Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Mickey - good post!Believers can't prove that god exists. Non-believers can't prove that he doesn't.
Neither of these facts matters much. Something can be possible without being provable - your rabbit and blue whale (about which I hereby give notice that I will wait a decent amount of time and then shameless steal).
Travis wrote:that is moving the goalposts to suit your argument taken to such an extreme that you almost have to admire it. Admire it, if you want to of course. But how else could you disprove it.
If you are not able to prove it and you are not able to understand belief, and you only have the limited man made rules of science to rely on, it seems that your argument has its limitations.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:that is moving the goalposts to suit your argument taken to such an extreme that you almost have to admire it. Admire it, if you want to of course. But how else could you disprove it...."
again, the amount of verbal jujitsu believers are capable of borders on genius.
it's not that they have not a crumb of proof that matters or is the problem, it's that the people asking them to prove it just don't understand.
Will wrote: "Mickey - good post!Believers can't prove that god exists. Non-believers can't prove that he doesn't.
Neither of these facts matters much. Something can be possible without being provable - your ..."
But it also sums up the problem.
Atheists go 'no proof, no god' and go on with their day.
Believers go 'no proof, but we know he's there and we want to change the laws based on what he told us'.
Travis wrote:again, the amount of verbal jujitsu believers are capable of borders on genius.it's not that they have not a crumb of proof
It' not proof that is the issue, it that science has no viable alternatives.
Wait and see is not relevant either, other wise we would be doing just that and not posting here.
David wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Nope, no sources. Just a discussion of fellow students durring a physics class long ago. They stem from modern set theory in mathematics where where everything is based on integers. ..."'gravity is a phenomenon of the curvature of space-time'
It's stuff like that that makes me love science.
That line would be impressive in an episode of Doctor Who' and you just presented it casually, as just a small part of a bigger conversation.
and things like that, mind-blowing ideas, get put out there, like that, as just tiny bits to help figure out bigger bits all the time.
It's also why I could never be a scientist. If you are constantly saying 'Wow!' you probably don't get invited to many conferences or offered teaching jobs.
Will wrote: about which I hereby give notice that I will wait a decent amount of time and then shameless steal). You are welcome.
Travis - I don't see believers changing laws to any great extent, at least not in the UK. If anything, they probably feel that laws are being changed more to suit the non-believers - eg Sunday trading and legalising gay marriage.I can't see why there needs to be such angst between believers and non-believers, or for that matter between believers in one faith and those who follow another.
In one of his I, Robot stories, Asimov wrote about a space station run by robots who had invented a religion to explain their existence. They would not believe a visiting human who tried to tell them that their religion was wrong. In the end, the human decided that it wasn't worth trying to change their minds. They were perfectly happy and managed to run the space station just as efficiently under their new beliefs.
I feel the same way about religion. I don't personally believe there is a god, but (with one or two exceptions) I have absolutely no problem with people who do. Just as I don't much mind if people don't support the same football team as me or read the same books.
Travis wrote: " the amount of verbal jujitsu believers are capable of borders on genius."Not genius, it is called deceitful.
The problem with the above is simple. People that try to peddle a product, should have the proof to back up it's claims. Religions want believers, if they don't have any, there's no religion. So, to do that they push their belief on others. I have not problem with people trying to sell me stuff. But I do have aproblem when what they are selling is moonshine and mystical medicine, hollow promises and threats.
That's what reigion pushes; the promise of everlasting life in some fantasical paradise or the threat of damnation. All you have to do is tow the party line.
It's just a control ethic borne of the need to streamline ancient social order and the trouble is that the control became the mantra, and now that there's a threat to it's percieved control from science and liberated minds it tries to appease and welcome science - "two halfs of the same thing, looking at things differently, belief is just as valuable as proof..."
With out proof religion is laid bare as the con trick it always was and always will be. It's rubbish. People should know better and not let these antiquated belief systems ruin the one life they have.
Will wrote: " (about which I hereby give notice that I will wait a decent amount of time and then shameless steal)."As the quote goes, "Good Artist create, great artist steal".
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/...
I have made several post here last year on this thread. A little more on my rules of living.
I have also made many views on life and Religion on usenet for decades. Over the years most ISP providers made usenet difficult to get on anyomously.
Rob - not quite. Religions already have believers. In fact there are more of them than there are of us. Some religions push for new believers, some don't.But that's no different from an author asking you to buy his book or Macdonalds trying to sell you a burger. If you like what they are offering you, buy it. If you don't then don't buy it. It's not rocket science. There's no need to feel threatened.
A con trick, antiquated belief system? In your opinion, maybe. But that's just your opinion. You have no more proof of that than religions having proof about the existence of god.
If we are saying that religious people shouldn't peddle their beliefs without proof, perhaps non-religious people should stick to the same rules? We don't have proof either.
Or put it another way. Imagine for a second that you really believed that there was a god and an afterlife. I know you don't (and neither do I) but it's a useful exercise to try every now and again. Always try to walk a mile in your enemy's moccasins. That way you will be a mile away from your enemy ... and you will have his shoes. ;-)
And, believing that there was an afterlife, you would start to worry about your friends and families who didn't believe. You care for them, you want to look after them. You wouldn't want them to get left behind. It's not much of a choice - eternal happiness in heaven, nothingness or the hot place.
Wouldn't you want to tell them about this afterlife thingie? Just out of kindness?
Two ladies came to my door the other day inviting me to come and meet Jesus. I said "no thank you" and closed the door. I don't blame them for trying - in their place I would do just the same. But it didn't cost me anything to say no and send them on their way.
Will - nice..."And, believing that there was an afterlife, you would start to worry about your friends and families who didn't believe. You care for them, you want to look after them. You wouldn't want them to get left behind. It's not much of a choice - eternal happiness in heaven, nothingness or the hot place."
A mad man believes my house is on fire. It's not, but everytime he sees it he's sure it is. He doesn't want me to die, so out of kindness he rings my doorbell. He does this everytime he passes. Three months later he's become an annoyance, six months an irritanat, a year and I can't stand it any more...
It's easy to draw little analogies. But when the good minded folk (who are only doing things out of the kindness of their hearts) are actually causing harm, something should be done about it.
I realise that the 'foot-soldiers' of religions really believe their stuff, and that they often times think that we unbelievers need help, but it's their masters that need taking to task. Theirs no way on earth, or anywhere else for that matter, that the Pope really believes the bible and other scriptures portray what really happened. The miracles are all ripped from older religions as are many of the old testament stories. It's a cobbling together of what they want their followers to believe. Manufactured to foster their power base. That's the sort of thing that gets my goat.
As for "If we are saying that religious people shouldn't peddle their beliefs without proof, perhaps non-religious people should stick to the same rules? We don't have proof either." I don't believe that 'non-believers' are trying to peddle anything, rather, they are reacting to a non-sensical premise thrust at them by believers. All this jousting has only been possible in recent times because previously the organised religions were too powerful.
Will wrote: "Travis - I don't see believers changing laws to any great extent, at least not in the UK. If anything, they probably feel that laws are being changed more to suit the non-believers - eg Sunday trad..."The issue with believers changing laws is primarily in the US. We have a huge problem with people trying to get creationism put into classes, mandatory prayer put back into schools, laws banning abortion and homosexuality, etc. I actually live in a state where we not only defined marriage as between a man and a woman (my county was the only county who voted against implementing this), we also tried to pass a law allowing business owners to refuse to serve people based on their religious convictions. It honestly makes me ashamed to call myself a citizen of this state, and I'm hoping the degree I'm working on will allow me to move to a more progressive area.
If I had to choose, I would have to go for a life without religion. I am not an Atheist actually, I am more agnostic. I just believe that there has been more death and destruction in the world due to religion. Then again, science has done a great job of streamlining the killing business. I just stumped myself.
Rob - but the religious aren't constantly shoving their beliefs down our throats, at least not where I live. They are no more irritating that door to door salesmen. Easily sent away. Harmless.I don't think we can crawl inside someone's head and decide what they really believe. The Pope doesn't believe in the bible? I don't see that anyone could say that. We have been talking about proof, haven't we?
You don't believe that non-believers are peddling anything. Okaaay. How about Dawkins publishing a book called the God Delusion? Or people saying that religious beliefs are non-sensical, antiquated, a con trick?
In the UK, the British Humanist Society paid for advertising on the side of a red London bus saying: "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".
And this most certainly divided opinion amongst both atheists and believes. Some of the hard line atheists wanted to replace "probably" with "certainly". It drew complaints from believers. But I think the best comment came from Margaret Atwood who said: "That’s religion! Once you’re paying money to put slogans on things, well it’s either a product you’re selling, a political party or religion".
For me I have to question what this slogan actually achieved. It was hardly going to change anyone's point of view ... as if I'm really going to change my fundamental belief systems based on something I read on the side of a bus!
All it managed to do was to make the atheists feel a bit better about themselves and to annoy the people of faith. Which is such a spectacular lack of compassion and tolerance that it almost made me want to turn religious. It is as much peddling as any pro-religious statement.
There are some really important issues here. Some fundamental religions worry me intensely. I don't agree with the intolerance shown, especially in the US, to atheists and people with different faiths. Terrorism in the name of someone's god is abhorrent. Religion really needs to modernise and embrace topical problems such as the environment, over-population and the economy.
But the way to do that - IMHO - is not by flatly opposing religion on the grounds of proof that god does or does not exist.
It's about finding the middle ground, the things where we can agree - the room for compromise.
Will wrote: "Rob - but the religious aren't constantly shoving their beliefs down our throats, at least not where I live. They are no more irritating that door to door salesmen. Easily sent away. Harmless.I d..."
Not easily turned away in the USA. Here in the states are the 3G's, God, Guns and the GOP (a very religious political party that makes up half of the voters). I am not just talking about hand guns, many people here have semi automatic assault rifles that are legal to buy. Here some churches teach their kids on how to use guns right along with the bible.
No such thing as finding middle ground in the USA. It is like, them or us thinking.
This one church is a bit extreme, but...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3PsVzDhTNzU
Interesting that atheists use science as a tool when debating this subject, even though science is neutral.
Travis wrote: "It's stuff like that that makes me love science."I remember having the same reaction to the idea when it was first presented to me in second semester physics. I'm honored to have been part of an "Aha!" moment.
It is because science is neutral that either side of an argument can use it as a tool. Evidence, hypothesis, debate, testing, improved hypothesis.I was going to write that it's not rocket science. Except that it is.
On one hand, it would be an extreme relief to many if religion was discounted from the 'world's story' as many feel that they can follow rules which were written over 1500 years ago, not practical for today. Others though, have such a strong outlook on faith and religion that to take it away from them could be both demeaning and heart-breaking, as much of their time has been spent 'worshiping' their chosen God. Personally, I believe a world without religion is better as, to think about it practically, many cures would be lost without science and therefore the population would be decreasing due to new illnesses etc. I think science in this case is far more important, not taking sides, but for the developing world it is impossible to live without. Those of you on your laptops or phones..... science... CREATED technology :o
Will - very nice points as usual and i've enjoyed chatting. I don't disagree with your tolerant approach and looking for some middle ground and i know I went off on a rant earlier...I do seriously believe though, that the leaders of the church, know full well thattheir religions are a complex amalgamation of previous religions. These people are well educated, have studied theology and must be aware of the origins of their religion. To say otherwise implies that they are unaware of the facts and that is in someways worse.
I would argue on your side, to find middle ground and allow everyone to be left to themselves, but as the poster, Mickey, indicated there are worrying things happening inthe world and I believe that as time goes on these insideous inroads into the greater social order will grow.
If my child's school started to teach creation on a level footing with evolution I'd be horrified. I can't begin to understand how those poeople in the States that have to deal with this are coping.
Things need to be done so that beliefs, are not treat the same as established fact, well understood theory and so on. Reason should be the order of the day, not equalisation.
So, sure, let the religeous people be. But only in so much as they can worship who or what they like. They should not be allowed to make policy.
I saw the short film and it is very disturbing. Before you know it you will not be able to tell the "christians" from normal people! :-)
Will wrote: "Travis - I don't see believers changing laws to any great extent, at least not in the UK. If anything, they probably feel that laws are being changed more to suit the non-believers - eg Sunday trad..."In the USA, it is a problem.
The whole argument against gay marriage is religious based.
Then there's the people who want to change school textbooks to include more creationism.
The big problem is that none of these so called christian laws seem to be about actually helping anyone. They all seem to be focused on depriving some group that 'god doesn't like' of rights or help.
cHriS wrote: "Interesting that atheists use science as a tool when debating this subject, even though science is neutral."That's the beauty of science. It's there for everybody and has a million household uses, besides being a handy debate tool.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:again, the amount of verbal jujitsu believers are capable of borders on genius.it's not that they have not a crumb of proof
It' not proof that is the issue, it that science has no vi..."
Actually, proof is the issue. We keep asking for it and religion keeps not providing any, but still want their claim to be treated seriously.
and ' no god' is a viable alternative. If god is an alternative, then obviously, no god' is an alternative.
It's like saying 'on' is the obvious choice and you shouldn't be considering 'off' as an option.
Rob said: "If my child's school started to teach creation on a level footing with evolution I'd be horrified..."Shouldn't all theories be taught? Neither the creation theory or the evolution theory has been proven 100%. Each has it's own adherents - shouldn't students be taught all of them?
Yes. And they should also be taught how close to 100% proved they each are.
Maria wrote: "Rob said: "Shouldn't all theories be taught? Neither the creation theory or the evolution theory has been proven 100%. Each has it's own adherents - shouldn't students be taught all of them? "Theories are testable. Scientific theories are all testable. Creation is not a theory, it is not testable, it is a religous belief. Therefore, creationism is a religion and not a science and should not be taught in a science class. Evolution is a testable theory and should be taught in science classes.
Maria wrote: "Rob said: "If my child's school started to teach creation on a level footing with evolution I'd be horrified..."Shouldn't all theories be taught? Neither the creation theory or the evolution th..."
Creationism is taught in schools, you just have to take a 'world religion' or 'Myths' class.
What I don't get is why religions want public schools to do all the work for them. Don't you guys still have churches?
What's going on in churches that believers are too busy to teach their kids?
Travis wrote: Actually, proof is the issue. We keep asking for it and religion keeps not providing any, but still want their claim to be treated seriously.and ' no god' is a viable alternative. If god is an alternative, then obviously, no god' is an alternative.
It's like saying 'on' is the obvious choice and you shouldn't be considering 'off' as an option.
..."
Proof is 'sort' of the issue, but not really the issue. It would be good to have proof, but neither side has any. One side thinks there is a god and the other does not think there is a god.
Science is not the atheist bible, but they use it as though is were.
Science sits on the fence, while it is looking for the 'cause'. At the moment all it can find is the cause of the cause of the cause and abstractly thinking science would be happy to think that the cause of the cause of the cause was infinite.
Where as I think it stops at God.
Will wrote: "I was going to write that it's not rocket science. Except that it is."I was in a class once where we were learning about some new software that we were being told to use. The class was having trouble understanding a point the instructor was trying to make and the instructor said, "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this."
One of the students spoke up and said, "Well I am a rocket scientist and I don't understand it at all."
Be careful of cliches.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: Actually, proof is the issue. We keep asking for it and religion keeps not providing any, but still want their claim to be treated seriously.and ' no god' is a viable alternative. I...Science sits on the fence, while it is looking for the 'cause'. At the moment all it can find is the cause of the cause of the cause and abstractly thinking science would be happy to think that the cause of the cause of the cause was infinite.
Where as I think it stops at God."
cHriS,
How very Thomas Aquinas of you.
CD wrote: How very Thomas Aquinas of you..."Well he is a Sainte, so there must be more to all this than we know. :)
"What I don't get is why religions want public schools to do all the work for them. Don't you guys still have churches? What's going on in churches that believers are too busy to teach their kids?"
Well put, Travis. Totally agree.
Will wrote: "I wonder if there is some middle ground here. Unlikely, I know, but maybe ... "I think there is a middle ground too, but it is different than the middle ground you suggest.
My middle ground would be humble skepticism as suggested or implied by Aristotle. Skepticism acknowledges and accepts that there are things that humans simply can never know with verifiability. One of those things is whether there is a god or an afterlife. We simply cannot say yes or no with verifiability.
To me that suggests two things, humility and open-mindedness.
Both humility and open-mindedness require great maturity. But as aspiring mature adults we ought to be able to live our lives conceding that we do not know if there is a god or afterlife. There might be, but there might now be.
This would be a really great thing to know one way or the other. But since that knowledge is denied us we have to organize our lives in full acceptance of we just don't know.
That implies then that we proceed humbly and thoughtfully to live maturely in acceptance of both possibilities. That ought to make us better people and enrich our lives with a sense of wonder and purposefulness that we currently lack. Yes, it also implies a kind of detachment too. But I see that as a positive. Nothing wrong that I can see with an outlook that says, I am fascinated to see what comes next -- all in good time, of course.
Maria wrote: "Rob said: "If my child's school started to teach creation on a level footing with evolution I'd be horrified..."Shouldn't all theories be taught? Neither the creation theory or the evolution th..."
I see Travis and Mickey made my point here. I have to agree with them. Creation 'theory' has no place in a science class. Religeoys ed or myth are fine.
And to suggest that Evolution is a theory is stretching things a little. There's plenty of evidence to show thta it is a real, varifiable, fact.
Brad wrote: "Will wrote: "I wonder if there is some middle ground here. Unlikely, I know, but maybe ... "I think there is a middle ground too, but it is different than the middle ground you suggest.
My middl..."
Kind of makes you not want to argue your points - none of us want to appear to be imature and not humble.
To be sure no one can say with any certainty one way or another. But of course we won't find out if there is no god or afterlife, we'll just be dead. So it seems to me that the belief angle is very important. But if it's wrong and ther eis no afterlife why waste your time following a religion. Don't the people running religion owe their followers a demonstartable certainty? After all they are asking these poeple to dedicate their lives to the cause.
This is againthe crux for me. I'd be quite willing to be a follower if someone could demonstrate the truth of their religion, the reality of their god. But none of them can. And I suspect that's because there's nothing to show except ancient writings and mumbo jumbo. There's nothing behind the curtain.
Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.
cHriS wrote: "CD wrote: How very Thomas Aquinas of you..."Well he is a Sainte, so there must be more to all this than we know. :)"
His sainthood doesn't make any difference in the cosmological arguments. They are argumentum ad absurdum in one breath and falsely premised in the next. Aquinas used the existence of God to prove the existence of God. Circular logic at best.
Is this the proof sometimes called St. Anselm's proof?
Brad wrote: "Is this the proof sometimes called St. Anselm's proof?"No. Aquinas rejected Anselm's ontological premise.
Did he attempt to fix St. Anselm's proof? How so?
I think there is a middle ground too, but it is different than the middle ground you sugge..."Just suggesting that you don't have to take a position. Why feel the need, particularly, if you accept that either way is unknown?
The problem with the "First Cause" argument is: What created the universe? God.
What created God? Typical answer, always existed.
But one can always take it back one step:
What created the universe, always existed (no god needed).
So much for Thomas.
It is not religion I would miss, but God. There is much to religion that has been hurtful. I would rather live in a world without science, than a world without God.Though science would inevitably establish itself again.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: Actually, proof is the issue. We keep asking for it and religion keeps not providing any, but still want their claim to be treated seriously.and ' no god' is a viable alternative. I..."
great, it's all about cause and you think god is the cause, but that still circles back to you have no proof of this and no interest in providing any.
So, yeah, proof is actually the issue.
and atheists are interested in science because it deals with all parts of the world around us, and we kind of have an interest in the world as it's where we live.
what would you prefer we use instead?
Brad wrote: "Will wrote: "I wonder if there is some middle ground here. Unlikely, I know, but maybe ... "I think there is a middle ground too, but it is different than the middle ground you suggest.
My middl..."
I have no interest in finding out what's next.
Being atheist means there is no next and I still have lots of books to read.
Why bother being atheist? Why decide now?
Brad wrote: "Why bother being atheist? Why decide now?"It's no bother and since there is no after, now was really the best time for me.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Just because something is unknown, is no proof that god exist."
Correct. But this topic is mainly about non believers asking for proof that God exists. But things can exist without us having proof and without us even knowing or perceiving their existence.
Using Aliens as an example. We have no proof that there are Aliens, life other than our own, out there, but I would guess a good percentage of folks believe there is. All science has is a mathmatical probability. But we know maths can be used to get the required results.
A rabbit in not able to perceive a blue whale but that is the fault with the rabbit not the blue whale.