The Atheism Thread - Part 5

[Hawkingbird]

That's because religion produces allot of idiots...

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Nah, religion doesn't create idiots, ignorance creates idiots and ignorant people can be found in all walks of life. In fact I'd say on the whole people are fairly ignorant.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Nah, religion doesn't create idiots, ignorance creates idiots and ignorant people can be found in all walks of life. In fact I'd say on the whole people are fairly ignorant.

Yeah, I mean religion is pretty dumb, but there's a lot of dumb things.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Actually, I think religion is often the most obvious manifestation of hubris.

Take the Abrahamic faiths for example. They say God made humans in his image. That they are given dominion over all other beings, and that the Earth was created just for them (dinosaurs were just thrown in for fun).

How is this not the pinnacle of arrogance?

I also notice that when people say they are doing a god's will, surprisingly often it seems to be what they want it to be.

I think a lot of things are hubris though.

I think even science has a hubris, it's just a very practical one.

Science likes to believe it can conquor all, perhaps this is an informative rather than a substantiated belief, but I believe we'll hit some sort of a technological limit. We're already learning that certain science fiction tropes, like faster than light or fast as light travel are probably impossible, at least as far as human and human built crafts are concerned. However I rather like the enthusiasm and the ambition that comes with that belief, but I try to be sober minded. I'm not gonna be Michio Kaku over here blabbing about crap like Dyson Spheres and Class III Civilizations like these are hard science when they're simply meaningless conjectures about things for which we have no evidence yet.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I honestly don't see what makes religion illogical. If you use the reductionist argument, a creator is all you're left with.

This is my problem: you're trying to boil the Universe down to common sense arguments and philosophy.

You really have to understand the science. It takes more than common sense and conjecture when you are seeking truth.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Certainly not. Atheism isn't a motivating factor. Its the lack of a philosophy. However they did restrict religious rights just as much as any theocracy. Their non-religious underpinnings contributed to similar results to the problems of theocracies. The potential for these problems don't go away simply by opposing religion.

Atheism does not imply a lack of philosophy. I, for one, am probably closer to Christians on a lot of things. I don't think you should watch a bunch of porn and have tons of unprotected sex your whole life, but maybe that's just me, yet it's a belief that if I explained it to you, sounds a bit Biblical, but in fact it has a lot to do with STD rates. So just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you lack morals, in fact you can have the same morals as Christians, just for different reasons.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

By opposing others faith, you are playing along by being the opposing force. If you really wanted to not play along, the best thing to do would be ignore it. Why seek out unnecessary conflict? I just doesn't make sense to me.

Where did I say I seek this out? I don't regularly hang around Churches.

I like having my positions challenged, though it does get a bit tiresome at times, when we don't agree on reality, since it makes discourse rather pointless.

If you can't win an argument with facts... how do you win an argument?

That's why I'm rather weary of creationists. You can have an interesting discussion with deists. Theists, not so much, they're too far gone.

From what Cracked.com tells me, people are programmed to "win" not to "seek truth", and they also mentioned how humans have large problems with probability.

What's so funny to me about that article is I've always wanted to seek truth and I'm way better at judging probability than my friends, or anyone I know, except my Dad, who taught me.

So yes, I think there is a degree of unlogic there.

Much like the guy who told me to "buy a gun for home defense" this weekend. I hit him back with statistics about how it made my house more of a target for B&Es (backed up by the FBI), how it increased my likelyhood for killing myself or another by 10 and 4.7 respectively (Havard, AMA, CDC), how common accidents are, and how uncommon crimes in which guns can be used truly in self defense (rather than simply intimidation, illegal in all 50 states) are rare occurances that happen only once or twice in a lifetime (obvious depending on where you live, but the neighborhood I am moving to is a rich jewish neighborhood, so there)...

...Of course all I got back was "well you'll be sorry when something about getting my wife raped and television stolen". (By the way my television was stolen and I wasn't around for it in my last place and I am not yet married)

So there you go, f*** logic, I'm moving to a neighborhood so nice I'm sure they aren't used to curse words, but just in case the roving gang of European terrorists shows up, or I'm shadow activated by my Government to work as an operative, I'll be ready with my man-stick.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I think a lot of things are hubris though.

I think even science has a hubris, it's just a very practical one.

Science likes to believe it can conquor all, perhaps this is an informative rather than a substantiated belief, but I believe we'll hit some sort of a technological limit. We're already learning that certain science fiction tropes, like faster than light or fast as light travel are probably impossible, at least as far as human and human built crafts are concerned. However I rather like the enthusiasm and the ambition that comes with that belief, but I try to be sober minded. I'm not gonna be Michio Kaku over here blabbing about crap like Dyson Spheres and Class III Civilizations like these are hard science when they're simply meaningless conjectures about things for which we have no evidence yet.

Science is a method, not an entity. You're projecting here.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Atheism does not imply a lack of philosophy. I, for one, am probably closer to Christians on a lot of things. I don't think you should watch a bunch of porn and have tons of unprotected sex your whole life, but maybe that's just me, yet it's a belief that if I explained it to you, sounds a bit Biblical, but in fact it has a lot to do with STD rates. So just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you lack morals, in fact you can have the same morals as Christians, just for different reasons.

His choice of words was poor. He was just trying to say that atheism itself isn't a philosophy and does not have a coherent set of principles in its own right.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Science is a method, not an entity. You're projecting here.

Yeah have certain unspoken doctrines of science though, and I think kind of an expected outlook with it. Valuing evidence may not seem like an outlook or worldview, but in my opinion it is. I think also recently Science is reaching a religious message for the first time. We have a grander sense of interconnectedness now.

I think Science has evolved beyond simply being a method. In this world, with it's level of both destructive and protective technology it's become something more. You simply can't function rationally without it. You can't look at an iPod and think "oh that science stuff is hogwash" because the device works. Also, since Science has given us mass communication, something (the internet) that was developed so academics could communicate and compare research, it's now informing a sense of interconnectedness between humans. It's becoming harder and harder to paint different groups as "the other" since it's painfully apparent, through science, they are just human.

Really I think due to it's method there now is kind of a larger view of science as it applies to morality. Making it almost like a harmony between fact based thinking and spirituality.

I actually wonder if one day we'll find a new-new-new way of thinking, a new "scientific" method. I mean it's not as though we didn't before, even before science there were advancements in thought.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Yeah have certain unspoken doctrines of science though, and I think kind of an expected outlook with it. Valuing evidence may not seem like an outlook or worldview, but in my opinion it is. I think also recently Science is reaching a religious message for the first time. We have a grander sense of interconnectedness now.

I think Science has evolved beyond simply being a method. In this world, with it's level of both destructive and protective technology it's become something more. You simply can't function rationally without it. You can't look at an iPod and think "oh that science stuff is hogwash" because the device works. Also, since Science has given us mass communication, something (the internet) that was developed so academics could communicate and compare research, it's now informing a sense of interconnectedness between humans. It's becoming harder and harder to paint different groups as "the other" since it's painfully apparent, through science, they are just human.

Really I think due to it's method there now is kind of a larger view of science as it applies to morality. Making it almost like a harmony between fact based thinking and spirituality.

I actually wonder if one day we'll find a new-new-new way of thinking, a new "scientific" method. I mean it's not as though we didn't before, even before science there were advancements in thought.

I think you're suffering from a severe misconception of what science actually is. Could you do me a favor and provide a definition of "science," in your own words? Also, would you be willing to explain the scientific method?

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think you're suffering from a severe misconception of what science actually is. Could you do me a favor and provide a definition of "science," in your own words? Also, would you be willing to explain the scientific method?

Wow, condescending much?

The scientific method basically states that a knowledge must be backed by evidence that can be shown to be testable, quantifiable (measurable), and repeatable. The evidence has to be empirical (has to be able to be experimental and observable by some verifiable means).

Science is kind of a garbage can term, but specifically speaking the only thing I consider real science (hard science, BS degree science) is found in accredited science journals, or established institutions press. Obviously they have to cite sources, and stand up to peer review.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The great thing about being an atheist is: not only do you know none of it is true (thank God), but you know that one day, everyone will look back and think the same thing.

Though they'll probably have new gods.

Ironically I began to wonder: what if Jesus were basically just a Joseph Smith. What does that say about Joseph Smith? There clearly were Gods that fell out of favor that came before Jesus. So in 2,000 years is it gonna be all Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists and whatever?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Wow, condescending much?

I'm asking the question because it's the only way for me to gauge how well you understand the concept. All of your previous posts have indicated that you don't have an accurate understanding of what science is. You consistently fail to make critical conceptual distinctions. *Shrugs*

The scientific method basically states that a knowledge must be backed by evidence that can be shown to be testable, quantifiable (measurable), and repeatable. The evidence has to be empirical (has to be able to be experimental and observable by some verifiable means).

That's not an accurate definition for the scientific method, and the scientific method "states" no such thing. You're confusing scientific standards of knowledge with the scientific method.

The entire point of my asking you to do this was to help you clarify your original point. You're throwing out "science" as a blanket term, and it hurts your argument.

Science is kind of a garbage can term...

Do you mean the same thing that I do when I say "blanket term?"

...but specifically speaking the only thing I consider real science (hard science, BS degree science) is found in accredited science journals, or established institutions press. Obviously they have to cite sources, and stand up to peer review.

BS degree science?

I think you should learn the "try to be less condescending" method.

Whatever.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

BS is Bachelor of Science (Math, Biology, EES, etc) separating it from Political Science and Social Science, they still try to use the same methodology, but it's a soft science.

 

[jmc]

Ironically I began to wonder: what if Jesus were basically just a Joseph Smith. What does that say about Joseph Smith? There clearly were Gods that fell out of favor that came before Jesus. So in 2,000 years is it gonna be all Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists and whatever?

History has shown that big religions eventually get swallowed up by another. Before Christianity it was Paganism that ruled. 2,000 years from now it's a strong bet it will happen again.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Science does require faith in the process. I myself am skeptical of science, I don't think it's the end all be all to thought. It's simply logically flawed to assume so, since science is a result of our brains, which science knows is flawed. In another few millenia we may understand "information" is a whole new way. I mean, really, science is just a collection of many strong suspicions. Science never claims absolute certitude, but it still relies on the process to deliberate. While what science has revealled probably will never be wrong, the Universe itself could prove too wild for scientific thought one day.

 

[Doctor Evo]

BS is Bachelor of Science (Math, Biology, EES, etc) separating it from Political Science and Social Science, they still try to use the same methodology, but it's a soft science.

Oh. Anymore, most people with a BS don't end up designing and carrying out their own scientific research. Sadly, a BS doesn't mean much.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Science does require faith in the process. I myself am skeptical of science, I don't think it's the end all be all to thought. It's simply logically flawed to assume so, since science is a result of our brains, which science knows is flawed. In another few millenia we may understand "information" is a whole new way. I mean, really, science is just a collection of many strong suspicions. Science never claims absolute certitude, but it still relies on the process to deliberate. While what science has revealled probably will never be wrong, the Universe itself could prove too wild for scientific thought one day.

You're doing it again.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

History has shown that big religions eventually get swallowed up by another. Before Christianity it was Paganism that ruled. 2,000 years from now it's a strong bet it will happen again.

Yeah.

I wonder about this. We have more people, and a growing number of Atheists, but it's not like Atheism is new. Jefferson, Hume, and Lincoln were all atheists (deists) and that's just the tip of the Iceberg. Many Popes were supposedly privately atheist, or felt they were perpetuating a myth.

So I wonder if Atheists are simply more outspoken now?

Maybe there are more overall, but maybe fidism just doesn't go away.

Maybe there is always going to be a significant religious population, just swapping names for God.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

You're doing it again.

You do though...

If you didn't believe in the process of science it wouldn't work for you. In other words you wouldn't be able to comprehend it. Despite evidence to the contrary being all around you.

 

[jmc]

Yeah.

I wonder about this. We have more people, and a growing number of Atheists, but it's not like Atheism is new. Jefferson, Hume, and Lincoln were all atheists (deists) and that's just the tip of the Iceberg. Many Popes were supposedly privately atheist, or felt they were perpetuating a myth.

So I wonder if Atheists are simply more outspoken now?

Maybe there are more overall, but maybe fidism just doesn't go away.

Maybe there is always going to be a significant religious population, just swapping names for God.

I don't think religion will ever go away, but I do think Atheism will grow in the coming centuries, especially with further scientific advances, to the point where a good chunk of the global population will eventually either be non-believers or simply non-religious. I don't think people will admit to being Atheists, but rather simply be non-believers.

 

[Doctor Evo]

You do though...

If you didn't believe in the process of science it wouldn't work for you. In other words you wouldn't be able to comprehend it. Despite evidence to the contrary being all around you.

What is the process of science, and why does it depend upon whether you "believe in" it?

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

What is the process of science, and why does it depend upon whether you "believe in" it?

Why doesn't it? Why aren't you teaching Sunday School or going through Seminary?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Why doesn't it? Why aren't you teaching Sunday School or going through Seminary?

This is why I asked you to define the scientific method. You have *no clue* what it entails, do you? Yet you insist upon making these baseless, vague assertions.