshit but believe a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead does not?
Because popular opinion says so? That seems like a bullshit answer.
You seemed to be disagreeing with Loren by pointing out that you needed to know something about Astrology to know that it is bullshit. I was pointing out that the information you gave did not qualify as finer points, and thus you didn't really disagree with him.
But let's say that we introduce a creator as the original mover. And he/she/it will be just that, an original mover since nothing we observe about the world today with scientific methods indicates that something supernatural is afoot now or has been in the past.
Ok, now we have two theories. One with a creator and one without. In all other aspects they are equivalent. But one is more complex than the other... introducing a god/creator/something that started the universe has no better explanatory power than not introducing god and is less parsimonous.
So from a scientific stand-point, the belief in a creator is not as good a theory. Anyway, english is not my native language and I'm sure one of the more prolific posters here will come up with something better soon...
Edit: NOT as good a theory... oops.
This is a correct statement.
If I pull up something from Dawkins right now you'll be able to point out how it's a straw man argument? There's a lot of evidence supporting a Big Bang; not so much a "supreme being."
And as a sidenote, the idea that there's only life because of how "precise" the Big Bang was or that the Big Bang was trying to create life or something isn't a scientific viewpoint. This is actually the view of most atheists. I really dislike strong atheists (atheists who believe that it is impossible for a god to exist).
The issue of god is still like the issue of Russel's teapot, though, so it's safe to assume that there is no god until evidence is presented supporting the hypothesis that there is one. Let me see if I can phrase this is a cute way: many humans are ignorant enough to hope against all odds that humanity can rise above ignorance. We don't have minimal knowledge; there's a ton of evidence to support the Big Bang. Humans do not rise from the dead. This is an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Interestingly enough, isn't criticizing small spelling errors on the internet the equivalent of screaming "Well, your a poo head!". You ignore my argument and make a useless, mocking post.
Yes, it is. The appropriate response is to ignore him and hope he goes away. Trolls live on attention.