Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Classic]

"Science" has already been used to justify popular (at the time) decisions. See chattel slavery and genocide. Of course, everyone I know promises that it won't happen again and that we're better at doing the science thing now.

For reals this time.

So it's safe to assume that this would be the case even further back.

[Transportation]

Almost forgot. We're going to pretend the CAD part wasn't there for the sake of dignity.

not only using the baby's first atheist argument from CAD with a straight face, but repeating it with the actual comic as though proving a point.

Sora isn't the most competent chap but it's "baby's first atheist argument" because it's as self-evident 2+2 = 4 and the subject/verb/object order in English sentences.

The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, otherwise I would need to refute the existence of everything imaginary. I can't remember any debater who actually tried to show why God is different Zeus, and instead just call you a juvenile and then goes on about Aquinas or whatever and total dodges the question.

Which just happened and why I am making myself type this.
---
Also, where you serious about the easy mode comment? Because even if you think it's true, I doubt everyone agrees by which I mean Africa.

[Kashan]

EDIT:Times (UK) Not a graph, but close enough.

That appears to use the U.S. as the only example to prove that crime and religiosity are correlated. It also seems to assume that religion is causative of crime and violence as opposed to the possibility that in a society with high rates of violence and crime people will be more inclined to seek religion to help them cope. As a counterexample, church attendance rose with the economic downturn, but clearly was not causative of the economic downturn.

[Pacobird]

I think we are arguing different things.  I am trying to explain why people dig religion; it is because our knowledge of the world has not brought our lives intrinsic meaning and so we must look further to explain our purpose in the world.  It is only natural that any human attempt to do this would use it to explain unexplainable phenomena as a means of making sense of a seemingly senseless world.

The differences between Zeus and Yahweh are irrelevant because they serve the same purpose.  Have scientific explanations of phenomena previously attributed to divine intervention made peoples' lives more inherently meaningful?

[Kashan]

I think another problem here is the confusion between the statements "There is a god" and "I believe there is a god."

[Transportation]

And now science has supplanted it as a worldview.  It's rather unseemly of us to pat ourselves on the back for having been fortunate enough to be born in the twentieth century, and it's not like it's some grand hypocrisy for religion to have distanced itself from questions people no longer need it to answer.  

And still, Plato.

It's less hypocritical and more bizarre how they maintain credibility despite being wrong over and over again.

At any rate, at the risk of going over to total apologism, I am talking about religion as a philosophical worldview, not as a wordly institution that, having had a lot of political power in the past, was exploited to further the ends of unseemly individuals with worse agendas.  If science had been the prevailing worldview around the time of the Crusades, I would bet my hat that it would have been used as a justification to get rid of all those idle, unruly knights sitting around in Western Europe, too.

Fair enough. Well, for the first part anyway, I can't really imagine what (actual) scientific justification you'd have for it since science's domain isn't really morals. It's not really good at motivating either. Wars in future atheist science land would be just give leaders less tricks in their jingo bag.

"Science" has already been used to justify popular (at the time) decisions. See chattel slavery and genocide. Of course, everyone I know promises that it won't happen again and that we're better at doing the science thing now.

For reals this time.

So it's safe to assume that this would be the case even further back.

What? If you're referring to racial theories of the time I'd point out biology wasn't exactly what I would call "hard science", which is what I am referring when I mention the scientific method.

It's basically how economics and psychiatry/psychology are now, actually. And I will certainly admit those two are used to frequently justify bullshit.

EDIT:Times (UK) Not a graph, but close enough.

That appears to use the U.S. as the only example to prove that crime and religiosity are correlated. It also seems to assume that religion is causative of crime and violence as opposed to the possibility that in a society with high rates of violence and crime people will be more inclined to seek religion to help them cope. As a counterexample, church attendance rose with the economic downturn, but clearly was not causative of the economic downturn.

You see, this is why I wanted the graph. The article mentions that the Scandinavian countries outperforming the UK, but the graph compares European religious bastions (Italy, Poland) and they still come up short. Japan tops the list.

Read that wrong. Anyway, it disproves the concept of high religiousness = low crime, which is enough for me.

[Doom]

Oh don't mind me, I was just being a smart-ass. My apologies to this sterling thread.

Pretty sure the CAD comic there kills it's own credibility with any shred of context. I'd go on but then we'd be discussing CAD.

[Classic]

Just repeating that "science" and/or the trappings of science are treated, by a lot of people, the same way that theological arguments were/are. Which is part of the loonybin's paranoia that science replaces god. Or, that would be my guess, but it is in fact a madness that I do not understand.

[Royal☭]

I think this is almost resulting from a lack of definition.  Paco seems to be using religion where in fact he might mean faith?

[Kashan]

I think this is almost resulting from a lack of definition.  Paco seems to be using religion where in fact he might mean faith?

I don't really see why you'd think that.

[Pacobird]

It's less hypocritical and more bizarre how they maintain credibility despite being wrong over and over again.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him."

Insert Quote
I think this is almost resulting from a lack of definition.  Paco seems to be using religion where in fact he might mean faith?

I am pretty sure my initial point from which my subsequent arguments have come was based on faith.  It is helpful to talk about faith in the context of religion, however, for the same reason it is helpful to talk about rationality in the context of science; it is the broader, organizational application of a nebulous concept.

[SCD]

Oh, god. 

Here we go again..

[Kazz]

My belief system could beat up your belief system

[Frocto]

guild hall

[Mongrel]

I decided a long time ago to be agnostic because seriously.

One should not have the arrogance to declare that God does not exist.
          o Umberto Eco, quoted in "Belief or Nonbelief? : A Confrontation By Umberto Eco and Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini" in The Los Angeles Times (18 March 2000)

I always vote Umberto Eco for God. 

My belief system could beat up your belief system

Someone else said this is some other thread. My glib reply was "Coles' notes Human history."


Anyway, as long as there things we don't know (and the species continues to be roughly similar biologically), some form of religion will continue to exist.

Debates about religion vs atheism just dance around the central issue though. The real practical problem isn't so much the existence of religion or faith itself, but the irrational acts such things often justify. In fairness, this isn't a one-way street; religion was a crucial constructive component of our early social evolution. Also, in the absence of faith-based justifications, people can always control and skew supposedly factual information instead.

I don't mind at all if people believe in something unproveable - however silly that belief may seem to me - just so long as they play well together.







Alternate comedy response: This thread is going to Hell in a handbasket!

guild hall

Hmmmm, maybe it will go to Hell after all.

[Envy]

Truly it is the church of the lemon and the lemonomicon that is correct. All praise the Supreme Yellow One.

[Büge]

oh shi

[Pacobird]

What? If you're referring to racial theories of the time I'd point out biology wasn't exactly what I would call "hard science", which is what I am referring when I mention the scientific method.

It's basically how economics and psychiatry/psychology are now, actually. And I will certainly admit those two are used to frequently justify bullshit.

Leaving aside the assumption that we have somehow entered some sort of magical, prejudice-free Age of Enlightenment where human beings are capable of easily engaging in Pure Reason when we've failed so miserably at it in the past, are you saying hard science is never distorted to promote political agendas?

[Royal☭]

Like those awful climate change people who don't want us to all die.


To be more serious, are you ever going to back things up are you just going to keep making statements and hope we won't notice the false equivalency there?

[Mongrel]

Hold on, hold on, he hasn't explained how he got these insights from reading J.D. Salinger yet.