*quickly closes door to keep Spaghetti Monster inside*
(I'd love to jump in, but I am not an Athiest, so my point of view wouldn't be much help. I will say that I, too, am annoyed by such things as the "It's OK not to believe in God" billboards that are popping up all around here.
Which means these people have organized, which is a really scary thought.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]FriedChicken wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
You are right, FriedChicken, that is the scientific method, and it is the only method we know of that allows more or less objective testing of a hypothesis. But the problem is, if science cannot establish that something IS there, it does not automatically mean that it is not. For instance, until quite recently, the exitence of sub-atomic particles could not be empirically demonstrated, and thus any theory stating that the atom was not indivisible was not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, said the fundamentalists of that day and age, anyone saying the atom isn't indivisible is an idiot, unscientific, a metaphysicist, etc. But then we did establish that there are subatomic particles.
The point is: the scientific method is a very useful system to work with, and it has greatly accelerated (and made more accurate) the growth of man's knowledge. But it is not infallible nor absolute.
Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist. Therefore, we accept a theory as true so long as no theory that explains the available evidence better than the previous one exists. Thus, it would be up to the people who say that there aren't fairies to prove that they are right (providing those who say there are wrote up their theory in a way that does allow for testing and falsification). The falsification principle is the very thing that makes religion and science dwell in different domains, as statements of a theological or philosophical type (like those of historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, etc.) are incompatible with the falsification principle.
[/QUOTE]
True, but I think there's a major difference between a man in the clouds who knows no time and space, and has always been there and performs miracles (or not, depending on your vision of the deity) and sub atomic particles.
And I know it's not infallible nor absolute. That's why science evolves, in contrast to religious dogma, who still have the same ideas as the believes in the bronze age.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but the whole point, and most of the religious elite, certainly the great religious leaders have forgotten that too, is that science and religion answer *different* questions. They are both separate, different branches of philosophy. Only much of religion has been corrupted, as has, I might add, science, only to a lesser degree it seems.
Mr.Jingles · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]FriedChicken wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b]
While we are on the subject, will the hippie generation for once shut the fuck up about how truthful John Lennon's "Imagine" is? (Yes, that includes Mr. Roger Taylor). Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more.
[/QUOTE]
That´s true to some extend, but religion is a major reason for most of the wars and injustice on this planet.
[/QUOTE]
Yes and No from where I see it.
I would say instead that politics are the major reason for wars and injustice in this planet (from far left and far right in particular). Of course, religion plays an important role when it comes to influencing politics in many countries, but then again it's mankind the ones that chooses to use religion to manipulate the masses.
FriedChicken · Member since
Are you sure it isn't Satan doing that? :P
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
*opens door*
*quickly closes door to keep Spaghetti Monster inside*
(I'd love to jump in, but I am not an Athiest, so my point of view wouldn't be much help. I will say that I, too, am annoyed by such things as the "It's OK not to believe in God" billboards that are popping up all around here.
Which means these people have organized, which is a really scary thought.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I don't think it's scary at all. If anything, I think it's about time. The Religious Right has always had an enviable way of organizing in a flash, and they've fought vigorously against the left AND the middle. Finally, they'll have another [i]extreme[/i] to fight and that will, hopefully, balance them.
The effect of the last administration is, I think, a good example of this. It generated a lot of support from the far right, and that extreme - so "in your face" for eight years - helped more people declare themselves as moderates. With two extremes enthusiastically voicing their ideas, the amount of people leaning toward the middle will probably increase, thus creating common ground for a larger percentage of us. IMO, that's a good thing.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
The logical necessity if we accept the above is then that God exists *outside* the Universe, for the simple reason that he/she/it created that universe, and cannot be part of what he/she/it created (or, at the very least, cannot *wholly* be part of what he/she/it created).
[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, I knew this would come! This is why I was careful with my wording, and said "monotheistic". I certainly am not denying that a force of some sort created the universe. I am denying any monotheistic religion's outdated and scientifically devoid explanation of said process. And who says the force that created the universe did not integrate itself into the universe as it is now?
[QUOTE]Science cannot explain anything outside the universe, for the simple reason that from science's point of view, the universe is all that is (and all that is outside it therefore "is not", though not in the vulgar sense of nothingness). Thus, both atheists and religiosos have the same impossible task if they wish to prove their point. Whichever way you turn it, both are based on faith.[/QUOTE]
I strongly disagree. Faith is believing in a proposition without any kind of proof, whereas science is acceptance of facts undeniably proven by testable measures (without getting into the philosophical idea that we created our linguistic ideas and systems of understanding). Science is always ready and willing to amend their stance on any given subject in light of new evidence. Organized religion, on the other hand, sticks to antiquity for antiquity's sake.
Yes, there are very few exceptions, like the Bahai faith, but the overwhelming majority of religious stances worldwide are outdated and are to be scientifically rejected on the grounds that their propositions cannot be proven by testable measures. Only the argument from ignorance can permit one the illusion of asserting the physical existence of a metaphysical being on the basis that a hypothesis is true because it cannot be proven to be untrue.
As for the universe itself, it is defined as everything that physically exists. There is no "outside" of the universe. Any forces beyond our limited human understanding are still within the universe. Arguing in favour of an outside of the universe is to eliminate the possibility that we can grow to understand more about this aspect the universe.
[QUOTE]Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist.[/QUOTE]
In principle, yes, you are correct. But this argument is wrongly used by religious people, as they somehow try to discount science with it in favour of their faith. Today, I see organized religion being like when you a squash a bug and only its legs are still moving a little bit. Most people agree that the bug is still alive in principle, but it is fundamentally powerless.
[QUOTE]science and religion answer *different* questions. They are both separate, different branches of philosophy.[/QUOTE]
On the subject of the nature of the universe, I disagree. They're both attempting to explain the unexplainable. But science is one inching closer to achieving that because their method is far superior.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
Sir GH:
I understand your point, and I agree with you as far as the practice of organized religion goes, but not its theory. I intensely dislike mass religion, but I do appreciate the philosophical value of theology. As for the creation of the universe part you closed your post with, I'd put it as follows:
Science seeks to understand how the universe came into being
Religion seeks to understand why the universe came into being
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
Science seeks to understand how the universe came into being
Religion seeks to understand why the universe came into being
[/QUOTE]
Beautifully said. Now if all religious people would see it like that, we'd be getting somewhere.
FriedChicken · Member since
Still, I think you're trying to make religion as a filosophy more useful than it actually is.
pma · Member since
I might be totally off-topic, but I just love to rant from time to time without making any sense...
From what I've observed, there are many self-declared atheists among the 20-25 year olds at the university.
During discussion tutorials, I've engaged in discussions with such people who are quick to dismiss religious ideas, proudly stating their ideals, such as their disbelief in the afterlife. Now, the only problem I have with these young philosophical geniuses is...
They are absolutely proud and firm in declaring their belief that they do not believe in an afterlife, they are sure
that this is the only life we have to live, that it all ends in death.
Now, why is this problematic? It would not be problematic, if these people lived according to their (lack of) belief. They'd seize the day at every chance, they would not worry about their course grades as if they were a matter of life and death...
These declaring voices are usually extremely insecure (because they are young and lacking in life experience), totally tangled with the idea of what other people think of them, worried sick about their social face, their social appearance. They are more afraid than, well let's say they are more scared and insecure than someone from a religious community, who might live in the fear of sin and hell, but surely has heck of a lot more fun than these youngsters with their disbelief in everything. So in a spiritual sense, none of these people appear free.
You would think that after realizing that there is just one life, you'd stop being shallow, superficial and vain and stop being worried about what other people think, you'd stop being worried about being rejected by some girl when asking her out, since at the end of your life such an event is of no importance, you'd think these people would live like there is no tomorrow, since their belief in disbelief has freed them from all fear, for there is no hell you can go to, there is just bones and dirt and six feet of ground waiting for you. Yet, from what I've observed these youngsters, although quick to lash at anyone who believes in a "religious fairytale", themselves are slaves to other forms of modern systems of group influence, such as mass media and pop culture, social expectations, society, goverment etc.
If we do succeed in freeing mankind from the old beliefs, how do we release ourselves from the beliefs and forms of organised systems of beliefs and brainwashing that are destined to replace them? We can always say that now that "X" is gone and rationality "Y" has taken over, we are better off, but something will appear to replace it. Besides, there is no real hope of rationality taking over. We would only end up fighting about what is against rationality and what is for rationality, it would only become another religion...
On a final note, In this country people do not question the idea of working your whole life for some delayed gratification in the form of a pension. In fact despite the rise of Atheism, Finns remain socially Lutheran, their absolute belief in the Protestant work ethic and delayed gratification (those pensions! hah) proves it.
I'm yet to meet any proper Atheists or whatever spaghettimonsteriates they are, who through this belief have become free from the fears that the surrounding world has implemented in them. Oh wait, that sounded rather religious, didn' it.
YourValentine · Member since
I do not see a contradiction there, Pete. Religious people often were satisfied with the bad life they had because the church promised them they would be compensated in heaven for the suffering on earth. Mainly the Catholic church has created a real cult of suffering making people believe it's good for them because they will be rewarded in heaven.
When you don't believe in some sort of afterlife, you still want to make some sense of your life, don't you? First of all, it's all you have and you want to make some achievement and secondly it's very hard to deal with the possibility of your own death when you are young. Young people feel immortal, that's natural. You just do not consider death as a possibility, it's just a very abstract concept. Only when you get older and you lose people in your own age group you start realizing that your own life span might be limited, too :-)
Mr.Jingles · Member since
Back to the original topic, there are 2 kinds of atheists:
The ones who keep their views to themselves, who don't patronize and belittle those who happen to follow some kind of faith, and all they ask for is for their opinions to be respected and their governments to remain secular.
Then there are those who see put any religious person under the same category as fundamentalists, and who think that organized religious should be completely banned... NOW, THOSE FUCKERS SCARE ME.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
Mainly the Catholic church has created a real cult of suffering making people believe it's good for them because they will be rewarded in heaven.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, while the Catholic church encourages ascetism to a degree, it's mainly Calvinist and Zwinglian protestantism that focusses on the 'life as suffering' paradigm. For instance, Catholicism promises forgiveness to all those who are genuinely remorseful for their sins; Calvinism states that you are sinful by nature and are damned to begin with, with no hope for redemption save by mere chance.
YourValentine · Member since
I strongly disagree, Thomas. Just read what "Saint" Mother Teresa did with all the money that was donated to her hospital in Calcutta: She sent almost all of it to the Vatican while she preached the sick people that they are nearer to heaven when they suffer more. No need to provide for food, medication or a clean bed! She was an extremist but by no means an exception: the Catholic church has always made starving people believe that they are lucky because will go to heaven for their suffering. That helped the church to keep control and to get richer and richer.
There are so many different protestants that it's hard to define a common practice there. The right to "pursue one's happiness" is definitely a very protestant concept...
Saif · Member since
Mother Teresa...she fooled a lot of people. Her "Nirmal Hriday" is in the same city I live in. Can't believe this hag was awarded the Padma Bhushan, the Indian equivalent of the Medal of Freedom(which she also got, I believe) or the Congressional Gold Medal in the US... she fooled a lot of people. Everyone in India worships here like a goddess.
