Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Spider-Who?]

Most of that is making up for the damage religion has caused, they're just catching up and taking credit for fixing things they've broken.

Are you even aware of what those charities do? So you're saying christians cause the world's diseases, orphans, natural disasters and poor and over populated countries? I would really like to see your logic in this.

Nice way to take my phrase out of context in order to prove a point, bravo, watch a lot of Fox News do you?

You post a picture comparing science and religion to prove how science is superior several times, then agree with me that science and religion shouldn't be compared. I don't see how I twisted that in any way. Your posts speak for themselves.

Historically there have been a lot of religious scientist, if anything it has held back scientific progress when the scientist in question is trying to solve the mysteries of the world under the dogmatic shroud of religion. My hypothesis that some scientist were forced to hold their tongue isn't sad and baseless, but it is sad many had to live lies.

While I would be a fool to argue against the fact that the church does have some tarnished spots of its history concerning science, that doesn't defeat my point that religion served a vitally important and positive role in the long birth of modern science. You can hypothesize all you want in an effort to rebuke this notion, but for someone who is so enslaved to the idea that science is the answer, and one must deal only in the facts, you have a habit of dismissing them.

Can creationist be considered anything else but nitwits in this day and age? You're just as self-righteous as me and are posing as if you're the voice of reason and objective.

1) Being religious or spiritual doesn't automatically mean one is a creationist. That being said, there are many schools of thought when it comes to "creationism". To lay blankets of insults such as nitwit over people is kind of ignorant. That being said, I do personally find the more fanatical creationists to be cursed with the desire to jump to conclusions that facts don't represent which in turn hurts any credibility other more rational ones have. Of course, this is a common trait not designated to religion only.

2) I don't consider myself self-righteous. I DO try to be objective and reasonable, though.

If you can't defend the existence of the supernatural being at the head of your religion then what is the point of defending said religion at all?

I never said it can't be defended. I did, however say it is hard to defend ANY topic, when the other side vehemently disagrees. Take our last few posts for example. Nothing but a lot of smoke and little actual exchange of knowledge. How can anyone have a fruitful debate like that?

You really didn't deconstruct the Pat Condell videos worth for ****, just pointed out some ambiguities and possible mistakes.

Yeah, I figured that would be your reaction. I'd ask you to demonstrate exactly HOW my post was "****", but I don't feel like looking at any more ironically funny pictures.

In the end you're no more an authority on the matter then he is and depending on where you are looking either your answers or his will be confirmed or denied.

I never claimed to be an authority, and I'm pretty sure I've made my post concerning it quite clear. Yes, one will see whatever one wants; but to be truly objective, one must desire to learn and understand past their bias. If you think my counter-argument was ****, I'd advise you to actually look into the points I made and prove how that is so. Otherwise you are being nothing but a slave to your own way of thinking, and preventing yourself from learning something new, all under the veil of remaining "right".

 

[Spider-Who?]

Nothing is being created in your garden, it is just being.

 

[Manic]

Just because other religions haven't been as forceful doesn't make them any more valid. If we are just speaking about reality and the likelihood of any of these individual religions properly explaining cosmology then I'd still argue that they aren't any more useful.

All that said I'm not advocating the complete eradication of religions as they are inextricably tied to culture, but when it comes down to making laws and educating people then they shouldn't be accorded as much weight as science.

But not all religions even come close to touching science. Ask a Sikh what their religion says about how the universe was created, and they won't have anything to say because Sikhism doesn't say how. Then you've got Buddhism, which doesn't really try to explain a damn thing that science explains.

Sometimes science plays no role in proving or disproving the validity of certain religious teachings because they don't always intersect.

When most people talk about science vs. religion, they're talking about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It's not "religion," it's "these particular religions." If I were to use Buddhism alone in an a theological discussion the way some people exclusively use Christianity, it would confuse the hell out of people (and not just because I'd be using a mostly godless religion).

 

[Bat-Mite]

In my garden I can see evidence of Creation...when you start seeing unicorn poop, you let me know.

He said that the unicorn was invisible and intangible. It's likely that it's "poop" would be also. Doesn't really matter, though, as everyone knows that unicorns don't really poop, but instead spray rainbows from their asses.

 

[Bill]

Lack of belief is an assertion. Negative assertion is not free from the need of evidence. That's like saying a person being sued does not require any evidence or need to take any action to prove their innocence; that they just need to smugly sit in the court room without lawyers, witnesses or cross examinations.

There is a world of difference between a legal proceeding and a lack of belief, and in our current legal system a defendant need not prove their innocence. They are innocent until proven guilty. The presence of counsel is to assist them in navigating our legal system and allowing due process.

I am an Agnostic atheist. I do not believe in a god, but since I don't claim any specific knowledge on the existence of a Supreme Being, I make no assertion of it's non-existence. My lack of belief is based on a lack of evidence and/ or a lack of knowledge that would support the assertion that a Supreme Being does exist.

However, if you decide to describe a specific god, and that god does not meet the expectation of your description and the evidence provided is lacking, then there is certainly a logical stance
in dismissing it's existence.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Bill, you're absolutely right, and I expressed as much when someone else pointed out my poorly thought out analogy. I also re-iterated my view point on it in a (hopefully more intelligible) post recognizing that call out.

 

[JAK®]

In my garden I can see evidence of Creation...when you start seeing unicorn poop, you let me know.

Describe how you know the garden was created by a god.

 

[redhawk23]

But not all religions even come close to touching science. Ask a Sikh what their religion says about how the universe was created, and they won't have anything to say because Sikhism doesn't say how. Then you've got Buddhism, which doesn't really try to explain a damn thing that science explains.

Sometimes science plays no role in proving or disproving the validity of certain religious teachings because they don't always intersect.

When most people talk about science vs. religion, they're talking about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It's not "religion," it's "these particular religions." If I were to use Buddhism alone in an a theological discussion the way some people exclusively use Christianity, it would confuse the hell out of people (and not just because I'd be using a mostly godless religion).

There is a fantastic short article written by the Dalai Lama the day after Apollo 11 about how he feels science interacts with his personal religion. I'll have to dig that up.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I don't see what's unreasonable about his statement. When conditions are sufficient, things manifest, when conditions aren't sufficient, they do not. This is why a plant does not randomly appear in emptiness of space, which could happen if a creator just magically popped out anything that it had a mind to. A plant needs water, air, soil, all the little cells that make it up, etc. Space does not have those conditions, but there are planets other than Earth that most likely do. The plant life there would be different than what we have here, but if the environmental conditions are similar, the plants will be also. There is no need for the involvement of a deity in this process.

 

[Bubonic]

Are you even aware of what those charities do? So you're saying christians cause the world's diseases, orphans, natural disasters and poor and over populated countries? I would really like to see your logic in this.

Honestly I was exaggerating a bit, but some cultures would be much better off if they'd never felt the crushing blows of the major monotheistic religions stripping them of their beliefs and plaguing them with a bunch of stupid ones. For example; denying condom use to aids ridden populations of Africa. Might be helping the kid a bit via some religious backed charity but the problem wouldn't be so dire if it hadn't been for religion in the first place.

You post a picture comparing science and religion to prove how science is superior several times, then agree with me that science and religion shouldn't be compared. I don't see how I twisted that in any way. Your posts speak for themselves.

And yet you don't grasp them. I did say that science and religion shouldn't have anything to do with each other yet also pointed out that religion insist being as relevant as science in the educational system and often makes a point of lambasting scientific facts or theories because they are at odds with religious text.

While I would be a fool to argue against the fact that the church does have some tarnished spots of its history concerning science, that doesn't defeat my point that religion served a vitally important and positive role in the long birth of modern science. You can hypothesize all you want in an effort to rebuke this notion, but for someone who is so enslaved to the idea that science is the answer, and one must deal only in the facts, you have a habit of dismissing them.

Since you're obviously full of answers then why not take the time to explain to me how it is that religion advanced science instead of just saying it is so.
Science isn't infallible, and it is one of the things I like about it, science has been wrong but its basic framework makes it so these fallacies can be improved upon. I'm no slave, I love how you word things so strongly.

1) Being religious or spiritual doesn't automatically mean one is a creationist. That being said, there are many schools of thought when it comes to "creationism". To lay blankets of insults such as nitwit over people is kind of ignorant. That being said, I do personally find the more fanatical creationists to be cursed with the desire to jump to conclusions that facts don't represent which in turn hurts any credibility other more rational ones have. Of course, this is a common trait not designated to religion only.

Once again you pick and choose what I say and how you'll respond to it. I didn't call the religious and spiritual nitwits nor did I say all religious and spiritual people are creationist.
The main school of thought in creationism seems to be thoughtlessness.

2) I don't consider myself self-righteous. I DO try to be objective and reasonable, though.

Trying is half the battle.

I never said it can't be defended. I did, however say it is hard to defend ANY topic, when the other side vehemently disagrees. Take our last few posts for example. Nothing but a lot of smoke and little actual exchange of knowledge. How can anyone have a fruitful debate like that?

Sure, but how do you defend the existence of such a being? Nothing very convincing ever comes out of it apart from faith in such a belief.
If we are arguing about the theory of evolution on the other hand I could present a lot of hard science and anthropological data in order to back up the claim that there is validity to the theory. With your belief in a supernatural being what is it that you've got as proof?

Yeah, I figured that would be your reaction. I'd ask you to demonstrate exactly HOW my post was "****", but I don't feel like looking at any more ironically funny pictures.

You said you explained why the Pat Condell video is wrong, but there was more to it than the three points you decided to tackle. Your post wasn't ****, but it didn't do much to prove the man wholeheartedly wrong.

Leave my ironically funny pictures out of this, here's another one since you felt the need to mention them. (the following statements may not coincide with my own personal beliefs regarding Christians, I just did it for the lulz.)

I never claimed to be an authority, and I'm pretty sure I've made my post concerning it quite clear. Yes, one will see whatever one wants; but to be truly objective, one must desire to learn and understand past their bias. If you think my counter-argument was ****, I'd advise you to actually look into the points I made and prove how that is so. Otherwise you are being nothing but a slave to your own way of thinking, and preventing yourself from learning something new, all under the veil of remaining "right".

**** was the wrong word, incomplete would be more like it. I love learning knew things concerning cultures, and honestly as a former student of anthropology I just ended up finding the top couple of religions the most boring although historically the most forceful.

 

[Bubonic]

Oh what now?
What is being "created" in the garden?
Zucchinis are being created are they?

 

[Spider-Who?]

I don't see what's unreasonable about his statement. When conditions are sufficient, things manifest, when conditions aren't sufficient, they do not. This is why a plant does not randomly appear in emptiness of space, which could happen if a creator just magically popped out anything that it had a mind to. A plant needs water, air, soil, all the little cells that make it up, etc. Space does not have those conditions, but there are planets other than Earth that most likely do. The plant life there would be different than what we have here, but if the environmental conditions are similar, the plants will be also. There is no need for the involvement of a deity in this process.

True, but at the point of discussion, there was no talk of God at all. He was totally dismissing the OP's statement solely based on the baggage his views on religion placed on the word "creation". Creation, with many meanings, including the production of something new by a course of action or behavior, is an entirely valid description of what the OP was seeing in his garden. My face palm was Bubonic's dismissal of that fact.

 

[Bubonic]

True, but at the point of discussion, there was no talk of God at all. He was totally dismissing the OP's statement solely based on the baggage his views on religion placed on the word "creation". Creation, with many meanings, including the production of something new by a course of action or behavior, is an entirely valid description of what the OP was seeing in his garden. My face palm was Bubonic's dismissal of that fact.

Facepalm yourself a little harder.

How is it you know what was implied in that person's statement?
Creation implies a creator, not sure what dictionary you are pulling from.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Oh what now?
What is being "created" in the garden?
Zucchinis are being created are they?

Technically yes. The process of reproduction creates a new generation of zucchini.

 

[Bat-Mite]

True, but at the point of discussion, there was no talk of God at all. He was totally dismissing the OP's statement solely based on the baggage his views on religion placed on the word "creation". Creation, with many meanings, including the production of something new by a course of action or behavior, is an entirely valid description of what the OP was seeing in his garden. My face palm was Bubonic's dismissal of that fact.

The word "creation" was capitalized, though (and it wasn't at the start of a sentence.) When you say something about Creation like that, it likely means that you're referring to the product of a Creator, since we all know how people love to capitalize things referencing God, such as "He," "Him," etc.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

It doesn't create. It produces. Hence sexual reproduction. It's the same thing, just a little different. Creation is something that is new.

 

[Manic]

For the record, I think this discussion is disgusting and a complete abomination against good taste.




I mean, have you tasted a zucchini?

 

[Spider-Who?]

It doesn't create. It produces. Hence sexual reproduction. It's the same thing, just a little different. Creation is something that is new.

An offspring is something new. Produce and create are synonyms of each other. Creation is not reduced to an act of sentient beings.

For the record, I think this discussion is disgusting and a complete abomination against good taste.

I mean, have you tasted a zucchini?

Agreed. Its devolved into semantics now. And yes, zucchini is tasteless.

 

[Bubonic]

But not all religions even come close to touching science. Ask a Sikh what their religion says about how the universe was created, and they won't have anything to say because Sikhism doesn't say how. Then you've got Buddhism, which doesn't really try to explain a damn thing that science explains.

Sometimes science plays no role in proving or disproving the validity of certain religious teachings because they don't always intersect.

When most people talk about science vs. religion, they're talking about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It's not "religion," it's "these particular religions." If I were to use Buddhism alone in an a theological discussion the way some people exclusively use Christianity, it would confuse the hell out of people (and not just because I'd be using a mostly godless religion).

Okay, how about monotheistic religions when referring to those three, I think that is the official handle anyways. Just takes longer to type out wouldn't ya know it

Technically yes. The process of reproduction creates a new generation of zucchini.

Nothing is being created here, the genes are just being passed onto the next generation. The zucchinis didn't get together and put together a baby zucchini, and even that wouldn't really be creation it just be duplication.

For the record, I think this discussion is disgusting and a complete abomination against good taste.




I mean, have you tasted a zucchini?

Never dared eat them raw but they make good filler in spaghetti sauce or stew, they just end up taking on the flavour of the dish while adding a bit of substance.

 

[Manic]

Okay, how about monotheistic religions when referring to those three, I think that is the official handle anyways. Just takes longer to type out wouldn't ya know it

That's slightly better. All I ask is that religious discussions be a little more specific.

Because once again, I'm not trying to actually prove the validity of any religion. I'm just picking a topic and playing devil's advocate. Think of me as Keanu Reeves in that one movie with Al Pacino, except I don't utterly suck and I can occasionally hold someone's interest for more than 3 seconds at a time.

Never dared eat them raw but they make good filler in spaghetti sauce or stew, they just end up taking on the flavour of the dish while adding a bit of substance.

I find them disgusting. If there is a God, I guarantee you She played no part in creating those things.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

An offspring is something new. Produce and create are synonyms of each other. Creation is not reduced to an act of sentient beings.

Actually yes they are, eg:

An iPod is a creation. It was created by Steve Jobs.

A Pear is a living organism. It was reproduced from the parent tree.

A star is a formation. It forms over time.

 

[redhawk23]

Since you're obviously full of answers then why not take the time to explain to me how it is that religion advanced science instead of just saying it is so.
Science isn't infallible, and it is one of the things I like about it, science has been wrong but its basic framework makes it so these fallacies can be improved upon. I'm no slave, I love how you word things so strongly.


Trying is half the battle.

As you should know, science is not a collection of beliefs, nor is it simply the sum of evidence and facts that it reveals. It is a a process of systematic observation, of asking questions and seeking answers. The systematic nature allows and requires for increased objectivity. The goal is to remove as much subjectivity and error from observations and the conclusions drawn from them.

This system is born out of a number of different philosophies that have developed over the centuries, but science and the philosophies that support it have their roots in ancient Greece. Science involves ther pursuit of knowledge, but we first had to debate what the hell knowledge even is. The philosophers defined their views of knowledge, of truth, of logic. They along with others throughout the world developed modern mathematics.

It is from this basis that much of scientific method and the so-called enlightenment were develoded.

However almost all of this was once lost to history.

Theres a reason why the Dark Ages were called the dark ages. Throughout most of the western world writing and the knowledge it preserved was lost to almost everyone, not that the ancient world was all that literate to begin with.

For the most part the only people that preserved all this knowledge, who continued to study and expand upon the philosophies and combined knowledge of the western world were monks. It was the church that preserved all of this. It was also the church that eventually began to once again build up literacy in the west.

Before there were huge multinational technology corporations pumping funding into scientific progress, it was members of the church who studied the old texts, and who had the time to commit to expanding and developing that knowledge.

The foundations of our understanding of genetics were written by an Austrian monk, the last time I checked. I believed his name was Mendel, I'm too lazy to google it right now.

Furthermore, before corporations and government grants for research, most if not research was done at universities. The first universities in the west were made originally to train clergy. These universities, particularly Jesuit universities were committed to expanding knowledge about the world. Many of these universities still exist, many are still closely assoicated with the church. Other universities follow their model. As these education systems have expanded others have gone to them as a source of training and education in the scientific method and the full spectrum of human knowledge.

Even in lower education, Churches have contributed to the spread of literacy and access to scientific knowledge and education.


You can disagree with their actual beliefs all you want, but you cannot deny the historical truth that as a monetary, social and educational force, organized religions and in particular the Catholic church have contributed greatly to the development of science.

 

[redhawk23]

Okay, how about monotheistic religions when referring to those three, I think that is the official handle anyways. Just takes longer to type out wouldn't ya know it

You're thinking of Abrahamic

 

[Bubonic]

That's slightly better. All I ask is that religious discussions be a little more specific.

Because once again, I'm not trying to actually prove the validity of any religion. I'm just picking a topic and playing devil's advocate. Think of me as Keanu Reeves in that one movie with Al Pacino, except I don't utterly suck and I can occasionally hold someone's interest for more than 3 seconds at a time.

That movie really wasn't all that bad. I just wish the full nude reveal of Charlize Theron wasn't marred by cuts all over her body, made it really hard to fap.

Spoiler

KIDDING

Anyways, back on topic, I'll make a concerted effort to not thrown a blanket over all religions. Is Buddhism even a religion or just a way of thinking, I've leafed through a few of these mini pamphlets with the words of wisdom, love them, can really set your mind straight at times.

I find them disgusting. If there is a God, I guarantee you She played no part in creating those things.

You've had them cooked into a sauce though, really aren't noticeable and they got enough vitamins to make it worth while.

She! Well I'm sure some would object to that.

 

[Bubonic]

You can disagree with their actual beliefs all you want, but you cannot deny the historical truth that as a monetary, social and educational force, organized religions and in particular the Catholic church have contributed greatly to the development of science.

You're thinking of Abrahamic

Thanks for schooling me and doing so in a respectful fashion.
I did know about Mendel and him messing around with snap peas or whatever it was.

I'm thankful for the resurgence and preservation of science, just a shame some seem to be taking steps backward on the subject because all a sudden it has gotten threatening.