Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[SuperFerret]

If that's the point bunk was trying to make, then it had nothing to do with my point, which was partially supplemental to (but not entirely the same as [because I wouldn't presume to speak for the man]) Ferret's original point.

It was entirely the same as what I was saying, just explained more than I thought was needed.

 

[Saint]

Actually... no.

You're displaying a gross misunderstanding of what I'm writing, and that's where the problem lies.

I describe two things that are aspects of one of the similarities that both science (or if you'd prefer "belief in science" since you're taking every word I say as the literally as possible, instead of actually having a conversation like a person) and religion (let's define this, as I always have, as "belief in a higher power") share. That similarity is that both ("to most", I guess, since I need to spell everything out) represent knowledge that (MOST) people have not gained on their own, but rely on others in trusted positions to provide this knowledge for them. They (most people) take this at face value because (ta-f***ing-DA) they trust these people in trusted positions, be they a science teacher or priest.

So, in other words, you completely and utterly mis-communicated your point, and this is my fault. See, when you wrote "Science is similar to religion, and here's how," I assumed you meant science is similar to religion, and here's how. Not "The non-scientific beliefs people have about science, which I will portray as indistinguishable from science itself (despite being non-scientific), can be similar to religion."

Yeah, uh, how foolish of me to think you meant... what you were writing.

It was a poor example, and I'm tired and I can see where this is going, so I'm not even going to bother. I'm sure you or someone else will provide some unsatisfying explanation for whatever I've suggested that completely misses the point I'm making.

Frankly, you don't seem to be making much of a point at all.

 

[Saint]

If that's the point bunk was trying to make, then it had nothing to do with my point, which was partially supplemental to (but not entirely the same as [because I wouldn't presume to speak for the man]) Ferret's original point.

That's something you'll have to take up with Bunk; I'm only explaining what I understand his point to be.

Edit: I think the relevance to your original post is as such: you argued that the average person "Just takes a scientist's word for it," which isn't any different from a religion. Bunk points out that we can experience the truthfulness of scientific discoveries on a daily basis--which is to say we're not just taking someone's word for it, because we can see it, and because there's an entire system regulating it to make sure it's as sound as possible. The combustion engine runs, medical science saves lives, the apples falls when you drop it. This is an important counterpoint to your position that people just "take their word for it" in regards to both science and religion.

If I'm understanding Bunk's response correctly, that is.

 

[Manic]

Then I'll take it up with bunk when he responds. Or not, depending on what he has to say.

 

[Saint]

Then I'll take it up with bunk when he responds. Or not, depending on what he has to say.

I made an edit to my post, clarifying what I perceive to be the relevance of his response.

 

[Barrington]

Well... To say you don't believe in God, suggests that he actually exists.

Food for thought.

 

[SuperFerret]

That's something you'll have to take up with Bunk; I'm only explaining what I understand his point to be.

Edit: I think the relevance to your original post is as such: you argued that the average person "Just takes a scientist's word for it," which isn't any different from a religion. Bunk points out that we can experience the truthfulness of scientific discoveries on a daily basis--which is to say we're not just taking someone's word for it, because we can see it, and because there's an entire system regulating it to make sure it's as sound as possible. The combustion engine runs, medical science saves lives, the apples falls when you drop it. This is an important counterpoint to your position that people just "take their word for it" in regards to both science and religion.

If I'm understanding Bunk's response correctly, that is.

And... what religion denies these? Or is it only in the realm of "science" because we all know it, but they study it?

I'm sorry (AGAIN) that I didn't clarify (I think I need a lawyer to post), we're talking about stuff that you can't observe on your own, like the existence of a god (which you kinda need to feel) or the existence of atomic crap (which you kinda need an electron microscope).

 

[Saint]

And... what religion denies these? Or is it only in the realm of "science" because we all know it, but they study it?

I'm sorry (AGAIN) that I didn't clarify (I think I need a lawyer to post), we're talking about stuff that you can't observe on your own, like the existence of a god (which you kinda need to feel) or the existence of atomic crap (which you kinda need an electron microscope).

Again, this isn't my argument--you're going to have to take that particular branch of the conversation up with Bunk, as I only caught the tail end of it. I don't know what the context is.

 

[Sloth7d]

Religious leaders produce results on a social level. Charities, rehab programs, counseling. Scientific discovery hardly produces social results, just as religion is hardly going to produce technological results.

But you acknowledge that science is about facts while religion is about nothing of that sort?

I would say that's wrong anyway. Religion doesn't have to be the errant texts and ideas spewed by the preachers of the Abrahamic religion. However, the problem is no one is willingly to let go of the past, instead clinging onto the curtails of 2000 year old parables and superstition. If science had remained at the place religion still has today, we would still yet be attempting to conjure gold from rocks.

 

[Bill]

Actually... no.

You're displaying a gross misunderstanding of what I'm writing, and that's where the problem lies.

I describe two things that are aspects of one of the similarities that both science (or if you'd prefer "belief in science" since you're taking every word I say as the literally as possible, instead of actually having a conversation like a person) and religion (let's define this, as I always have, as "belief in a higher power") share. That similarity is that both ("to most", I guess, since I need to spell everything out) represent knowledge that (MOST) people have not gained on their own, but rely on others in trusted positions to provide this knowledge for them. They (most people) take this at face value because (ta-f***ing-DA) they trust these people in trusted positions, be they a science teacher or priest.

Are you arguing the veracity of the conclusions or a lack of practical knowledge that leads to fallacious reasoning?

 

[Manic]

But you acknowledge that science is about facts while religion is about nothing of that sort?

Actually, no. Well, maybe I do, but for the sake of this argument, that's not what I was getting at at all. In the post you quoted, I was just saying that both science and religion achieve significant and beneficial things.

I would say that's wrong anyway. Religion doesn't have to be the errant texts and ideas spewed by the preachers of the Abrahamic religion. However, the problem is no one is willingly to let go of the past, instead clinging onto the curtails of 2000 year old parables and superstition. If science had remained at the place religion still has today, we would still yet be attempting to conjure gold from rocks.

What makes you think I'm speaking on behalf of an Abrahamic religion? I could be an advocate for a religion that doesn't have a history of its leaders clashing with scientific discovery. In the case of those groups, if science was at the same place today it was then, then I imagine there wouldn't be too much of a difference.



In fact, I want to make one thing clear: Whenever I bring up a topic in this thread, I'm not always talking about Abrahamic religions. I actually acknowledge and know a little bit (just a little-- I'm not claiming to be an expert) about other religious groups, and will sometimes serve as their advocate out of principle.

 

[Bill]

As someone who has studied science, I am familiar with the scientific method and what it is.

Trusting someone on their word is not part of it, but you are implicitly trusting that they went through this method and that their findings are legitimate.

And the reluctance to accept anecdotal evidence is one of the biggest faults of the scientific method. Something need not be repeatable to have happened.

No, but it does need to have empirical testable evidence that is able to be studied and experimented upon by more than just one, or even a group of people, to reach a conclusion that can be trusted as close to accurate as possible relating to the available evidence.

Anecdotal evidence in the form of religious experiences is often only relevant to the individual having them, and ineffective as an explanatory device outside of the specific sect to which it relates. If we were to use it as part of the scientific method to, let's say, verify which religion is true. Who would we use as a test subject? Control subject? If we are doing a general study of all religions, what about the differences within each sect of religions that affect the experiences keeping them inconsistent with others of the same general religion? What questions and predictions could we make using anecdotal evidence to support a hypothesis?

For example, if I were to posit that Christianity would be substantiated if all religious experiences that Christians have about certain aspects of the religion were consistent, then how would the fact that they're often not consistent at all affect the result? Now, let's assume they are consistent. What if the experiences of Muslims and Buddhists show a similar line of consistency? How would that affect the overall experiment?

I'm not saying that these people are not having experiences. But there is nothing to show that their experiences have any explanatory power outside of their own religions and backgrounds.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Well... To say you don't believe in God, suggests that he actually exists.

Food for thought.

I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy.

OMG, I must be suggesting that the Tooth Fairy really exists and that I have a closeted belief in her!

 

[echostation]

Trust me guys... Allah Hi hoodim exists in Sethu Faridoon Sheriyaar's name. I've said over and over, I've even shown clips that powers of God exist on Earth... it's amazing when none of you listen. I showed you youtube clip from Documentary Indian film of man moving train with his own prayer force... I'll find clip again and paste for you to be befuddled...

 

[bunk]

Religious leaders produce results on a social level. Charities, rehab programs, counseling.

Okay... but what good would a charity be without the average person on the ground making it work? One of those average people could easily step up and become the organizer.

Scientific discovery hardly produces social results, just as religion is hardly going to produce technological results.

You've typed this message and sent it to me via the internet. Think about that.

That's something you'll have to take up with Bunk; I'm only explaining what I understand his point to be.

Edit: I think the relevance to your original post is as such: you argued that the average person "Just takes a scientist's word for it," which isn't any different from a religion. Bunk points out that we can experience the truthfulness of scientific discoveries on a daily basis--which is to say we're not just taking someone's word for it, because we can see it, and because there's an entire system regulating it to make sure it's as sound as possible. The combustion engine runs, medical science saves lives, the apples falls when you drop it. This is an important counterpoint to your position that people just "take their word for it" in regards to both science and religion.

If I'm understanding Bunk's response correctly, that is.

Yeah, your post is in line with what I was thinking. I think with the average person, trust in a religious figure will tend to be built on a personal level, whereas the scientist doesn't require it. There's a feeling of consistency in the scientific community that allows people to give scientists the benefit of the doubt. No such consistency exists among religious leaders. Another element is that of training and how it relates to religious scholars and scientists. The average person does a have an idea of how difficult it would be to become an expert in a scientific field. Whether you dropped out in ninth grade, or got yourself a degree, you know becoming educated isn't easy. Even if only vaguely aware of the effort required, the average person has respect for it. On the other hand, a religious leader will likely have the average person's respect, but it's questionable how much effort was required to achieve such a position. They certainly read the bible a lot.

 

[Barrington]

Bat-Mite, well you better believe you were put here for a reason. Not just some updated model of a monkey.

 

[Dr.]

Bat-Mite, well you better believe you were put here for a reason. Not just some updated model of a monkey.

Classic goalpost shifting. This has nothing to do with your original challenge or Bat-Mite's response to it.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Trust me guys... Allah Hi hoodim exists in Sethu Faridoon Sheriyaar's name. I've said over and over, I've even shown clips that powers of God exist on Earth... it's amazing when none of you listen. I showed you youtube clip from Documentary Indian film of man moving train with his own prayer force... I'll find clip again and paste for you to be befuddled...

He sounds like a Jedi, moving a train with the power of the force. But a magician wouldn't make me believe in God.

 

[Sloth7d]

Actually, no. Well, maybe I do, but for the sake of this argument, that's not what I was getting at at all. In the post you quoted, I was just saying that both science and religion achieve significant and beneficial things.

What makes you think I'm speaking on behalf of an Abrahamic religion? I could be an advocate for a religion that doesn't have a history of its leaders clashing with scientific discovery. In the case of those groups, if science was at the same place today it was then, then I imagine there wouldn't be too much of a difference.



In fact, I want to make one thing clear: Whenever I bring up a topic in this thread, I'm not always talking about Abrahamic religions. I actually acknowledge and know a little bit (just a little-- I'm not claiming to be an expert) about other religious groups, and will sometimes serve as their advocate out of principle.

But I think there's a need to specify the bad religions from the benign ones. You can't just say "religion" is beneficial in general when so many different faiths and sects of faith promote completely different ideas. Most Atheists I've seen on the net subscribe to some form of secular Humanism or are science majors, which, for the most part, means they only have a problem with religions that contradict scientific facts or belittle human rights. Similar is why people like Richard Dawkins have no problems with people like Ursula Goodenough. Not to go on a long ramble here, but I think making the distinction of religion should be emphasized since any healthy idea shouldn't conflict your mind with reality just because your emotions are strong enough. In any single individual, this would be seen as delusional.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Bat-Mite, well you better believe you were put here for a reason. Not just some updated model of a monkey.

I'd better believe it? Will the bogeyman get me if I don't? Why does my life need a storyline? I can tell you that I'm much more comfortable with my life now than I ever was when I was trying to make it fit into a storyline that had nothing to do with me. I will also never understand why Abrahamic* theists (at least, pushy, seemingly anti-science theists like yourself) act is if one should be extremely offended that man and apes share a common ancestor when they're the ones that have the holy book that says man is made of dirt. Of course, there's also that lovely bit in there about the human race having its origins in incest.

*I'm assuming that you follow an Abrahamic religion, as I've never heard of any other kind of theist (Hindus, for example) taking so much offense at the theory of evolution.

Trust me guys... Allah Hi hoodim exists in Sethu Faridoon Sheriyaar's name. I've said over and over, I've even shown clips that powers of God exist on Earth... it's amazing when none of you listen. I showed you youtube clip from Documentary Indian film of man moving train with his own prayer force... I'll find clip again and paste for you to be befuddled...

Is this fellow acquainted with the man in this video? They sound like they might use some of the same methods. If there were a God and He/She/It wanted to make itself known, why would it choose people like this? Why wouldn't it just reveal itself to everyone simultaneously so that there could be no doubt about it? Surely a being so powerful would be capable of such a feat. And if it's because the deity wants people to have faith, free will, etc., why bother to show miracles through these supposed holy men?

 

[Bubonic]

Well... To say you don't believe in God, suggests that he actually exists.

Food for thought.

What sort of circular logic is this?
That's tantamount to saying nothing at all.
He exist insofar as he was created by a particular group of humans to make sense of the world and his concept been carried through the ages by way of force and indoctrination.
That's a real poor argument for the existence of anything.

Trust me guys... Allah Hi hoodim exists in Sethu Faridoon Sheriyaar's name. I've said over and over, I've even shown clips that powers of God exist on Earth... it's amazing when none of you listen. I showed you youtube clip from Documentary Indian film of man moving train with his own prayer force... I'll find clip again and paste for you to be befuddled...

And why should you be trusted?
You really seem like you're just trolling though, searches for both allah hi hoodim and sethu faridoon sheriyaar basically just bring up this very thread where you seemingly made the **** up.
If such powerful evidence existed it wouldn't solely exist in tabloids, the internet and suspect videos on youtube.
All this talk of mystical powers and we still can't get one ******* who can actually bend a spoon with their mind without resorting to trickery.
Hey, check it out, David Copperfield made the statue of liberty disappear, maybe he's the second coming of Christ?

[YT]VAEw-gtDkO4[/YT]

Bat-Mite, well you better believe you were put here for a reason. Not just some updated model of a monkey.

Every single one of the almost 7 billion people have been put here for a reason? This is so preposterous but I'm sure you'd get all It's a Wonderful Life on me if I pushed the issue.
Life has meaning insofar as you give it meaning, I wonder what the purposes of all the starving little children in Africa are? To make us grateful of our own fortunes?

You'll also go so far as deny the similarities between apes and ourselves?

 

[8wid]

Well... To say you don't believe in God, suggests that he actually exists.

Food for thought.

Fine. I'll say this instead: We know for a fact that God does not exist. Besides your reasoning does not connect logically.

 

[echostation]

you asked... and you shall receive... definitive proof

[YT]pvF64F3AjKY[/YT]

next time... try to have some evidence...

 

[bunk]

I love that the pose at the end.

 

[Bubonic]

The sentence is almost as bad as that bollywood video.