Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,051-8,100 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Again, you are taking a small group and conflating them to represent all, far worse is said by religious people in far greater numbers. Far worse is done by religious people. "

I don't have the time to address this right now. Class is about to start. But, I will say ....

Whoa....

First, I'm not sure this is a small group. Are you? We might need to look. Second, some of the points made by this group and some of their suggested tactics are voiced, sometimes word for word, by non-believers here. So, it's not as if I'm pulling something from thin air.

Secondly, I didn't make a judgment about their statement. I have before. Given your knowledge of me and how I feel about certain issues, I'm sure you can make an educated guess regarding how I'd react to this statement. However, my point was not to say, "Look. Atheists behaving badly!" No need to jump to the "believers behave worse!" line of argument.

You attempted to make a point. No active denial.

Well, it doesn't really seem that way. Not when one looks at many of the posts here and some of the points made by "atheist" groups.

Now, regarding balanced fields and semiconductors and positive electrons, ....

I've been clear that I'm not the science person in the group. I'm a humanities person. Want to talk Beowulf and Macbeth? I'm there. I'm so proud as to pretend to understand what you're talking about. I don't. I don't have a clue.

Perhaps you'd be willing to use an example that I might understand. Is that something you're willing to do?

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: What's problematic for us, in my opinion, is assuming we can truly understand "God" and all that involves. One true religion with one set of beliefs. I find that to be sketchy. I can envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond my understanding..."

I doubt we can fully understand. Knowing that there is something rather than nothing is good enough for now.

Religion is just a link for people to connect their belief with their vision of god. I am connecting to 'Goodreads' via my 'all in one desktop PC'. Others may be using a laptop, tablet or phone, same sort of thing.

There can be god without religion,(wait for someone to post the stock atheist reply to that), God is not here because of religion.

Atheists like to compare the Flying Spaghetti Monster with god but as you say 'many people have had the same universal idea for tens of thousands of years'. The FSM has no track record and has some way to go yet.

And, the Flying Spaghetti Monster was more of a 'poke' at science rather than religion.

There is no god and nothing can travel faster than light, so some people believe. So where does the light go when it reaches the edge of the universe? It never reaches the edge because the universe expands faster that light. And that’s where science has to stop. It will speculate about what may or may not be beyond the universe but is unwilling to speculate about a god.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: this discussion makes me want to buy a gallon of milk and a steak...."

Is that because you don't give a fig about our planet, or maybe you have shares in Burger King, or like me you think the whole thing is over rated or...........

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: this discussion makes me want to buy a gallon of milk and a steak...."

Is that because you don't give a fig about our planet, or maybe you have shares in Burger King, or like me you..."

Don't think cows are the root of all evil. Farting cows ... they're killing us all.

There's responsible living and action ... and obsessing about cow flatulence.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "Regarding Godwin's Law ....

I just Googled it again; I'd not heard of it before this thread. It came up on Wiki, as most of you likely know. I read the whole thing this time. I found the follow..

So, ... if I were to take the above as the truth and read it literally, it's Godwin's Law if there's an element of unthinking extremism and inappropriate comparison ... only...."

The use of the word ‘law’ is misleading, and you do read it literally…at least I think you do.

But ‘an inappropriate comparison’ does not mean a wrong comparison.

In the wrong hands, as has happened here, some try and use what old Godwin said as a put down when anything about Hitler is discussed, even though it is not extreme.

It is the same people that will use the word ’bigot’ at the drop of a hat, in the hope to undermine. The reason for this is that they are not willing to see the other point of view, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. Their point is right and they will use Godwin’s Law to add credence to what they say.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "However, my point was not to say, "Look. Atheists behaving badly!" No need to jump to the "believers behave worse!" line of argument."

From my perspective it certainly looked like you were using your continued referencing to that group to then make general statements about non-theists. Hence the general response again.

Shannon wrote: "You attempted to make a point. No active denial."

Not "no" which is an absolute, but in general there is a refutation of specific claims rather than a claim posited to the contrary. Even in the statement you referenced the statement was stating an opposition to the ideology of religious authoritarianism and nowhere did it make a claim of an authority of its own.

Shannon wrote: "Well, it doesn't really seem that way. Not when one looks at many of the posts here and some of the points made by "atheist" groups."

Again I would say that is relative. People who believe in god who hear the words "I don't believe" tend to hear the inference "I believe in the non-existence of", however logically the two statements are discreet.

Shannon wrote: "Now, regarding balanced fields and semiconductors and positive electrons, ...."

Apologies. Unfortunately I tend to do scientific references because they tend to be objective rather than subjective and a subjective argument is difficult to resolve because of the amount of different assumptions each position takes.

Shannon wrote: "Perhaps you'd be willing to use an example that I might understand. Is that something you're willing to do?"

I shall try, please rate my success.

The only equivalence I can think of is a legal equivalence, to minimise the subjective nature of the point.

Take for example a crime has been committed and a suspect has been arrested. Imagine the suspect is player by one of those bit part actors that go from cop show to cop show and your first response to his appearance is "he did it!"

The trial is set, the media run his picture in the paper with a lot of speculation attached, the court of public opinion is convinced already, the majority of the jury take one luck at his beady eyes and feel repulsed. The trial seems set.

Then you get the person on the jury who goes, "hang on, what's the actual evidence? What about this part? What about that part? Do we really have enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt?"

Now to the jurist's point of view he's being responsible and cautious about a subject that will effect some people significantly and may indeed allow the real guilty party to get off scot-free. Yet how quickly will the rest of the jury and indeed the general public start to claim that the jurist is in denial or actively believes that the suspect is not-guilty, yet the jurist themselves does not believe they are innocent but is keeping an appropriately open mind.

I use this example as I have found myself in a similar position. I ended up being the only defender of an accused person because everyone else was willing to believe that she was guilty while I wanted some clear evidence before I'd agree. In that tribunal I was repeatedly accused of believing in her innocence, but I didn't. In actual fact I just didn't "believe" in her guilt but wanted evidence.

Imagine the same hypothetical trial, but now across dozens of states, and each trial has a slightly different suspect (perhaps a family member), meanwhile the jurist hasn't got any clear evidence that a crime has been committed (perhaps it was happenstance, or perhaps it never existed) yet each trial claims that "obviously someone must be guilty" and each one believes that their suspect is the one. When the jurist calls into question the evidence for any crime being committed they are treated as denialists by all. All because the jurist will not take the crime on faith.

That might have got a bit away from me in the end :-)

[Rebecca]

Religion hands down no thought necessary. But science is itself a belief system.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Religion is just a link for people to connect their belief with their vision of god. I am connecting to 'Goodreads' via my 'all in one desktop PC'. Others may be using a laptop, tablet or phone, same sort of thing."

Again you say "god" and automatically exclude any religion sufficiently different from your own.

cHriS wrote: "There can be god without religion,(wait for someone to post the stock atheist reply to that), God is not here because of religion."

If you assume there is a god there, but the assumption of the existence of god, and therefore believing a god is there, is religion. The act of belief is an act of religion. If you have independently verifiable and falsifiable evidence of god, i.e. proof instead of belief, then the existence of god would become science not religion, because belief would be rendered unnecessary, just as you don't need to "believe" in your computer to use it.

cHriS wrote: "Atheists like to compare the Flying Spaghetti Monster with god but as you say 'many people have had the same universal idea for tens of thousands of years'. The FSM has no track record and has some way to go yet."

The idea of an intelligent unseen entity that guides everything? That has a track record older than Christianity.

cHriS wrote: "And, the Flying Spaghetti Monster was more of a 'poke' at science rather than religion."

Wrong. The FSM was a very specific point addressing the idea of "teaching the controversy" which was an attempt to get creationism pseudo-science taught in science classes as a valid scientific alternative. The point wasn't really to attack science or religion, but to illustrate the fact that allowing creationism into science class would be breaking the establishment clause of the constitution unless all other potential arguments for the origin of mankind was included.

So it wasn't an "atheist" point, it was an anti-creationist point.

cHriS wrote: "There is no god and nothing can travel faster than light, so some people believe."

Again you equate belief in the absence with lack of belief, which isn't the same.

Second no object in mass can travel at the speed of light because it takes infinite energy to get there, which means no material object can be accelerated past the speed of light. However, it says nothing about entities that already travel faster than light, though none have yet been detected and it would cause problems for the concept of causality.

cHriS wrote: "So where does the light go when it reaches the edge of the universe? It never reaches the edge because the universe expands faster that light. And that’s where science has to stop."

Unless you actually bother to learn science, but it seems all you are interested in doing is using your own limited understanding to argue to others with similar lack of knowledge. I respect Shannon for the fact that she acknowledges her lack of expertise here, and does not make such arguments.

unfortunately it would take me quite a lot of work to explain what is wrong with the question you asked before I could get to writing what the answer is... and there is one. However, I suspect you are not interested in the answer unless it serves to place constraints on what science can know so you can claim the unknown for god. A claim which is disingenuous because by claiming it for god you are actually trying to claim that it is known.

cHriS wrote: "It will speculate about what may or may not be beyond the universe but is unwilling to speculate about a god. "

Actually speculation about a god has been done over thousands of years of the development of science, slowly stopping as it was realised that there was no falsifiable tests and there were never any conclusions. Science is certainly willing to speculate about anything that their is evidence for, but without evidence what's the point of looking when there are infinite potential things to look for that might not be there?

The speculation about what lies beyond the observable universe is all based on observations from within the universe. For example the observation of galactic velocity provides a boundary on the age of the universe, therefore if there is anything beyond that space/time boundary then perhaps there are ways to tell, most likely in observing the CMB.

However at the moment you seem to be determined to use your scientific ignorance to justify your belief in the limitations of science, that's like using your lack of knowledge of Japanese to deny that people can talk in Japanese.

[Gary]

Rebecca wrote: "Religion hands down no thought necessary. But science is itself a belief system."

Sigh, again?

If you believe in science you are not doing science.

Why do many religious people try to belittle science by giving it a beloved virtue of their religious ideals?

Science requires a lack of belief and a healthy scepticism to work, and work it does.

[Travis]

Rebecca wrote: "Religion hands down no thought necessary. But science is itself a belief system."


A belief system that provides proof, isn't really a belief system.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: this discussion makes me want to buy a gallon of milk and a steak...."

Is that because you don't give a fig about our planet, or maybe you have shares in Burger King, ..."

Not sure if cows are evil, but I do have a sneaking suspicion they are up to something...

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: What's problematic for us, in my opinion, is assuming we can truly understand "God" and all that involves. One true religion with one set of beliefs. I find that to be sketchy. I can..."

There has been speculation about god, unfortunately, there isn't any proof of god, so science moved on.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Not sure if cows are evil, but I do have a sneaking suspicion they are up to something... "

You and Gary Larson.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Again you say "god" and automatically exclude any religion sufficiently different from your own.

I have neither included every religion, nor excluded any. That is your interpretation, Since we were talking about religion in general, I said religion.

The act of belief is an act of religion

It does not have to be. Someone without a religion can believe in a god. Because a child believes in Father Christmas, that does not make that belief a religious one.

The idea of an intelligent unseen entity that guides everything? That has a track record older than Christianity.

Correct. That’s my point. The FSM has a long way to go.

.The point wasn't really to attack science or religion

But that is what it does.

unfortunately it would take me quite a lot of work to explain what is wrong with the question you asked before I could get to writing what the answer is... and there is one

You don’t need to revise anything….I have already answered the question I asked.

It is a simple question….. where does the light go when it reaches the edge of the universe?

It does not reach the edge because the universe expands faster than light travels.

How can there be something wrong with a question? A question is a question. It’s the answer you are having issues with.

Unless you actually bother to learn science, but it seems all you are interested in doing is using your own limited understanding to argue to others with similar lack of knowledge. I respect Shannon for the fact that she acknowledges her lack of expertise here, and does not make such arguments.

Well there is a lot going on in ‘that’ paragraph. Learn Science?

Science is knowledge.

This knowledge is immeasurable because of it’s many branches. Most experts are only expert in their own field, which equates to a very small amount of scientific knowledge in the vast scheme of Science.

So you have ‘learned science’ and are able to correct us if we go wrong. You may want to put my answer in a more scientific way with added information as to how science arrives at the answer, but with our lack of expertise, it would only go over our heads. Although my answer is still correct.

The speculation about what lies beyond the observable universe is all based on observations from within the universe. For example the observation of galactic velocity provides a boundary on the age of the universe, therefore if there is anything beyond that space/time boundary then perhaps there are ways to tell, most likely in observing the CMB.

Yes I understand that. We don’t know what is beyond the ‘Known Universe’. Maybe one day science will find out. But at the rate that science progresses it will be a long time, so for now we speculate.

Maybe the bubble theory is correct and there are more universes. Maybe there is nothing beyond the universe and maybe there is no beyond. And maybe there is something we can’t imagine and maybe there is a god.

However at the moment you seem to be determined to use your scientific ignorance to justify your belief in the limitations of science, that's like using your lack of knowledge of Japanese to deny that people can talk in Japanese.

Are you assuming my scientific ignorance in the same was as you are assuming my lack of knowledge of Japanese? Without doing a scientific check first.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "I have neither included every religion, nor excluded any. That is your interpretation, Since we were talking about religion in general, I said religion."

You said that religion was our connection to god, but what about those religions that don't believe in one god? That excludes them or assumes they are wrong.

cHriS wrote: "It does not have to be. Someone without a religion can believe in a god. Because a child believes in Father Christmas, that does not make that belief a religious one."

Actually it fits all the criteria, not only is it the belief in a supernatural entity with miraculous powers, it also ascribes to a theory of moral behaviour. Check the definition of religion in a dictionary and it fits perfectly.

Just because you may find that religion particularly silly or childish doesn't change the definition.

cHriS wrote: "Correct. That’s my point. The FSM has a long way to go."

The FSM is an entity that has supernatural powers and is intangible to normal enquiry, therefore it has the same legacy as any other imagining of a god.

cHriS wrote: "But that is what it does."

No it is a defence of science education from mythology.

cHriS wrote: "You don’t need to revise anything….I have already answered the question I asked."

Yes, incorrectly, and then you use the incorrect conclusion to legitimise your idea.

cHriS wrote: "It is a simple question….. where does the light go when it reaches the edge of the universe?"

What edge? If you go to the "edge" of the observable universe, you'd still be inside it and where we are would now be the "edge". You are using non-relativistic physics to try to comprehend relativistic space-time.

IcHriS wrote: "t does not reach the edge because the universe expands faster than light travels."

No the expansion of the universe is not that great at this point.

cHriS wrote: "How can there be something wrong with a question? A question is a question. It’s the answer you are having issues with."

When a question contains assumptions that are wrong. You need to correct the answers that the question assumes before you can answer the question. For example "Why did Santa kill Chris Rock?" may be a valid question but it assumes several things, that there is a 'Santa', that Chris Rock is dead, and that Santa killed him. So the question can be wrong before you can actually begin to answer it.

cHriS wrote: "Well there is a lot going on in ‘that’ paragraph. Learn Science?"

Yes, study it and comprehend what we know so far before dismissing things that are known as unknown.

cHriS wrote: "This knowledge is immeasurable because of it’s many branches. Most experts are only expert in their own field, which equates to a very small amount of scientific knowledge in the vast scheme of Science. "

Fine, so learn cosmology. You are quite right in your assessment, yet you do not respect your own point when you try to tell cosmologists what we know about the universe or tell climatologists what they've learned about climate. You just assume you are right despite the expertise of others you have just referenced.

cHriS wrote: "So you have ‘learned science’ and are able to correct us if we go wrong. You may want to put my answer in a more scientific way with added information as to how science arrives at the answer, but with our lack of expertise, it would only go over our heads. Although my answer is still correct."

Your answer falls under that category "not even wrong". There is no "edge" for light to go past so the question and your answer is irrelevant.

Claiming you're correct while admitting you have a lack of expertise is a new one.

cHriS wrote: "Yes I understand that. We don’t know what is beyond the ‘Known Universe’. Maybe one day science will find out. But at the rate that science progresses it will be a long time, so for now we speculate. "

Actually we hypothesise and base those hypotheses on what we observe, just like the rest of science. The answers may be closer than you think. It's not even a century since we discovered that the universe has a definite age and is not static and unchanging as we first thought. Who knows what we may learn in only one-hundred more years, unless people who pretend to know all the answers already manage to stop people from looking.

cHriS wrote: "Maybe the bubble theory is correct and there are more universes. Maybe there is nothing beyond the universe and maybe there is no beyond. And maybe there is something we can’t imagine and maybe there is a god."

Maybe. However, it's likely that the answers are a lot less mundane than "god".

cHriS wrote: "Are you assuming my scientific ignorance in the same was as you are assuming my lack of knowledge of Japanese? Without doing a scientific check first."

Yes, from the incorrect questions you posit and conclusions you draw from them.

For example, you talk about light going over the "edge" of the universe, where is this edge? If there is an edge, is there a middle? Why can't we see past a certain distance in the universe?

All those are known answers, and your ignorance of them was demonstrated in the question. I am not saying this to belittle you, I am saying this as someone trained in the field talking to a person who isn't.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: For example, you talk about light going over the "edge" of the universe, where is this edge? If there is an edge, is there a middle? Why can't we see past a certain distance in the universe?

All those are known answers, and your ignorance of them was demonstrated in the question. I am not saying this to belittle you, I am saying this as someone trained in the field talking to a person who isn't.
..."

You seem to have missed the point of the question, a question any school boy with 'basic' scientific knowledge may ask.

It is not an unreasonable question to ask. And if you had understood the 'basic' question you would have understood that the question was about the speed of light.

Since no one knows if there is an edge to the universe, the question refers to the light and what would happen IF there is an edge.

Since, for the most part the expansion of the universe is greater than the speed of light, that is the answer.

I watched a TV programme this week with Prof. Brian Cox taking questions, and that very question was answered.

It is easy to google, there are lots of pages on this subject.....

Here's one that is interesting......

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ques...

[cHriS]

Gary wrote:Fine, so learn cosmology. You are quite right in your assessment, yet you do not respect your own point when you try to tell cosmologists what we know about the universe or tell climatologists what they've learned about climate. You just assume you are right despite the expertise of others you have just referenced.
.."
I am quite right in my assessment... are you doing a u turn? Or would you like to give you reply to the question about the speed of light and what would happen if there IS a point at which our universe ends.

And on the subject of expertise.

A Christian scientist said on TV last Sunday morning... because science does not recognise 'the soul' god it is something science should not comment on.

[Andrea]

Michael wrote: "i think Southpark answers this question remarkably well."

I totally agree

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote:Fine, so learn cosmology. You are quite right in your assessment, yet you do not respect your own point when you try to tell cosmologists what we know about the universe or tell climatol..."

science only comments on god when religion drags god into science.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "First, I'm not "quite hostile" to non-believers and don't hold with that. I'm disgusted by it. Having said that, let's think this through a bit."

I hope I didn't give you the impression I was calling you hostile. The person I was talking about was on a blog that decried the so-called "new atheism" and smugly suggested that both sides were misguided thanks to the ignostic philosophy."

Okay. Now that I have time ....

No. You didn't give that impression here. Not at all.

I did want to go on the record, though, especially since I was going to delve into a possible reason for people thinking some non-believers actively deny the existence of God, gods, etc.... I wanted to be clear that I'm not hostile toward non-believers and don't stand for that.

[Drew]

This is a useless thread, people who believe in God are not going to be convinced to see reason and those who don't believe in God won't let their good sense be undermined by illogical ideas. Give it up people!

[Jettcatt]

Well said Drew, But alas the debate has been going for centuries we are doomed!!! Unless by some miracle people could perhaps stop telliing others what to think and do and just let it be! God now I sound like a Beetles song think I will go and have a drink!! LOL.

[Travis]

Jettcatt wrote: "Well said Drew, But alas the debate has been going for centuries we are doomed!!! Unless by some miracle people could perhaps stop telliing others what to think and do and just let it be! God now ..."

Could be worse, you could sound like a Britney Spears song.

I doubt we are going to solve anything, but if people are talking and occasionally thinking, then it hasn't been a total loss.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "If we were to look back at the posts of some of the most vocal non-believers on this thread, would their posts read as an active denial of something or a lack?"

Depends on context. Most non-believers on this thread are responding to active claims about the existence of god and the superiority or equivalence of religion to science. Yet most will not repeatedly claim "god does not exist" instead they will take the claims of religious people and analyse them. For example, the repeated claim that religion is vital to morality, that science is somehow immoral, that religion somehow moderates or inspires science."

It does depend on context.

But, ....

Some of the non-believers here, maybe many of the non-believers here, have posted as you've detailed in the above quote. I, like you, don't consider questioning believers or speaking out regarding the morality of non-believers, etc... to be examples of an active denial of God, gods, etc....

But, ....

Please notice I said ... the posts of some of the most vocal non-believers .... Not all. Not most. Some. As an aside, I don't mean this in a supercilious way, but I think I might have been reading posts here for a longer period of time. Therefore, I might be remembering and referencing posts you've not read, unless you were reading for months before posting.

There was a time when people would write and say they believed in or chose religion, and some non-believers who were vocal at the time would call them "stupid sheep" and all sorts of other things. There have been times when someone has said they can't live without God and a non-believer has written that grown ups don't need blankets and imaginary friends. Those are the types of things that I'm referencing.

When someone says s/he believes and someone else calls them stupid for their belief and/or details why they shouldn't believe, it seems akin to an active denial. Is it the same as an active denial? I don't know.

But, I know one thing.

That sort of thing, which seems in line with the suggestion of American Atheists, could be one of the reasons some think non-believers make active denials.

It might be about tactics. While a non-believer doesn't believe that God doesn't exist and isn't trying to prove God doesn't exist, his/her tactics might make it appear that way.

I'm offering that as an insight. I'm not condoning the crappy behavior of the people you referenced as having made that claim. I'm just saying behavior sometimes leads to judgments. If someone says something like, "I couldn't live without God," and a non-believer says something like, "I gave up believing in God and the tooth fairy in nursery school. Why are believers so immature? Grow up. And, what god? The god who says it's okay to rape women and who lets children die of cancer. What a great god! I'd like to beat him up if he really existed," people might be left with the feeling that the non-believer is making an argument against belief.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "First, I'm not "quite hostile" to non-believers and don't hold with that. I'm disgusted by it. Having said that, let's think this through a bit."

I hope I didn't give ..."

I don't think atheists actively deny god, any more than religious folk actively deny unicorns.
Speaking for myself, we are just a bit concerned that people are making major life choices based on something mythical is all.

Someone tells you they vote based on what fairies, Bigfoot or Thor told them, well, you'd give that person a second glance and probably take them off the potential babysitter list.

[Jettcatt]

Travis wrote: "Jettcatt wrote: "Well said Drew, But alas the debate has been going for centuries we are doomed!!! Unless by some miracle people could perhaps stop telliing others what to think and do and just le..."

I could start this reply with "Hit me baby one more time" but I won't of course hurt your senses like that..

Yes Travis talking and thinking are excellent but my worry is that religious beings are all to comfortable with others doing the thinking for them, please people question everything you are told!! This plea goes out to all you people raised in loving religious families the gospel should not be perhaps taking as gospel, question everything. LOL.

Now where did I put my drink??

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "If we were to look back at the posts of some of the most vocal non-believers on this thread, would their posts read as an active denial of something or a lack?"

Depend..."

I don't think we are making an argument against belief, just belief in 'fill in the deity of your choice'.
Atheist work on the idea that there is plenty worth believing in in the world already without the need to invent more.

I've always like Penn Jillette's quote ( which he may have stolen from somebody else); "I'm an atheist. Everything in the world is enough for me."

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Does it say "God doesn't exist"? No. It says nothing about the claims of religion, rather it is making the statement that the ideology of religion is closed and observed as harmful, not only to the practitioners but to those around them and those dependent on them.

So nothing about denying "god exists" "

Hmmm.... I don't know.

The American Atheists site stated, "But it is the job American Atheists has taken on. It has given its solemn promise that it shall work ceaselessly and with all its energy resources to bring about the liberation of the human mind, to free religion’s prisoners, and to find cures for all the varieties of that most deadly disease, religiosity."

What are they ceaselessly and with all possible energy attempting to free religion's prisoners from? Religiosity? What is religion and religiosity? I think you've defined religious people as those who believe in God, gods, etc...? Religion and religiosity are based in belief in God, gods, etc.... Therefore, if they want to free religion's prisoners, it would seem they want to free believers of their belief in God, gods, etc....

If that's not what they want to free "religion's prisoners" from, I think you can still see why some might honestly be confused by such rhetoric and tactics and might surmise an active denial of "God" on the part of (some) non-believers.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Perhaps you'd be willing to use an example that I might understand. Is that something you're willing to do?"

I shall try, please rate my success.

The only equivalence I can think of is a legal equivalence, to minimise the subjective nature of the point."

Yes. That worked much better for me.

I think the expectation of proof and acknowledgment of the lack of proof is at the root of non-belief. How can a non-believer accept something that hasn't been proven? I totally get that, ... I think.


There are non-believers who simply ask for evidence and ask questions in order to gain knowledge. Just as a juror might demand DNA evidence, etc... in order to convict and might make an argument against circumstantial evidence. After all, doesn't circumstantial evidence allow for reasonable doubt? Yes, it does. This would NOT be an active denial of anything, a person's innocence or the non-existence of God, gods, etc....

My point ....

That's not the only narrative.

Imagine this. Imagine you're the juror who, instead of needing solid evidence, finds yourself being swayed by circumstantial evidence. The defendant threatened to kill his wife, his wife disappeared, and he pawned her wedding ring after the disappearance. Dang! He must be guilty. It adds up, right? In addition, you assume the prosecutor is honest and wouldn't bring a case to trial without good reason. The prosecutor is an authority figure and you feel people in authority try to do right by society.

Well, imagine another juror, who insists on a body and DNA evidence, etc..., starts calling you a stupid sheep. Stupid sheep! Imagine that juror says something like, "You'd follow the prosecutor anywhere. It's like you've got a ring in your nose. Why don't you grow up!? Everyone knows prosecutors have been known to do bad things. Jam people up. Take certain cases to trial in order to get a cake conviction and up their numbers. Seriously. You're stupid if you think you can trust circumstantial evidence and prosecutors."

That's a different animal altogether.

I'm not saying all non-believers fall into this. Not at all. I'm simply trying to say the instances in which some non-believers "splash water in the faces of believers" might lead people to think they're actively denying God, etc....

Regarding my referencing the American Atheists site, I ask for a level of fairness.

When I first referenced this, I told people I'd been trying to find more information about "atheists" and read their site. I was concerned about a few things and wondered if any of the non-believers here could help me out. Had anyone heard of this organization? Were they reputable? Were the points espoused by their group things non-believers in general held with?

Silence, if I remember correctly.

Except for you. You asked if I'd mind sharing my concerns and continued to think aloud, wondering if I was bothered by what most religious people are bothered by, etc....

I explained some of their points, the language used, etc... that confused me. First, it seemed they were adopting religious lingo and quasi-religious ideas, and they also seemed to have commentary that didn't seem to read in a professional way.

That led to a huge brouhaha.

Ultimately, I just wanted to know if they were reputable and if their site accurately represented the "atheist" viewpoint. At which point, you discussed inherent problems in thinking there is an "atheist" viewpoint.

Hence my adoption of the term "non-believer" instead of referring to non-believers as atheists.

Yes, I also take issue with people who sing the praises of conversion, whether they be believer or non-believer.

That's the history of my references to that site. My mention of it in yesterday's (or was it today's) post was not to say non-believers say bad things.

My point .... You mentioned some think "atheists" actively deny God, etc..., which isn't accurate. That might be. However, when you have an organization, like the American Atheists, suggesting non-believers be as crude and crass as possible in order to "splash water in the face" of believers to wake them from their hypnotized religious state and have some non-believers who seem to follow that suggestion here, one might think an active denial might be in the works.

Tactics might confuse what is the crux of the issue, a lack of.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Atheist work on the idea that there is plenty worth believing in in the world already without the need to invent more."

Your use of the word "belief" might elicit an argument from Gary.

I'm really not arguing that "atheists" deny the existence of God. I can, however, understand why people might think some "atheists" actively deny God ... or all atheists, if one is prone to overgeneralization.

Still thinking of cows and The Far Side.

[[deleted user]]

Drew wrote: "This is a useless thread, people who believe in God are not going to be convinced to see reason and those who don't believe in God won't let their good sense be undermined by illogical ideas. Give ..."

A rather ironic post ....

Should I read it literally, or are you making some sort of joke, etc...?

[[deleted user]]

Speaking to Drew and Jettcatt ...

Is the point of this thread to convince believers to see reason?

(Define reason...)

Is the point to undermine the logic of a non-believer?

(Define undermine...)

I was thinking the point was to share our ideas, experiences and to learn from one another.

I know I've shared, and I've learned from at least one believer and from a few non-believers. Further, I've learned some lessons regarding communication and how to communicate regarding a topic and within a thread that elicit strong emotional responses.

Given that, my participation in this thread, while sometimes painful and infuriatingly frustrating, has not been useless.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Atheist work on the idea that there is plenty worth believing in in the world already without the need to invent more."

Your use of the word "belief" might elicit an argument from G..."

you can believe in all kinds of stuff besides a man in the sky. there's all kinds of stuff out there...world's full of it.
family, friends, love, hope, the future...you can get a pretty good sized list without too much effort.

and that's not even counting my belief that we will overthrow the cow conspiracy that has us in its filthy grip...!

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Speaking to Drew and Jettcatt ...

Is the point of this thread to convince believers to see reason?

(Define reason...)

Is the point to undermine the logic of a non-believer?

(Define undermine...."

and as an added bonus, participation in this thread is voluntary, so anyone that thinks it's pointless can move on...done it a couple of times myself...
but, then I realize it's less heated and ugly debating religion than Star Trek and come back.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "but, then I realize it's less heated and ugly debating religion than Star Trek and come back. "

Really...?

Discussions regarding religion are less ugly than Star Trek?

What sort of Star Trek discussions are there?

Heard Wm Shatner was arrested recently, by the way. Say it ain't so.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "but, then I realize it's less heated and ugly debating religion than Star Trek and come back. "

Really...?

Discussions regarding religion are less ugly than Star Trek?

What sort o..."

You must not know many Trekkies.
Things had calmed down, but then that crap new movie came out...oh, it got ugly...stupid JJ Abrams..if only he'd stuck with TV shows, maybe we could have avoided it all and just stuck with arguing over favorite Captain...

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "You must not know many Trekkies.
Things had calmed down, but then that crap new movie came out...oh, it got ugly...stupid JJ Abrams..if only he'd stuck with TV shows, maybe we could have avoided it all and just stuck with arguing over favorite Captain... "

Guess not. I guess I shouldn't mention that I liked the new movie. The one that came out of few years ago.

What's that loud noise?!

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "You must not know many Trekkies.
Things had calmed down, but then that crap new movie came out...oh, it got ugly...stupid JJ Abrams..if only he'd stuck with TV shows, maybe we could have avoided it all and just stuck with arguing over favorite Captain... "

Not sure about my favorite captain. Hmmm....

Troy was may favorite empath!

;)

[[deleted user]]

Don't think this is Godwin's, I'll explain, but if your eyes cross at glimpsing the words "Nazi" and "holocaust" ... look away.

One of my friends just posted the following article on her FB page. It caught my eye since it referenced happiness and meaning, both things which have been discussed here from time to time.

I don't think this fits Godwin's as I truly don't know how to feel about the article. I'm not using it to make a point or to "bolster" and argument with comparison and exaggeration. I found it to be pretty thought-provoking and don't quite know how to feel about some of the things referenced. (I'm guessing the "sign" he received will make some non-believers choke. I, myself, am not sure how I feel about that "sign" and how I feel about his choice.)

I'm just sitting back on my sofa and thinking about ethics and morality and choices. Further, I'm thinking about what makes us human, humane. Is it about meaning? I think so ... and don't think that needs to be connected to all things spiritual. Fascinating though, the decisions that can be made within meaning.

I just found it and find it ... challenging, on a certain level.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/arc...

[[deleted user]]

Wow...!

Has anyone else heard about the Harvard professor who is discussing finding an "adventurous" woman to have a Neanderthal's baby? I saw an article online via The Daily Mail and am somewhat leery given the fact that Hazel has told me through this thread that TDM isn't the most reputable paper.

This idea did boggle my mind a bit. The article stated human cloning is illegal; however, given the fact that a Neanderthal isn't human .... It seems this makes some in the scientific community a bit ... uncomfortable. Questions regarding ethics.

I find myself wondering what will happen, how they'll make this decision, ethically.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Wow...!

Has anyone else heard about the Harvard professor who is discussing finding an "adventurous" woman to have a Neanderthal's baby? I saw an article online via The Daily Mail and am somewhat..."
I came across a similar article, can't remember where, and came away with the impression that he was talking hypothetically....as you say if it's in TDM then it's garbage, they should just cut the bull and rename themselves T&A 'cos that's all it is.

[Patrick]

Sai Thein Than wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.
I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."

I agree with your position, I am an atheist who backslides into Agnostic
Occasionally,but science has so many answers that you don't have to accept on faith. I envy people of faith....I think their religious affiliations help deal with crisis etal,where as the non believer must learn to face the world "alone "as it were....

[Patrick]

Jean wrote: "Have you ever noticed that even babies have distinct personalities? How is this explained scientifically? I ask this with no guile."

Genetic RNA and DNA chains...

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "I came across a similar article, can't remember where, and came away with the impression that he was talking hypothetically....as you say if it's in TDM then it's garbage, they should just cut the bull and rename themselves T&A 'cos that's all it is. "

If I remember correctly, I saw that he'd given an interview to a German publication. Who is to say what parts they lifted from the interview and what parts they didn't! He might well have been talking in hypotheticals. Hopefully.

It definitely made me look twice. In addition, I'd never really thought about that before. The idea that one could clone a Neanderthals given that they're not human. It made me start thinking about ethics and how that would be decided.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "I came across a similar article, can't remember where, and came away with the impression that he was talking hypothetically....as you say if it's in TDM then it's garbage, they shou..."

The whole thing sounds like the beginning of a cheesy sci-fi movie.

Then the cloned neanderthal's decide to re-test that whole 'survival of the fittest' idea...and Nicholas Cage saves us.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Then the cloned neanderthal's decide to re-test that whole 'survival of the fittest' idea...and Nicholas Cage saves us. "

I don't know. Cage is getting a bit long in the tooth. This might be a job for ....

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Then the cloned neanderthal's decide to re-test that whole 'survival of the fittest' idea...and Nicholas Cage saves us. "

I don't know. Cage is getting a bit long in the tooth. Th..."

I'm guessing you're not going to say 'Scarlet Johanson'.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Then the cloned neanderthal's decide to re-test that whole 'survival of the fittest' idea...and Nicholas Cage saves us. "

I don't know. Cage is getting a bit long i..."

Well, ....

I was actually trying to pick a Star Trek captain. ;)

After thinking of the most obvious choice, however.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I'm guessing you're not going to say 'Scarlet Johanson'. "

I could go for The Avengers, though.

[A]

Jean wrote: "I think we definitely need both. As a religious girl, I have a strong faith in Deity and in His creations...science exists to prove His existence, for all things in this world and out point to Him..."

You didn't read the right books then. Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. If Dawkins can't convince you that human intelligence indeed arose from unintelligent 'things', then no one can.