Options

Atheists: Please be quiet

1356726

Posts

  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Julius on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So unless you want to deride the whole of humanity for not following philosophical or ethical systems based on "Science!" (and can claim to do so yourself) this is sort of a silly discussion.

    Oh but I do.

    I am extremely curious as to exactly what this system is, and how you follow it in every action/interaction you have in your life.

    As well as how it relates to Hamtaro.

    Science is merely a specific result of a deeper philosophical revelation, which can, somewhat imprecisely, be summed up as believing only that which, through reason, you are justified in believing. Science is a collection of justified beliefs about the world. The scientific method is a process of justifying belief.

    Religion is a collection of unjustified beliefs.

    Ethical beliefs can also be justified, or not.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    FroThulhuFroThulhu Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    i am also curious as to how HamHamJ has solved the problem of arbitrary moral axioms using science

    Agreed.

    Man, I love me some science. But there's no philosophy or morality involved. It's like math, except with facts. Yeah, now you know shit, and I like knowing shit. But there's a whole pantload of other important stuff.

    I'm all for admitting that a lot of religion is just a way of keeping people in check so they don't do shit like kill eachother (which... ya know, fails a lot) or steal stuff, or covet thy neighbor's swimming pool. And, yeah, that makes it kinda silly. But, without a system of moral guidelines, where's... ya know, the moral guideline? Granted, most people aren't cool with killing other people, or stealing shit. But science in no way addresses those concepts. It, in fact, has almost nothing to do with what religion is actually supposed to be about.

    FroThulhu on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    Evander on
  • Options
    chiasaur11chiasaur11 Never doubt a raccoon. Do you think it's trademarked?Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    I'm getting awfully tired of the increasingly proselytistic tone that seems to be the tenor of atheism in the last few years. I'm not an atheist because it's better -- it's not.

    But it is. If you don't think it is, you're either not really an atheist, or you apparently don't think the truth is an inherent good. Which is a possibility, but frankly puts you in far bigger philosophical problems.

    I could imagine a sane philosophical framework that does not value ultimate cosmic truth as the most important good.
    If you believe something to be true, then I don't see how you cannot also believe that other people should also believe what you believe.

    Well, you could believe in a master morality for some and a slave morality for others. Ever read Crime and Punishment?

    Or Brothers Karamazov. Parable of the Grand Inquisitor.

    Imagines a theocracy where the dudes at the top actively despise God.

    Man, Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote some kick ass stuff.

    chiasaur11 on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    all books are filled with what is good behaviour

    even postmodern emptiness spread over two hundred pages is ultimately saying "the best behaviour is not to dictate what is good behaviour"

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So unless you want to deride the whole of humanity for not following philosophical or ethical systems based on "Science!" (and can claim to do so yourself) this is sort of a silly discussion.

    Oh but I do.

    I am extremely curious as to exactly what this system is, and how you follow it in every action/interaction you have in your life.

    As well as how it relates to Hamtaro.

    Science is merely a specific result of a deeper philosophical revelation, which can, somewhat imprecisely, be summed up as believing only that which, through reason, you are justified in believing. Science is a collection of justified beliefs about the world. The scientific method is a process of justifying belief.

    Religion is a collection of unjustified beliefs.

    Ethical beliefs can also be justified, or not.

    So very very very wrong, and so classic a mistake to make for a Scientism adherent. It's not reason, it's data. Using "reason" is the classic mark of pseudoscience.

    Edit I particularly love the arrogance of claiming that the search for cosmic truth is the be-all end-all reason of existence. What a sad and spartan world HamHamJ envisions, where simple pleasures are disregarded and all effort is levied towards the march of "progress".

    That's a far more tyrannical vision then I've ever seen from any mainstream religion.

    Robman on
  • Options
    FroThulhuFroThulhu Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    I am, in fact, one of the people who do that. Because, sometimes, when the theory of relativity just ain't getting me through the day, I have to turn somewhere else. I also happen to be one of those people who doesn't give a fuck about the afterlife, because, ya know... you're dead, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.

    And, as to the bolded: why giggle? Because, I mean, an exploding ball of super-compressed whatnot works... except for the part where it apparently came from fucknowhere. That's pretty lul-worthy, really. Almost, almost as lul-worthy as a giant bearded man in the sky.

    I mean, I'm just sayin'

    FroThulhu on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So unless you want to deride the whole of humanity for not following philosophical or ethical systems based on "Science!" (and can claim to do so yourself) this is sort of a silly discussion.

    Oh but I do.

    I am extremely curious as to exactly what this system is, and how you follow it in every action/interaction you have in your life.

    As well as how it relates to Hamtaro.

    Science is merely a specific result of a deeper philosophical revelation, which can, somewhat imprecisely, be summed up as believing only that which, through reason, you are justified in believing. Science is a collection of justified beliefs about the world. The scientific method is a process of justifying belief.

    Religion is a collection of unjustified beliefs.

    Ethical beliefs can also be justified, or not.

    So very very very wrong, and so classic a mistake to make for a Scientism adherent. It's not reason, it's data. Using "reason" is the classic mark of pseudoscience.

    yes

    also

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=9586125&postcount=424

    normative beliefs or moral facts cannot be approached scientifically

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So unless you want to deride the whole of humanity for not following philosophical or ethical systems based on "Science!" (and can claim to do so yourself) this is sort of a silly discussion.

    Oh but I do.

    I am extremely curious as to exactly what this system is, and how you follow it in every action/interaction you have in your life.

    As well as how it relates to Hamtaro.

    Science is merely a specific result of a deeper philosophical revelation, which can, somewhat imprecisely, be summed up as believing only that which, through reason, you are justified in believing. Science is a collection of justified beliefs about the world. The scientific method is a process of justifying belief.

    Religion is a collection of unjustified beliefs.

    Ethical beliefs can also be justified, or not.

    So very very very wrong, and so classic a mistake to make for a Scientism adherent. It's not reason, it's data. Using "reason" is the classic mark of pseudoscience.

    Data without reason is meaningless.

    Statistical significance? Reason.
    Hypothesis testing? Reason.
    Causation? Reason.
    Correlation? Also reason.
    The difference between the two? Reason.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    I am, in fact, one of the people who do that. Because, sometimes, when the theory of relativity just ain't getting me through the day, I have to turn somewhere else. I also happen to be one of those people who doesn't give a fuck about the afterlife, because, ya know... you're dead, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.

    And, as to the bolded: why giggle? Because, I mean, an exploding ball of super-compressed whatnot works... except for the part where it apparently came from fucknowhere. That's pretty lul-worthy, really. Almost, almost as lul-worthy as a giant bearded man in the sky.

    I mean, I'm just sayin'

    I giggle at it because there is absolutely no reason to put that bearded dude in there.

    Julius on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Edit I particularly love the arrogance of claiming that the search for cosmic truth is the be-all end-all reason of existence.

    Please point out where I said that.
    MrMister wrote:
    The only way it's even remotely plausible to suppose that science has all the answers is if you expand the scope of what you label science to include all rational pursuit of truth, regardless of the means and methods. But if you make that supposition, then the point becomes trivial: because then what are you contrasting against? Wishful thinking and make believe? Sure, I'll concede that they don't have any of the good answers, but it's a plain mistake to frame the issue as "science" versus "non-science."

    And religion is nothing but wishful thinking and make-believe, so as far as science vs religion goes that is what it is about.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    I am, in fact, one of the people who do that. Because, sometimes, when the theory of relativity just ain't getting me through the day, I have to turn somewhere else. I also happen to be one of those people who doesn't give a fuck about the afterlife, because, ya know... you're dead, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.

    And, as to the bolded: why giggle? Because, I mean, an exploding ball of super-compressed whatnot works... except for the part where it apparently came from fucknowhere. That's pretty lul-worthy, really. Almost, almost as lul-worthy as a giant bearded man in the sky.

    I mean, I'm just sayin'

    So giggle at each other, then.

    Me, I'm an agnostic who would LOVE to believe in God, but can't do so without rational backing for it. I could go either way on the explanations. I'll giggle at both of you for jumping to conclusions.



    But hey, we can all get along perfectly well while giggling, no?

    Evander on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I've only once met a real scientist who thinks like HamHamJ

    Most people don't realize you've got to be a huge people person to succeed in research, which sort of invalidates the SCIENCE ABOVE ALL ELSE mentality and encourages well-rounded people. Most people who present this RELIGION EVIL TEST TUBE GOOD mentality aren't involved except very peripherally with science, maybe a lab techie or two, and primarily spread their faith on the intertubes on forums.

    I feel like as I peel the onion back on your beliefs, it's always REASON REASON REASON, with a vibe like it being turtles all the way down.

    Robman on
  • Options
    FroThulhuFroThulhu Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    I am, in fact, one of the people who do that. Because, sometimes, when the theory of relativity just ain't getting me through the day, I have to turn somewhere else. I also happen to be one of those people who doesn't give a fuck about the afterlife, because, ya know... you're dead, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.

    And, as to the bolded: why giggle? Because, I mean, an exploding ball of super-compressed whatnot works... except for the part where it apparently came from fucknowhere. That's pretty lul-worthy, really. Almost, almost as lul-worthy as a giant bearded man in the sky.

    I mean, I'm just sayin'

    So giggle at each other, then.

    Me, I'm an agnostic who would LOVE to believe in God, but can't do so without rational backing for it. I could go either way on the explanations. I'll giggle at both of you for jumping to conclusions.



    But hey, we can all get along perfectly well while giggling, no?

    What I'm saying is that I don't bother with the giggling. Right before the concept of the super-compressed matter that came from nowhere bounces off my funny bone, it's intercepted by a mesh net of "huh... well, time for lunch." Not putting the bearded guy in there is all well and good, but condescending to those who do is basically a dick move. Because, honestly, at that point there's no decent explanation and it really does creep into the land of utter strangeness.

    FroThulhu on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Ham, I don't know if you understand the difference between science -- a specific method of evaluating empirical claims -- and reason -- the general faculty of humans to arrive at rational conclusions -- and choose to conflate them for some reason, or if you still just don't get it.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Well, have you seen how Atheists are described?

    http://conservapedia.com/Athiest

    I've seen people nearly run away when there's an atheist in the house. There's such a huge irrational fear towards atheists that it's amusing. But, this picture sums it all up:

    atheist-cartoon.gif&t=1

    Casually Hardcore on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I don't believe in a deity because that's not an answer, it just creates a whole new question as big or bigger then the old one - where the fuck did that deity come from? It just creates one more thing in the universe that scientific theory - which I do believe in - would have to research. Why create useless stupid thing like that into our formula of the universe when there are so many other things we have to figure out before we even go there?

    So I guess you could say I'm atheist out of pragmatism.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Why is this turning into a religion vs. science debate? I think society as a whole has moved past the whole religion vs. science thing. I mean people who are young-earth creationists are really just a small fraction of people.

    If you want to talk "intelligent design" as being taught in schools, the way to combat that is not to denounce religion - it's to teach people what is science and what is not. Intelligent design is not science.

    tsmvengy on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Fartacus wrote: »
    (3) Opposition to science. Have you been to Marin County, California? It's one of the richest in the nation, overwhelmingly educated and white and upper-class, and under 50% of the children there are vaccinated. They're set to lose their herd immunity -- meanwhile minority urban poor populations tend to vaccinate their children as long as they have the money for it, and are educated to do so. Gullibility knows no bounds -- I wonder how many overtly religious people fill the homeopathy aisles at your local Whole Foods?

    And then there's the fact that plenty of religious people are perfectly alright with evolution, modern medicine, and all the rest. Again, I think disentangling religion from other variables, such as education, adherence to tradition, etc, is very hard to do to. People who go to church more often are less likely to believe in evolution -- that's true. They're also less likely to be college educated, earn more money, or live in major urban centers. Why do different religious backgrounds correlate differently to belief in things like evolution? Which one is the causal variable? Considering that there is no major discontinuity on the religious spectrum, I'm inclined to think it has to do with the variable that makes rather the most sense on issues of education -- er, educational attainment.

    Belief in creationism and rejection of evolution has everything to do with religion. I mean, that's the whole reason you'd throw out mounds of scientific evidence. A book you believe is 100% true and divine told you something different. There's nothing to disentangle here. There may be several factors that mitigate a religion's misinformation about the origins of life, leading to differing percentages of religious people that accept evolution, but that's just a question of how good the damage control is. The whole reason you have this problem in the first place is religion.

    Yes, there's probably a similar root cause for people adopting homeopathy and religion, but that doesn't validate either belief.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    I am, in fact, one of the people who do that. Because, sometimes, when the theory of relativity just ain't getting me through the day, I have to turn somewhere else. I also happen to be one of those people who doesn't give a fuck about the afterlife, because, ya know... you're dead, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.

    And, as to the bolded: why giggle? Because, I mean, an exploding ball of super-compressed whatnot works... except for the part where it apparently came from fucknowhere. That's pretty lul-worthy, really. Almost, almost as lul-worthy as a giant bearded man in the sky.

    I mean, I'm just sayin'

    So giggle at each other, then.

    Me, I'm an agnostic who would LOVE to believe in God, but can't do so without rational backing for it. I could go either way on the explanations. I'll giggle at both of you for jumping to conclusions.



    But hey, we can all get along perfectly well while giggling, no?

    What I'm saying is that I don't bother with the giggling. Right before the concept of the super-compressed matter that came from nowhere bounces off my funny bone, it's intercepted by a mesh net of "huh... well, time for lunch." Not putting the bearded guy in there is all well and good, but condescending to those who do is basically a dick move. Because, honestly, at that point there's no decent explanation and it really does creep into the land of utter strangeness.

    What's your aversion to giggling? Me, I think of "There Will Be Blood" as a comedy.



    People find humor in the absurd. Both of you find each other's explanations to be absurd. As long as you don't judge each other ON those explanations, there is no harm in those findings.

    That's the real key of it all. Not judging.

    Evander on
  • Options
    FroThulhuFroThulhu Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Ham, I don't know if you understand the difference between science -- a specific method of evaluating empirical claims -- and reason -- the general faculty of humans to arrive at rational conclusions -- and choose to conflate them for some reason, or if you still just don't get it.

    Well, for one thing (and remember that I'm the religious guy here), a lot of the silly bullshit of many different religions was at one time considered to be 'reasonable.' As in, somebody reasoned it out, based on supposition, and not any kind of proof. It was reason that said the world was flat, and the center of all existence. Using personal reasoning has resulted in some stupid, unscientific shit, is what I'm saying.

    Actual science proves shit by actually analyzing concrete material facts, using actual methods of watching shit happen, and testing it. Scientific method and all that.

    FroThulhu on
  • Options
    FroThulhuFroThulhu Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    I am, in fact, one of the people who do that. Because, sometimes, when the theory of relativity just ain't getting me through the day, I have to turn somewhere else. I also happen to be one of those people who doesn't give a fuck about the afterlife, because, ya know... you're dead, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.

    And, as to the bolded: why giggle? Because, I mean, an exploding ball of super-compressed whatnot works... except for the part where it apparently came from fucknowhere. That's pretty lul-worthy, really. Almost, almost as lul-worthy as a giant bearded man in the sky.

    I mean, I'm just sayin'

    So giggle at each other, then.

    Me, I'm an agnostic who would LOVE to believe in God, but can't do so without rational backing for it. I could go either way on the explanations. I'll giggle at both of you for jumping to conclusions.



    But hey, we can all get along perfectly well while giggling, no?

    What I'm saying is that I don't bother with the giggling. Right before the concept of the super-compressed matter that came from nowhere bounces off my funny bone, it's intercepted by a mesh net of "huh... well, time for lunch." Not putting the bearded guy in there is all well and good, but condescending to those who do is basically a dick move. Because, honestly, at that point there's no decent explanation and it really does creep into the land of utter strangeness.

    What's your aversion to giggling? Me, I think of "There Will Be Blood" as a comedy.



    People find humor in the absurd. Both of you find each other's explanations to be absurd. As long as you don't judge each other ON those explanations, there is no harm in those findings.

    That's the real key of it all. Not judging.

    But I don't find the big bang to be absurd. Because it seems like a good enough explanation, based on scientific evidence. What I find absurd is deriding people for believing something happened before that, something that isn't covered by science because, really, the big bang is the farthest back science can go with any degree of certainty.

    FroThulhu on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Ham, I don't know if you understand the difference between science -- a specific method of evaluating empirical claims -- and reason -- the general faculty of humans to arrive at rational conclusions -- and choose to conflate them for some reason, or if you still just don't get it.

    Platonists would also think that what they are doing is "reason". As would theologians.

    Science is natural philosophy, but it is more specifically natural philosophy informed by the ideas of the Enlightenment. It is a certain attitude to the truth.

    And by applying that same attitude to belief in general, to philosophy, we can arrive at last at truth.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Well, have you seen how Atheists are described?

    http://conservapedia.com/Athiest

    I've seen people nearly run away when there's an atheist in the house. There's such a huge irrational fear towards atheists that it's amusing. But, this picture sums it all up:

    atheist-cartoon.gif&t=1

    where the fuck do you live that this sort of shit happens?

    don't just say "The Bible Belt" either because i've learned that term is meaningless bullshit, every American atheist thinks they live in the Bible Belt

    Pony on
  • Options
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Hamham, from your long post history, I know for a fact that you do not have a good background in science. Only someone who hasn't worked in a lab or done actual research talks about science the way you do.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    I am, in fact, one of the people who do that. Because, sometimes, when the theory of relativity just ain't getting me through the day, I have to turn somewhere else. I also happen to be one of those people who doesn't give a fuck about the afterlife, because, ya know... you're dead, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.

    And, as to the bolded: why giggle? Because, I mean, an exploding ball of super-compressed whatnot works... except for the part where it apparently came from fucknowhere. That's pretty lul-worthy, really. Almost, almost as lul-worthy as a giant bearded man in the sky.

    I mean, I'm just sayin'

    So giggle at each other, then.

    Me, I'm an agnostic who would LOVE to believe in God, but can't do so without rational backing for it. I could go either way on the explanations. I'll giggle at both of you for jumping to conclusions.



    But hey, we can all get along perfectly well while giggling, no?

    What I'm saying is that I don't bother with the giggling. Right before the concept of the super-compressed matter that came from nowhere bounces off my funny bone, it's intercepted by a mesh net of "huh... well, time for lunch." Not putting the bearded guy in there is all well and good, but condescending to those who do is basically a dick move. Because, honestly, at that point there's no decent explanation and it really does creep into the land of utter strangeness.

    What's your aversion to giggling? Me, I think of "There Will Be Blood" as a comedy.



    People find humor in the absurd. Both of you find each other's explanations to be absurd. As long as you don't judge each other ON those explanations, there is no harm in those findings.

    That's the real key of it all. Not judging.

    But I don't find the big bang to be absurd. Because it seems like a good enough explanation, based on scientific evidence. What I find absurd is deriding people for believing something happened before that, something that isn't covered by science because, really, the big bang is the farthest back science can go with any degree of certainty.

    duder you know that the so-called "big bang" isn't even the scientific model that the majority of physicists even utilize anymore and hasn't been for decades

    right

    Pony on
  • Options
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    To elaborate:

    Science is rarely a neat A = B ---> A tidy ethical truth about our universe
    It's messy, complicated, sometimes hilariously simple, tedious, redundant, backwards, without logic, or very well reasoned out, and plain old has nothing to do with the reason you think it does.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Options
    VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Wow, we're linking to conservapedia now? That's just not right.

    Using them as the gold standard for how atheists are treated just is not rational. They're nutbags even by conservative standards.

    Religion is just a tool. take it away, and the assholes of the world will just find another way to manipulate ignorant people. You can't use logic and facts on people who have long since rejected logic and facts. Unless you're going to take each one by the hand and show them step by step, you just can't convince some people. Billboards aren't going to do jack to change that.

    I'm not saying to not fight the ignorance and intolerance. Religion, like science, is not inherently good or bad, it just depends on who is wielding it.

    VoodooV on
  • Options
    FroThulhuFroThulhu Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    I am, in fact, one of the people who do that. Because, sometimes, when the theory of relativity just ain't getting me through the day, I have to turn somewhere else. I also happen to be one of those people who doesn't give a fuck about the afterlife, because, ya know... you're dead, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.

    And, as to the bolded: why giggle? Because, I mean, an exploding ball of super-compressed whatnot works... except for the part where it apparently came from fucknowhere. That's pretty lul-worthy, really. Almost, almost as lul-worthy as a giant bearded man in the sky.

    I mean, I'm just sayin'

    So giggle at each other, then.

    Me, I'm an agnostic who would LOVE to believe in God, but can't do so without rational backing for it. I could go either way on the explanations. I'll giggle at both of you for jumping to conclusions.



    But hey, we can all get along perfectly well while giggling, no?

    What I'm saying is that I don't bother with the giggling. Right before the concept of the super-compressed matter that came from nowhere bounces off my funny bone, it's intercepted by a mesh net of "huh... well, time for lunch." Not putting the bearded guy in there is all well and good, but condescending to those who do is basically a dick move. Because, honestly, at that point there's no decent explanation and it really does creep into the land of utter strangeness.

    What's your aversion to giggling? Me, I think of "There Will Be Blood" as a comedy.



    People find humor in the absurd. Both of you find each other's explanations to be absurd. As long as you don't judge each other ON those explanations, there is no harm in those findings.

    That's the real key of it all. Not judging.

    But I don't find the big bang to be absurd. Because it seems like a good enough explanation, based on scientific evidence. What I find absurd is deriding people for believing something happened before that, something that isn't covered by science because, really, the big bang is the farthest back science can go with any degree of certainty.

    duder you know that the so-called "big bang" isn't even the scientific model that the majority of physicists even utilize anymore and hasn't been for decades

    right

    Well, fuck me! So, what's the new theory? I want to learn. Link me, sexy.

    I'd feel really foolish, except my basic assertion is that the origins of the basic material of the universe still has no definitive explanation. However, if I can read up on the present theories, I may have to re-evaluate my stance.

    FroThulhu on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    science has nothing to say about truth

    it is not the pursuit of the truth; it knows it can never find or confirm truth; it is not interested in truth

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    most of the "current" theories are probably superstring theories
    which the majority of the physics community laughs at uproariously and goes on doing actual research

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    science has nothing to say about truth

    it is not the pursuit of the truth; it knows it can never find or confirm truth; it is not interested in truth

    Only if your definition of truth comes from Ancient Greece or Germany.
    To elaborate:

    Science is rarely a neat A = B ---> A tidy ethical truth about our universe
    It's messy, complicated, sometimes hilariously simple, tedious, redundant, backwards, without logic, or very well reasoned out, and plain old has nothing to do with the reason you think it does.

    At the end of the day you have to have evidence, and an explanation of why that evidence supports one hypothesis over another (or why it doesn't).

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    science has nothing to say about truth

    it is not the pursuit of the truth; it knows it can never find or confirm truth; it is not interested in truth

    Only if your definition of truth comes from any philosophy ever

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Why is this turning into a religion vs. science debate? I think society as a whole has moved past the whole religion vs. science thing. I mean people who are young-earth creationists are really just a small fraction of people.

    If you want to talk "intelligent design" as being taught in schools, the way to combat that is not to denounce religion - it's to teach people what is science and what is not. Intelligent design is not science.

    You think society has moved past science vs religion?
    "In the United States, there was no statement commanding the assent of the majority of respondents: 35% of respondents preferred the evolution statement and 47% preferred the creationism statement, with 18% unsure."
    http://ncse.com/news/2010/07/polling-evolution-three-countries-005708

    You're wrong. Dangerously wrong. Creationists KNOW that Intelligent Design is not science, they are just trying to make it look like science to convince people in belongs in school. That was the whole point of the Dover case. They don't care that it's not science. Very few people have been conviced of creationism because of scienctific data (because there is none). Have you ever tried debating with a creationist? You can dump all the evidence for evolution at their feet and explain it to them step by step and they STILL won't believe it. They choose to be ignorant.

    As for the science vs reason debate. Reason is the logical underpinning of the scientific method. They go hand in hand, but you can use reason without science. Heliocentrism was an accepted idea, but never a reasonable one. There was never any direct evidence of it, just assumptions that were based on religious ideas.

    YodaTuna on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Well, have you seen how Atheists are described?

    http://conservapedia.com/Athiest

    I've seen people nearly run away when there's an atheist in the house. There's such a huge irrational fear towards atheists that it's amusing. But, this picture sums it all up:
    atheist-cartoon.gif&t=1

    where the fuck do you live that this sort of shit happens?

    don't just say "The Bible Belt" either because i've learned that term is meaningless bullshit, every American atheist thinks they live in the Bible Belt

    Well, I spent two years of high school living in very rural Oklahoma and then very rural Texas.

    When I told the average person in either high school that I was an atheist, they asked one or more of the following questions:

    So you're gay? So you're a Satanist? So you do drugs?

    So yeah, that kind of stuff does happen. It's hardly a justification for "all religion is stupid" evangelical atheism, but it's not like declaring yourself to be an atheist is without a social stigma in a lot of places.

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    science has nothing to say about truth

    it is not the pursuit of the truth; it knows it can never find or confirm truth; it is not interested in truth

    Only if your definition of truth comes from Ancient Greece or Germany.
    Weird, when I'm determining best methods for quantitatively analyzing a solution of unknown chemical makeup, the last thing I think of is how its applying to some grand Truth with a capital T.

    I mean, I could replace gnomes with electrons and it would still work.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    science has nothing to say about truth

    it is not the pursuit of the truth; it knows it can never find or confirm truth; it is not interested in truth

    Only if your definition of truth comes from any philosophy ever

    Then clearly you have never studied any Pragmatists.

    EDIT: Specifically Dewey. Some of the others are practically Sophists in their definitions of truth.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    I am, in fact, one of the people who do that. Because, sometimes, when the theory of relativity just ain't getting me through the day, I have to turn somewhere else. I also happen to be one of those people who doesn't give a fuck about the afterlife, because, ya know... you're dead, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.

    And, as to the bolded: why giggle? Because, I mean, an exploding ball of super-compressed whatnot works... except for the part where it apparently came from fucknowhere. That's pretty lul-worthy, really. Almost, almost as lul-worthy as a giant bearded man in the sky.

    I mean, I'm just sayin'

    So giggle at each other, then.

    Me, I'm an agnostic who would LOVE to believe in God, but can't do so without rational backing for it. I could go either way on the explanations. I'll giggle at both of you for jumping to conclusions.



    But hey, we can all get along perfectly well while giggling, no?

    What I'm saying is that I don't bother with the giggling. Right before the concept of the super-compressed matter that came from nowhere bounces off my funny bone, it's intercepted by a mesh net of "huh... well, time for lunch." Not putting the bearded guy in there is all well and good, but condescending to those who do is basically a dick move. Because, honestly, at that point there's no decent explanation and it really does creep into the land of utter strangeness.

    What's your aversion to giggling? Me, I think of "There Will Be Blood" as a comedy.



    People find humor in the absurd. Both of you find each other's explanations to be absurd. As long as you don't judge each other ON those explanations, there is no harm in those findings.

    That's the real key of it all. Not judging.

    But I don't find the big bang to be absurd. Because it seems like a good enough explanation, based on scientific evidence. What I find absurd is deriding people for believing something happened before that, something that isn't covered by science because, really, the big bang is the farthest back science can go with any degree of certainty.

    duder you know that the so-called "big bang" isn't even the scientific model that the majority of physicists even utilize anymore and hasn't been for decades

    right

    Well, fuck me! So, what's the new theory? I want to learn. Link me, sexy.

    I'd feel really foolish, except my basic assertion is that the origins of the basic material of the universe still has no definitive explanation. However, if I can read up on the present theories, I may have to re-evaluate my stance.

    Take your pick!

    Holographic cosmology is a viewpoint I personally endorse

    Pony on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    science has nothing to say about truth

    it is not the pursuit of the truth; it knows it can never find or confirm truth; it is not interested in truth

    Only if your definition of truth comes from Ancient Greece or Germany.
    Weird, when I'm determining best methods for quantitatively analyzing a solution of unknown chemical makeup, the last thing I think of is how its applying to some grand Truth with a capital T.

    I mean, I could replace gnomes with electrons and it would still work.

    He didn't write Truth. And neither did I.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
This discussion has been closed.