Yes, genius. That is why the burdon of proof is on him, and not on me.
You don't even know what you're being an idiot about anymore, do you?
Edit: yes, I agree it does come down to faith. Which has nothing to do with science and never should.
Firstly, if you read the link, you'll see this:
"is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
I think you can figure out which ones me and which ones you.
Also, when did science enter into this? Religion has no place in science. But science does not exclude religion either. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
I never said your premise was false. Ever. I said your premise was no different then beliving in astrology, which you DID say was false. I said neither can be proven, neither can be disproven. But, as you are the one making a claim in the affirmative, you are the one who has to provide the evidence. Or fall back on belief, which is fine. But you can't have your belief and diminsh the beliefs of others because there is absolutely no difference between them.
And you must keep skipping over my arguments where I show you that, unlike whether Jesus rose from the dead, Astrology CAN be proved or disproved. Astrology makes predictions that can be said to be either true or false. It says "such and such will happen" and if it doesn't, then we know it's wrong.
That's the difference between that belief and my belief in God. Astrology can be tested and proved or falsified. The resurrection of Jesus has very little evidence either way, and therefore cannot be proved true or proved false. Therefore, it's simply a matter of faith.
And I keep telling you that astrology is not about predicting the future. Perhaps you are thinking of tarot cards, or a crystal ball... neither of which is astrology. Therefore, astrology cannot be proved or disproved based on your weird ideas about what astrology is.
Edit: Wikipedia, first paragraph...
Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs in which knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters.
That is why your horoscope doesn't say "Today you will have a danish, two cups of coffee, get cut-off on your way to work, and fuck up the big account."
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?'
The universe has been and always will be, for the entirety of eternity. The Big Bang was the start of both time and space. There was no "before" the Big Bang, and there will be no "after" it. Time starts and ends at singularities (well, the universe could go on infinitely expanding, similar deal). This is a pretty well-accepted theory.
Then why don't you enlighten us by telling us what astrology IS about?
I just did.
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?'
This thread is not about proving or disproving the existence of one or more gods.
Believers, accept that if your faith makes any claims about the physical universe, they may one day be disproven. Also accept that the "you can't disprove my belief" loophole generally applies to any similar beliefs, including diametrically opposed ones. So it's not really that shit-hot a loophole. Suck it up and deal with the fact that you have a non-rational belief. Edit: and I say that as a religious person.
Nonbelievers, stop trying to use Occam to disprove any non-rational beliefs. It doesn't work, in any sense of the word "work". All you can reliably say in most cases is that the belief is very improbable, and since I've now said it you can safely not even bother doing that.
How about we all talk instead about what can and should be done about fundamentalism.
This is a correct statement.
As for fundamentalism... As long as we're talking about the regular, non-militant kind, I say ignore them. Unless, of course, you're into that sort of thing. Not that there's anything wrong with that; a person's traditional and religious beliefs are nobody's business but his own.
We are talking about the militant kind, whether socially, politically, or physically.
Yes, genius. That is why the burdon of proof is on him, and not on me.
You don't even know what you're being an idiot about anymore, do you?
Edit: yes, I agree it does come down to faith. Which has nothing to do with science and never should.
Firstly, if you read the link, you'll see this:
"is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
I think you can figure out which ones me and which ones you.
Also, when did science enter into this? Religion has no place in science. But science does not exclude religion either. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
I never said your premise was false. Ever. I said your premise was no different then beliving in astrology, which you DID say was false. I said neither can be proven, neither can be disproven. But, as you are the one making a claim in the affirmative, you are the one who has to provide the evidence. Or fall back on belief, which is fine. But you can't have your belief and diminsh the beliefs of others because there is absolutely no difference between them.
And you must keep skipping over my arguments where I show you that, unlike whether Jesus rose from the dead, Astrology CAN be proved or disproved. Astrology makes predictions that can be said to be either true or false. It says "such and such will happen" and if it doesn't, then we know it's wrong.
That's the difference between that belief and my belief in God. Astrology can be tested and proved or falsified. The resurrection of Jesus has very little evidence either way, and therefore cannot be proved true or proved false. Therefore, it's simply a matter of faith.
And I keep telling you that astrology is not about predicting the future. Perhaps you are thinking of tarot cards, or a crystal ball... neither of which is astrology. Therefore, astrology cannot be proved or disproved based on your weird ideas about what astrology is.
Edit: Wikipedia, first paragraph...
Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs in which knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters.
That is why your horoscope doesn't say "Today you will have a danish, two cups of coffee, get cut-off on your way to work, and fuck up the big account."
This is also a correct statement.
Shryke, you were thinking of astrological divination, which is a type of divination concerning astrology, not a type of astrology concerning divination.
This thread is not about proving or disproving the existence of one or more gods.
Believers, accept that if your faith makes any claims about the physical universe, they may one day be disproven. Also accept that the "you can't disprove my belief" loophole generally applies to any similar beliefs, including diametrically opposed ones. So it's not really that shit-hot a loophole. Suck it up and deal with the fact that you have a non-rational belief. Edit: and I say that as a religious person.
Nonbelievers, stop trying to use Occam to disprove any non-rational beliefs. It doesn't work, in any sense of the word "work". All you can reliably say in most cases is that the belief is very improbable, and since I've now said it you can safely not even bother doing that.
How about we all talk instead about what can and should be done about fundamentalism.
This is a correct statement.
As for fundamentalism... As long as we're talking about the regular, non-militant kind, I say ignore them. Unless, of course, you're into that sort of thing. Not that there's anything wrong with that; a person's traditional and religious beliefs are nobody's business but his own.
We are talking about the militant kind, whether socially, politically, or physically.
In that case, I suggest arming yourself to the teeth for purposes of deterrence, lest you can find sanctuary(!?) in a place like the United States.
Of course there's also the the option of submitting to conversion. The fastest way to end a war is to lose it.
I'm an atheist and i'm all fine and dandy with religious types right up until they start wars or start doing any damage in the name of their religion. Like maybe, crusading through another country, or blowing yourself up in a street. I know this isn't moderate religion by the way i'm just voicing an opinion of when I stop agreeing with religion.
I actually really wish there was a God and a heaven, that way there would be no fear of death and a goal to work towards by being good people.
With moderate religion I draw the line as soon as they have any political sway whatsoever or start voicing any views on the morality of sciences and technologies.
So, without quoting a page long quote pyramid, I'm pretty sure that you can't prove astrology either way. There'll be people who "fit their sign", and people who don't. There'll be shit that fits with the planets, and stars, and other crap, and how it should be organized, according to astrology, and there'll be shit that doesn't.
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
This thread drives me up the wall.
People say "well, moderates are OK, but fundies are evil, boo!"
Why is this? Because we have normative beliefs about what is "moderate" and what is "fundamentalist." During the inquisition, "moderates" might be in favor of just torturing heretics until they repent. "Fundamentalists" might say the only way to purify them is auto de fe. So we go around going "blah blah blah the moderates are great and the fundamentalists are evil!"
Obviously, no one thinks they are fundamentalist/extremist. People's self-constructions are that they have the moderate, well-reasoned belief and the people around them, even those that agree with them, are more extreme and less well-reasoned in what they think. The religious people we are probably referring to as "fundamentalists" think they hagve he moderate, rational beliefs and everyone else is hopelessly deviated from a decent version of the truth and live immoderate lives of excess.
So staking your primary religious value on being "moderate" vs. "fundamentalist" is a hopelessly empty enterprise. The more extreme the worst fundamentalists get, the more other reactionary and intolerant other factions look "moderate." Instead, the problem isn't what irrational beliefs you hold on the basis of ancient scribblings and no empirically verifiable claims. It's that you hold them in the first place.
Maybe a more meaningful distinction is this: some people accept violence as a way of resolving disputes about beliefs, and some don't. Most people fall into the former category -- those that don't have had their religious beliefs shaped by exogenous, humanist forces dating back to the renaissance. Religion then conforms to societal and cultural values that are secular in nature and not based on scripture or doctrine. Even so, the people that say "don't use violence" base it on their faith. The problem of basing any of this on their faith is that there's no way to reason through or establish the truth of one opinion - you can always retreat to your relevant personal interpretation of doctrine and scripture. The catholics via canon law probably have the most rational approach in resolving disputes based on an irrational and insane premise that any of this has truth value.
But when we realize that most of our claims are nonverifiable and cannot be proven, and even if we 'believe' in something, that has no intrinsic value or relevance to how we should act. If you accept this as truth and act on it you are incapable of having the faith religions require to be a believer. You could be an agnostic and not an athiest, though.
So, without quoting a page long quote pyramid, I'm pretty sure that you can't prove astrology either way. There'll be people who "fit their sign", and people who don't. There'll be shit that fits with the planets, and stars, and other crap, and how it should be organized, according to astrology, and there'll be shit that doesn't.
Exactly. Which is why it is a belief and not a science.
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?'
Isn't it called faith because you believe something despite a lack of evidence?
I don't believe that there is a logical method that can be used to "disprove" god. Someone who believes in god must put their faith in the fact that it exists because there is no empirical proof. Just as a nonbeliever must have faith that he doesn't exist because there is no empirical proof.
Also, on a tangent, what is the appeal of atheism? I've noticed a lot of people around my age really stuck on it. Is it a control issue, ie do you not want to be part of some grand cosmic game? Or is it just about being different and trying to prove that everyone else is wrong?
Dawkins makes the fair point that protecting moderate religion from critiicism allows the idea that just because you believe something ridiculous with lots of other people who do too, you are above reproach.
Precisely. Evolution is a supportable, but not completely provable, theory. Divine creation is unprovable and unsupportable. I swear, a very religious friend (by "very religious", I mean, he plans on being a pastor when he grows up) used this argument on me a while back against evolution. "So, you're saying we came from monkeys?" "That's what I think." "Okay. You're saying we're basically the same as monkeys, then?" "Not quite. I think we're smarter, more aware, and more capable. I think that genetically, we're similar." "(he interprets what I said as a simple "yes") So, you're saying that when a man and woman have sex, and she gives birth, that's a monkey?" "What the fuck?"
Honestly, how did he come up with this shit? I'm trying not to offend him by saying his beliefs are wrong, and he just comes up with that one. I mean, come on!
Dawkins makes the fair point that protecting moderate religion from critiicism allows the idea that just because you believe something ridiculous with lots of other people who do too, you are above reproach.
And thats the slope to extremism.
And he's suggesting another form of extremism.
edit: It's also a strawman because he's lumping in religion with unicorns. Now I'm sure someone condescending will answer me with "religion = unicorns."
Dawkins makes the fair point that protecting moderate religion from critiicism allows the idea that just because you believe something ridiculous with lots of other people who do too, you are above reproach.
And thats the slope to extremism.
And he's suggesting another form of extremism.
edit: It's also a strawman because he's lumping in religion with unicorns. Now I'm sure someone condescending will answer me with "religion = unicorns."
Just, you know, FYI, Jesus = not human. At least, not JUST human. See, this is the kind of shit you may wanna know before you criticize.
We can just start over right here like nothing happened, if you want. But yes, implying that I don't know the bare minimum about Christian theology (which I hadn't brought up because it was irrelevant) in a rude, abrasive manner is being kind of a dick.
See my post above. You can't argue that something is false just because there's no evidence it isn't true. I feel there's no hard proof either way, so it's simply a matter of faith in the end.
I didn't argue that it was false because there's no evidence supporting it.
I'm arguing two things.
1) That Jesus was human and could not have risen from the dead should be an obvious fact based about what we know of the physical world, which isn't the same as arguing that Jesus was human and could not have risen from the dead, but just telling you why it should be obvious solely because you implied it wasn't. This argument doesn't really matter.
2) That Jesus wasn't fully human or that Jesus rose from the dead are both situations so astronomically unlikely as to be equivalent to that of Russel's teapot. Not that it is impossible, but that it may as well be unless it's supported by some fantastic evidence, especially since the burden of proof is on you.
I didn't anything attacking religion in there. Only him talking about science.
His attacking religion stems from his philosophy, and you said that everything of his you had read was a straw man.
But maybe this one would be better for you - it's even about debating religion, but don't make the too-easy mistake of saying he's making a straw man of everyone who debates on the side of religion. He's discussing what he sees most frequently in debates, which may or may not be exactly the same as things you or other people have implied in this or other debates. He's also not in debate "mode" here; he's giving a lecture.
Unless you want to go down the road of sophism, the basics have already been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, although the specifics are still not entirely clear.
I'm interested in what the scientific explanation is for the fact that we have both plant life, and a life-hospitable atmosphere, despite the fact that once cannot exist without the presence of the other.
Isn't it called faith because you believe something despite a lack of evidence?
I don't believe that there is a logical method that can be used to "disprove" god. Someone who believes in god must put their faith in the fact that it exists because there is no empirical proof. Just as a nonbeliever must have faith that he doesn't exist because there is no empirical proof.
Also, on a tangent, what is the appeal of atheism? I've noticed a lot of people around my age really stuck on it. Is it a control issue, ie do you not want to be part of some grand cosmic game? Or is it just about being different and trying to prove that everyone else is wrong?
This is from a Deist, non-Christian view.
Lots of double negatives follow....
Kinda, but kinda not. I don't have to have faith that God doesn't exist, in the same way I don't have faith that there isn't a giant space elvis that flys from planet to planet to make love to their warm molten core.
It's just an idea that doesn't need to be held by me, until something worthwhile suggests it needs to be considered.
Secondly - thats like asking whats the appeal of religion? Ask twenty people get twenty answers.
The damage religion is doing to the world, the lack of evidence, an appreciation of the natural world, because it makes sense, because the beauty of evolution in explaining the descent of man, because your capable of accepting that you don't have an answer to something yet. The list goes on.
I would put your two insulting ideas towards the bottom though.
EDIT: Oh, and in the UK, almost 50% of people don't believe in an afterlife, or a relgiion, and hold humanist views. They also believe that science is the only way to answer these questions. So it isn't even to be different.
I'm interested in what the scientific explanation is for the fact that we have both plant life, and a life-hospitable atmosphere, despite the fact that once cannot exist without the presence of the other.
Unless you want to go down the road of sophism, the basics have already been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, although the specifics are still not entirely clear.
The basics, yes, which are good enough for me. The details, I'm not as picky about. There isn't even basic proof of divine creation.
EDIT: MVMosin: Life *AS WE KNOW IT.* Doesn't mean that we couldn't have evolved differently under different circumstances.
I'm interested in what the scientific explanation is for the fact that we have both plant life, and a life-hospitable atmosphere, despite the fact that once cannot exist without the presence of the other.
This is satire, right?
*shrugs* When I was 7-9 I thought SimEarth explained this one quite well. Bacteria gives off waste gasses, after all. =P
I'm interested in what the scientific explanation is for the fact that we have both plant life, and a life-hospitable atmosphere, despite the fact that once cannot exist without the presence of the other.
This is satire, right?
Should I have tried harder?
Maybe, "If the universe exists because of an explosion, how did we all survive?"
The key difference between a religious persons belief in the existence of God and an atheists apparent "belief" in the non-existence of God is that scientific principles demand that we not create unnecessary structures, devices, or concepts to describe phenomena; we must only use provable, empirically noticable, necessary structures, devices and concepts. And atheists most definately agree on one thing at least; God is not necessary for our existence. So atheists don't truly "believe" in the non-existence of God, they simply see nothing which requires it, and absent any evidence, they must conclude that God does not exist.
But an atheist who was truly an adherent to science, would be willing to adjust his conclusions based on new evidence, however unlikely it may be.
I'm interested in what the scientific explanation is for the fact that we have both plant life, and a life-hospitable atmosphere, despite the fact that once cannot exist without the presence of the other.
Since when did a life hospitable atmosphere depend on the existence of plant life?
I'm interested in what the scientific explanation is for the fact that we have both plant life, and a life-hospitable atmosphere, despite the fact that once cannot exist without the presence of the other.
I'm interested in what the scientific explanation is for the fact that we have both plant life, and a life-hospitable atmosphere, despite the fact that once cannot exist without the presence of the other.
Since when did a life hospitable atmosphere depend on the existence of plant life?
I was trying to be subtle... Apparently too subtle. You did not read my next post, apparently.
I'm interested in what the scientific explanation is for the fact that we have both plant life, and a life-hospitable atmosphere, despite the fact that once cannot exist without the presence of the other.
Dawkins makes the fair point that protecting moderate religion from critiicism allows the idea that just because you believe something ridiculous with lots of other people who do too, you are above reproach.
And thats the slope to extremism.
This slippery slope is an unproven assertion on his part. One can argue just as plausibly that moderate religion provides a pathway to greater rationality for fundamentalists. One that allows them to approach rationality without having to abandon all of their beliefs at once. Until someone outlines a feasible process for reducing fundamentalism that does not involve a progression through moderation, the rational conclusion is that moderate religion is necessary to reduce fundamentalism.
@kaliyama
There is a simple way to determine levels of rationality for the purposes of this discussion: to what extent are the person's important decisions ultimately based on a non-rational religious belief?
"Oh no! A man's beliefs are infulancing decisions! Run for the hills! We're all doomed!"
I mean, seriously.
Why the heck isn't a man allowed to have an opinion, just because he's in power?
This man's beliefs can have a life changing effect upon millions of people. I'd like to think that these decisions were more heavily reliant upon a representative of the people, but the executive branch of our democracy for the past few years has been the charging force.
And if you asked me, should Hitler have an opinion because he's in power, i'd say hell no. Again, NOT a bash or comparison of bush to hitler. But somone asked why we should CARE about what other people think. That's why people should care.
Whether this is satire or not - without meaning to be insulting to anyone.
The answer is that not all life needs oxygen to respire. Early bacteria lived via anaerobic respiration and produced oxygen as a biproduct and filled the atmosphere, allowing for a more effiecient form of resperation to take place.
Incidentially when you are running say, and you are not breathing fast enough, you muscles undergo anaerobic respiration to provide energy. This produces an acid byproduct that gives you muscle cramps.
Dawkins makes the fair point that protecting moderate religion from critiicism allows the idea that just because you believe something ridiculous with lots of other people who do too, you are above reproach.
And thats the slope to extremism.
This slippery slope is an unproven assertion on his part. One can argue just as plausibly that moderate religion provides a pathway to greater rationality for fundamentalists. One that allows them to approach rationality without having to abandon all of their beliefs at once. Until someone outlines a feasible process for reducing fundamentalism that does not involve a progression through moderation, the rational conclusion is that moderate religion is necessary to reduce fundamentalism.
You have a point. Because the moderate religion of yesterday was far more extreme than the extremists of today. Thats progress.
But then hasn't that progress come by people being more open to be critical of religion?
Whether this is satire or not - without meaning to be insulting to anyone.
The answer is that not all life needs oxygen to respire. Early bacteria lived via anaerobic respiration and produced oxygen as a biproduct and filled the atmosphere, allowing for a more effiecient form of resperation to take place.
Incidentially when you are running say, and you are not breathing fast enough, you muscles undergo anaerobic respiration to provide energy. This produces an acid byproduct that gives you muscle cramps.
And, when yeast undergoes anaerobic respiration in, say, grape juice with extra sugar (lots of it), it produces alcohol. Voila! Wine! (I did it in bio as a freshman. Greatest labe ever)
Whether this is satire or not - without meaning to be insulting to anyone.
The answer is that not all life needs oxygen to respire. Early bacteria lived via anaerobic respiration and produced oxygen as a biproduct and filled the atmosphere, allowing for a more effiecient form of resperation to take place.
Incidentially when you are running say, and you are not breathing fast enough, you muscles undergo anaerobic respiration to provide energy. This produces an acid byproduct that gives you muscle cramps.
And, when yeast undergoes anaerobic respiration in, say, grape juice with extra sugar (lots of it), it produces alcohol. Voila! Wine! (I did it in bio as a freshman. Greatest labe ever)
All hail the might of anaerobic respiration.
Though, I'm wary of it too, as I suspect it's how Zombies work.
Whether this is satire or not - without meaning to be insulting to anyone.
The answer is that not all life needs oxygen to respire. Early bacteria lived via anaerobic respiration and produced oxygen as a biproduct and filled the atmosphere, allowing for a more effiecient form of resperation to take place.
Incidentially when you are running say, and you are not breathing fast enough, you muscles undergo anaerobic respiration to provide energy. This produces an acid byproduct that gives you muscle cramps.
And, when yeast undergoes anaerobic respiration in, say, grape juice with extra sugar (lots of it), it produces alcohol. Voila! Wine! (I did it in bio as a freshman. Greatest labe ever)
All hail the might of anaerobic respiration.
Though, I'm wary of it too, as I suspect it's how Zombies work.
Trust me, it's safe and tasty. It needs sugars to produce alcohol, so at the most, we'd have drunk zombies. Those would be easy to kill.
Whether this is satire or not - without meaning to be insulting to anyone.
The answer is that not all life needs oxygen to respire. Early bacteria lived via anaerobic respiration and produced oxygen as a biproduct and filled the atmosphere, allowing for a more effiecient form of resperation to take place.
Incidentially when you are running say, and you are not breathing fast enough, you muscles undergo anaerobic respiration to provide energy. This produces an acid byproduct that gives you muscle cramps.
And, when yeast undergoes anaerobic respiration in, say, grape juice with extra sugar (lots of it), it produces alcohol. Voila! Wine! (I did it in bio as a freshman. Greatest labe ever)
All hail the might of anaerobic respiration.
Though, I'm wary of it too, as I suspect it's how Zombies work.
Trust me, it's safe and tasty. It needs sugars to produce alcohol, so at the most, we'd have drunk zombies. Those would be easy to kill.
Hm... Or would they? They shamble and stumble around when they're presumably sober.
Whether this is satire or not - without meaning to be insulting to anyone.
The answer is that not all life needs oxygen to respire. Early bacteria lived via anaerobic respiration and produced oxygen as a biproduct and filled the atmosphere, allowing for a more effiecient form of resperation to take place.
Incidentially when you are running say, and you are not breathing fast enough, you muscles undergo anaerobic respiration to provide energy. This produces an acid byproduct that gives you muscle cramps.
And, when yeast undergoes anaerobic respiration in, say, grape juice with extra sugar (lots of it), it produces alcohol. Voila! Wine! (I did it in bio as a freshman. Greatest labe ever)
All hail the might of anaerobic respiration.
Though, I'm wary of it too, as I suspect it's how Zombies work.
Trust me, it's safe and tasty. It needs sugars to produce alcohol, so at the most, we'd have drunk zombies. Those would be easy to kill.
Hm... Or would they? They shamble and stumble around when they're presumably sober.
Posts
And I keep telling you that astrology is not about predicting the future. Perhaps you are thinking of tarot cards, or a crystal ball... neither of which is astrology. Therefore, astrology cannot be proved or disproved based on your weird ideas about what astrology is.
Edit: Wikipedia, first paragraph...
That is why your horoscope doesn't say "Today you will have a danish, two cups of coffee, get cut-off on your way to work, and fuck up the big account."
Note: I don't mean this in a condescending way.
Let's play pretend. There is no time.
...
I just did.
We are talking about the militant kind, whether socially, politically, or physically.
This is also a correct statement.
Shryke, you were thinking of astrological divination, which is a type of divination concerning astrology, not a type of astrology concerning divination.
In that case, I suggest arming yourself to the teeth for purposes of deterrence, lest you can find sanctuary(!?) in a place like the United States.
Of course there's also the the option of submitting to conversion. The fastest way to end a war is to lose it.
I actually really wish there was a God and a heaven, that way there would be no fear of death and a goal to work towards by being good people.
With moderate religion I draw the line as soon as they have any political sway whatsoever or start voicing any views on the morality of sciences and technologies.
People say "well, moderates are OK, but fundies are evil, boo!"
Why is this? Because we have normative beliefs about what is "moderate" and what is "fundamentalist." During the inquisition, "moderates" might be in favor of just torturing heretics until they repent. "Fundamentalists" might say the only way to purify them is auto de fe. So we go around going "blah blah blah the moderates are great and the fundamentalists are evil!"
Obviously, no one thinks they are fundamentalist/extremist. People's self-constructions are that they have the moderate, well-reasoned belief and the people around them, even those that agree with them, are more extreme and less well-reasoned in what they think. The religious people we are probably referring to as "fundamentalists" think they hagve he moderate, rational beliefs and everyone else is hopelessly deviated from a decent version of the truth and live immoderate lives of excess.
So staking your primary religious value on being "moderate" vs. "fundamentalist" is a hopelessly empty enterprise. The more extreme the worst fundamentalists get, the more other reactionary and intolerant other factions look "moderate." Instead, the problem isn't what irrational beliefs you hold on the basis of ancient scribblings and no empirically verifiable claims. It's that you hold them in the first place.
Maybe a more meaningful distinction is this: some people accept violence as a way of resolving disputes about beliefs, and some don't. Most people fall into the former category -- those that don't have had their religious beliefs shaped by exogenous, humanist forces dating back to the renaissance. Religion then conforms to societal and cultural values that are secular in nature and not based on scripture or doctrine. Even so, the people that say "don't use violence" base it on their faith. The problem of basing any of this on their faith is that there's no way to reason through or establish the truth of one opinion - you can always retreat to your relevant personal interpretation of doctrine and scripture. The catholics via canon law probably have the most rational approach in resolving disputes based on an irrational and insane premise that any of this has truth value.
But when we realize that most of our claims are nonverifiable and cannot be proven, and even if we 'believe' in something, that has no intrinsic value or relevance to how we should act. If you accept this as truth and act on it you are incapable of having the faith religions require to be a believer. You could be an agnostic and not an athiest, though.
(sorry just like the quote)
Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
Exactly. Which is why it is a belief and not a science.
I don't believe that there is a logical method that can be used to "disprove" god. Someone who believes in god must put their faith in the fact that it exists because there is no empirical proof. Just as a nonbeliever must have faith that he doesn't exist because there is no empirical proof.
Also, on a tangent, what is the appeal of atheism? I've noticed a lot of people around my age really stuck on it. Is it a control issue, ie do you not want to be part of some grand cosmic game? Or is it just about being different and trying to prove that everyone else is wrong?
This is from a Deist, non-Christian view.
Dawkins makes the fair point that protecting moderate religion from critiicism allows the idea that just because you believe something ridiculous with lots of other people who do too, you are above reproach.
And thats the slope to extremism.
Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
Honestly, how did he come up with this shit? I'm trying not to offend him by saying his beliefs are wrong, and he just comes up with that one. I mean, come on!
And he's suggesting another form of extremism.
edit: It's also a strawman because he's lumping in religion with unicorns. Now I'm sure someone condescending will answer me with "religion = unicorns."
religion = unicorns
(sorry I just had to)
I'm arguing two things.
1) That Jesus was human and could not have risen from the dead should be an obvious fact based about what we know of the physical world, which isn't the same as arguing that Jesus was human and could not have risen from the dead, but just telling you why it should be obvious solely because you implied it wasn't. This argument doesn't really matter.
2) That Jesus wasn't fully human or that Jesus rose from the dead are both situations so astronomically unlikely as to be equivalent to that of Russel's teapot. Not that it is impossible, but that it may as well be unless it's supported by some fantastic evidence, especially since the burden of proof is on you.
His attacking religion stems from his philosophy, and you said that everything of his you had read was a straw man.
But maybe this one would be better for you - it's even about debating religion, but don't make the too-easy mistake of saying he's making a straw man of everyone who debates on the side of religion. He's discussing what he sees most frequently in debates, which may or may not be exactly the same as things you or other people have implied in this or other debates. He's also not in debate "mode" here; he's giving a lecture.
Unless you want to go down the road of sophism, the basics have already been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, although the specifics are still not entirely clear.
Most forms of nontrinitarianism.
Lots of double negatives follow....
Kinda, but kinda not. I don't have to have faith that God doesn't exist, in the same way I don't have faith that there isn't a giant space elvis that flys from planet to planet to make love to their warm molten core.
It's just an idea that doesn't need to be held by me, until something worthwhile suggests it needs to be considered.
Secondly - thats like asking whats the appeal of religion? Ask twenty people get twenty answers.
The damage religion is doing to the world, the lack of evidence, an appreciation of the natural world, because it makes sense, because the beauty of evolution in explaining the descent of man, because your capable of accepting that you don't have an answer to something yet. The list goes on.
I would put your two insulting ideas towards the bottom though.
EDIT: Oh, and in the UK, almost 50% of people don't believe in an afterlife, or a relgiion, and hold humanist views. They also believe that science is the only way to answer these questions. So it isn't even to be different.
Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
The basics, yes, which are good enough for me. The details, I'm not as picky about. There isn't even basic proof of divine creation.
EDIT: MVMosin: Life *AS WE KNOW IT.* Doesn't mean that we couldn't have evolved differently under different circumstances.
*shrugs* When I was 7-9 I thought SimEarth explained this one quite well. Bacteria gives off waste gasses, after all. =P
Should I have tried harder?
Maybe, "If the universe exists because of an explosion, how did we all survive?"
But an atheist who was truly an adherent to science, would be willing to adjust his conclusions based on new evidence, however unlikely it may be.
Since when did a life hospitable atmosphere depend on the existence of plant life?
You my friend, are an uneducated fuckmongerer.
I was trying to be subtle... Apparently too subtle. You did not read my next post, apparently.
And neither did you.
This slippery slope is an unproven assertion on his part. One can argue just as plausibly that moderate religion provides a pathway to greater rationality for fundamentalists. One that allows them to approach rationality without having to abandon all of their beliefs at once. Until someone outlines a feasible process for reducing fundamentalism that does not involve a progression through moderation, the rational conclusion is that moderate religion is necessary to reduce fundamentalism.
@kaliyama
There is a simple way to determine levels of rationality for the purposes of this discussion: to what extent are the person's important decisions ultimately based on a non-rational religious belief?
Oh my gosh this is rediculous.
First off you completly forgot about congress.
And I mean, come on.
"Oh no! A man's beliefs are infulancing decisions! Run for the hills! We're all doomed!"
I mean, seriously.
Why the heck isn't a man allowed to have an opinion, just because he's in power?
This man's beliefs can have a life changing effect upon millions of people. I'd like to think that these decisions were more heavily reliant upon a representative of the people, but the executive branch of our democracy for the past few years has been the charging force.
And if you asked me, should Hitler have an opinion because he's in power, i'd say hell no. Again, NOT a bash or comparison of bush to hitler. But somone asked why we should CARE about what other people think. That's why people should care.
The answer is that not all life needs oxygen to respire. Early bacteria lived via anaerobic respiration and produced oxygen as a biproduct and filled the atmosphere, allowing for a more effiecient form of resperation to take place.
Incidentially when you are running say, and you are not breathing fast enough, you muscles undergo anaerobic respiration to provide energy. This produces an acid byproduct that gives you muscle cramps.
Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
Right, right, the sarcasm was inappropriate. I should have just called those that disagree with me fuckmongerers, for the sake of civility.
You have a point. Because the moderate religion of yesterday was far more extreme than the extremists of today. Thats progress.
But then hasn't that progress come by people being more open to be critical of religion?
Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
And, when yeast undergoes anaerobic respiration in, say, grape juice with extra sugar (lots of it), it produces alcohol. Voila! Wine! (I did it in bio as a freshman. Greatest labe ever)
All hail the might of anaerobic respiration.
Though, I'm wary of it too, as I suspect it's how Zombies work.
Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
Trust me, it's safe and tasty. It needs sugars to produce alcohol, so at the most, we'd have drunk zombies. Those would be easy to kill.
Hm... Or would they? They shamble and stumble around when they're presumably sober.
That why they stumble.
Fucking Zombies.
Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!