Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
message 7951:
by
Robin
(new)
Dec 23, 2012 06:17PM
I grew up with Sean Connery being Bond, James Bond. Have seen Roger Moore in the role, but it will always be quintessentially Connery.
reply
|
flag
Robin wrote: "I grew up with Sean Connery being Bond, James Bond. Have seen Roger Moore in the role, but it will always be quintessentially Connery."
Have you seen Skyfall yet? Travis is right. It really is good. :)
Have you seen Skyfall yet? Travis is right. It really is good. :)
Shannon wrote: "Waiting for someone to say ..."There's no crying in Bond films!""
Well, I did tear up when they destroyed the car.
Maria wrote: "OMG - Sean Connery is by far the best Bond. Hands down!"Connery will always be 'THE' Bond. I've liked most of the others, but he was the best.
Though, Bond is a bit like Doctor Who, in that your first tends to be your favorite.
Almost forgot...Merry Christmas everyone!
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Waiting for someone to say ...
"There's no crying in Bond films!""
Well, I did tear up when they destroyed the car."
Ahhh.... Did you? While that part made me sad, I didn't cry there. I cried at the church. Hint, hint.
Must say, though ... that was a beautiful car. Sigh.... Of course, the house/hall was beautiful, too, in a lonely and mournful sort of way.
Yes, Merry Christmas to those who celebrate.
"There's no crying in Bond films!""
Well, I did tear up when they destroyed the car."
Ahhh.... Did you? While that part made me sad, I didn't cry there. I cried at the church. Hint, hint.
Must say, though ... that was a beautiful car. Sigh.... Of course, the house/hall was beautiful, too, in a lonely and mournful sort of way.
Yes, Merry Christmas to those who celebrate.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Waiting for someone to say ..."There's no crying in Bond films!""
Well, I did tear up when they destroyed the car."
Ahhh.... Did you? While that part made me sa..."
When the car first shows up, my wife asked "Isn't that a famous Bond car?"
and I explained 'That is THE Bond car!'
Travis wrote: "When the car first shows up, my wife asked "Isn't that a famous Bond car?" and I explained 'That is THE Bond car!'
"
I know. And, ... as they sped away, it was the old Bond music. My cousin yelped and started laughing. The nods to the past that you mentioned were awesome. Perfect touches.
"
I know. And, ... as they sped away, it was the old Bond music. My cousin yelped and started laughing. The nods to the past that you mentioned were awesome. Perfect touches.
I thought the book was so much better than the movie. You just can't beat the written word. I feel so much was lost in the film.
Personally, I don't perceive one separated from the other. So I'll answer neither...would be a dull drab world.
Pandora wrote: "I agree respect and love are most important. Back to the original question if I had to choose between science and religon. Agnostic though I am I think I would choose religon. Religon gets a bad..."Awesome answer Pandora...couldn't agree more.
Religion and science ask and answer different questions. Both have changed the world in good and bad ways; both have lied about their own "truth" and both appeal to man's most basic question "WHY?" Which answers that question most fully for each one of us is what we choose. I choose God.
Religion is a hard thing to define. I looked it up, just for the heck of it, and got this: Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Given that atheism is the belief that there is no God, atheism is a belief system, which would mean that even atheism falls within the parameters of being a religion. Given there are now atheist groups and organizations pushing the atheist agenda, the similarities between the belief that there is no God and the belief that there is a God grow stronger and stronger. Persons like myself who fall into the "maybe there is, maybe there isn't but I really don't care" crowd feel pressure from both sides to commit. Why should I? The fact is, none of us "know" whether there is some sort of divine being or not. I doubt it, but it's hard to prove that something doesn't exist, so I remain skeptical but open minded.
So of course, my choice would be a world without religion. Common sense, social mores, law and punishment are enough incentive to ensure moral behavior in most people.
Science on the other hand, provides answers. It makes like comfortable. It makes typing on this computer possible. It makes life as we know it possible. For me, this question is a no-brainer.
I don't, however, like speculative science that starts resembling too much the "apocalyptic" preaching of religions. Climate science today has reached that plateau. You are either a "believer" in climate change, or a skeptic. "Believers" threaten the skeptics with doom and gloom. They accuse them of being unenlightened, stupid creatures who don't have enough "faith" in what scientists are telling them. The skeptics (can we call them climate change atheists?) counter with accusations that the believers are brainwashed by their governments who have a vested interest in convincing them to believe so they will hand over their hard earned money.
Sound familiar? That kind of religio-science I can do without.
Robbie wrote: " Climate science today has reached that plateau."A large part of the problem here is the media and their overemphasis on "balance", where opposing views are supposed to be given equal time and credence. Climate science does not require 'faith' any more than any other branch of science, what it requires is scientific understanding and knowledge. Lacking that and combined with the 'balance' from the media, people end up with this impression that a) the science is still largely undecided, and b) that 'faith' is required to accept AGW. Neither of these positions are correct.
If you find you are relying on 'faith' to come to a position on a scientific concept it is an indication you need to educate yourself further on the science.
Linda wrote: "Religion and science ask and answer different questions. Both have changed the world in good and bad ways; both have lied about their own "truth" and both appeal to man's most basic question "WHY?"..."I think a more important distinction is how they attempt to answer those questions. One with an open-mind, a willingness to change your answer and an emphasis on testable, repeatable evidence; the other with a reluctance to question existing answers (in fact it is a point of honour to not question these answers), and no requirement for evidence, particularly an ability to ignore contrary evidence.
Been so quiet here, I was starting to wonder...
Worth a read.At least one of the commenters on the discussion reminds me of some of the discussions we've had on this thread.
Cerebus, perhaps I should have clarified and said that faith is necessary when it comes to predictive climate science. Using computer generated models to predict anything 50 or 20 years into the future, regardless of how accurate they can be, do not at the very least take into account variables that might be happen to change the whole equation (such as a mainstreamed non fossil fuel alternative being developed, or the eruptions of a super volcano, or really, any number of things). However, I never said that I didn't "believe" in climate change or in at least some of the conclusions climate scientists have arrived at, only that the reactions of the two sides, pro and con, resemble those of religious/antireligious fanatics. The fact that you jumped to the defense of climate science so quickly and became so condescending in your response to me, insinuating I was uninformed and uneducated in regards to the science, rather makes my point for me. That you did all that without even taking the time to realize that I hadn't even stated whether I was a "believer or a nonbeliever" shows the irrational amount of emotionalism inherent to the topic, and when that happens, science starts to resemble religion.
As for equal coverage, I'm in Australia and do not rely on the media for my opinions in any event. However, here equal time is certainly not the case. Man made climate change is considered conclusive and we have a tax on anything that might cause CO2 to prove it. Anyone who questions the predictions are generally regarded as unenlightened, if not heretic.
I don't believe I need to educate myself further on science, but I do thank you for the kind suggestion. Science does operate and progress on faith quite often. Many unproven theories have been used as a basis for inventions, expansion, further study and even new more intricate theories based on the scientist's faith that the original theory is correct.
Robbie wrote: "Given that atheism is the belief that there is no God, atheism is a belief system,"We seem to have to do this every few pages, so I'll do it this time. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, it is the rejection of the claim that there is a god, usually based on the lack of evidence. Pretty much every atheist I know says they will spin on a dime if they're shown the right sort of evidence. The rejection of a belief does not imply the automatic assumption of the opposite belief.
In the same way as I don't need to believe there's no purple panda in my fridge that disappears when I open the door, I don't need to believe there is no god, I simply reject the idea of their being one because no-one can present evidence for it.
In summary, atheism is not a belief system, it is a stance on a single question, with no belief required.
Hazel wrote: "Robbie wrote: "Given that atheism is the belief that there is no God, atheism is a belief system,"We seem to have to do this every few pages, so I'll do it this time. Atheism is not the belief th..."
atheism is a belief system the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.
and the idea that science resembles a religion is pretty much the same as how fiction resembles non-fiction.
Robbie wrote: "Cerebus, perhaps I should have clarified and said that faith is necessary when it comes to predictive climate science. Using computer generated models to predict anything 50 or 20 years into the fu..."I totally agree with you Robbie! every one does have an opinion so...
Hazel, that would depend on which view or definition of atheism you use. Some argue that atheism is lack of belief, but that simple definition would include babies, those who haven't been exposed to theistic beliefs, and those who are mentally incapable of grasping theistic concepts. Most agree that definition is too broad. Others think that atheism is the conscious absence of belief, or the rejection of belief by an informed person who is capable of doing so, in a higher power, which gets into the murky territory between agnosticism and atheism, making the two virtually interchangeable. Still others, like myself, like to use the clearer definition that atheists believe there is no god. According to most sources, the definition can be any of the above. So we can agree to disagree on that one. Many people do.Comparing religion to science isn't a new concept. Albert Einstein did it. Partical physics, quantum theory, string theory and a good deal of science relies on the scientist believing in what he cannot see. Much of science is assumed to be true (and probably is), but very little is definitively proven.
Still, that's not what I was talking about in my original post. Religion is justly accused of inspiring emotive responses from people defending their religion. I dislike it when science starts to take on this same emotive edge. The example I used was the current climate change "debate". Due to the emotional responses of both sides, the polarity and politicization of the topic, making rational decisions in regards to a solution, or even a workable measure to minimize any impact, is virtually impossible. Any information the average person might want is directly influenced, depending on whether it comes from a "believer" or a "nonbeliever", by the informants agenda. Ferreting out the truth is more than most people have time for. As I said, THAT kind of science I can do without. When we take a scientific issue and start reacting with our hearts and not our heads, it can quickly become a pseudo-religion.
cHriS wrote: "Around our way we each have a red wheelie bin. I say red but it is a dark red, not quite burgundy, but if you think burgundy but lighter you will be close.Anyway, we have to put stuff to be recy..."
It's the same here in Australia. Three bins for garbage, green waste and recyclables, and we are supposed to wash the stuff that goes into the recycle bin (in our case, a yellow lid). Funny thing is, South Australia is the driest state in the second driest country (the driest is Antartica, which is virtually uninhabited) on the planet. Our water supply becomes critically low pretty much every year. Droughts are extremely common. Two years ago we were unable to legally water our lawns or wash our cars for 8 out of the 12 months of that year, due to extreme water shortages. Yet they insist that we use this precious (and expensive...my water bill with only 2 in the home is upwards of 300AUD a month) water to wash our cans to be recycled? We can also be fined if we do NOT properly recycle. Then they send 3 separate huge trucks around the town to collect all this separated rubbish rather than 1. Given the population of this entire state is around 2 million, with only one population base that might be considered a city, and the state is roughly 3 times the size of Texas, distances they must haul these recyclables for country folks can be extraordinary. It's mind boggling really to understand how these measures can possibly be helping the planet, so I can only assume that it is a political expedient to make it appear the government is "taking action".
Robbie wrote: "Hazel, that would depend on which view or definition of atheism you use. Some argue that atheism is lack of belief, but that simple definition would include babies, those who haven't been exposed t..."Yes, agreed, it would depend if you were using the correct definition of atheism, ie the one I gave, or a strawman definition designed to make it easier to belittle it and claim its the same as religion. The comparison, btw, does nothing for religion either, as most theists say "its still just faith" or "its still just a belief" in order to attack atheism, which then just throws belief into the mix of things to be belittle,no matter what the belief/faith is in, made even more damning by the use of the word "just". Atheism is the lack of belief in a god due to lack of evidence, the rejection fo the claim that a god exists, it is not the belief that god does not exist, thats a pointless position, why waste your time believing something doesn't exist, I don't need to believe that a square circle doesn't exist, I simply reject the claim that it does.
Oh, and can we not go into the realms of misquoting Einstein again please.
Robbie wrote: "insinuating I was uninformed and uneducated in regards to the science, rather makes my point for me."I insinuated no such thing, I have no opinion either was on whether you are informed or not. The use of the word 'you' in my response was a generic 'you', not you in particular.
Robbie wrote: "Using computer generated models to predict anything 50 or 20 years into the future, regardless of how accurate they can be, do not at the very least take into account variables that might be happen to change the whole equation (such as a mainstreamed non fossil fuel alternative being developed, or the eruptions of a super volcano, or really, any number of things). "
Computer modelling is used in many branches of science, and its limitations are well known, no reputable scientist would claim 100% accuracy. Having said that I still do not accept that it requires faith to use a computer model. There is science involved in setting up a computer model and in choosing which variables to include. Models can also frequently be tested, especially climate models, by inputting variables from historical sources and seeing how close the model matches the observed since that time. Are they perfect? No. Do they only require faith? No.
Robbie said: "As for equal coverage, I'm in Australia and do not rely on the media for my opinions in any event. However, here equal time is certainly not the case. Man made climate change is considered conclusive and we have a tax on anything that might cause CO2 to prove it. Anyone who questions the predictions are generally regarded as unenlightened, if not heretic."
I am also in Australia and the issue of balance is definitely present. To say it is widely accepted is also not the case, newspapers such as the Australian regularly run pieces either downplaying or denying AGW. The Carbon tax has been highly contentious and the opposition have said they will repeal it if elected. None of this would suggest that it is widely accepted here in Australia.
Robbie said: "I don't believe I need to educate myself further on science, but I do thank you for the kind suggestion. Science does operate and progress on faith quite often. Many unproven theories have been used as a basis for inventions, expansion, further study and even new more intricate theories based on the scientist's faith that the original theory is correct."
Can you give some examples of where science has operated and progressed on faith? Personally I find further education is always required....the day I no longer require further education or learning is the day I die, but you are entitled to your position of having learned all you need to know.
Mahz wrote: "I totally agree with you Robbie! every one does have an opinion so... "This is unclear. What exactly are you agreeing with?
Robbie wrote: "Partical (sic) physics, quantum theory, string theory and a good deal of science relies on the scientist believing in what he cannot see. Much of science is assumed to be true (and probably is), but very little is definitively proven. "Particle physics and quantum physics are constantly subjected to experiments and there is a vast quantity of evidence to support them. This is science, not faith, and nothing like religion. String theory is not yet testable, and that is recognised by scientists and is still considered on the fringe.
Robbie wrote: "The example I used was the current climate change "debate". Due to the emotional responses of both sides, the polarity and politicization of the topic, making rational decisions in regards to a solution, or even a workable measure to minimize any impact, is virtually impossible."I would disagree with this. A rational discussion is entirely possible, when those having the discussion understand the science.
Robbie wrote: "Ferreting out the truth is more than most people have time for. As I said, THAT kind of science I can do without. When we take a scientific issue and start reacting with our hearts and not our heads, it can quickly become a pseudo-religion. "Fine, if people don't have time for it, don't engage in the discussion. Admit they don't know, and move on. If someone wants to engage in the discussion, it is their obligation to inform themselves. That some people react to the discussion in a manner that is psuedo-religious is a problem of those having the discussion, not of the science of AGW. One of the issues that has been raised is that initially climate scientists did not participate in the psuedo-religious discussions around AGW because they saw it as irrelevant to the science. This meant that for a long time the psuedo-religious ranting of those who didn't accept AGW went unchallenged, leaving many with the impression that there was value to their arguments. Is there pseudo-religious ranting coming from the pro-AGW side? Of course there is, there are those on both sides of the argument who are scientifically uninformed, but there are also plenty on the pro-AGW side who have the science to back up their positions, something which is lacking from the anti-AGW side.
Robbie wrote: "Hazel, that would depend on which view or definition of atheism you use."So it is a belief system for you that the true god is not Allah? Or Shiva? Zeus? Thor?
Robbie wrote: "Yet they insist that we use this precious (and expensive...my water bill with only 2 in the home is upwards of 300AUD a month)"The amount of water required to rinse a can is tiny. If your water bill is $300 a month I suggest you have a plumbing issue, that's insanely high.
Robbie said: "It's mind boggling really to understand how these measures can possibly be helping the planet, so I can only assume that it is a political expedient to make it appear the government is "taking action". This is an argument from incredulity. If you find it hard to understand how these measures help, have you tried researching the issue, or jumped to the unsupported conclusion that it is just political posturing? It could of course be political posturing, but if you go from "I can't understand" to "political posturing" then it is an unsupported conclusion.
First apologies, I have been unavoidably busy, but I will try to catch up. :-) I am glancing back at responses I missed and I will try to get to them all. Please tell me if I miss something.cHriS wrote: "I’m not sure I can do the question justice with just a short reply…but I will have a go."
That's perfectly reasonable.
cHriS wrote: "Most people in most societies regardless of religion, in general would agree that we should not take a human life. Morals. But, they will add a caveat or justification why it is ok to kill."
That isn't a "why" though, that's just morals based on tradition. Plenty of traditions we have now found to actually be immoral in most societies for example capital punishment for blasphemy or homosexuality, or the abolition of the traditional morality of keeping slaves and slaves being considered immoral for rebelling against their masters. Slave owners justified the moral basis of the institution of slavery by citing the bible, and American physician Samuel A. Cartwright claimed that slaves ran away because of a mental condition called drapetomania.
All this demonstrates the idea of a "received morality" or literally "following orders". However, I would say that this is not really morality but conformity at best and tyranny at worst. With received morality the person does not really make a moral choice, they instead abdicate personal responsibility to an outside authority, thereby they only can be as moral as that authority which has ended disastrously for many people based on the religion or politics of that authority.
cHriS wrote: "So what they end up doing is trying to justify the justification, because we cannot agree when or if a justification is allowed or if the law is wrong to allow it."
Exactly, it becomes a circular argument. This shows that having religion is the opposite of morality, which is why most religious people pick and choose what morality they uphold of their religion based on their own moral decisions.
cHriS wrote: "I could list all the ways we humans use to take a life, but we all know what they are and while one person maybe quite happy to agree to abortion they may be against capital punishment. And they will be able to justify their reasons to themselves and some, but not all others.
Why is it wrong? Morals, which have been passed down from previous generations."
This is what really scares me, that many theists cannot see a reason not to kill people except for religious directive or 'tradition'. Personally I think it should be obvious why killing people is wrong, but then I don't believe that when they die they will go on to a better place.
Of course if the only reason you don't kill people is because you're told not to, then its easy to justify atrocity when you can point to that same authority and say "oh but killing is ok in this circumstance, or against these people", a recipe that has resulted in religiously justified killings across the world and throughout history.
cHriS wrote: "I don’t see how the person who could have been armed and who would have shot the gunman, would have known in advance what he was about to do."
That's fair enough, but if you were there and armed and saw a person gunning down innocents, would it be immoral to return fire potentially killing the person, or would it be immoral to not intervene and potentially prevent more deaths?
cHriS wrote: "So if I kill someone and then save another, I am quits?"
That's not really relevant to what I was asking but fair enough, I would say context is important. For example, abortion for medical reasons, if you killed a foetus which saved the life of the mother, is that quits? If you failed to act, or indeed if you stopped someone from killing the foetus, and both mother and child died are you now morally responsible for two deaths instead of one?
cHriS wrote: "Well if space and time came into existence in the big bang there was no "before".
IF. And if not? Science does not know."
Again, the typically uneducated response to a scientific point. Science never "knows" to the arbitrary certainty that you imply here. It all comes down to the "prove the negative" gambit that apologists love. It is impossible to prove a negative and therefore it is impossible to prove anything to 100% certainty (because that would involve proving that alternatives do not exist). What science does is provide proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' or at least prove what is most probable. This is not a disadvantage, this is keeping an open mind. Meanwhile believing in anything 100% just means that you are refusing to consider the possibility you are wrong, therefore your mind is closed.
In any case what science does know thanks to observation is that space is expanding, and therefore was once closer together. If you reduce space in the universe down to the beginning it reduces to the point were distance and therefore space approaches zero and therefore does not exist. Thanks to Einstein we know that space and time are actually parts of the same thing so if space approaches nothing then so does time, therefore it is reasonable to assume that just as space is finite in extent, so is time because they are the same thing.
So science does know to a reasonable level.
Plus the idea of infinite time leads to other issues, for example why do we exist now when the probability is that we could have existed at infinitely earlier points. Infinite time does not really make sense but fortunately the current cosmological theories do not require infinite time.
cHriS wrote: "Yes and no. One scientific hypotheses/theory is that our universe is only one of many bubbles So again science does not have an answer. Which is my point. They are not able to come up with anything that is any more or less valid, than a god."
Again that should be "observable universe", the resulting "multiverse" is still essentially part of the set "everything that exists" which is properly labelled the Universe.
You are also dead wrong on the "more or less valid" than god. Most of these hypotheses have good reasons for them, most of them are based on reasonable principles that have worked in other parts of science and most have potentially ways to test or falsify the hypothesis (even if we lack the necessary technology so far), finally most also explain features we do see and how things work like they do. "God" is a much less valid answer, being the intellectual equivalent of "a wizard did it". It has no explanatory power, does nothing to show how we could reasonably test the hypothesis (or the many other gods it could be) and is ultimately based on the idea that "if we can't explain it therefore god" an idea which has been repeatedly proven wrong with almost every advance of science.
So no.
cHriS wrote: "I agree, to many it is most likely to be incorrect. But there is nothing that science can offer, now, that is more likely."
I suggest that you read some science then. Certainly science does not have the final answer yet, but it certainly has a lot more answers than religion. Moreover, science is continually uncovering more and more of the answer you're seeking, but if you pick another answer simply because someone claims that it is 100% correct, then you would do well not to buy a bridge in Brooklyn.
cHriS wrote: "If governments are spending money that could be better spent in say, healthcare, on looking for et’s, then I think, they must think, that there has to be a good possibility of finding evidence of alien life."
Actually SETI is not government funded since 1995. Meanwhile, like most pure science, exploration of the solar system may seem like a waste of money, but historically pure science has led to innovations that are often amazing and go on to save and/or improve lives. The cost of these projects may seem high but it is a tiny drop compared to the amount of money western governments spend on arming themselves to absurd levels, or the money they subsidise wealthy corporations and individuals.
cHriS wrote: "Things do change. And maybe the majority views on gay marriage will change, given time. New generations, new ideas, ever changing. But to call anyone who is not in agreement with gay marriage, homophobic, is only pushing the ‘change’ further back into the future. "
So by that count it is morally acceptable to call a group of people immoral, disgusting, unnatural or sick but not morally acceptable to call people who do it closed minded and opinionated?
I guess we should blame the suffragettes for pushing back female equality, or the abolitionists for perpetuating the institution of slavery, or blame the UK and US for their parts in fighting against and therefore helping perpetuate fascism and communism?
Mahz wrote: "Religion has discipline and gives you the path to choose"If religion is a path to choose, then does that mean all religions are valid if you choose them. If only one religion is valid then that isn't a choice.
Discipline is something that one has within oneself, the ability to exercise restraint and to make moral choices despite the will of others and your own emotions and fears. Discipline enforced from outside is actually subjugation and obedience.
Mahz wrote: "Science is where minds that go beyond others and invent something so beautiful and so not describable that people need or want in their lives "
Science is to seek knowledge, and to seek knowledge you need to question. If you have faith, you believe you do not need to ask because you already have the answer.
Shannon wrote: "I admit I don't know much about this subject; however, I'd favor eliminating tax exempt status for everyone. "I'd agree, though I can see the point of making charities tax-exempt, but I would only want charities that are helping people in a demonstrable way to get such a consideration. The problem here is proving what is helping people and what is actually helping an ideology.
I do respect your position, and I agree that I am not well informed enough about taxes in the US or UK to make a more definitive statement. Freedom of religion though should mean that non-members of a religion shouldn't be subsidising other peoples religion.
Mahz wrote: "All scientists and all scholars believe in the existence of a creator, they may call Him by different names. Even those, who do not believe in Allah, believe in a Creative Force.""Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/n...
I think you will find several famous scientists who specifically do not believe in a 'creator' especially those involved in the field of Cosmology, which studies what you would probably refer to as 'creation'.
Shannon wrote: "It might be difficult to leave one's faith, but people do. People do all the time."Yes, but is that them losing their faith or are they being 'converted' out of their faith?
Shannon wrote: "I sometimes wonder why you see things in such stark terms. Is the UK really that different, then?"
I guess we are both seeing each others PoV as stark. The main reason for my post was in response to the comments about "atheist conversion". I found your comments quite stark and felt that they'd missed the point that "converting" people to atheism wasn't converting them too a belief system, it was helping them to realise they had a choice.
You'll notice that I do not tend to speak in terms of "god doesn't exist" etc. I question why people believe in god, and I question people's attitudes based on that belief. However, simply saying "god doesn't exist" is as empty an argument as its opposite.
Shannon wrote: "Do people in the UK only ever hear about the most extreme Americans and American news stories? "
That I am willing to accept. Then again, the UK has its own moments. I found the Anglican church protesting that the government were trying to redefine marriage particularly funny.
Here's something for you though Shannon. How to you pronounce the word "atheist" and "amoral"? Can you contrast it to the words "agnostic", "anorexic", "aphasia"?
The reason I ask is that is there a rule (in US or UK English) why one is pronounced "AY-theist" while you have "ah-gnostic"? Could it be an intrinsic accenting to words traditionally found to be negative?
Just occurred to me on the way to work today and thought you may shed some light?
Shannon wrote: "Drumroll .... People who use such times in order to make a profit for themselves. All of the people who have written books and taken that money to the bank. Hollywood. Hollywood has made at least one movie based on the Mayan calendar and the end of the world."Not just monetary profit I think, the idea of an impending Armageddon has been a fundamental part of Christian Eschatology since the first generations of the Church. I am sure that widespread nervousness about impending doom does no harm to Church attendance amongst those who are willing to believe the end is at hand.
Shannon wrote: "Those who promote that it's only caused by humans are misadvised, in my opinion. Sunspots, for example, have a LOT to do with it. Believe it or not, I went to space camp as a kid in the '80's. I remember learning about sunspots there. Our instructors told us we were going to be going into a warmer time period due, largely, to sunspot activity. Having said that, I imagine humans and pollution also play a role."I don't think anyone claims that Climate Change is solely caused by man, the scientific consensus is that human activity is both increasing the concentration of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and is simultaneously removing the planets ability to absorb the impact.
By the way the "sunspot cycle" follows the suns cycle of activity and cycles every 11 years or so. Climatologists are well aware of this effect and others.
The point is that many effects can change the climate, but we can at least influence one of them. What's particularly concerning is that some of these natural effects are feedback loops that can be triggered by artificial change. For example, if the oceans warm enough it can trigger the melting of massive methane hydrate ice deposits on the seabed, methane being far better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. This means that even if human contributions are limited to only a few degrees in temperature change it could still indirectly trigger a massive shift in temperatures. A similar event may have resulted in the Permian/Triassic extinction event, the deadliest extinction in the prehistory of the world (worse than the Dinosaur extinction).
Climate change is widely accepted in the scientific community, certainly some people do get vocal when faced with denialism, but I feel that's more through frustration than zealotry. A bit like how most biologists feel when people claim that "many scientists dispute evolution".
cHriS wrote: "The methane produced by a cow each day is comparable to the pollution produced by a car a day. And the US has far more cows and cars than we do, so me washing a bean can to recycle is a bit like turning off a bath tap on the Titanic. "And what would have happened to the titanic if a million people each turned off a bath taps worth of flooding?
The point of recycling is that a little bit does help if it is kept up consistently. Just as a little bit of conservation of energy can save a little bit of emissions (and money for that matter) which will overtime lead to a big difference.
Gary wrote: "Here's something for you though Shannon. How to you pronounce the word "atheist" and "amoral"? Can you contrast it to the words "agnostic", "anorexic", "aphasia"?
The reason I ask is that is there a rule (in US or UK English) why one is pronounced "AY-theist" while you have "ah-gnostic"? Could it be an intrinsic accenting to words traditionally found to be negative?
Just occurred to me on the way to work today and thought you may shed some light? "
It's been a really long time since I posted the things you've been addressing. Need to go back in my memory bank.
However, I did want to take this one ... since it seems rather from left-field and, therefore, intrigues me.
What is this coming from? What point are you trying to make with this question, specifically addressed to me? (Especially given the fact that I don't link "atheists" with immorality.)
I'd like a little more info from you.
The reason I ask is that is there a rule (in US or UK English) why one is pronounced "AY-theist" while you have "ah-gnostic"? Could it be an intrinsic accenting to words traditionally found to be negative?
Just occurred to me on the way to work today and thought you may shed some light? "
It's been a really long time since I posted the things you've been addressing. Need to go back in my memory bank.
However, I did want to take this one ... since it seems rather from left-field and, therefore, intrigues me.
What is this coming from? What point are you trying to make with this question, specifically addressed to me? (Especially given the fact that I don't link "atheists" with immorality.)
I'd like a little more info from you.
Gary wrote: "Here's something for you though Shannon. How to you pronounce the word "atheist" and "amoral"? Can you contrast it to the words "agnostic", "anorexic", "aphasia"?
The reason I ask is that is there a rule (in US or UK English) why one is pronounced "AY-theist" while you have "ah-gnostic"? Could it be an intrinsic accenting to words traditionally found to be negative?
Just occurred to me on the way to work today and thought you may shed some light? "
Looked back just now given free time and didn't see an explanation from you. So, .... I've decided to give it a go. I can even do it with a dearth of verbiage. ;)
If I were to compare how I pronounce "atheist" with how I pronounce "amoral", would I also need to compare it to how I pronounce "amen"?
;)
The reason I ask is that is there a rule (in US or UK English) why one is pronounced "AY-theist" while you have "ah-gnostic"? Could it be an intrinsic accenting to words traditionally found to be negative?
Just occurred to me on the way to work today and thought you may shed some light? "
Looked back just now given free time and didn't see an explanation from you. So, .... I've decided to give it a go. I can even do it with a dearth of verbiage. ;)
If I were to compare how I pronounce "atheist" with how I pronounce "amoral", would I also need to compare it to how I pronounce "amen"?
;)
Shannon wrote: "What is this coming from? What point are you trying to make with this question, specifically addressed to me? (Especially given the fact that I don't link "atheists" with immorality.) "Addressed to you because you're a teacher skilled in English Language. No ulterior motive, just thought you'd either be as intrigued as I, or have a perfectly good mundane explanation. :-)
Yes it was out of left field. My brain does that to me a lot!
Shannon wrote: "If I were to compare how I pronounce "atheist" with how I pronounce "amoral", would I also need to compare it to how I pronounce "amen"?"Good one :-)
I think "Amen" is derived from Hebrew and/or Arabic, whereas the other words are root words prefixed a- which originates from Greek to negate the word. So I don't think its the same thing. I am focussing on words that are antonyms of the root word by addition of the prefix.
Gary wrote: "I think "Amen" is derived from Hebrew and/or Arabic, whereas the other words are root words prefixed a- which originates from Greek to negate the word. So I don't think its the same thing. I am focussing on words that are antonyms of the root word by addition of the prefix. "
Hmmmmm....
I thought it was about pronunciation.
Okay. Now....
Words that are pronounced like "atheism" but aren't of Hebrew origin and that deal with roots and prefixes.
Do all words that are pronounced like "atheism" and "amoral" have perceived negative connotations?
How about the word ... "atrium" ....
Nope. I don't think there's a pronunciation/root/prefix conspiracy to paint "atheism" as negative. Nope, I don't.
Hmmmmm....
I thought it was about pronunciation.
Okay. Now....
Words that are pronounced like "atheism" but aren't of Hebrew origin and that deal with roots and prefixes.
Do all words that are pronounced like "atheism" and "amoral" have perceived negative connotations?
How about the word ... "atrium" ....
Nope. I don't think there's a pronunciation/root/prefix conspiracy to paint "atheism" as negative. Nope, I don't.
Do you not think religion is an outdated concept now? I mean, come on - a magic man in the clouds controls everything we do? I think not! Religion is a crutch and a way of controlling people. As for the bible, its the greatest work of fiction ever written, never mind being the litteral word of 'god'.
Shannon wrote: "I thought it was about pronunciation.Okay. Now....
Words that are pronounced like "atheism" but aren't of Hebrew origin and that deal with roots and prefixes.
Do all words that are pronounced like "atheism" and "amoral" have perceived negative connotations?
How about the word ... "atrium" ....
Nope. I don't think there's a pronunciation/root/prefix conspiracy to paint "atheism" as negative. Nope, I don't. "
I don't think it's a conspiracy, I was wondering whether it was a subconscious prejudice. Again "atrium" doesn't work because that is not the opposite of a "trium".
Specifically "a-theism", "a-moral" compared to "a-gnostic".
Unfortunately I am running out of words and haven't had time to research it. :-)
"a-sexual" is another one, which is possibly neutral in a biological sense, but it is also applied to people who avoid sexual contact in a more judgemental way than people perceived to be avoiding sexual contact for righteous reasons i.e. abstinent.
It may be entirely innocuous. Does ah-theist sound less confrontational than AY-theist? I think it might.
Gary wrote: "I don't think it's a conspiracy, I was wondering whether it was a subconscious prejudice. Again "atrium" doesn't work because that is not the opposite of a "trium".
Specifically "a-theism", "a-moral" compared to "a-gnostic".
Unfortunately I am running out of words and haven't had time to research it. :-)
"a-sexual" is another one, which is possibly neutral in a biological sense, but it is also applied to people who avoid sexual contact in a more judgemental way than people perceived to be avoiding sexual contact for righteous reasons i.e. abstinent.
It may be entirely innocuous. Does ah-theist sound less confrontational than AY-theist? I think it might. "
Ultimately, here's the thing ....
I don't think you're talking about pronunciation. Not really. You're talking about the meaning of words. Because, ... if we talk pronunciation, "amen" ... "atrium" ... you're not necessarily going to origin and root meaning, etc.... Right?
You're in your head regarding this. Truly not saying that as a negative. But, I'm going to make a suggestion.
When we think about pronunciation and how people pronounce things, which is where the conversation started, we're talking about day to day life. Very concrete. The average person. The average kiddo.
Let's say a student walks into my room as soon as lunch ends in 15 minutes. That student says, "We were just talking about atheism at lunch."
Talking pronunciation, I don't think that student will link the word "atheism" with things that have bad connotations, like "amoral" decisions, based on pronunciation. Based simply on pronunciation, that student, if he or she thought it through, would have words like "amen" and "atrium" floating around and about in his or her head. Negative connotations all?
Now, if we were to go at it from an intellectual perspective, we'd look at something altogether different. A specific root, a specific prefix that means the opposite of. Do people have negative connotations of words that mean the opposite of something else? Asexual? Abstinent? That's a fascinating idea.
But, it's all together different from pronunciation. How many people, really and truly, know the meanings of prefixes, roots, etc...? You might be better at it in Europe. Different languages, etc.... I know we teach this in school. In one ear and out the other. However, I've heard of a handful of people who have taken Latin who actually get it. The bulk of people, though, aren't thinking along those lines.
If I went on the street and asked ten people about the word "atheism", they'd not know, I'd wager, what the root was or what it mean ... what the prefix was or what it meant. I can see someone saying, "Oh, I learned about roots and prefixes but .... I so don't remember what they mean."
Given that, how could there be a negative connotation? There wouldn't, especially based on pronunciation.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
To get at connotations and how words are perceived, especially if looking at what you're talking about ... the meanings of roots, prefixes and their opposites, I think we'd really need to think about how to pose the question ... how to discuss the issue ... what's behind the history of the origins of ... but, also, what's behind the feelings the words elicit.
Regarding "asexual" and "abstinent" ....
The first thing that flew into my mind was science class in high school. Learning the word "asexual" with regard to trees or flowers or something. The negative connotations that came to me next were ....
Dissecting baby pigs. I named mine Wilbur. Bio II. That was a mistake.
See what I mean. Even given what you were asking, my first thoughts weren't about how I pronounce the word or that "a" stood for without, which was linked to "sex" ... which ....
I thought science class, maple trees, WILBUR! Then, I felt sad. I almost threw up when I was supposed to pull out his brain. I actually ran out of the room crying with the teacher yelling, "DO NOT LEAVE THIS ROOM!"
Is it a coincidence that my mind eventually went to a negative place?
Talking about people who don't have sex, does the term "asexual" seem negative when compared to "abstinent"? Yes or no? Then, based on what? Based on your idea, something else, or ....
Could it seem odd to the ear given the fact that not many people use the word "asexual" when referring to a person? Plant? Yes. Person? No.
Something to consider....
Specifically "a-theism", "a-moral" compared to "a-gnostic".
Unfortunately I am running out of words and haven't had time to research it. :-)
"a-sexual" is another one, which is possibly neutral in a biological sense, but it is also applied to people who avoid sexual contact in a more judgemental way than people perceived to be avoiding sexual contact for righteous reasons i.e. abstinent.
It may be entirely innocuous. Does ah-theist sound less confrontational than AY-theist? I think it might. "
Ultimately, here's the thing ....
I don't think you're talking about pronunciation. Not really. You're talking about the meaning of words. Because, ... if we talk pronunciation, "amen" ... "atrium" ... you're not necessarily going to origin and root meaning, etc.... Right?
You're in your head regarding this. Truly not saying that as a negative. But, I'm going to make a suggestion.
When we think about pronunciation and how people pronounce things, which is where the conversation started, we're talking about day to day life. Very concrete. The average person. The average kiddo.
Let's say a student walks into my room as soon as lunch ends in 15 minutes. That student says, "We were just talking about atheism at lunch."
Talking pronunciation, I don't think that student will link the word "atheism" with things that have bad connotations, like "amoral" decisions, based on pronunciation. Based simply on pronunciation, that student, if he or she thought it through, would have words like "amen" and "atrium" floating around and about in his or her head. Negative connotations all?
Now, if we were to go at it from an intellectual perspective, we'd look at something altogether different. A specific root, a specific prefix that means the opposite of. Do people have negative connotations of words that mean the opposite of something else? Asexual? Abstinent? That's a fascinating idea.
But, it's all together different from pronunciation. How many people, really and truly, know the meanings of prefixes, roots, etc...? You might be better at it in Europe. Different languages, etc.... I know we teach this in school. In one ear and out the other. However, I've heard of a handful of people who have taken Latin who actually get it. The bulk of people, though, aren't thinking along those lines.
If I went on the street and asked ten people about the word "atheism", they'd not know, I'd wager, what the root was or what it mean ... what the prefix was or what it meant. I can see someone saying, "Oh, I learned about roots and prefixes but .... I so don't remember what they mean."
Given that, how could there be a negative connotation? There wouldn't, especially based on pronunciation.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
To get at connotations and how words are perceived, especially if looking at what you're talking about ... the meanings of roots, prefixes and their opposites, I think we'd really need to think about how to pose the question ... how to discuss the issue ... what's behind the history of the origins of ... but, also, what's behind the feelings the words elicit.
Regarding "asexual" and "abstinent" ....
The first thing that flew into my mind was science class in high school. Learning the word "asexual" with regard to trees or flowers or something. The negative connotations that came to me next were ....
Dissecting baby pigs. I named mine Wilbur. Bio II. That was a mistake.
See what I mean. Even given what you were asking, my first thoughts weren't about how I pronounce the word or that "a" stood for without, which was linked to "sex" ... which ....
I thought science class, maple trees, WILBUR! Then, I felt sad. I almost threw up when I was supposed to pull out his brain. I actually ran out of the room crying with the teacher yelling, "DO NOT LEAVE THIS ROOM!"
Is it a coincidence that my mind eventually went to a negative place?
Talking about people who don't have sex, does the term "asexual" seem negative when compared to "abstinent"? Yes or no? Then, based on what? Based on your idea, something else, or ....
Could it seem odd to the ear given the fact that not many people use the word "asexual" when referring to a person? Plant? Yes. Person? No.
Something to consider....
Gary wrote: Plenty of traditions we have now found to actually be immoral in most societies for example capital punishment for blasphemy or homosexuality,."These 'traditions' have not been 'found' to be immoral. Society has changed it's view and what was perfectly moral to our ancestors no longer seen that way. It is easy, with hindsight to recall what our ancestors did and say that they knew it to be immoral.
This shows that having religion is the opposite of morality, which is why most religious people pick and choose what morality they uphold of their religion based on their own moral decisions.
And so does being an atheist, UNLESS you can explain where your morals originated from, and why you are UNABLE to pick and choose, but religious folk can.
Of course if the only reason you don't kill people is because you're told not to
......not 'told' not to kill, but told it is wrong 'to' kill. Full Stop.
It seems that you can justify killing and that’s fine. But if you do justify it then what right would you have to question past generations who can justify slavery....... for example.
That's fair enough, but if you were there and armed and saw a person gunning down innocents, would it be immoral to return fire potentially killing the person, or would it be immoral to not intervene and potentially prevent more deaths?
First things first. Like you I am putting forward the other side of an argument and yes I would shoot. But that does not make it morally right although I could justify why I did it.
If a soldier is given an order and in disobeying it saves a life, he can justify why it did it but he still disobeyed the order.
What science does is provide proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' or at least prove what is most probable
Most probable at the time; yes it was deemed to be probable. I bit like religion...it could go either way, but for now it's probable.
In any case what science does know thanks to observation is that space is expanding, and therefore was once closer together. If you reduce space in the universe down to the beginning it reduces to the point were distance and therefore space approaches zero and therefore does not exist. Thanks to Einstein we know that space and time are actually parts of the same thing so if space approaches nothing then so does time, therefore it is reasonable to assume that just as space is finite in extent, so is time because they are the same thing.
........is reasonable to assume?????? It is reasonable for science to assume, I agree, because that’s what science does. But it is no more than an assumption, and it is only one of a number of assumptions or theories that science has on that subject.
Again that should be "observable universe",
Not correct. If they were observable then it would be fact not an hypotheses/theory.
Actually SETI is not government funded since 1995. Meanwhile, like most pure science, exploration of the solar system may seem like a waste of money, but historically pure science has led to innovations that are often amazing and go on to save and/or improve lives. The cost of these projects may seem high but it is a tiny drop compared to the amount of money western governments spend on arming themselves to absurd levels, or the money they subsidise wealthy corporations and individuals.
I may agree that money should be spent and that it may be a tiny drop.......... but your defence is what anyone interested in having money spent on exploration of the solar system would say. And I can see a moral argument taking shape here. Space v feeding people.
So by that count it is morally acceptable to call a group of people immoral, disgusting, unnatural or sick but not morally acceptable to call people who do it closed minded and opinionated?
You are adding two and two and not getting four.
Show me where I, or anyone here has called a group of people immoral, disgusting, unnatural or sick.
I do not agree with gay marriage. But I am not closed minded and opinionated, well maybe a bit opinionated. Otherwise I would not be on this forum.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
