Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,401-8,450 of 12,463

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Makes one wonder. How many people are labeled as naive, at best, and delusional, at worst, but are on the up-and-up regarding what they say they know? "
I guess it comes down to the initial believability of what they say, and then over time whether what they say ends up with evidence to support it.

[Gary]

Sheila wrote: "There should be a balance between science and religion. To believe in religion or science is personal chose."

Except it isn't. First a belief in religion doesn't just effect you, it effects other people, whether its a gay man condemned to persecution, a woman condemned to die because religion decides what medical treatment she is allowed, or your children who are brought up to believe that science is a "belief" no more valid than any other mythology.

Second science is not choosing to believe in it otherwise you don't understand the basic way science works.

Sheila wrote: "I think religion is important in life."

Which one?

People are always popping up here and commenting how important religion is, yet I think they usually mean "my religion" is important.

Is religion important or is "a" religion important. If all are important then why? Does this also include the pagan religions? Satanism? Does it only matter if you just believe in something? If that's true why not believe in each other? Or does it have to be something unbelievable to believe in to make it work?

If only certain religions are important that's different, if they are that important then which one is right, and then shouldn't any sacrifice to ensure that the "right" way of thinking is worth it if it has personal repercussions for us all far beyond our transient lives?

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "I guess it comes down to the initial believability of what they say, and then over time whether what they say ends up with evidence to support it. "

Mmmm....

That's one way of putting it.

Of course, another way of putting it would be ....

Sailors said there were MASSIVE waves, up to 100 feet and larger. Sailors talked of these waves forever.

But, other people called them liars and drunkards. Falsely.

Were the claims of these sailors initially believable? Hmmm.... I don't know.

Does something need to be "believable" in order to be true? Not always, I'm guessing. Not even regarding what we now know about these waves.

Regardless of the fact that scientists finally proved these waves happen, they existed. All along. Still happen. In fact, not only do they exist, they happen more frequently than the mathematical theories men have developed suggest. Surely not! Oh, yes, surely, they do! So say the scientists. How decidedly bizarre...

So, for all of those years, years and years and years, there were rogue waves. They existed. In ocean after ocean.

They don't exist now, all of a sudden, BANG, because science and scientists finally found and measured evidence of their existence. They've always existed, and some have always known of their existence.

That's another way of putting it.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "I think you are over egging the pudding to make what was a basic answer to a straight forward question much more complicated than it need be."

No because you took a misinterpretation and then used that to try to justify the idea that science was intrinsically limited and unwilling to comment on certain things that religion was. I pointed out that your reasoning was flawed. It doesn't matter whether it's me or Professor Cox, it's you who was wrong and then tried to draw a conclusion based on the wrong idea.

Note, if you have had no training in the area, not being right about it is understandable and not surprising, some of the ideas are quite mind bending even because of their simplicity, because our day to day assumptions are wrong.

What is not understandable is making a claim of the limitations of science, perhaps so you can then substitute faith into the gap, when your claim about the limitations is based on not comprehending what was told you on a TV program. Yes there is a cosmological horizon, but just like the Earth's horizon, or a rainbow, if you go to that horizon then where we were is the horizon while where we are then is now seemingly "normal".

cHriS wrote: "Science says that the universe has no end"

Really. What is an "end"? Again this is a simple idea, and like a lot of simple ideas in science it can get you into a lot of problems. Like it being impossible for an arrow to hit a moving target.

Science doesn't say the "universe has no end", do you mean an end in time, or an end in space. Do you understand the concept of a finite boundless universe?
Do you understand the various hypotheses about boundaries or the lack of them?

cHriS wrote: "it also says that we may live in just one of billions of universes."

Again a misunderstanding of cosmological shorthand. We have "the Universe" which is by definition "everything in existence", and then we have our universe which is actually (fairly lazy) term for "our observable universe" which I do not like to use, especially because non-cosmologists then use the term to justify interpretations of what cosmologists are talking about that are misleading.

cHriS wrote: "Since both can’t be right one or both must be speculation."

Yes the various cosmological hypotheses are indeed speculation, but they are not just people making stuff up. An idea is speculated on, then we work out ways to test the idea. Eventually these tests end up in a theory.

It used to be thought that it would be impossible to determine if the universe existed forever, or whether it was a finite age. Now we have at least two pieces of very strong evidence for the Big Bang Theory, which are the distribution of Supernovas is denser in the past, indicating that galaxy groups where once denser, and we can "see" the big bang fireball still glowing in the sky.

cHriS wrote: "Likewise God may or may not exist."

Again a convenient false presentation of an argument to make it sound more like a 50% chance. In actual fact you are saying that "a" god may exist, or there may be many gods, or a magical mystical force or many many other possibilities.

However these hypotheses have no evidence and indeed rely on the fact that if evidence is found then instead of treating it as invalidating the concept, the concept is modified to fit into the ever smaller gap in human knowledge.

cHriS wrote: "Speculation by any other word is still speculation."

Yes, which is why scientists hypothesise and then devise ways to disprove their own hypothesis.

Religion doesn't just speculate though, it claims, and if the evidence doesn't fit it then the evidence is suppressed or the claim is modified to avoid the evidence.
cHriS wrote: "Science may be happier using the word theory, but for the most part it is still speculation,"

Do you ever read posts written to you. You never seem to learn and spout the same falsehoods over and over.

A scientific "theory" is not speculation. The fact the Earth is a spheroid and not flat is a Theory, that the Earth goes around the sun is a Theory.

The reason science calls these things "Theories" is to avoid the arrogant assumption that what we know is now the "truth". Only in the hands of people who want to belittle science in order to have their own "speculation" taken seriously is the word theory treated with such scorn.

cHriS wrote: "If two cosmologists have separate theories about the universe, there has to be more evidence for one of the theories unless both are just speculating. "

Again complete lack of understanding of science works.

These cosmologists aren't making "guesses" and then expecting to be believed. They have evidence and they are putting forward ideas to fit that evidence, and then looking for ways to test and confirm those ideas.

Only in your arrogance do you think that your guesses and claims are equivalent to people who spend years not only trying to find evidence for their ideas, but to find evidence against it.

cHriS wrote: "You are answering your own question about the speed of light. The comment Prof. Cox made and I repeated here, was about light reaching the edge of the universe, not what can travel faster than light."

No. You claimed that light could not reach the edge and that meant science had to "stop" because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This is not true.

cHriS wrote: "If science has the complete answer to ‘all things black holes’ then it should not be beyond your complete understanding, unless that was not part of your training."

Again this is all based on the idea that either science understands something or it's beyond understanding. We can also have "not understand yet".

cHriS wrote: "It would be beyond your complete understanding , if science does not have a complete answer. And that I’m sure"

Which it doesn't, and perhaps we will never have a "complete" understanding maybe we will just have more and more accurate models, but still models. Perhaps to have complete understanding you would have to be the same complexity as the entire universe. Perhaps not.

It still doesn't mean that this means that any other claim is therefore equally worthy.

I can comprehend that there may be something beyond my understanding, however I am not as prideful as to assume that means if it's beyond mine it's beyond anyone's unless they are a god.

cHriS wrote: "Would it make a difference if I dismissed it ‘without’ being arrogant? Well I do not dismiss it nor am I arrogant."

You did dismiss it, I quote "and there science has to stop". Science does not have to stop at your artificial limit just so you can make your evidence-free claims.

cHriS wrote: "Science seems good at looking back billions and billions of years and telling us with almost god like certainty ‘what it is all about‘ but beyond the big bang, nothing: beyond the universe, nothing. Nothing but speculation."

Wrong again. First as I've said before, what's beyond "the Universe"? Nothing. As the word means "everything in reality". What's beyond the "observable universe" we can derive some things about, and new ideas allow us even further insight. You only view it as speculation as you have a 19th century idea of a finite universe resting in some sort of encompassing infinite meta-universe.

It's like the question "what existed before time" and forgetting that "before" is a direction in time. So what is "beyond" the universe, forgetting that "beyond" is a direction in space and therefore anything "beyond" the universe would be more universe.

cHriS wrote: "We still don’t know where we came from and where we are going. At least god or something as amazing phenomenal and powerful gives us hope."

So cosmology based on what you "hope" is there, rather than what is?

Furthermore, why are we so fundamentally prideful that
we need to hope that the entire universe, with it's trillions upon trillions of stars was made just for us?

That's not hope, that's self-aggrandizement.

cHriS wrote: "All you are doing is putting an interpretation on to something for effect. That is what ‘you’ think, not what is fact. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the reader does not interpret it as fact."

What?

You are the on repeatedly making claims with no evidence and expecting it to be taken as "fact", even going as far to separate "fact" from those guesses made by pesky scientists.

Why don't you answer the point I made rather than trying again to dismiss it based on the idea that "it's just another opinion".

Do you think it's better to make an ethical judgement based on reason or belief?

cHriS wrote: "But if I go along with what you just said ………… why did you stop at, ‘it teaches its victims nothing’? If you are following that line of thought, then you would have to justify why it should ‘have’ to teach victims anything, anyway."

Good question. Here's the answer. "Punishment" is for two things, vengeance or correction (i.e. teaching). Which society would you prefer to live in, one that tries to modify behaviour so that the majority treat each other well, or one where it doesn't matter whether a transgression was wrong, accidental or misguided but society will make you suffer for it.

There is reasonable evidence that punishment and vengeance are natural parts of any social animals behaviour, as an adaptation to make a functional society. In fact the instinct for vengeance may just be an artefact of our development of justice, but that has become an end to itself for a person, just as credulity has its place in educating our young, but can be problematic as an adult.

cHriS wrote: "This is a catch 22. Who is going to show you evidence, unless they go looking for it. That would then be ‘science’, so are you suggestion that science consider that god may be indeed a reality and should give more of it’s time investigating? "

It's only a catch-22 if you have already predetermined what there is to being discovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell&...

There are a practically infinite amount of things we could imagine are out there. Get a libraries section of mythology and then a comic shops current selection and then try to look for the existence of every imagined character in that selection and then realise that this is just the product of a few billion peoples imaginations over a few thousand years.

"God", particularly the implicitly male, monotheistic, almighty, personal, vengeful god is just one idea amongst countless others. You would like to present it as an either/or question because that presents the false equivalence of the concept.

This is why science certainly should stay open to ideas, but pursue them based on where evidence leads us, rather than taking one particular tale and then trying to find evidence to support that one idea at the expense of all of the other ideas.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "There actually are rogue waves. Proven now and everything. So, all of those people who talked of rogue waves for years and were called liars were right all along.

Wish they could have lived to see their names cleared.

Rogue waves. Giant squid. Looks like the sailors of the past weren't the drunks and liars they were painted out to be ... at least night entirely.

How sad ... that they were treated so poorly.

Anyway, I thought you'd find that interesting. "

Quite right, so the people who say "hey we can be moral without cowering in terror from god" or say "hey, perhaps the universe is something more than something some bloke knocked together in a week and is now angry at us for somehow spoiling despite it being built by something almighty".

That's the trouble with anecdotal evidence. Sure some people have been right while the majority have been wrong. But that's a blade that cuts two ways. At the same time the only reason that people like this often get treated badly is because of many more other people who made startling, unbelievable claims and turned out to be...

You guessed it...

Utterly wrong, misguided, delusional or even outright liars.

If only there was some way to separate the two? Perhaps by some system of rational investigation and independent confirmation?

Damn, if only people didn't tend to automatically assume that everyone else is operating on potentially misguided belief based on some sort of convention in our society that devotion to an ideology is intrinsically virtuous that we both support in people with ideas we like and decry as naivety in people with ideas we don't.

[Michael]

Science or religion? Got to have both - half the fun is watching them slug it out, as here, when nobody can possibly make a case that will satisfy us all. Speaking personally, I lean toward agnosticism whilst cooing and being astonished by the miracle of the resurrection-plant. What does this make me?

[Gary]

Melissa wrote: "I understand that you feel the need to attack religion. I am guessing it is because it does not fit into your personal belief system."

Oh look... Perfect example.

Someone assuming that because they follow a belief system, if someone says something different that must be because they also have a belief system, just a different one, not because someone can actually be right or wrong.

It's a strange thing that a system built on concepts of absolutism defends itself by absolute relativism.

[[deleted user]]

What do religions have in common? All of them. Each and every one.

Hmmm....

A belief in a power that is beyond us, that we can't quite understand.

If all religions, all, believe the same thing, as in ... a power that is higher than humans, are those people right? Does this higher power exist, since everyone within religions the world over and for thousands of years have believed in the same thing, a higher power?

Different religions = All religions can't be right = "God" can't exist, because not all religions can be right ...

Is that how it goes ...?

If so, could one flip that around and say ...

All religions believe in a higher power = All religions share the same belief at its conception. So, ... If people posit that different religions mean not all religions can be right, can the fact that all religions believe in the same thing, a higher power, mean religion is right ... a higher power exists?! = "God" can exist ...

Yeah.... I'm sure I must be "wrong" ....

[Michael]

Have you ever told a friend who loves "Lord of the Rings" that you thought it was just OK? They look at you like you spat on their shoes. There's the trouble - people who believe something with all their heart, scientifically or religiously or even both, tend to find it difficult to be swayed. But then we'd be scoffing at people who explained their views with no conviction at all. Just picture 8571 comments where everyone gave in and accepted the opposite of what they believed last Tuesday. It would be infuriating. No one's right. No one's wrong. And if we recall the essay title, the answer would appear to be moot - we've got them both and they're both fascinating.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "What do religions have in common? All of them. Each and every one.

Hmmm....

A belief in a power that is beyond us, that we can't quite understand."

And there is the lie of it. We can observe easily as tiny fragile beings in a massive world in a unimaginably vast universe. Then we hold faith in an idea that something as prosaic and comprehendable as one of ourselves, written large, will then explain it.

Shannon wrote: "If all religions, all, believe the same thing, as in ... a power that is higher than humans, are those people right?"

Or is it a fundamental conceit of the human condition, that every last one of us have the experience of being a being completely subservient and eclipsed by a higher power... our parents, guardians or whomever else provided for a child that is helpless when it comes into the world.

Is it right to assume what counts for us ergo counts for the universe?

Shannon wrote: "All religions believe in a higher power = All religions share the same belief at its conception."

If you make the claim sufficiently vague to include everything from a person on a cloud to an impersonal mysterious force field.

Yet each religion claims specifics, and the problem most non-theists have with belief is the specifics that people claim, based on the concept that belief is a valid form of enquiry into the nature of the universe.

Shannon wrote: "Yeah.... I'm sure I must be "wrong" .... "

"Sure" is the problem. You may be wrong, you may be right, however so many other people make claims contrary to yours that perhaps they are the sober sailor, and you are one of the drunkards that gave them a bad name? What's the sensible answer, you believing you are right, or you them believing they are, or instead do we accept that we might be wrong and look at what specifics we are being told, compared to what evidence we can see, in a sensible and mutually respectful manner?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Quite right, so the people who say "hey we can be moral without cowering in terror from god" or say "hey, perhaps the universe is something more than something some bloke knocked together in a week and is now angry at us for somehow spoiling despite it being built by something almighty"."

Ahahahahaha....

Funny thing.

I actually think people can be moral with and without religion. They can also, in my opinion, be immoral with and without religion.

In addition to that, I, personally, think it took more than a week for the "world" to come into existence. (So do a lot of religious folk, by the way. No, not religious folk gone rogue. There are other religions. We're not all Jewish and Christian. And, some Jews and Christians acknowledge that "days" might have been used metaphorically.)

So, ...

When non-believers here tell me they're moral, I agree. When non-believers here say it took millions of years for this planet to come into being, I agree.

I don't assume they're misguided given the fact that they see the world through a different lens.

Further, I don't think it's advisable to judge people based on what other people have said or done in the past ... those people you say were ... "Utterly wrong, misguided, delusional or even outright liars."

Regarding the sailors, who would those people be? The ones who were wrong, misguided, delusional or even outright liars? The sailors who said giant squid existed? The sailors who said they saw weird balls of light in the night sky? The sailors who said mermaids exist? Granted, manatees, etc... don't have faces that look like women, but ....

Even if some have been full of it and liars, is it right to automatically judge everyone else based on their lies?

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "Science or religion? Got to have both - half the fun is watching them slug it out, as here, when nobody can possibly make a case that will satisfy us all. Speaking personally, I lean toward agnosticism whilst cooing and being astonished by the miracle of the resurrection-plant. What does this make me? "

Depends on the "flavour" of agnostic :-D

As with atheism, the term agnostic often means different things to different people, and is a different answer to different questions.

Ask an atheist "Does god exist" and they are likely to say "I don't think so" while an agnostic would answer "I don't know". However if you ask "do you believe in god?" then the honest answer from both would have to be "no" as the agnostic and the atheist both have the same lack of faith in the idea of any particular god.

Unfortunately many agnostics I would count as deists who believe in a monotheistic god sufficiently different enough from current monotheistic faiths to avoid their now well understood limitations.

[Michael]

The little I know for sure (so to speak) is that I have more chance of being a contestant on American Idol than I do of being an atheist. But if you were to ask me what I think God is... well, I have no idea. And I don't expect to. What's that Durant quote on your profile page, Gary, about the perils of certainty? I can't pretend to be certain. After all, one of the denotative definitions of agnosticism is that even if deities (pick your flavour) do exist, we can't expect to understand them. And just between you and me, I haven't even decided what to have for lunch yet.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "And there is the lie of it."

In your opinion.... Your opinion, which is well and good and might be right, is still, at this point, your opinion. That tends to be lost when making such a blanket statement as this.

Further, not all religions and believers think they understand the power they believe in .... Some believe but know, with all certainty, that understanding that power, at this time, isn't possible.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: ""Sure" is the problem. You may be wrong, you may be right, however so many other people make claims contrary to yours that perhaps they are the sober sailor, and you are one of the drunkards that gave them a bad name? "

How have I given the sober sailors a bad name?

Not a rhetorical question.

Your proof of that is .... No, no .... Based on who I am and the statements I've made, how have I given the sober sailors a bad name?

Given the fact that I respect the right of all to choose their belief system or to choose not to believe and given the fact that I actually live that out and don't just talk a big game, how am I giving people a bad name? Given the fact that I've admitted to not having the answer and given the fact that I've said and fully trust that all people, believer (all) and non-believers, find truths, how am I labeling others as "drunkards"?

You see, .... I think it's hard to make that kind of judgment ... given that, while I might disagree with them from time to time, I, unlike some, don't tend to call people who see things differently ignorant, arrogant, wrong, or drunk.

So, since I don't, unlike some, label people as ignorant, arrogant, wrong, and/or drunk, how do you make the leap that I give sober sailors a bad name?

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Religion does not hold a privileged position in discourse, it is as open to questioning as any other subject. And, just as with any other subject, when discussing this particular subject it is not unreasonable to expect people to be able to support their position. That does not mean "prove god exists" btw, it simply means you should be able to discuss rationally why you have come to a particular position. "

Out of curiosity, ....

Let's say Melissa answers the above. Let's say she shares what's in her mind and in her heart. Let's say she, honestly, tells you and everyone else of her past experience and what led her to believe as she does. Let's say she discusses all of this, rationally.

What do you think, Cerebus, will happen if she does that?

Given past experience, what do you think will happen? Honestly and rationally, what sort of responses will await her ... if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior?

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "Hey, cHriS ....

I do find that interesting. There is much that we just don’t know about or dismiss because there is no evidence.

Evidence does not make something true, it just lets us know that it is was always true.

I believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Or should I say that I believe the many people who did see something in the Loch that they could not explain. Maybe one day, just like the waves we will find evidence.

Only today it was announced that bones found under a car park were those of Richard III the last Plantagenet King of England, who died at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.

‘DNA was compared with DNA samples taken from Michael Ibsen, a Canadian believed to be a direct descendant of Richard’s sister Anne‘.

This to me is a case of…… if you don’t believe something (Nessie for example) it is not likely to be proved correct. But if you want something to be true and lots of the scientific world wanted these bones to be King Richards, they have a better change of being his. : )

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Only today it was announced that bones found under a car park were those of Richard III the last Plantagenet King of England, who died at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.

‘DNA was compared with DNA samples taken from Michael Ibsen, a Canadian believed to be a direct descendant of Richard’s sister Anne‘.

This to me is a case of…… if you don’t believe something (Nessie for example) it is not likely to be proved correct. But if you want something to be true and lots of the scientific world wanted these bones to be King Richards, they have a better change of being his. : )"

No kidding.... Hadn't heard about that.

Regarding the last bit, .... I think it depends.

Some people believe in Champ here; our version of Nessie. Scientists have actually "studied" the lake, monitoring it and everything else. I also think there's been a show on The History Channel showing people studying Loch Ness. Of course, now that I say that, I'm not sure if they were scientists or not. I can't remember.

It seems to me that there might, might, be things that are acceptable to study and things that aren't. For example, I recently saw clip of a man saying most scientists won't touch UFO reports. He said scientists don't want to be labeled as nuts. True or not? I don't know. Granted, most reports are fairly easily explained. Others, I think, could be explained if governments owned up to secret technology. But, given the fact that governments almost always deny any involvement, I'd want to study it and find out what's going on. You know, in the cases with lots of really reputable witnesses and that can't be explained. If it's true that scientists won't go there, I think it's somewhat sad.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Evidence does not make something true, it just lets us know that it is was always true. "

By the way, I agree.

[Alan]

I could live in a world without religion, in a world without science (medicine) I would already be dead twice.

If you believe that religion alone provides ethics and morals, there may be no hope for the human race. The sooner we realise there is no omnipotent, omniscient deity the sooner we will achieve a natural balance.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Let's say Melissa answers the above. Let's say she shares what's in her mind and in her heart. Let's say she, honestly, tells you and everyone else of her past experience and what led her to believe as she does. Let's say she discusses all of this, rationally.

What do you think, Cerebus, will happen if she does that? "
I speak for nobody but myself, but for me the discussion will continue. What I am asking I don't think is an unreasonable question. For someone with faith, and where that faith is reliant on a holy text of some kind, how do you choose which bits to follow, and which bits to ignore. I'm not asking for revelation, it's much more mundane than that....procedural almost. If you follow one part of a holy text and not another, on what basis is that distinction made.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "This to me is a case of…… if you don’t believe something (Nessie for example) it is not likely to be proved correct. But if you want something to be true and lots of the scientific world wanted these bones to be King Richards, they have a better change of being his. : ) "
No they won't. Wanting something to be true, does not make it so, especially not in science.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "I speak for nobody but myself, but for me the discussion will continue. What I am asking I don't think is an unreasonable question. For someone with faith, and where that faith is reliant on a holy text of some kind, how do you choose which bits to follow, and which bits to ignore. I'm not asking for revelation, it's much more mundane than that....procedural almost. If you follow one part of a holy text and not another, on what basis is that distinction made. "

Indeed. The conversation will continue, likely as it always has. I know the question has been asked before. The question, in and of itself, is fine. I've answered the question myself. So have others.

That, though, wasn't my point or my question.

What do you think will happen if she answers the question?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "I've answered the question myself. So have others."
I've dipped in and out of this thread for various reasons over time, so I could easily have missed this, but I don't recall anyone answering this question (please note, I am not saying you, or anyone hasn't).

Shannon wrote: "What do you think will happen if she answers the question?"
It depends on how it is answered. If you are expecting me to say that other people will jump on her, then that may or may not be true, I can't speak for others, what I can say is that I'll continue on much as I have before, trying to have a discussion.

I'm not entirely sure what you are expecting here. I know you have been put out by the approach of some people here, as have I. For me there are two approaches to that problem, ignore it, or tackle it, as I did with cs. His response since then has been to ignore it, that's fine, that's his call. We've had our share of trolls on this thread, but in all honesty it's one of the calmest discussions I've seen, with the majority (at least of the regulars) willing to take time to listen and to explain their position.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "It depends on how it is answered. If you are expecting me to say that other people will jump on her, then that may or may not be true, I can't speak for others, what I can say is that I'll continue on much as I have before, trying to have a discussion."

Interesting.

Perhaps ...

I mean, often, non-believers write that they'd take a world without religion. No one says anything. Often, though not always, believers write that they couldn't live without religion, etc... and they are questioned. So, in some respects, it doesn't much matter how a non-believer or believer answers the question. Non-believers are rarely if ever challenged and believers usually are. Just an interesting side note.

But, having said that, if Melissa were to wax poetic regarding the immorality of non-believers and the morality of believers, I can see that such a response would elicit certain commentary. I, myself, would comment.

When it comes to a discussion, I'm guessing there should be an equitable give and take. Right? If we really want to have an open and honest discussion, which would truly be lovely, wouldn't all of us be open to questions and sharing our thoughts and experiences?

Given that ...

You asked Melissa about authority, if I remember correctly. What gave her the authority to take some parts of the Bible and leave others aside?

When a similar question was asked of me, many a moon ago, someone, a non-believer, further discussed the danger that can be posed when one takes certain parts and leaves others. Schisms, etc....

I've always found this interesting and confusing. When I asked about it at the time, I'm fairly sure I was told I was wrong, which answered nothing. Other than an "idea" of who is right and who is wrong.

So, here's my thought and my question.

Don't you find it insanely ironic that some non-believers would care about authority and schisms? Isn't it odd that some non-believers would "insist" that people who say they're Christian or Jewish or Muslim or ... must follow each and every bit of dogma to the letter?

After all, many non-believers, past ... if not present, have bucked the system, flipped off authority, not followed the road well-traveled.

Why would some non-believers ask these sorts of questions, be concerned with the answers, and suggest that religious folk must follow church dictates?

Irony?

Or ...

Is it an attempt to get believers to evaluate their faith and choices? A kinder bucket of water to the face?

Is there really and truly an interest in the answers?

Do non-believers really think religious folk should follow authority? (I think not.) Or, is it just a tactic? If you don't want to follow authority, there is another path; that path isn't your own idea of faith but a lack thereof. I wonder ....

What are your thoughts on this...?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Non-believers are rarely if ever challenged and believers usually are. "
Challenge away....

Shannon wrote: "What are your thoughts on this...? "
My thoughts are not that people should or shouldn't follow authority, it is that if someone points to a passage in a religious book and says (for example and not suggesting this is your or Melissa's view, I don't know) "gay marriage should not be allowed because the bible says it is immoral", my response to that is "well, if you are using that section, or any section, of the bible to support your position that gay marriage is immoral, then why do you not take this other section that says owning slaves is fine and use that to justify slavery?". The other person is the one who is appealing to an authority for a moral position, in this case the bible, and then ignoring that same authority for other moral positions. If that person believes the bible is the word of god, and therefore inarguable when discussing (in this example) gay marriage, how do they feel they have the authority to then reject his word on the position on slavery? The answer is often "oh it's interpretation" or "it was acceptable at the time the bible was written" or "it's a translation issue". None of those however address the issue of how you use the bible to support one position but then ignore it for another.

I am not saying people of faith should ignore authority, but I find it inconsistent, and to be honest hypocritical, to say "this is wrong because the bible says so, but we can ignore those other bits". It's picking and choosing, in my opinion to support a position the believer would otherwise find indefensible.
I think those who say the bible is the inerrant word of god and must be believed and followed to the letter less rational than the majority to say the least, but at least they are consistent.

And lest you think this is an unreasonable standard I hold only those of faith to, it is something I would expect from anyone, myself included (and was a step on my own road to becoming an atheist). A good example is Bill Maher, beloved of many atheists because of his outspoken views on religion and his work (e.g. his film Religulous), where he tackles those of faith and quotes science to get his position across. All well and good, until you discover that he is also a germ theory denialist, at which point he suddenly abandons science and claims science is all a big conspiracy theory when it comes to the theory (and I use the word in it's scientific sense here) that germs cause diseases. There are also suggestions (I haven't researched his position on this) that he is anti-vaccination. I would ask *exactly* the same questions of someone like Maher, even if we are both atheists.....how can he use science to support his position on religion, but then ignore it for his pet conspiracy theories? He is picking and choosing in exactly the same way as I question those of faith doing.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "I find it inconsistent, and to be honest hypocritical, to say "this is wrong because the bible says so, but we can ignore those other bits". It's picking and choosing, in my opinion to support a position the believer would otherwise find indefensible.
I think those who say the bible is the inerrant word of god and must be believed and followed to the letter less rational than the majority to say the least, but at least they are consistent."

Hmmm....

This makes sense, to a certain extent.

You find it hypocritical to use the Bible to make one point while ignoring it on other points. Okay. I guess. I suppose it would depend on the point. I suppose it would depend upon a lot of things, including whether or not it was the work of fallible men or the Word of God. I could, not that I would, use the Bible to say gay marriage is wrong but refuse to buy a slave. Hypocrite. Okay. But, I could say I try to do good works, as discussed in the book of James. Would I be a hypocrite to see value in that teaching but reject the idea that slave ownership is an acceptable practice?

Further, ... here's the other half of "to a certain extent..."

Melissa told us she is "not" a Christian. Yet, after stating you assumed she was Christian and that she wasn't a Christian, you posted,

"Yes, I explicitly stated I was making that assumption, and it is one that can be challenged any time. I did not attack the bible, I asked how you decide which bits of it to follow, and which bits to ignore. If you are a christian, and if you believe (at least parts of) the bible, my question is, how do you choose which parts to believe? If you believe those parts are the word of god, what makes the bits you choose to ignore different? If the bible says to love thy neighbour and you choose to follow that as the word of god, on what authority do you then make the choice to say the bits permitting slavery, or stating that a rapist must marry his victim, are not the word of god? This is not attacking the bible, this is asking you to clarify how you feel you have the authority to ignore parts of what you presumably say is the word of god."

Well, indeed, it was an assumption and was challenged by Melissa. Yet, you continued to ask her about the Bible and deciding what one should take and what one should leave. Why?

The point of asking about authority and asking about this would be...?

An issue of Melissa using the Bible to make one point, yet, hypocritically, not accepting all parts and pieces of the Bible? Or, is it something else altogether?

Somewhat confused ....

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "It depends on how it is answered. If you are expecting me to say that other people will jump on her, then that may or may not be true, I can't speak for others, what I can say is th..."

non-believers say they'll take a world without religion and no one says anything...?
seriously, 172 pages into this thread you're saying that?

this thread is all about both sides getting challenged. Nobody has gotten off easy.


Now, my thought on the bible/koran/ necronomicon/ fill in the book of your choice thing ( and this is general rant, directed at no one in particular.) is you can't claim your book is the 'word of your god' and then edit out the parts that are awkward to deal with, inconsistent, a typo or just outright wrong.

It's the loose thread that unravel's the sweater, if you can just ignore your belief systems instruction manual, then why should the rest of us take it seriously?
If it's your book, then either own it or stop using it when it suits you.
or at least publish a list of the parts that are really the word of your deity of choice and which ones are just allegory.
It would make this whole thing so much easier.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "non-believers say they'll take a world without religion and no one says anything...?
seriously, 172 pages into this thread you're saying that?
"

Well, yes ....

For example, Alan just said he'd take a world without religion. Did anyone comment? Several people have said they'd take a world without religion over the last few weeks, for example. I don't recall anyone saying anything. Am I misremembering? Who wrote in to question them and their lack of belief?

There have been times, months ago, when non-believers wrote and said they'd take a world without religion because religion has caused all wars. Interestingly, no non-believers write and ask that accurate information be shared. Silence. There's been a questioning of believers who make inaccurate claims. Not that. I have posted in response. However, I've not questioned their stance on religion; I've questioned the fact that they misrepresented history.

If we were to be really and truly honest, I think we'd have to say, over the last year, very few believers have questioned non-believers regarding their initial stance, per say. There are other questions. No doubt. However, there aren't usually questions of new people who write in to answer that they'd do without religion. The same can't be said for new believers who post that they couldn't do without religion.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "you can't claim your book is the 'word of your god' and then edit out the parts that are awkward to deal with, inconsistent, a typo or just outright wrong"

Assuming that the religion has a book ... and that one believes it, if it exists, to be the word of God ....

If one doesn't claim the book is the word of God, is it okay that she takes certain bits and leaves others? For example, is it okay that I value good deeds and find James to be valuable? Is it okay that I find the teachings about the power of the tongue in James to be true and try to follow those teachings? Are these things okay even though I'm not attempting to buy someone through Ebay? Or, would I still be a hypocrite?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Would I be a hypocrite to see value in that teaching but reject the idea that slave ownership is an acceptable practice?"
The same question would apply, why use one part of the bible to support a position then ignore another. This assumes of course the believer subscribes to the position that the bible is the word of god. If they take it as a book written by people that has some good bits in it and some bad bits in it, then fine, pick and choose, but why require a deity? As soon as you involve a deity, you run into the issue we're discussing, of accepting that authority on some points, ignoring it on others.

Shannon wrote: "Well, indeed, it was an assumption and was challenged by Melissa. Yet, you continued to ask her about the Bible and deciding what one should take and what one should leave. Why? "
Because I answer these posts as I read them, she didn't correct me on that assumption until later in the post at which point I said: "Ah, so the bit about the bible above is probably not directly relevant to you then, fine, can I then ask if you subscribe to any of the commonly accepted religious groupings? Or at least, if you have a source for the deity (or deities) you believe in, an analog for the christian bible?" If the point I was trying to make in relation to christianity and the bible wasn't clear enough to translate to whatever religion and holy text Melissa has faith in, then I was going to try and make (exactly the same question) explicit in relation to that religion and book.

Shannon wrote: "The point of asking about authority and asking about this would be...?"
Exactly the same as I have described before.

Shannon wrote: "An issue of Melissa using the Bible to make one point, yet, hypocritically, not accepting all parts and pieces of the Bible?"
Yes. (substituting whichever text we agreed was under discussion)

Shannon wrote: "Or, is it something else altogether? "
No.

Shannon said: "Somewhat confused .... "
Hopefully this clarifies.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "For example, Alan just said he'd take a world without religion. Did anyone comment?"
Anyone, anytime, is welcome to ask whatever questions they like of those posts, and they will be answered, either by the OP, or by anyone else who feels they have relevant input. I'm not going to question someone like Alan as it's an opinion I agree with, and I don't see the point in chipping in to say "Me too!". If you have questions of Alan, ask them.

Shannon said: "There have been times, months ago, when non-believers wrote and said they'd take a world without religion because religion has caused all wars. Interestingly, no non-believers write and ask that accurate information be shared. Silence. There's been a questioning of believers who make inaccurate claims. Not that. I have posted in response. However, I've not questioned their stance on religion; I've questioned the fact that they misrepresented history."
And you did an excellent job in challenging them, and to be honest changed my opinion on the number of wars attributable to religion. It's not a claim I've made myself on this thread, but had done in face-to-face discussions with people, but no longer. Having said that, it's not an angle that I identify with much anyway, so it's not something I feel strongly enough about to get involved in discussions about. Yes, it comes up regularly with new posters, and I hate to say this, but if you feel strongly about it, you're the one who needs to deal with it, not me. In exactly the same way when someone comes along and says "we should keep religion or there'd be no morals and it'd be every man for himself" I don't expect you to challenge that, it's something I feel strongly about and an inaccurate sentiment I feel needs to be challenged, so I usually challenge the OP with the stock questions, and they're usually ignored with no further input. Nothing I can do about that, but it's not something I'm willing to leave unchallenged. Same goes for you and anything you disagree with. You disagree with it, you challenge it. It gets tiresome, and boring, and repetitive, but you can't sit back and say "I addressed this issue already, it's someone else's turn to make my point".

Shannon said: " There are other questions. No doubt."
Excellent! Ask them! Don't wait for others to ask them! If you want a specific person to answer, then ask that person by name, otherwise ask the question in general, and those who feel strongly enough about it or qualified enough to answer will do so!

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Is it okay that I find the teachings about the power of the tongue in James to be true and try to follow those teachings? Are these things okay even though I'm not attempting to buy someone through Ebay? Or, would I still be a hypocrite? "
As I just mentioned, if you don't claim the word of god for the bible, then by all means choose the bits you agree with and ignore the bits you don't. That makes you a rational, sensible human being in my view. There are certainly good bits in the bible. As as soon as there's a claim of divinity for any part of the bible, we're back to my question. Yes, you can believe in a deity, and also believe the bible is merely a work of man written to try and interpret what those people thought their deity would want them to believe, that's fine, but you can't claim divinity for one part of the bible (the parts you agree with) and then ignore the bits you don't like.
This question is not intended to convert anyone away from their religion, it is intended to highlight an inconsistency in supporting your personal morality with claims of divinity when simultaneously rejecting other parts that don't fit with your personal morality. Using the example of gay marriage again, there are christians who oppose it because the bible says it is immoral, and christians who accept it and choose to ignore those parts of the bible. Which one is correct, and who decides?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "you can't claim your book is the 'word of your god' and then edit out the parts that are awkward to deal with, inconsistent, a typo or just outright wrong"

Assuming that the religio..."

Why are you assuming? I said it outright.
Why say 'if that religion has a book...' when I'm only referencing religions with a book?
All bookless religions are not included in my statement. They can go get a cup of coffee. Guys with a book, stick around.


If you belong to a religion and they have a book, and that book is advertized as the word of that god and you then pick and choose, you are a hypocrite.
or you might just be a philosophy major or a Unitarian.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Anyone, anytime, is welcome to ask whatever questions they like of those posts, and they will be answered, either by the OP, or by anyone else who feels they have relevant input. I'm not going to question someone like Alan as it's an opinion I agree with, and I don't see the point in chipping in to say "Me too!". If you have questions of Alan, ask them. "

Mmm.... Interestingly enough, though, even though I don't hold Alan's opinion as my own, I don't feel it necessary to question him. Nor, it seems, do any other believers. Just an interesting pattern.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Mmm.... Interestingly enough, though, even though I don't hold Alan's opinion as my own, I don't feel it necessary to question him. Nor, it seems, do any other believers. Just an interesting pattern. "
If one wanted to speculate one could suggest this is because those of faith are used to not asking questions, not asking for there to be some sense to a position or opinion.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Yes, it comes up regularly with new posters, and I hate to say this, but if you feel strongly about it, you're the one who needs to deal with it, not me. In exactly the same way when someone comes along and says "we should keep religion or there'd be no morals and it'd be every man for himself" I don't expect you to challenge that, it's something I feel strongly about and an inaccurate sentiment I feel needs to be challenged, so I usually challenge the OP with the stock questions, and they're usually ignored with no further input. "

Yeah.... I guess it depends. I mean, are we into accurate information or not? To what extent?

It's sort like saying the Bible is the Word of God yet throwing bits out while arguing for others. It seems hypocritical to you and, sometimes, likely is hypocritical.

If many non-believers consistently argue the importance of accurate information and evidence, it seems decidedly odd to me when they stand for that sometimes but not all of the time. Right? Doesn't that seem somewhat off? Accuracy and evidence is of supreme importance, unless and until a non-believer argues against religion using misinformation... In that instance, I'll leave inaccuracies to go unchallenged.

I get that many of us have different things that interest us and/or that we feel we need to stand for. It just makes me wonder sometimes.

[cerebus]

Shannon said: "If many non-believers consistently argue the importance of accurate information and evidence, it seems decidedly odd to me when they stand for that sometimes but not all of the time. Right? Doesn't that seem somewhat off? Accuracy and evidence is of supreme importance, unless and until a non-believer argues against religion using misinformation... In that instance, I'll leave inaccuracies to go unchallenged. "
Why unchallenged? I agree with you that if a non-believer makes an argument against religion with misinformation then they should be called on it. It's the Bill Maher example I gave earlier, he argues against religion citing science, then resorts to conspiracy theory when it comes to the germ theory of disease, and I pointed out that is as hypocritical as the religious picking-and-choosing from the bible.

Shannon said: "I get that many of us have different things that interest us and/or that we feel we need to stand for. It just makes me wonder sometimes. "
Wonder about what? If you wonder, the best way around it is to ask. I wonder how believers justify their picking and choosing, so I ask. If you wonder about any part of my position, on this or anything else, ask.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Yes, you can believe in a deity, and also believe the bible is merely a work of man written to try and interpret what those people thought their deity would want them to believe, that's fine"

That is in keeping with my views and faith. I think there are good lessons and, at the same time, know it was written by men. Men are fallible. Further, I think "God" is beyond human understanding.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "It's sort like saying the Bible is the Word of God yet throwing bits out while arguing for others. It seems hypocritical to you and, sometimes, likely is hypocritical. "
"likely"? In what circumstances is it not?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "That is in keeping with my views and faith. I think there are good lessons and, at the same time, know it was written by men. Men are fallible. Further, I think "God" is beyond human understanding"
Then that's a position I have no issue with. I don't agree with it, but that's not the issue, you are being consistent in a way I have no problem with.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Which one is correct, and who decides? "

Knowing that I believe as I said in the last post, I do want to mention something....

From my reading the Bible and taking confirmation classes as a United Methodist, etc..., it's my understanding that Jesus was a bit of a rebel. More than a bit. If the teachings in the Bible are accurate, he wasn't much for conformity in certain areas. In addition, Christians believe the Holy Spirit entered believers after the death of Jesus. Given this .... Given the idea, held by many Christians, that they can "go" directly to "God" themselves without needing to go through teachers, etc... I can see that some would say ... hmmm...

I'm not entirely sure what they'd say. However, I'm guessing there's an argument there for taking bits and throwing other bits away.

For example, there's the whole teaching about food. Jesus is said to have gone against the rules regarding eating something that was deemed unclean and said, if I remember correctly, that it's more important to guard what is in your heart than in your stomach. Hope I didn't just make that up. It was along those lines, though I don't think it's written that way in my Bible. Further, the teachings in the Bible state that Jesus is one with God, etc....

If a Christian read those teachings and succeeding teachings about the Holy Spirit entering them and their having the powers that Jesus had, I can imagine some would say they've prayed and had a word from God regarding certain things. Maybe.

But, that's only Christianity and my guess at that.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "It's sort like saying the Bible is the Word of God yet throwing bits out while arguing for others. It seems hypocritical to you and, sometimes, likely is hypocritical. "
"likely"? In what circumstances is it not? "

In the circumstance discussed.... Though, I phrased it wrong. If you claim it to be the Word of God, it would be. If you find value in some of the teachings, but don't claim the Bible, etc... to be the Word of God, it wouldn't be.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Then that's a position I have no issue with. I don't agree with it, but that's not the issue, you are being consistent in a way I have no problem with."

It's always been my position, ever since I was young.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "But, that's only Christianity and my guess at that. "
And believe it or not, it's not something I would want to argue you or anyone with a similar view out of. That's your choice, your position.
When I get involved is when I see an inaccurate statement such as "without religion there are no morals", or when I see someone defending a position with "the bible says so". If for example an elected official comes out and says gay marriage should not be allowed, I want to know if that is based on religion (which then leads to the cherry-picking questions), or on homophobia. (Either way I'm unlikely to vote for that person, but the debate swings on whether they're a hypocrite or a bigot :))

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "In the circumstance discussed.... Though, I phrased it wrong. If you claim it to be the Word of God, it would be. If you find value in some of the teachings, but don't claim the Bible, etc... to be the Word of God, it wouldn't be."
Fair enough :)

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "It's always been my position, ever since I was young. "
Would you agree that it is a minority position, certainly in the realms of organised religion?

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Wonder about what? If you wonder, the best way around it is to ask. "

Okay....

So, I wonder why many non-believers discuss the importance of facts, evidence, and accurate information but allow non-believers to give inaccurate information or even, sometimes, play fast and loose with facts themselves. Why do they? Isn't that hypocritical? Isn't that as hypocritical as the believer in your scenarios? Why don't more non-believers speak out at those times?

Only those interested in history should speak up when that happens? Huh? Why?

It makes it seem, to me, that the point of such non-believers is to challenge believers. Pure and simple. It's not about fact and evidence and logic. It's about religion and challenging it. My opinion ....

If the point were truly about facts, evidence, and accurate information, non-believers would always stand up for that and challenge all inaccuracies. Wouldn't they?

It's an inconsistency.

[cerebus]

Shannon said: "If the point were truly about facts, evidence, and accurate information, non-believers would always stand up for that and challenge all inaccuracies. Wouldn't they? "
It it was something they felt strongly about and had sufficient knowledge in, then yes. History is not one of my interests, so I tend to not bother too much with the historical issues.
I still feel that if an inaccuracy is something that you feel should be corrected, then it is up to you to correct it. There are undoubtedly inaccuracies from believers on here that I have left unchallenged, but that does not mean I am entitled to feel aggrieved that nobody else did.
If you are striving for a sense of 100% fairness and equality then I suspect you will be disappointed, particularly with internet discourse!

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "It makes it seem, to me, that the point of such non-believers is to challenge believers. Pure and simple. It's not about fact and evidence and logic. It's about religion and challenging it. My opinion"
Again speaking only for myself, it's not about challenging religion, it's about challenging inaccurate statements or assumptions about atheism.

Edit: that's probably a bit simplistic, I should add I also feel the need to challenge the hypocrisy I see in the "word of god" position.