Book Burning [Archive] - BDSM Library

thir

04-05-2011, 10:06 AM

It is fanatical a holes like them that give other people a bad name by proxy in the eyes of too many unfortunately. Both the book burners and the people rioting over it just make terrible examples of how religion can be abused by those who dont follow the very things they claim too.

And calling people stupid for having religion and such hypocritical stereotyping of all faiths for the actions of a few is just as bad a crime imho becuase all it does is add fuel to the fire of intolereance.

If you mean me, I did not call anyone 'stupid', I called them 'almost insane'. And so they were, and I think maybe all real cults are like that. 'Cults' as in isolating their members from the rest of society, and, as in this case, living in fear of Hell every waking moment of their life, as well as sprouting hate and obscene slogans at other people - all other people.

That does not spell normal to me.

As for "I can see why some people think that religion is a real danger and a curse" that should have been "dogmatic, institutionalized religion." I was too shaken to think straight but by all gods large and small, I stand by that!

On the same evening I (stupidly) saw the film The Magdalene Sisters. If you do not know it, it concerns the Irish laundries which were run by nuns, with the work done by 'fallen women', such young girls who had been raped, or was considered flirty, or had a child out of wed-lock, or who were otherwise on edge with their family or the local, catholic priest. They were in there for an indefinite time, some all their lives, working 10 hours a day, always scolded, treated with contempt, and without any human relationship to even each other, as they were never allowed to talk with each other which was enforced by any and all means.

Same thing happened in protestant UK and much of Europe, and the last of these launderies closed in Ireland in - guess - 1996!

Neither church has even apologized for this inhuman behaviour.

This is obviously one a small part of what dogmatic religion can bring - the kind that is either a tool for power, or is, in itself, a power.

No religion, no government, no political faction has the right to tell anyone what to think, or do.

As for fire of intolerance, that has always seemed to me to come from said dogmatic religions. Everybody else simply discuss, they do not try to make all other people abide by their ideas.

Thorne

04-05-2011, 11:35 AM

If you mean me, I did not call anyone 'stupid', I called them 'almost insane'.
Usually she's addressing me with this kind of statement. And that's probably because I feel that anyone who BLINDLY follows a religious leader is, indeed, stupid. Those who learn about their religion, who actually think about (a rarity in my experience) might be considered gullible, perhaps, but not necessarily stupid.

As for "I can see why some people think that religion is a real danger and a curse" that should have been "dogmatic, institutionalized religion." I was too shaken to think straight but by all gods large and small, I stand by that!
A religion is, by definition, institutionalized. Faith does not have to be either religious or dogmatic.

Neither church has even apologized for this inhuman behaviour.
Just give them a couple of hundred years. They'll get around to it. (see: Galileo)

No religion, no government, no political faction has the right to tell anyone what to think, or do.
And yet this is exactly what religious organizations are designed to do! Political organizations as well. Governments tend to follow the dictates of whichever political organization is in control at the time.

As for fire of intolerance, that has always seemed to me to come from said dogmatic religions. Everybody else simply discuss, they do not try to make all other people abide by their ideas.
Statistics seem to indicate that, in the US, the more dogmatic religions are losing young members in record numbers. It appears to me that, as those young people leave, the remnants cling ever more tightly to their archaic beliefs, further driving the young away, rather than trying to adjust to reality and at least attempt to keep the younger people aboard. And they quickly become even more demanding and intolerant of those who do not follow their particular superstition.

denuseri

04-05-2011, 01:01 PM

Usually she's addressing me with this kind of statement. And that's probably because I feel that anyone who BLINDLY follows a religious leader is, indeed, stupid. Those who learn about their religion, who actually think about (a rarity in my experience) might be considered gullible, perhaps, but not necessarily stupid.

Giggles, he got me. I feel the same way about "blind" anything...including blind atheism especially. Yes they are out there too...just like with adherents of any faith.

A religion is, by definition, institutionalized. Faith does not have to be either religious or dogmatic.

Just give them a couple of hundred years. They'll get around to it. (see: Galileo)

OMG lol you really really dont like the Catholics do you sugar.

And yet this is exactly what religious organizations are designed to do! Political organizations as well. Governments tend to follow the dictates of whichever political organization is in control at the time.

So do individual arguments in any debate (attempt to sway the other side to their own).

Statistics seem to indicate that, in the US, the more dogmatic religions are losing young members in record numbers. It appears to me that, as those young people leave, the remnants cling ever more tightly to their archaic beliefs, further driving the young away, rather than trying to adjust to reality and at least attempt to keep the younger people aboard. And they quickly become even more demanding and intolerant of those who do not follow their particular superstition.

The faith of was raised in Lutheran (misery synod as we jokingly call it) has changed and adapted considerabely since first starting the whole reformation chatholic break up thing. I barely recognize the litergeies they use, many traditions once sacrosant are no longer considered as important and they way the congregation speaks after services to each other is even different, much more social and less reserved. I am a Bahai now but I still go to the Lutheran Church with my mother on occassion, my Owner even comes and he is a self professed Wittan (kind of pagan witch) and not shy of it.

MMI

04-05-2011, 04:02 PM

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

Isn't that pretty much what Pastor Terry Jones would have said?

He deliberately provoked the riots. It was HIS fault. Sure the rioters are guilty for over-reacting, but Jones burned the Koran knowing something like that would happen, just to publicise his business, the Dove Outreach Centre, and its products: hate books, hate t-shirts etc.

DuncanONeil

04-05-2011, 08:40 PM

"If the verdict is innocent, then, of course, the book will be allowed to go free. But if it is guilty then it shall suffer the ultimate penalty ... it will be eliminated by fire."

A court trial never results in a verdict of innocent! Merely "not guilty". Difference is that a "guilty" verdict means the state proved its case! "Not guilty" means the state did not prove its case.

Thorne

04-06-2011, 07:49 AM

Giggles, he got me. I feel the same way about "blind" anything...including blind atheism especially. Yes they are out there too...just like with adherents of any faith.
I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position. Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

And yes, there are accounts of people going the other way, going from atheism to (or back to) religion. Some of those accounts seemed sincere and credible to me, but most seemed disingenuous, as though written by someone trying to make it seem as though he was once an atheist. Regardless, I take all such accounts, as well as those accounts of deconversion, with a grain of salt. All I know is my own path, and I know that it was the right path for me.

OMG lol you really really dont like the Catholics do you sugar.
Nope. Not one little bit. I was raised Catholic, so I had a good, close look at their foolishness. Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization. Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

The faith of was raised in Lutheran (misery synod as we jokingly call it) has changed and adapted considerabely since first starting the whole reformation chatholic break up thing. I barely recognize the litergeies they use, many traditions once sacrosant are no longer considered as important and they way the congregation speaks after services to each other is even different, much more social and less reserved. I am a Bahai now but I still go to the Lutheran Church with my mother on occassion, my Owner even comes and he is a self professed Wittan (kind of pagan witch) and not shy of it.
So am I correct in assuming that you found the Lutheran Church to be lacking in something, and so you switched to something more to your liking? Doesn't this give you at least SOME understanding of those of us who have concluded that ALL religions are lacking, and that NONE of them are right? Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings. Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

Knock wood.

leo9

04-06-2011, 10:11 AM

And yes, there are accounts of people going the other way, going from atheism to (or back to) religion. Some of those accounts seemed sincere and credible to me, but most seemed disingenuous, as though written by someone trying to make it seem as though he was once an atheist. Regardless, I take all such accounts, as well as those accounts of deconversion, with a grain of salt.Then you'll have to take mine with the appropriate seasoning.

I was raised humanist, by parents who had quietly rejected the faith of their parents and wanted their children to make their own choices. (AFAIK, my sisters are still atheists, and treat my religion as just another of my oddities.) As a child I was briefly attracted by the bible-stories books my grandparents gave me, but my father very wisely gave me a basic guide to all the world's faiths, and let me figure out for myself that just because someone once put it in a book doesn't make it true.

In college I resolved the conflict between that and my growing sense of the spiritual by trying out Buddhism. But though I retained a love of the Zen doctrines, it felt too abstract unless you ended up treating Siharta Gautama as a god - and if you're going to deify some historical figure, why choose one from a foreign culture? (Ironic, since I ended up worshipping the Goddess of Sumer, but since she got at least as far as Scandinavia, I feel a bit closer to her than to an Indian sage!)

Paganism appealed to me as an idea, but at that time there was nobody to teach me unless I wanted to get into the pseudo-Masonic structures of Wicca, which I'm too anarchic for; so I felt around blindly till I came across the translations of the scriptures of Inanna, and felt that this was what I'd been looking for. Eventually theoretical studies and prayers into the void brought me an answer, and I believed.

But of course you have only my word for this, and I might just be a paid shill for the deist conspiracy ;)

But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.
And invisible friends. Some of us have nice supportive invisible friends. I'm very glad mine found me.

Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Thorne

04-06-2011, 11:50 AM

But of course you have only my word for this, and I might just be a paid shill for the deist conspiracy ;)
No, I wouldn't go that far. At least with your account, you appear to have given it a lot of thought and "soul" searching. I will admit, I have difficulty understanding why you would go on such a search, or why anyone else would.

And invisible friends. Some of us have nice supportive invisible friends. I'm very glad mine found me.
Ahh, I see. You were lonely! Well, invisible friends are better than none, I suppose.

One question, though. How can one differentiate between invisible friends and mental illness? (see my sig.) I mean, YOU claim they are there, and I'm sure you BELIEVE they are there, but how can you prove to ME that they are there?

You say that like it's a bad thing.
If you try to run your life based on superstitions, then it IS a bad thing. People like to think that astrology, for example, works. But in reality we KNOW it doesn't work. There is no demonstrable basis for claiming that the planets can control our destinies. The claims of the astrologer cannot be tested, they cannot be demonstrated, they cannot even be agreed upon by other astrologers. Do you consider it a good thing to allow one's life to be ruled by such nonsense?

denuseri

04-06-2011, 01:53 PM

I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position.

More than you are most likely willing to believe I bet.

I had friends in high school that were basically raised that way.

My Father was actually raised that way believe it or not and converted to Lutheran later.

My Mother was raised jewish and converted to Lutheran after several years of being a rather adament atheist when she married my father.

I was raised lutheran but studdied a lot of different theologies, not only allowed by those in authority over me, but encouraged by both my parents and the Lutheran clergy to engadge in study of all faiths and decide for myself prior to confirmation.

I took up Buddism all on my lonesome and like many of my fellow students who practiced it's philosophies along with another religion (Shinto in the case of my BFF) I never had a conflict with following its tennents along with the ones I was raised in.

For a brief period I considered atheism while I was a Nursing Student but discarded it as illogically narrow minded and intolerant.

Especially after getting really deep into the biological sciences.

For a while I had a more agnostic approach; it was more inclussive and was a much more logical path to follow...for no one is capable of really knowing 100% for sure one way or the other anything as to whats really going on there.

I converted to Bahai when I was a travel nurse working abroad after having a rather satori like experience. It apealed the most too me anyways becuase of its full tolerance for all the sciences and religions and faiths of all kinds...in other words...I believe in ALL paths to God, what ever God is or is not is something I can only fathom and have faith in anyways, his or her or it's language for telling me how the universe is made and how it works is observation (ie science) and my cognative sences tell me God is everywhere and in everything, at all times.

At no time is this more apparent to me than when I study the history and chemistry and physics of our planet and people, from its beginings during what we so far believe to be in the big bang to the present.

Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

Just as precluding the existence of a god is by all standards of logic also just as likely to be "a bunch of hokum".

And yes, there are accounts of people going the other way, going from atheism to (or back to) religion. Some of those accounts seemed sincere and credible to me, but most seemed disingenuous, as though written by someone trying to make it seem as though he was once an atheist. Regardless, I take all such accounts, as well as those accounts of deconversion, with a grain of salt. All I know is my own path, and I know that it was the right path for me.

I wonder if part of your path of intolereance is a pathological need to enforce your ideas as being the only "right" ones above all others becuse they are obviously too stupid to really have decided for themselves if they believe in anything you disagree with...much like the you accuse so many religions of doing?

Nope. Not one little bit. I was raised Catholic, so I had a good, close look at their foolishness. Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization.

You may be surprised at the numbers if you include all religions world wide, (The are a LOT of wars in human history other than the ones the catholics were involved in and we cant discount all the pruges against all regions carried on in the name of atheism eaither, ecpesially since the state sponsered atheists of communist nations acted exzactly like their religious counterparts in every way especially when it can to making war on other people for their beliefs.

Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

Just like the atheists. Could it be that saving face and worrying about image are natural human responces?

So am I correct in assuming that you found the Lutheran Church to be lacking in something,

Nope I still follow Luthran values, I just was encouraged to study other faiths and spent more time on some than others as they apealed to me at different times...including as mentioned earlier a brief foray into the illogical depths of atheism (the faith of not having a belief in god).

and so you switched to something more to your liking? Doesn't this give you at least SOME understanding of those of us who have concluded that ALL religions are lacking, and that NONE of them are right? Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings. Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

Knock wood.

The atheists simpley have no more ground to stand on with their cool aide than any other faith or belief system.

Calling everyone who doesnt believe in your way of thinking stupid without any more proof than the people your accusing of being dumbies imho makes one in large part a pot calling a kettle black.

Thorne

04-06-2011, 07:58 PM

At no time is this more apparent to me than when I study the history and chemistry and physics of our planet and people, from its beginings during what we so far believe to be in the big bang to the present.
Allow me to speculate: you study these sciences and feel that certain things would not be possible without God? But I study these same things and say, "Where is this god?" I see no evidence for any kind of supernatural intervention in this universe. I see many coincidences, and many things which we might not yet understand, but that does not mean God, to me. What I do see are people figuratively tossing a coin into the air, drawing a circle around the coin when it lands, then claiming that it's impossible for that coin to have landed so precisely in that circle, therefore gods!

Just as precluding the existence of a god is by all standards of logic also just as likely to be "a bunch of hokum".
And for the umpteenth time I must say, I do not preclude the existence of gods. I only say that there is no definitive evidence for them. There is nothing one can point to and say, "There is God!" No one can definitively say that there are no gods. What I can say is that there is no evidence for gods.

I wonder if part of your path of intolereance is a pathological need to enforce your ideas as being the only "right" ones above all others becuse they are obviously too stupid to really have decided for themselves if they believe in anything you disagree with...much like the you accuse so many religions of doing?
I have no need, nor desire, to enforce anything! I don't really care what people choose to believe in. What I DO care about is those people who try to force their beliefs upon me and others, those who want to prevent atheists from holding public office, for example. Or those who want to force their morality on me, even though I find their morality offensive. Also, I do find it important that people understand the history of religious beliefs, learn how those beliefs have been manipulated to control entire populations and to keep religious leaders at the top of the heap.

Just like the atheists. Could it be that saving face and worrying about image are natural human responces?
Yes, these are natural human responses. So I would expect an organization which professes to be the voice of God on Earth would try to stand above such pettiness and try to be more "holy".

Nope I still follow Luthran values, I just was encouraged to study other faiths and spent more time on some than others as they apealed to me at different times...including as mentioned earlier a brief foray into the illogical depths of atheism (the faith of not having a belief in god).
And I respect that. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort coming to your faith. I don't think you are stupid because of that. It is those who do NOT study religion, who blindly accept the faith of their fathers, those who denigrate all other faiths but their own, simply because it IS their own.

I can't understand WHY you would choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But I can respect the fact that you have made a conscious choice.

The atheists simpley have no more ground to stand on with their cool aide than any other faith or belief system.
And once more I challenge you to explain how NOT believing in gods can be a faith. I do not BELIEVE there are no gods. I simply DON'T believe there are. If you can provide me with evidence, solid evidence, which can be tested, I'll be happy to change my mind. All I've ever seen from most theists are self-confirming anecdotes and demands that I "open my mind to accepting God". Whatever that means.

Calling everyone who doesnt believe in your way of thinking stupid without any more proof than the people your accusing of being dumbies imho makes one in large part a pot calling a kettle black.
And yet again I deny that I am saying everyone who believes is stupid. If that were so then I would have to call my parents stupid. They believe. But they do not BLINDLY believe. They have studied, and modified their beliefs to more closely conform to reality. I still think they are wrong, but I don't think they are stupid. Just as I don't believe you, or leo9, or so many others who have really learned of their faith, are stupid. I do think you are wrong, but not stupid. And I'm just as sure that you think I am wrong. And hopefully NOT stupid.

Most atheists, and I place myself among them, are not interested in destroying people's faith. They are only interested in preventing those people from infiltrating those faiths into our governments, schools, and work places. They are interested in being just as respected for their NON-beliefs as those believers want to be respected FOR their beliefs. They want a person who has been properly elected to be able to fill the office he was elected to fill without having to go to court because he happens to be an atheist. They want to be able to advertise atheist groups and meetings, just as churches advertise their meetings, without having to go to court to force businesses to place those advertisements. In short, we want to be treated as equals in society, without having to bow our heads and pray at the beginning of every activity. We want theists to keep faith in their hearts and religion in their churches, where it belongs.

leo9

04-07-2011, 02:12 AM

I will admit, I have difficulty understanding why you would go on such a search, or why anyone else would. And I don't understand what manga fans or opera lovers or politicos get out of their particular interests, but it's variety that makes the human race so amazing. One just has to accept that there are a lot of people out there who feel intensely about things that leave us cold, and their concerns are as legitimate as ours. As we say back here in perveland, YKIOKIJNMK.

Ahh, I see. You were lonely! Well, invisible friends are better than none, I suppose. I guess you could call spiritual searching loneliness for something that humans can't offer. And not better, different from the human kind.

One question, though. How can one differentiate between invisible friends and mental illness? (see my sig.) Only pragmatically, the same way you differentiate between apps and viruses: do they do something useful? In the immortal words of the Prophet Bokonnon, "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

It's been observed that love - the swept-away-infatuated kind - meets all the clinical tests of mental illness. The same can reasonably be said for religious devotion, which proves that psychology is still far from having a complete description of human nature.

. I mean, YOU claim they are there, and I'm sure you BELIEVE they are there, but how can you prove to ME that they are there? As I've said many times, I have no interest in proving it to you, and I'm relaxed about the view that it's probably impossible. I don't ask you or anyone else to prove to me that your spiritual belief system is true in the physical sense that the law of gravity is true, because that is applying a test that is meaningless in the context: as if an accountant were to ask you to prove that your atheism is profitable, and refuse to accept it if you can't.

(Possibly not a good metaphor, now I think of it, because televangelism shows that some religions can be very profitable indeed. But that still doesn't prove they're true.)

If a person's religion makes them happy and useful, it's a good religion, but whether it's true or not is a null question for me: only they can decide that.

If you try to run your life based on superstitions, then it IS a bad thing. People like to think that astrology, for example, works. But in reality we KNOW it doesn't work. There is no demonstrable basis for claiming that the planets can control our destinies. The claims of the astrologer cannot be tested, they cannot be demonstrated, they cannot even be agreed upon by other astrologers. Do you consider it a good thing to allow one's life to be ruled by such nonsense?
That depends. If a person makes good decisions and feels secure in their life because they believe they are guided by the planets, I feel it's no worse than being guided by any of the other objectively absurd belief systems that people live by.

I think it's wise to have a solid grasp of the difference between a belief system and physically verifiable facts, but that's my only caveat.

thir

04-07-2011, 02:32 AM

Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
And if innocent non-Americans die as a result of our action, who gives a fuck? It won't be our fault.

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

True, the one who kills is responsible for killing. But what about the instigator? Does this person not have any responsibility at all? Or does book burning also come under the heading of 'freedom of speech'?

As in, some hateful people shout 'kill the gays kill the gays' and not only are they not part of the killing that follows, because it is all freedom of speech, and nobody needs actually do it?

thir

04-07-2011, 02:50 AM

Usually she's addressing me with this kind of statement. And that's probably because I feel that anyone who BLINDLY follows a religious leader is, indeed, stupid. Those who learn about their religion, who actually think about (a rarity in my experience) might be considered gullible, perhaps, but not necessarily stupid.

Following anyone blindly is, in my view of things, a very dangerous thing to do and, also in my view, plain wrong. Because the last judge of your behaviour is you yourself, and you cannot just let that go. It is part of being a sentient being to be accuntable for your actions, whoever gives the orders.

As for thinking about your religion I am sure that you are wrong in assuming that most people do not do that. In less religious countries you have to think a lot to become religious in the first place, as it is not part of the culture. People who change religions have also thought a lot. And I would guess that most young people sooner or later take such things - and all kinds of things - up to revision. They should, anyway.

Of course that still leaves a number of people who do not think about their religion, and that is as dangerous, as I see it, as people who blindly trust authorities in general.

That is why I could never be a soldier of a member of various 'operational forces' of one kind or another. I could never make myself a blind tool for other people, least of all politicians of priests, meaning no offence to either as individuals but targeting the system. Defending your own homeground, on it,that is different, but also a different situation.

A religion is, by definition, institutionalized.

No. A pagan religion is a religion, but as far from being institutionalized as you can get.

Faith does not have to be either religious or dogmatic.

True, nor anything to do with anything spriritual at all.

Statistics seem to indicate that, in the US, the more dogmatic religions are losing young members in record numbers.

If so, I see it as very positive. If the religion is any good, they will come back later, or start their own, but they will base it on their own thoughts and values.

thir

04-07-2011, 03:01 AM

Thorne:
Just give them a couple of hundred years. They'll get around to it. (see: Galileo)

Denuseri:
OMG lol you really really dont like the Catholics do you sugar.

Just to clear up a misunderstanding: Thorne is answering to my comments about the Magdalene Sister's Launderies, and, as I was careful to say, they were in use all over Europe in both catholic and protestant countries, though under different names.

And my own comment: I think the important thing here is that great injustice was done and much suffering occured as a result of that, and that is the point here, no matter what religion caused it. As I said Neither church has bothered to apoligize for these atrocities but what the heck, it was only women who got hit and they did not, and do not, count for much anyway in the 3 mono religions. Oh, and, in some cases their babies, of course. If that matters.

thir

04-07-2011, 03:06 AM

Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.
[/quote]

Isn't that pretty much what Pastor Terry Jones would have said?

He deliberately provoked the riots. It was HIS fault. Sure the rioters are guilty for over-reacting, but Jones burned the Koran knowing something like that would happen, just to publicise his business, the Dove Outreach Centre, and its products: hate books, hate t-shirts etc.

This is a difficult moral question. Certianly both parties are responsible for their actions.

That book burning was a dispiseable act, pretty much like the darn Mohamed drawings
in the Danish news paper. But it still does not excuse killing people.

To me a response that makes sense would be to burn a bible online, or to publish drawings mocking Jesus. Yell at each other, but that is the extent of it. It is the killings that makes me think that what I insist on calling dogmatic religions are too dangerous and have too much power over other people.

thir

04-07-2011, 03:25 AM

I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position. Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

As I say, culture matters, and it is hard to distinguish cultural matters from religious ones. In basically atheist countries that is what you get, and not from a lot of thinking.

Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization. Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

I keep wondering at this emphasis on there being no actual evidence. There isn't any - that is what faith means. And what does it matter what people think? As long as they keep it to their own lives. Do you see any damage to them, or to society as such, from that?

Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings.

Not all of have supernational beings in our beliefs or outlook. But for those who do, they need no scientific proof. Why should they? It would mean that only that which science can prove, and has so far been interested enough in to work with, or even thought of, or know about, is real. That is a very limitted world indeed! Don't you think that there is tons of stuff out there and in there that noone has thought of yet, or are you on the page with the 'plateau' people who think that basically we now know everything, and the rest is just tinkering?

Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

All different from any actual faith ;-)

Personally I belive in luck, and bad luck too, as they excist. Fate too - as in we cannot control nearly as much as we think we can. And good-luck charms too! If I decide that I can 'store' energy in a charm, and that it will help me in a specific case, then it will. Proven fact ;-)

Knock wood.[/QUOTE]

leo9

04-07-2011, 03:45 AM

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

So in your view, if one shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, the responsibility for the consequences lies entirely with those imbecilic enough to believe that there was a fire?

leo9

04-07-2011, 03:54 AM

Here's a good idea ... Let's put an inanimate book on "trial". Although it can't defend itself, we can appoint someone to put up a really determined defence on its behalf - or we can put up some stooges to do the opposite.

By a most entertaining coincidence, in the same week UK television showed Paul Theroux' second documentary on the Wesborough Baptist Church, who would certainly be Exhibit A if one were to put the Bible on trial.

The thought that occured to me was: if I were to go to Pastor Jones' neighbourhood and burn a Bible with much hullaballoo and publicity, what would be my chances of getting out alive? Because, y'know, they've proved to their satisfaction that only Muslims are violent...

leo9

04-07-2011, 04:08 AM

As in, some hateful people shout 'kill the gays kill the gays' and not only are they not part of the killing that follows, because it is all freedom of speech, and nobody needs actually do it?

This is always a judgement call, and historically, the US has drawn the line a lot further over on the side of free speech than Europe. I'm pretty sure that if Pastor Jones had been in England he'd have been arrested just for proposing his trial and burning; he'd certainly be in jail now. Likewise the Wesborough Baptist Gay-haters. It is arguable that our political debate is that much less free as a result: but with all due respect, the US's wider limits for speech don't seem to have produced a markedly higher level of wisdom in the debate.

The real problem internationally is the same kind of cultural incomprehension that bedevils so much international debate. The countries that feel attacked by this have such radically different traditions of politics that they honestly do not believe that the President of the world's most heavily armed nation can only show his disapproval of this by wringing his hands in distress. One can understand why. If something similar (mutatis mutandis) happened in a Middle Eastern state, and the perpetrator went unharmed, we would take it as proved that his actions were at least approved, if not actually sponsored by the government.

leo9

04-07-2011, 04:41 AM

PS - I realised after it was too late to edit that what I was referring to in the above was the book-burning, not the riots. I hope that's clear now.

Thorne

04-07-2011, 06:24 AM

And I don't understand what manga fans or opera lovers or politicos get out of their particular interests, but it's variety that makes the human race so amazing.
The difference is that these are physical, measurable, tangible things, not ephemeral beliefs which cannot be distinguished from wishful thinking.

One just has to accept that there are a lot of people out there who feel intensely about things that leave us cold, and their concerns are as legitimate as ours.
I can accept that. It's the religious who want to force their beliefs onto everyone else who seem to have a problem with it.

In the immortal words of the Prophet Bokonnon, "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."
I prefer to live with the truth. There's generally far less disappointment that way.

It's been observed that love - the swept-away-infatuated kind - meets all the clinical tests of mental illness.
I can see that, especially for that kind of love, which is more akin to lust than real love. Having been married as long as I have, I can say that real love is much deeper, and far less intoxicating, than that. And more fulfilling.

The same can reasonably be said for religious devotion
Except that, once again, you are equating love, or devotion, of a tangible, physical person with the devotion of something, or someone, that is not provable.

which proves that psychology is still far from having a complete description of human nature.
Something else we can agree on! :)

as if an accountant were to ask you to prove that your atheism is profitable, and refuse to accept it if you can't.
Except that I CAN prove it. Look at all the money I save by not throwing it into some church!

If a person's religion makes them happy and useful, it's a good religion, but whether it's true or not is a null question for me: only they can decide that.
Then why does it seem so many of them want to force me to believe as they do?

That depends. If a person makes good decisions and feels secure in their life because they believe they are guided by the planets, I feel it's no worse than being guided by any of the other objectively absurd belief systems that people live by.
If they ONLY made good decisions I might be convinced that there were something to that. But it's been shown that they make just as many bad decisions as those who don't believe. And in some cases, they have failed to make ANY decisions because "the stars were not aligned."

I think it's wise to have a solid grasp of the difference between a belief system and physically verifiable facts, but that's my only caveat.
I agree.

Thorne

04-07-2011, 06:41 AM

Just to clear up a misunderstanding: Thorne is answering to my comments about the Magdalene Sister's Launderies, and, as I was careful to say, they were in use all over Europe in both catholic and protestant countries, though under different names.
While I was responding to your comments, denuseri is right, my statement was primarily aimed at the Catholic Church. But yes, it does apply to the others as well.

Thorne

04-07-2011, 07:27 AM

As I say, culture matters, and it is hard to distinguish cultural matters from religious ones. In basically atheist countries that is what you get, and not from a lot of thinking.
Exactly my point! People tend to believe (or not believe) based upon how they were raised. Some never venture beyond that.

As long as they keep it to their own lives. Do you see any damage to them, or to society as such, from that?
That's my entire point! They SHOULD keep it to themselves, NOT try to push it into everyone else's lives. Too many don't!

It would mean that only that which science can prove, and has so far been interested enough in to work with, or even thought of, or know about, is real.
Not at all! Science doesn't define reality. It catalogs it, measures it, tries to understand it. And since much of Western science has it's origins in the Church, one of the things they have tried to prove is the existence of gods, heaven, hell, spirits, afterlife, etc., etc., etc. And to date there is nothing there!

That is a very limitted world indeed! Don't you think that there is tons of stuff out there and in there that noone has thought of yet, or are you on the page with the 'plateau' people who think that basically we now know everything, and the rest is just tinkering?
Far from it! Science doesn't know everything. But it's my belief (and you can call this a faith if you want) that science CAN know everything, eventually. Given enough time and enough resources mankind just might learn how everything works. They might even find out WHY everything works, if there IS a why. Who knows? They might even find God someday. If they do, though, I think He'll have a lot to answer for!

Personally I belive in luck, and bad luck too, as they excist. Fate too - as in we cannot control nearly as much as we think we can. And good-luck charms too! If I decide that I can 'store' energy in a charm, and that it will help me in a specific case, then it will. Proven fact ;-)
NOT a proven fact. It's called a placebo effect. You THINK it helps you, which can have some positive effects, but when tested under controlled conditions we find that it does nothing at all.

This is the importance of science. It shows us what works and what doesn't. It helps to keep us from deceiving ourselves. Without science we'd still be wallowing around in the mud, dying of mysterious diseases, grubbing out a dangerous existence plagued by fear of imaginary beings. Science has brought us medicine that works, an understanding of our place in the world, near instantaneous communications with the rest of the world, the ability to travel to any place we want to go.

Sure, it's also brought us nuclear weapons, and more efficient ways to kill ourselves. Nobody claimed it was perfect. Science is, and should be, dispassionate, uncaring. It's people who can take the lessons of science and use them for either good or evil.

Thorne

04-07-2011, 07:32 AM

So in your view, if one shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, the responsibility for the consequences lies entirely with those imbecilic enough to believe that there was a fire?
Only those who will blindly race for the exits, knocking down anyone who gets in their way.

But this is not the same kind of thing. In this case some radical Imam stood up and claimed that, since this one asshole burned the Koran, Muslims should rise up and kill anyone who is not Muslim. He didn't shout "fire"; he whispered, "kill the projectionist!"

denuseri

04-07-2011, 08:36 AM

Allow me to speculate: you study these sciences and feel that certain things would not be possible without God? But I study these same things and say, "Where is this god?" I see no evidence for any kind of supernatural intervention in this universe. I see many coincidences, and many things which we might not yet understand, but that does not mean God, to me. What I do see are people figuratively tossing a coin into the air, drawing a circle around the coin when it lands, then claiming that it's impossible for that coin to have landed so precisely in that circle, therefore gods!

And what I see with atheists is the same thing coin and all.

And for the umpteenth time I must say, I do not preclude the existence of gods. I only say that there is no definitive evidence for them. There is nothing one can point to and say, "There is God!" No one can definitively say that there are no gods. What I can say is that there is no evidence for gods.

So your not really an aethiest now? Your agnostic?

I have no need, nor desire, to enforce anything!

Your arguments do not sound any different from the people you call idots for blindly following any faith.

I don't really care what people choose to believe in.

Then why do you constantly attack them for their beliefs?

What I DO care about is those people who try to force their beliefs upon me and others, (like you would do on everyone else if you were in power?) those who want to prevent atheists from holding public office, for example. Or those who want to force their morality on me, even though I find their morality offensive. Also, I do find it important that people understand the history of religious beliefs, learn how those beliefs have been manipulated to control entire populations and to keep religious leaders at the top of the heap.

Better also keep in mind how the aethist belief system was forced on entire populations of religious followers against their will too then, and manipulated to keep those same corrupt leaders at the tops of the heap.

Yes, these are natural human responses. So I would expect an organization which professes to be the voice of God on Earth would try to stand above such pettiness and try to be more "holy".

And the communists used the same exact kind of lofty rehtoric conserning aethism and look what happened.

And I respect that. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort coming to your faith. I don't think you are stupid (and yet you ussually manage to say I am in the same breath and then try to break from the argument by catagorizing me different from the rst of those who have a faith or following a religious organization...its sophistry 101) because of that. It is those who do NOT study religion, who blindly accept the faith of their fathers, those who denigrate all other faiths but their own, simply because it IS their own.

You do realize you do the same thing every time you make statments about unicorns and flying fairy dust and equate it to religion dont you? Then sophistacally suggest that if one believes in such one has to be stupid, and when called on that revert to saying "well only if they blindly follow it then" yet ...that doesnt in any practical way change that your still saying the same thing or worse about we who made a studied decision on the matter...though as thir pointed out, no one who is human really follows their faith blindly anyways.

I can't understand WHY you would choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But I can respect the fact that you have made a conscious choice.

And I cant understand why you would choose to believe in aethism when there is also no evidence that it is the one true way eaither lol.

If you respect we who have faith in a belief system so much (religion , philosophy what have you) then why dont you show it for a change instead of making the same statements of intolerance against us?

And once more I challenge you to explain how NOT believing in gods can be a faith.

I do every time we have this debate you just choose to not see the obvious.

I do not BELIEVE there are no gods.

So then you believe there are gods or a god? lol Tell me which god or gods do you believe in then?

I simply DON'T believe there are.

lol ok which is it, you believe or you dont?

If you can provide me with evidence, solid evidence, which can be tested, I'll be happy to change my mind.

Hummm, looks up at the other two posts before this set and sighs...looks to me sugar that you still need to make you mind up to begin with.

All I've ever seen from most theists are self-confirming anecdotes and demands that I "open my mind to accepting God". Whatever that means.

Not me, all I am doing is asking you to acept that others may not share the same belief system as you and that no matter what we personally may think of those said beliefs (like aethism for instance), it doesnt mean we cannot be tollerant and live together and work for the betterment of our species as a whole together or even one day find harmony in acceptance of each other as having different beliefs.

And yet again I deny that I am saying everyone who believes is stupid. If that were so then I would have to call my parents stupid. They believe. But they do not BLINDLY believe. They have studied, and modified their beliefs to more closely conform to reality. I still think they are wrong, but I don't think they are stupid. Just as I don't believe you, or leo9, or so many others who have really learned of their faith, are stupid. I do think you are wrong, but not stupid. And I'm just as sure that you think I am wrong. And hopefully NOT stupid.

Illogical at times maby, especially when it comes to discussions conserning religion and wether or not belief in aethism constitutes a belief..I mean you do have faith that aethisum is right dont you? Despite a complete lack of evidence to support your beliefs. That there really is not a god or gods? I know you must be flip flopping somewhere at least subconsiously since you apeared to have vacilated in your beilefs right in those very set of posts once allready.

Most atheists, and I place myself among them, are not interested in destroying people's faith.

Then why do you spend so much effort trying to do so?

They are only interested in preventing those people from infiltrating those faiths into our governments, schools, and work places.

And replacing them with your own.

They are interested in being just as respected for their NON-beliefs as those believers want to be respected FOR their beliefs.

We already legally have that in the USA.

They want a person who has been properly elected to be able to fill the office he was elected to fill without having to go to court because he happens to be an atheist. They want to be able to advertise atheist groups and meetings, just as churches advertise their meetings, without having to go to court to force businesses to place those advertisements. In short, we want to be treated as equals in society, without having to bow our heads and pray at the beginning of every activity. We want theists to keep faith in their hearts and religion in their churches, where it belongs.

So you wish to take a page from Stalin's book and take away the people of faith's right to freee speach and assembly? That way you will never have to see another church service or god forbid someone cross themselves or pray?

Thorne

04-07-2011, 01:32 PM

And what I see with atheists is the same thing coin and all.
That's probably because you cannot seem to comprehend the idea that people CAN live without faith of any kind! You refuse to accept the idea that atheism is NOT a belief system, but simply a LACK of belief in gods. You try to take basic principles of religious faith and translate them onto atheists because you feel they must have some kind of faith. As this exchange shows:

I do not BELIEVE there are no gods.
So then you believe there are gods or a god? lol Tell me which god or gods do you believe in then?
I simply DON'T believe there are.
lol ok which is it, you believe or you dont?
Let me try to clarify. You seem to be implying that atheists are saying, "I believe that there are no gods." What we are actually saying is, "I do not believe that gods exist." Can you not see the difference in those two statements? If not then any discussion is useless, as you are arguing from a false premise.

And replacing them with your own.
This too is a false premise. I do not want to replace them with anything but the truth, as demonstrated by science and history. Christians in Texas, among other places, are still trying to get Creationism (sometimes masked as Intelligent Design) placed into biology classes, claiming it has equal validity with evolution. Yet evolution has massive amounts of evidence, has been tested and tested and retested, and continues to be tested. Creationism? All they have is "God did it!" How is that equal to evolution? Even the Catholic Church, for all its faults, has accepted evolution as true. Creationism is a religious doctrine which has no place in a science class. Evolution is science. So which group is trying to force their beliefs on someone?

So you wish to take a page from Stalin's book and take away the people of faith's right to freee speach and assembly? That way you will never have to see another church service or god forbid someone cross themselves or pray?[/B]
Why is it you always want to bring up Stalin, or Hitler? Why not Torquemada, or Cromwell? Stalin wasn't trying to replace religion with atheism, but with worship of Stalin! A state religion, which he could control.

And no, I do NOT want to take people's faith away from them. I simply want that faith maintained where it belongs: in their churches, in their homes, in their hearts. Not in the government and not in the science class.

I don't have a problem with people praying in public, as long as they don't interfere with those who don't wish to pray. But it is illegal for government officials to begin an official meeting with a public prayer. It is illegal for the law to ban non-Christians from holding public office. Yet the state of North Carolina, and possibly others, still have laws banning atheists from taking public office.

thir

04-07-2011, 03:37 PM

That's my entire point! They SHOULD keep it to themselves, NOT try to push it into everyone else's lives. Too many don't!

And mine too, most definitly.

Not at all! Science doesn't define reality. It catalogs it, measures it, tries to understand it. And since much of Western science has it's origins in the Church, one of the things they have tried to prove is the existence of gods, heaven, hell, spirits, afterlife, etc., etc., etc. And to date there is nothing there!

Well, seems to me many scientists try to monopolise reality. If they do not have it in their books, it isn't there.

Far from it! Science doesn't know everything. But it's my belief (and you can call this a faith if you want) that science CAN know everything, eventually. Given enough time and enough resources mankind just might learn how everything works.

I do not think so, there will always be more! Even if we manage to survive the next hundreds or thousands of years.

NOT a proven fact. It's called a placebo effect. You THINK it helps you, which can have some positive effects, but when tested under controlled conditions we find that it does nothing at all.

Wrong. There is enough research that proves that placebo works, even when you know it is placebo. You can learn to use that.

This is the importance of science. It shows us what works and what doesn't. It helps to keep us from deceiving ourselves. Without science we'd still be wallowing around in the mud, dying of mysterious diseases, grubbing out a dangerous existence plagued by fear of imaginary beings. Science has brought us medicine that works, an understanding of our place in the world, near instantaneous communications with the rest of the world, the ability to travel to any place we want to go.

And weapens, pollution, overpopulation...science helps us eat up the world.

Sure, it's also brought us nuclear weapons, and more efficient ways to kill ourselves. Nobody claimed it was perfect. Science is, and should be, dispassionate, uncaring. It's people who can take the lessons of science and use them for either good or evil.

Science isn't something mysterious that comes from above or out of nowhere! Scientists are people, and they are responsible for their results, and should be using their heads!

I do not buy the idea that if it is called scientific, then anything goes.

Thorne

04-07-2011, 08:15 PM

Well, seems to me many scientists try to monopolise reality. If they do not have it in their books, it isn't there.
That's not quite it. If it cannot be measured, cannot be touched, cannot be seen, and does not appear to have any measurable effects on the universe around us, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Even if it does exist, if it has no effects upon us, then it might as well not exist. That doesn't mean that sometime down the road we won't develop a means to detect it, if it's there. And if we should do so we would certainly have to revise our hypotheses about the existence of gods. As would the religious.

I do not think so, there will always be more! Even if we manage to survive the next hundreds or thousands of years.
I tend to agree. But infinity is a funny thing. If humanity manages to survive long enough, who knows what is possible?

Wrong. There is enough research that proves that placebo works, even when you know it is placebo. You can learn to use that.
To some extent, perhaps. Though most of what I've read indicates that if the patient KNOWS it is a placebo it's unlikely to work. Most of the benefits from the placebo effect (as I understand it) seem to allow the body to relax, relieving stress, and letting the natural systems work to their full potential. Very similar to the effects of prayer, I believe.

And weapens, pollution, overpopulation...science helps us eat up the world.
And science will help us repair the damage we've done, if we allow it. Of course that would require sacrifice from everyone, something which is not likely to happen voluntarily.

Science isn't something mysterious that comes from above or out of nowhere! Scientists are people, and they are responsible for their results, and should be using their heads!
Very true. Science is a process. The scientific method is the best tool we have to make sure that science is done properly and that results mirror reality. Yes, scientists are people, and can be just as corrupt and dogmatic as any other people. But the method tends to expose such, eventually, and helps to insure that progress marches on. Sometimes there are steps backwards, and mostly the forward steps are baby steps, but the general movement is towards a better understanding of reality.

I do not buy the idea that if it is called scientific, then anything goes.
Neither do I.

denuseri

04-08-2011, 11:17 AM

Let me try to clarify. You seem to be implying that atheists are saying, "I believe that there are no gods." What we are actually saying is, "I do not believe that gods exist." Can you not see the difference in those two statements?

Lets see...."I believe that there are no gods" = A belief in there being no gods, yes?

and "I do not believe that gods exist" = A belief that gods do not exist, yes?

Both statments belay a "belief" in there not being any gods in existance do they not?

Both statements are conserning one's belief in something else. No premise missed there.

The only premise thats missed is you refusing to acknowledge that your belief system of aethism has no more validity to it than anyone elses belief system involving some other religion from each other's perspective.

How much faith you have in it and why you have faith in it... is another thing.

Why is it you always want to bring up Stalin, or Hitler? Why not Torquemada, or Cromwell? Stalin wasn't trying to replace religion with atheism, but with worship of Stalin! A state religion, which he could control.

Then why did he and the other communisits before him call it aethism sugar? Last time I checked he didnt have anyone praying to him in any church. The Communist's were pretty clear about their belief system being one of Aethism.

And no, I do NOT want to take people's faith away from them.

Then maby you might want to be more clear in your statments conserning such things, cuase all I hear is a lot of the same rehtoric used by Stalin and the other aethists of his day in his country where they did that very thing.

I simply want that faith maintained where it belongs: in their churches, in their homes, in their hearts. Not in the government and not in the science class.

Hummm, I seem to remeber a little freedom of speach cluase there in our constitution. Whats wrong with presenting all beliefs and letting the students decide for themselves huh?

I don't have a problem with people praying in public, as long as they don't interfere with those who don't wish to pray. But it is illegal for government officials to begin an official meeting with a public prayer. It is illegal for the law to ban non-Christians from holding public office. Yet the state of North Carolina, and possibly others, still have laws banning atheists from taking public office.

Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Next you will be on about anyone but a professed aethiest holding office. There are no federal laws banning an aethist from office are there? You cannot expect to run for an office anyways without the support of the voting constituents. If there are enough aethists in the state in question to support you I am sure you can get it changed.

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

Is that what you want for America?

Thorne

04-08-2011, 11:58 AM

Lets see...."I believe that there are no gods" = A belief in there being no gods, yes?
Exactly.

and "I do not believe that gods exist" = A belief that gods do not exist, yes?
Wrong! "I do not believe that gods exist" = A LACK of belief in gods! NOT a belief in the lack of gods.

The only premise thats missed is you refusing to acknowledge that your belief system of aethism has no more validity to it than anyone elses belief system involving some other religion from each other's perspective.

How much faith you have in it and why you have faith in it... is another thing.
So you're claiming that atheism is a belief in the lack of belief of gods? That makes no sense. Is the lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system? What about the lack of belief in unicorns? Is that a belief system, too? No, all of these are LACKS of belief. Or to be more precise, an understanding of the lack of credible evidence for the existence of those things.

And how can I have faith in atheism, since there is nothing there to have faith in?

Hummm, I seem to remeber a little freedom of speach cluase there in our constitution. Whats wrong with presenting all beliefs and letting the students decide for themselves huh?
Certainly! But in a comparative religion class, not a science class. Would you want Evolution taught during religion courses? Perhaps we can teach History during Phys Ed! How about Sex Ed during Driver's Ed? Each topic has it's place. There is no place for religion in science classes, unless you can provide scientific evidence for your religion.

[B]Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?
Depends on the meeting. A private club? No problem. A religious group? Be my guest. A county board of education? That's a problem. If you only permit one type of prayer you are promoting a specific religion. But how many fundamentalist Baptists, for example, would allow a Muslim prayer to open their school board meeting? Or a Pagan prayer (or whatever they use)? Why haven't we seen any voodoo priestesses giving the convocation for Congress? But if you cannot accommodate ALL faiths (or lack thereof), it is illegal to accommodate ANY!

[B]Next you will be on about anyone but a professed aethiest holding office. There are no federal laws banning an aethist from office are there? You cannot expect to run for an office anyways without the support of the voting constituents. If there are enough aethists in the state in question to support you I am sure you can get it changed.
Recently there was an election in Delaware, I believe (I can't find a link to the story, sorry) in which an atheist WAS elected. Local Christian groups dragged up an old state law which prohibited atheists from holding public office. Yes, the law was overturned by Federal courts, but there should never have been a question to begin with. And of course, the taxpayers had to pay for the costs of getting things straightened out. But since the churches do not pay taxes, they didn't have to worry about that!

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?
Why not? I can ridicule those who believe in leprechauns, can't I? How about those who believe in faeries? I can even ridicule those who believe in homeopathy? Why can't I ridicule those who's superstitions include gods?

Is that what you want for America?
What I want is an American population that understands the difference between evidence and wishful thinking. I don't claim that we cannot have any religions (though the loss of them wouldn't upset me in the least.) Just keep your religion where it belongs, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.

denuseri

04-08-2011, 02:47 PM

Exactly.

Wrong! "I do not believe that gods exist" = A LACK of belief in gods! NOT a belief in the lack of gods.

If you do not believe that gods exist then you must believe that they do, or you believe yourself to be unsure on the matter...which is it?

So you're claiming that atheism is a belief in the lack of belief of gods?

No, I am saying that aethesim is a belief that gods do not exist.

That makes no sense. Is the lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system?

Just use some basic logic and I am sure you will figure it out hon.

What about the lack of belief in unicorns? Is that a belief system, too?

Yep it's perfectly acceptable to blieve that unicorns and or santa do not exist if you want too, though recently we have found evidence of how goats were made to look like them.

No, all of these are LACKS of belief. Or to be more precise, an understanding of the lack of credible evidence for the existence of those things.

In other words believeing that they do not exist. lol

And how can I have faith in atheism, since there is nothing there to have faith in?

You have faith that the things the aetheist scientists and sections of the media are telling you about it dont you? I am pretty sure you dont run out to the local mad aetheist scientiest lab and grab up a bunch of stuff to prove every scientific experiemnt ever made for yourself ...now do you? No of course not, that would be silly...instead...you have faith that what they are postulating is in fact what they are telling you. You believe them to be right.

Certainly! But in a comparative religion class, not a science class. Would you want Evolution taught during religion courses? Perhaps we can teach History during Phys Ed! How about Sex Ed during Driver's Ed? Each topic has it's place. There is no place for religion in science classes, unless you can provide scientific evidence for your religion.

No where would it be more appropriate to discuss such concepts in a classroom imho, especially since the one rose forth directly from the other via the philosophers, they should get it in history, science, math, social studies, etc etc. And not tuaght what to think, so much as how to think for themselves.

Depends on the meeting. A private club? No problem. A religious group? Be my guest. A county board of education? That's a problem. If you only permit one type of prayer you are promoting a specific religion. But how many fundamentalist Baptists, for example, would allow a Muslim prayer to open their school board meeting? Or a Pagan prayer (or whatever they use)? Why haven't we seen any voodoo priestesses giving the convocation for Congress? But if you cannot accommodate ALL faiths (or lack thereof), it is illegal to accommodate ANY!

Actually...it kinda says we must accomadate ALL!

And if the people want to have a betty davis apothieosis high priestess say her prayer instead of the one the Chatholic Priest was gomnna give, or make some sort of an arrangment for a voodoo priestess to get in on it too, thats fine...and should especially be fine for the aetheist becuase the aethiest believes that no such things as a god exist to begin with...so whats wrong with someone praying regardless of where or when?

Recently there was an election in Delaware, I believe (I can't find a link to the story, sorry) in which an atheist WAS elected. Local Christian groups dragged up an old state law which prohibited atheists from holding public office. Yes, the law was overturned by Federal courts, but there should never have been a question to begin with. And of course, the taxpayers had to pay for the costs of getting things straightened out. But since the churches do not pay taxes, they didn't have to worry about that!

See democracy and tolerance can work together!

Why not? I can ridicule those who believe in leprechauns, can't I? How about those who believe in faeries? I can even ridicule those who believe in homeopathy? Why can't I ridicule those who's superstitions include gods?

You do ridicule people all the time sugar...thats not in dispute here.

I was just saying that resorting to such sophistry when you also claim to have science and its Socratic principles on your side isnt helping your argument.

If anything it makes you look just like the people your making a claim against, even worse when they dont resort to mud slinging of the same kind to make their own points.

What I want is an American population that understands the difference between evidence and wishful thinking. I don't claim that we cannot have any religions (though the loss of them wouldn't upset me in the least.) Just keep your religion where it belongs, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.

So you wish to get rid of freedom of speach then?

Or just restrict it further than the founding fathers intended?

Will aetheist beliefs also be rendered equally proscripted and made illegal to be exoused in all of the same places?

MMI

04-08-2011, 06:42 PM

thir

04-09-2011, 05:20 AM

That's not quite it. If it cannot be measured, cannot be touched, cannot be seen, and does not appear to have any measurable effects on the universe around us, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.

I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.

Even if it does exist, if it has no effects upon us, then it might as well not exist.

Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?

That doesn't mean that sometime down the road we won't develop a means to detect it, if it's there. And if we should do so we would certainly have to revise our hypotheses about the existence of gods. As would the religious.
<snip>
If humanity manages to survive long enough, who knows what is possible?

What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.

most of what I've read indicates that if the patient KNOWS it is a placebo it's unlikely to work.

Surprisingly, this is not so: "However, placebos can also have a surprisingly positive effect on a patient who knows that the given treatment is without any active drug, as compared with a control group who knowingly did not get a placebo.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Most of the benefits from the placebo effect (as I understand it) seem to allow the body to relax, relieving stress, and letting the natural systems work to their full potential. Very similar to the effects of prayer, I believe.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works

And science will help us repair the damage we've done, if we allow it. Of course that would require sacrifice from everyone, something which is not likely to happen voluntarily.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.

General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation. That is a holy cow that needs slaughtering, and sommon sense - as of neccesity seperated from profit - kicking in instead.

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?

I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.

I think it is time to start thinking about what we actually need, and what we should not have or do, to control what happens with us and the globe instead of running along with all possible speed - blindfolded, because noone is interestes in anything but immediate profit.

Very true. Science is a process. The scientific method is the best tool we have to make sure that science is done properly and that results mirror reality.
Yes, scientists are people, and can be just as corrupt and dogmatic as any other people. But the method tends to expose such, eventually,

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?

and helps to insure that progress marches on.

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

Sometimes there are steps backwards, and mostly the forward steps are baby steps, but the general movement is towards a better understanding of reality.

I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.

thir

04-09-2011, 05:31 AM

[B][COLOR="pink"]Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

I'd like to step in here, but this is something that I feel strongly about.
I would not feel threathened, but I would be very angry to be forced to participate in a prayer I do not want to participate. I felt like that before, and I feel it even more now, because I would be forced into a prayer in a faith I do not belong to. Let these people do their prayers before the meeting, and leaves others alone.

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

I cannot see how not wanting to be forced into the prayers of others is being intolerant it it the faith forcing itself on others.

To me the tolerance is where you leave others be, with what they do or do not believe in, in the puclic space, and in their jobs.

Thorne

04-09-2011, 06:54 AM

If you do not believe that gods exist then you must believe that they do, or you believe yourself to be unsure on the matter...which is it?
This makes absolutely no sense. I do not believe in Santa Claus, therefore I must believe in him?

I think the basic problem here, as with most theists, is that they cannot comprehend the possibility that people CAN exist without a belief system. Just as I, an atheist, can't understand why people would WANT to believe in invisible, intangible beings, they cannot understand why I DON'T believe in them. 'Nuff said about that.

You have faith that the things the aetheist scientists and sections of the media are telling you about it dont you? ...you have faith that what they are postulating is in fact what they are telling you. You believe them to be right.
You call it belief. I call it trust. That is, I trust SOME scientists, those who have shown themselves to be worthy of such trust. I do not automatically trust ALL scientists, since scientists are people too, and people make mistakes, and people can be fooled, even by themselves.

The best example I can come up with is the Climate Change controversy. When this hypothesis was first put forward I was skeptical. Mainly because I did NOT trust those most vocal about it (Al Gore, primarily). But over the years I've seen enough evidence presented, seen enough opinions by scientists whose opinions I DO trust, to convince me that climate change is occurring, and the Earth is getting warmer. It's not a belief system, but an understanding of the evidence. And an understanding of the scientific method which has validated that evidence.

No where would it be more appropriate to discuss such concepts in a classroom imho, especially since the one rose forth directly from the other via the philosophers, they should get it in history, science, math, social studies, etc etc. And not tuaght what to think, so much as how to think for themselves.
Ah yes, let's let them think for themselves. A popular myth of theists, who generally do NOT want anyone to think for themselves, unless that thinking falls in with dogma. See this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KwpkzaVjzw&feature=related) to see how Creationists promote critical thinking! Then tell me that this kind of nonsense should be taught in biology class, or geology class, or history class.

Certainly religious organizations have contributed to the advancement of science in the past, and those contributions should be recognized. Every science course should include at least some study of the history of that science. Including the effects, both positive and negative, of religion upon that science. But claiming, for example, that Creationism is just as valid a scientific theory as Evolution, and should be taught as such in classes, is just silly!

So you wish to get rid of freedom of speach then?
Where have I said that? If anything, I am a proponent of free speech. For ALL, not just for theists.

Or just restrict it further than the founding fathers intended?
No, more like bring us back closer to the kind of secular government which the founding fathers DID intend. Freedom OF religion also implies freedom FROM religion.

Thorne

04-09-2011, 07:16 AM

It was always my view of science that, if it could not prove something, then it had no comment to make, not that it rejected and denied that thing absolutely. Science is perfectly happy to allow things to be posited without proof; it just won't accept them as fact.
And I have not denied anything absolutely. I have stated repeatedly that evidence for gods does NOT exist, and that there is no need to assume that they do just because some people want to believe in them.

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.
Exactly my point! Except to say that many of the things which were once presumed to be actions of gods have been explained as natural processes, ones which do not require the assumption of a god to occur. Lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes were all once thought to be manifestations of the gods. We now understand the natural forces which cause these phenomena much better, and nowhere do we require the actions of a god for them.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).
I read a book, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis (http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811)" which, while it does not prove that gods cannot exist, makes a pretty good argument that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, Yahweh or Jehovah, cannot exist as defined by those beliefs. But you are right, there is no proof that gods do not exist, just as there is no proof that they do. There is also no proof that comets are not messengers of the gods, sent to warn us of impending doom. There's just no reason to believe that they are.

That is why I say the book-burners are equally responsible for the deaths caused in the subsequent protest riots as the rioters, because those deaths were within their contemplation (or should have been) as they set light to the sacred documents they despise.
I don't know about how equal the responsibility should be, but I do agree that they are at least somewhat responsible. Here in the US, the law says that anyone participating in a felony is equally responsible for anything which happens during the commission of that felony. Fortunately, book burning is NOT a felony, but knowingly inciting someone to murder is.

The more important issue here, though, is that too many people around the world are kowtowing to the Muslim fanatics out of fear of reprisals. The reaction to this book burning is far in excess of the act itself. Killing innocent people because their religion was insulted? That is just insane! And such insanity needs to be stopped.

Is book-burning an expression of free speech? To my way of thinking, that is a perverse argument - it is the very opposite, the suppression of ideas, knowledge and free thought, and the great irony is that the perpetrators of these oppressive acts espouse freedom and equality as if they are the sole guardians of such precious liberties.
Like many other actions, a lot depends upon the context. Were these burners attempting to destroy all existing copies of the Koran? No, that's absurd. Were they trying to prevent people from reading the book? Nope. Were they making a statement about the followers of that book? Yes, they were. That, therefore, is free speech. We may not like what they are saying, but they do have the right to say it. At least in the US they do. Personally, I think they need to go one step further. They should buy several copies of the Koran and burn them in the central square of Mecca. Then let the chips fall where they may.

Thorne

04-09-2011, 07:44 AM

Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.
There is a difference, though. The EFFECTS of gravity, viruses (virii?) etc. could be seen, or touched, or measured. How do we measure the effects of God?

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.
Yes, which is why we cannot absolutely say that something does not exist, only that we do not YET have evidence for its existence.

I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.
True. But if we not only cannot measure it, but cannot see any effects of it?

Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?
In this case, we have been searching for those effects, and that evidence for thousands of years. People, including reputable scientists, are STILL searching for evidence of gods. That does not imply a lack of curiosity, does it?

What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.
I agree.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works
Kinda sounds like prayer. Which is fitting, since religion in general, and prayer in particular, do seem to act very similarly to a placebo.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.
I know a lot of scientists who would love to see some of that money!

General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.
Partly true. More accurate is that such research has become prohibitively expensive, as the cost of equipment soars. But I would ask you, where is the profit in sending rovers to Mars? Where is the profit in the Galileo probe at Jupiter, or any of the vast number of other missions probing our universe? In fact, it's the very LACK of profit that has the anti-science types protesting about the money invested in space research.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation.
Very bad indeed. And just where do you see that happening?

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?
Since we cannot (as yet) go backward in time, we are always moving forward. Whether or not such movement is better or worse is generally a matter for the historians to solve. Change is usually chaotic, and an be downright painful, even when it is for the benefit of all.

I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.
Darwin never implied that evolution was always moving forward. Evolution is a slow, natural process with many side branches and reversions. Sometimes species decline and go extinct, sometimes they evolve into other species. Tracing back the evolution of humanity we tend to assume that we are at a pinnacle, but that is just hubris. There is still more evolution to come, even for humans, and only future species will be able to determine whether we were a successful evolutionary branch or just another failed twig.

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?
Once again, scientists are people, just like politicians and priests. All we can say is that scientists, in general, are trying to find the truth, objective truth. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. Politicians and priests, however...

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?
In this context I mean the search for reality. Progress means learning more about the way the world, the universe, actually works. And it is NOT inevitable. As long as we continue to study and to learn, we can hope to make progress. Everyone may not be happy with this progress, but to my mind it is better to understand the truth (reality) of how things work than not. And this is my biggest problem with dogmatic religions. They would have us stop the search, put away our telescopes and test tubes, and just accept that "God Did It".

I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.
Again, I know many scientists who would like to see some of that money.

And if you can accomplish ANYTHING in this life WITHOUT money, I'd like to know what it is. In my experience, without money you don't eat, you don't wear clothes, you don't travel. You die.

TantricSoul

04-09-2011, 12:38 PM

Do you sometimes find yourself wishing the stories over at The Onion were true?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-to-just-hand-terry-jones-over-to-fundamentalist,19947/

MMI

04-09-2011, 02:29 PM

Do I? LOL, yes, I do.

Thorne

04-09-2011, 02:43 PM

Do you sometimes find yourself wishing the stories over at The Onion were true?
GASP! You mean they're NOT?

MMI

04-09-2011, 03:22 PM

And I have not denied anything absolutely. I have stated repeatedly that evidence for gods does NOT exist, and that there is no need to assume that they do just because some people want to believe in them.

I'm not really attacking you on this one, Thorne. I'm on your side, but less vehement in my denial and less contemptuous (seemingly) of those who do believe. We are, after all, talking about nothing.

I read a book, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis (http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811)" which, while it does not prove that gods cannot exist, makes a pretty good argument that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, Yahweh or Jehovah, cannot exist as defined by those beliefs. But you are right, there is no proof that gods do not exist, just as there is no proof that they do. There is also no proof that comets are not messengers of the gods, sent to warn us of impending doom. There's just no reason to believe that they are.

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

(Pity the poor scientist who has to prove the 330 million hindu gods deities cannot exist ... maybe he'll just confine himself to proving the Supreme One cannot exist.)

I don't know about how equal the responsibility should be, but I do agree that they are at least somewhat responsible. Here in the US, the law says that anyone participating in a felony is equally responsible for anything which happens during the commission of that felony. Fortunately, book burning is NOT a felony, but knowingly inciting someone to murder is.

I imagine US law also makes people responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions and penalises the negligent or reckless disregard of those consequences

The more important issue here, though, is that too many people around the world are kowtowing to the Muslim fanatics out of fear of reprisals. The reaction to this book burning is far in excess of the act itself. Killing innocent people because their religion was insulted? That is just insane! And such insanity needs to be stopped.

Like many other actions, a lot depends upon the context. Were these burners attempting to destroy all existing copies of the Koran? No, that's absurd. Were they trying to prevent people from reading the book? Nope. Were they making a statement about the followers of that book? Yes, they were. That, therefore, is free speech. We may not like what they are saying, but they do have the right to say it. At least in the US they do. Personally, I think they need to go one step further. They should buy several copies of the Koran and burn them in the central square of Mecca. Then let the chips fall where they may.

I can't think of any instance where anyone has kowtowed to Moslem fanatics - enlighten me, please. Certainly it is wise to take steps to protect oneself against future terrorist acts by such fanatics, but that's not submission. It is also true that we make arrangements that involve arming and financing them, but that's only done to further our own interests, so I don't count that as being subservient to them in any way, either.

The real point is that Pastor Jones knew or should have known (and I believe he calculated) what the reaction to the burning of a single copy of the Koran in circumstances designed to upset any member of the Moslem faith, not just its hard-liners, and surrounded by world-wide publicity, would be; and the mock-trial that took place was a further display of contempt, just to sugar the pill. Now you and I know that it's absurd to react that way just because one's religion is insulted, but it's nonetheless a fact that otherwise sensible and moderate people see red mist in front of their eyes when matters of religion are mishandled. I know Americans value free speech rather more highly than Europeans do (although, as an aside, it is interesting to note how many Americans use European law to stifle the expression of viewpoints they find distasteful), but I'm sure it does not continue to uphold people's liberty to say what they like when such speech is likely to cause civil unrest, personal injury or death.

Thorne

04-09-2011, 10:16 PM

We are, after all, talking about nothing.
It's truly a tempest in a teapot!*

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

(Pity the poor scientist who has to prove the 330 million hindu gods deities cannot exist ... maybe he'll just confine himself to proving the Supreme One cannot exist.)
It shouldn't be at all necessary. One of the maxims of the scientific method is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone wants to make the extraordinary claim that an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being created the universe in six days (though we're not sure why it took him so long), created men and women (though why women were needed at that point, since they weren't having sex, we don't know), placed them into a garden and told them they could have anything in that garden except that tree (Oh, now I understand why the woman was there!), then tossed them out when they ate from that tree (even though he knew they would do so even before he made the universe), then he'd better have some damned extraordinary evidence to prove his assertions. Otherwise it's not more factual than the story of Hansel and Gretel.

I imagine US law also makes people responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions and penalises the negligent or reckless disregard of those consequences
Yes it does, but while the consequences of this book burning were definitely foreseeable, they were anything but reasonable.

* (See Russell's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot))

thir

04-10-2011, 03:18 PM

We are at cross purposes in much of this. I meant to discuss science on its own terms, not compare it to religion in any way.

Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.
There is a difference, though. The EFFECTS of gravity, viruses (virii?) etc. could be seen, or touched, or measured. How do we measure the effects of God?

In former times nobody noticed gravity, and sickness was certainly not connected to small small beings in people's bodies. My whole point was that there was (and undoubtedly is) lots of stuff we are not researching because we haven't noticed it or thought of it yet.

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.
Yes, which is why we cannot absolutely say that something does not exist, only that we do not YET have evidence for its existence.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works
Kinda sounds like prayer. Which is fitting, since religion in general, and prayer in particular, do seem to act very similarly to a placebo.

I would not know about that. I only know there is more about mind-body connection than is researched at this point. And I think it comes from religion as culture, when body and mind was really seen as two different things.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.
I know a lot of scientists who would love to see some of that money!

You know what I mean. That the object of research is to make money, not to increase knowledge.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation.
Very bad indeed. And just where do you see that happening?

Animal use in reseach. Biological warfare. Weapens.

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?
Since we cannot (as yet) go backward in time, we are always moving forward. Whether or not such movement is better or worse is generally a matter for the historians to solve. Change is usually chaotic, and an be downright painful, even when it is for the benefit of all.

You used the word 'progress'. Did you mean anything by it?

Darwin never implied that evolution was always moving forward. Evolution is a slow, natural process with many side branches and reversions. Sometimes species decline and go extinct, sometimes they evolve into other species. Tracing back the evolution of humanity we tend to assume that we are at a pinnacle, but that is just hubris. There is still more evolution to come, even for humans, and only future species will be able to determine whether we were a successful evolutionary branch or just another failed twig.

Exactly so. So what is it with this 'progress'?

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?
Once again, scientists are people, just like politicians and priests. All we can say is that scientists, in general, are trying to find the truth, objective truth. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. Politicians and priests, however...

We? You are not talking for me here. Pure science, as was done in universities mostly, is cut off, and what is left is now sponsored by industries, and guess what they want? Science is not a quest for knowledge, but for products which can make money.

You talk as is scientists are mostly paladins, pure of heart as opposed to others, mysteriously totally objective regardless of their culture and their own situation - a trick which nobody else can manage. And what about what use their science is meant for? Do they have nothing to do with that?

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

In this context I mean the search for reality. Progress means learning more about the way the world, the universe, actually works. And it is NOT inevitable. As long as we continue to study and to learn, we can hope to make progress. Everyone may not be happy with this progress, but to my mind it is better to understand the truth (reality) of how things work than not.

So do you think we need to know more about biological warfare, for instance?
Or do you claim that all science is really useful?
In my opinion science is misused so much we really have to stop and use common sense instead of claiming that quest for knowledge is a holy cow noone may touch or even discuss.

And this is my biggest problem with dogmatic religions. They would have us stop the search, put away our telescopes and test tubes, and just accept that "God Did It".

True.
The biggest problem with dogmatic religions is that they cannot and will not keep it to themselves and let others be!

And if you can accomplish ANYTHING in this life WITHOUT money, I'd like to know what it is. In my experience, without money you don't eat, you don't wear clothes, you don't travel. You die

Money is power, not just survival. And there are power mongers out there who wants to control everything.

thir

04-10-2011, 03:25 PM

Freedom OF religion also implies freedom FROM religion.

Absolutely!

How about freedom of speech? Does it also contain freedom from speech, meaning you cannot create situations that force people to listen?

leo9

04-11-2011, 02:40 AM

Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Look at it this way: would you object to people starting a meeting with the traditional Jewish prayer "I thank God for not having made me a woman"?

Or with a collective assertion of belief in Marxism and the eventual triumph of the Communist Party? Or with a declaration that Scientology is the only true way and this meeting will be conducted in accordance with the principles of Dianetics?

The point is, a prayer is an assertion of a belief system. If you happen to disagree with that belief system - and, moreover, you live in a country where it is constitutionally mandated that government should not be bound by any one belief system - are you not entitled to object to someone implicitly dedicating the proceedings to their chosen belief system?

leo9

04-11-2011, 02:56 AM

The real point is that Pastor Jones knew or should have known (and I believe he calculated) what the reaction to the burning of a single copy of the Koran in circumstances designed to upset any member of the Moslem faith, not just its hard-liners, and surrounded by world-wide publicity, would be; and the mock-trial that took place was a further display of contempt, just to sugar the pill. Now you and I know that it's absurd to react that way just because one's religion is insulted, but it's nonetheless a fact that otherwise sensible and moderate people see red mist in front of their eyes when matters of religion are mishandled.As I've noted before, if I were to ceremoniously and with great publicity burn a Bible in Pastor Jones' parish, I doubt if all his followers would politely agree to respect my right of free speech.

This is also a fine example of the way enemies co-operate to stir up a war. Despite his best efforts, Jones would probably have failed to cause an incident if Hamid Karzai hadn't helped him along by shouting outrage over Afghan radio. (This is why it took so long for the riots to happen.) Which incidentally shows that whatever other kind of rogue and fool he is, Karzai is no Western puppet: his US minders would certainly have stopped him if they could.
I know Americans value free speech rather more highly than Europeans do (although, as an aside, it is interesting to note how many Americans use European law to stifle the expression of viewpoints they find distasteful), but I'm sure it does not continue to uphold people's liberty to say what they like when such speech is likely to cause civil unrest, personal injury or death.It's a judgement call, figuratively and literally, and one that gets regularly tested in the courts both here and in the US. An episode of "Law and Order" broadcast on our networks recently dealt with the dilemma where a US Nazi had been making speeches telling his followers to kill gays, and one of them did: could the leader be indited for murder, given that he hadn't named the actual victim, and should they try, given the implications for free speech?

leo9

04-11-2011, 03:05 AM

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.Science has nothing to say about any assertion that can't be tested. That's why scientists have no quarrel with mainstream religions, which long ago gave up making claims about material things, but are head to head with those, like creationists, who assert that their religion requires that certain material things which science denies must be true, such as that the world and everything on it were created a few thousand years ago.

If someone denies the existence of god, that is his belief. If he denies it on scientific grounds, he must prove his assertion scientifically. If he can do that, then it will be a scientific fact that there is no god.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god). That is still proving a negative, and still impossible by definition. The only thing one can prove is that certain things that are claimed as evidence for god - miraculous cures, evidence of creation etc. - can be adequately explained within the existing framework of science.

Snark

04-11-2011, 05:55 AM

Belief in "science" only can result in the same blind devotion to a particular adherent's views as any religion. The Anthropomorphic Global Warming crowd has blindly fallen in behind a group of "researchers" using primarily computer models to "prove" agw. Why? Follow the money. Money and power are the things behind most of the distress caused by religions. Blind followers of these religious leaders fall for the dogmatic rationale espoused to garner support. The Inquisition comes to mind, as does the rise of Mohammad. I was raised Lutheran as well (LCA) and left the church for many years after studying Christian history and theology and then comparing it to the actions of the synod. I still have some serious disagreements, but I am back within the faith now...with reservations. There is little in the Bible that support the odious actions that many of the religious leaders (great and minor) have instigated. The Quran, on the other hand does specifically and explicitly require adherents to perform atrocities against all non-believers. In both cases it is the ACTIONS of the INDIVIDUALS that should be held to account.

Thorne

04-11-2011, 07:51 AM

In former times nobody noticed gravity, and sickness was certainly not connected to small small beings in people's bodies. My whole point was that there was (and undoubtedly is) lots of stuff we are not researching because we haven't noticed it or thought of it yet.
How do you NOT notice gravity? What goes up, comes back down. You may not know why, may not even know how to measure it, but you know it happens. Yes, people take it for granted, but the effects are still seen. Same with sickness. Whether they knew what caused it or not, the effects of sickness were known, seen, showing its presence to everyone.

Still, it can be true that there are things we haven't noticed yet, because they have no effect on us. They don't interact with the world as we know it. This does not, however, mean they are gods, or that there are gods at all. Just things we don't know. Yet.

I only know there is more about mind-body connection than is researched at this point. And I think it comes from religion as culture, when body and mind was really seen as two different things.
Such as? I mean, if you know there is more you must have some idea of what they're missing. As far as I have been able to determine, if there's something real happening, they're researching it somewhere. Out of body experiences? They have, and are, researching. Near death experiences? They have, and still are, researching. But even if we could accept some of these mind-body connections you mention, how are they evidence for gods? Just because we don't understand something does not mean gods are responsible. All it means is that we don't know!

the object of research is to make money, not to increase knowledge.
That's a rather simplistic view. Yes, the HOPE of some who fund research is to learn new ways to make money. But not all, not by a long shot. And it's not a guarantee, either. Sometimes the results of research are negative, which is still good for science and knowledge, but not so much for making money.

Animal use in reseach. Biological warfare. Weapens.
I have personally benefited from the results of animal use in research. Chances are almost anyone who has taken medicine of any kind has benefited from such research. If it ultimately saves human lives I don't care how many lab rats and rhesus monkeys have to die. And having worked for a company which used lab rats in its research, I can tell you that some of those who work with them struggle with what has to be done every day.

As for biological weapons, or any weapons, yes, the ultimate aim is to find more efficient ways of killing people. Blame your elected officials, not the scientists they hire to make the weapons.

You used the word 'progress'. Did you mean anything by it?
Yes, I meant it in the context of moving forward, advancing our understanding. It's not necessarily good or bad, just a general movement towards more understanding.

We? You are not talking for me here. Pure science, as was done in universities mostly, is cut off, and what is left is now sponsored by industries, and guess what they want? Science is not a quest for knowledge, but for products which can make money.
Again I disagree. And again I point to the science going on right now in space. We are gaining vast amounts of information and understanding of our universe, with no prospects of financial gain at all. What of those studying earthquakes and volcanoes. Where's the profit there? Or weather. Or anthropology. Or any number of other sciences. And universities are still doing pure research. It's just that so much of it involves things which have very little connection to our daily lives that we seldom hear about it.

True, industries use scientific research to find new ways to make money. So what? That's what they're in business for. Why is it wrong for them to make money?

You talk as is scientists are mostly paladins, pure of heart as opposed to others, mysteriously totally objective regardless of their culture and their own situation - a trick which nobody else can manage. And what about what use their science is meant for? Do they have nothing to do with that?
LOL! No, scientists are no more noble than anyone else. They're not necessarily smarter than everyone else. Except possibly in their field of study. And the uses their science is meant for is not necessarily the uses to which they are put. Einstein did not develop his theory of relativity so that other scientists could make atomic weapons. Alfred Nobel did not develop dynamite so that it could be used to kill soldiers. Others took that knowledge and perverted it, if you will. Some of those others were scientists. Some were soldiers. Some were politicians. It takes ALL kinds.

In my opinion science is misused so much we really have to stop and use common sense instead of claiming that quest for knowledge is a holy cow noone may touch or even discuss.
And whose common sense shall we use? Shall we accept the "common sense" of some religious people who claim that women should be persecuted for the sin of Eve? Shall we use the "common sense" of those who feel that Africans are inherently inferior and not good for anything but slave labor? There is nothing so uncommon as common sense.

Ideally, science is the search for truth. Objective truth. Yes, it can be perverted. Yes, it can be dangerous. Like any other human activity, science is far from infallible. But it is a far better method of determining how things really work than any other endeavor to date.

Money is power, not just survival. And there are power mongers out there who wants to control everything.
Yes, there are, and they will use any means possible, including science and religion and the media, to get and maintain that control. In fact, religion has long been the best means of controlling a population. And getting money from them. Why aren't you complaining about that?

How about freedom of speech? Does it also contain freedom from speech, meaning you cannot create situations that force people to listen?
I would have to say yes!

Thorne

04-11-2011, 08:13 AM

Belief in "science" only can result in the same blind devotion to a particular adherent's views as any religion.
One of the problems with the English language is that there are different ways to interpret belief. You can "believe" something is true, even without evidence. Or you can "believe" something is true BECAUSE of the evidence. In religions belief tends to be absolute ("there is a god, and he is good") despite the lack of evidence. (However, check into the status of Limbo and Purgatory: they've changed what they believe about them, haven't they?) In science belief tends to be more tentative (this theory explains how gravity works, and all the evidence to date agrees with it, so we believe this theory is accurate). The difference is that, should evidence come along which contradicts that theory it will have to be modified or discarded to account for that new evidence. In religion, where we have no evidence to begin with, any evidence which contradicts the belief system is automatically wrong.

So when I say I believe in evolution, I'm really saying that, as far as I can understand it, the evidence FOR evolution is strong, and scientists I have come to trust can explain the processes of evolution far better than I can. However, if someone should come up with clear evidence that humanity was created by a supernatural being 6000 years ago, and have clear evidence to explain away all the evidence FOR evolution, AND that evidence can be seen, measured and tested by other scientists, who come up with the same results, then I would have to change my position. Saying "God did it because the Bible says he did it, and the Bible is the inerrant word of God because God tells us it is, in the Bible" is NOT evidence.

The Anthropomorphic Global Warming crowd has blindly fallen in behind a group of "researchers" using primarily computer models to "prove" agw. Why? Follow the money.
And I counter that by saying, follow the money to those who are denying AGW, or even denying global warming itself. You'll find they have far more to gain from denying AGW than those "researchers" who are studying it.

And those computer models don't necessarily prove AGW. They take the available data and show us what is happening, and they use available information to predict where the current trends are going. Those researchers themselves will tell you it is not an exact science, by any means. But many different programs, using many different sets of data, are all pointing in the same direction. And it is not just a single group of researchers, but many different groups, studying many different areas of climate science, all coming up with similar results. And it has become very clear that there is a very strong correlation between rising global temperatures and rising levels of greenhouse pollutants from human activity. It is the study of how those greenhouse gases work, and the amounts of them we are dumping into the atmosphere, which suggests very strongly that the correlation is indicative of causation. It's like doing an autopsy on a man who has been shot in the head and finding out that he had a massive heart attack at about the time of death, and that he was also in the end stages of lung cancer. What really killed him?

MMI

04-11-2011, 04:15 PM

That is still proving a negative, and still impossible by definition. The only thing one can prove is that certain things that are claimed as evidence for god - miraculous cures, evidence of creation etc. - can be adequately explained within the existing framework of science.

Possibly so, but that's because of my inability to express my ideas coherently. What I had in mind was that people who deny god on scientific grounds, if they cannot prove he does not exist, should set out the scientific requirements for the existence of god. They can then say it is only possible for gods to exist where those conditions prevail, and it can be safely assumed that there is no god anywhere else, because science would preclude that. If it can be demonstrated that the required conditions do not exist anywhere, then it can be inferred there can be no god.

As for teapots, if it is established convention that there is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, and this is truly believed by the majority, then it is for doubters to prove their case.

Snark

04-11-2011, 05:55 PM

This is not to hijack a thread. BUT! The dollars and power (especially the power and that will equal money) at risk for those promoting AGW is far greater than the reward of not going for it, i.e. none. After all, the numerous ice ages in the past billion years and their recovery were obviously caused my men. Had to be. Otherwise, what caused them? Certainly the atmosphere has a greater impact on the oceans than vice-versa. Right? Oh, the data is suddenly unavailable. Whoops, sorry! My point, however is that ANY blind devotion to dogma, whether called science, religion, or basketball, can result in it's being manipulated by those with a desire for money/power; they will use the devoted to accomplish their ends. There is nothing that I have found in the Christian bible that requires retribution for burning it, likewise the Quaran. According to the translations I have researched, ONLY a Quaran written in Arabic is in fact genuine. Even if the book burned in Florida was genuine, it wasn't against the law in Afghanistan to do it there, either. So the crowds were stirred up for...what? To demonstrate how gullible such people are? To demonstrate the personal power some Imans have? To sacrifice innocents simply to draw attention to an event that had been ignored? How many people were aware that the event had happened before the posting on YouTube stirred up the Afghan mullahs? This is another attempt (so far somewhat successful) of muslim leaders to influence our country by shedding innocent blood. But their "religion" supports the shedding of blood, infidel or believer, if it can result in a gaining of power by the faithful.

Thorne

04-11-2011, 08:01 PM

people who deny god on scientific grounds, if they cannot prove he does not exist, should set out the scientific requirements for the existence of god.
Why? Those parameters are already in existence, put forth by the theists. It's up to them to prove their case, not up to scientists to prove them wrong.

They can then say it is only possible for gods to exist where those conditions prevail, and it can be safely assumed that there is no god anywhere else, because science would preclude that.
And how can they do that without knowing the conditions in which gods could exist? And you cannot know that unless you know that there are gods in the first place. It would be like trying to establish an environment that's conducive to raising unicorns, without knowing anything about unicorns in the first place. It cannot be done. It's up to the Unicornists to show proof that these creatures exist.

If it can be demonstrated that the required conditions do not exist anywhere, then it can be inferred there can be no god.
Anywhere? Even places which we cannot see? Or measure? Like maybe between the universes? Or in the infinite time before the creation of the universe? Again, there's no way to absolutely say these hypothetical conditions do not, or can not, exist anywhere, any more than we can prove that gods, or unicorns, do not exist.

As for teapots, if it is established convention that there is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, and this is truly believed by the majority, then it is for doubters to prove their case.
But first the majority would have to prove their case, not just base everything on an unprovable assertion. That's the point of atheism, after all. Theists are in the majority and asserting the existence of their multiple gods, without any evidence, and expecting non-believers to prove something which is ultimately unprovable. Show me the evidence for gods and then we can study that evidence and try to determine if it is truly evidence for supernatural beings or perhaps evidence of a much more advanced, but natural, race of beings. Just remember Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

denuseri

04-12-2011, 08:08 AM

Look at it this way: would you object to people starting a meeting with the traditional Jewish prayer "I thank God for not having made me a woman"?

No, I have no issues with other jews praying, though I am very unfamiliar with the paticular prayer your talking about.

Or with a collective assertion of belief in Marxism and the eventual triumph of the Communist Party?

An actual pledge or assertion of belief and having a silent time for prayer before an event or meeting where each can pray in their own way to thier own gods are two very different things.

Or with a declaration that Scientology is the only true way and this meeting will be conducted in accordance with the principles of Dianetics?

Again what your proposing is very different from what happens when people are accepting of others faith's in addition to their own. A time for non-denominational prayer before a meeting or event is not a declaration of any one faith or belief system over another.

The point is, a prayer is an assertion of a belief system.

No the point of prayer is to communicate to one's god or gods. An Oath or a confession of one's faith via utterance of the "Apostle's Creed" for example are assertions of belief.

If you happen to disagree with that belief system - and, moreover, you live in a country where it is constitutionally mandated that government should not be bound by any one belief system - are you not entitled to object to someone implicitly dedicating the proceedings to their chosen belief system?

Freedom of speech means one can object until they are blue in the face, but it doesnt mean one can disrupt the proceedings of a local assembly of people or infringe on their rights to the same. If the individuals present at any meeting wish to pray they will anyways.

Again having a moment of prayer where each individual can pray to their god is not a "dedication" or an assertion of faith or any kind of branding whatsoever.

Thorne

04-12-2011, 11:45 AM

Again having a moment of prayer where each individual can pray to their god is not a "dedication" or an assertion of faith or any kind of branding whatsoever.
But what we are talking about here is NOT just a "moment of silence" but the actual recitation of a prayer at the start of an official meeting. These are very seldom 'non-denominational", but even if they were they are illegal since they still single out non-believers. If you honestly believe, as you have repeatedly stated, that atheism is a religion then you would have to agree that saying ANY prayers to ANY gods is a slap in the face to atheists.

And we're not talking about private groups here, but official government agencies. Private groups can do whatever they please. Anyone who doesn't like it can leave the group and start one of their own. But people can't just up and start their own board of education, for example.

denuseri

04-12-2011, 02:07 PM

lol the aethiests can pray to their gods if they want Thorne...if they are really aethists and not actually some kind of hypocrits they shouldnt care one way or the other anyway who is praying to whom or when or where.

I do think that too many people are over reacting over in the middle east about the book burning thing.

But I also believe that burning a book, like a flag or any effegy, however distasteful, is also a part of ones freedom of expression.

Thorne

04-12-2011, 07:47 PM

lol the aethiests can pray to their gods if they want Thorne...if they are really aethists and not actually some kind of hypocrits they shouldnt care one way or the other anyway who is praying to whom or when or where.
Well, fortunately the atheists don't HAVE any gods to pray to, and they really don't care who is praying, or when, or even where, with the exception of keeping the prayers out of official government meetings. Religion has no place in the American government, by law.

[B][COLOR="pink"]But I also believe that burning a book, like a flag or any effegy, however distasteful, is also a part of ones freedom of expression.
And we can at least agree on that, to a point. If the actual book (or flag, or icon) being burned had some historical or religious significance, such as the Gutenberg Bible, or a Torah stolen from a Synagogue, it is probably going to be considered a felony, since you are destroying property which doesn't belong to you. But in this particular case, it was a copy purchased by the group for the express purpose of being burned. While it may show disrespect for the religion, it is not destroying an historical or holy artifact.

denuseri

04-12-2011, 08:02 PM

Cool I love it when we can agree on something!

Snark

04-14-2011, 03:48 PM

The following is taken from a rather influential source of US law:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, where in this amendment does it say that ANYONE is free to simply say any thing? Or that a prayer CAN'T be said? "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." is misunderstood to mean that any local jurisdictional body is the equivalent of the US Congress AND that saying a prayer is the same as passing a law. There have been idiots in the Judiciary Branch of our government. Unfortunately the precedents they set are still in place.

MMI

04-14-2011, 07:39 PM

Why? Those parameters are already in existence, put forth by the theists. It's up to them to prove their case, not up to scientists to prove them wrong.

Because, even now, I believe there is a majority consensus among sensible people that there is a god. That means that believers have persuaded most other reasonable people that there is a god. It seems to me that anyone who goes against this common acceptance must justify his position rather than the other way round.

And how can they do that without knowing the conditions in which gods could exist? And you cannot know that unless you know that there are gods in the first place. It would be like trying to establish an environment that's conducive to raising unicorns, without knowing anything about unicorns in the first place. It cannot be done. It's up to the Unicornists to show proof that these creatures exist.

That's a problem for the scientists to solve, and if they can't then science is too limited to be used as a method for deciding whether gods exist. Many scientific discoveries have been the result of inferring their existence, and then establishing whether the conditions existed to allow those "theoretical" objects to be. Do the same for gods, or admit that science is inadequate for that particular purpose.

For example - and I'm not offering this as a genuine argument, but simply as an illustration - you might infer god needs to be believed in to exist. You can then argue that god does not exist in any place where there is no faith. If you find any place in the universe or multiverse where faith exists at any time, you can then begin a search to find him. Maybe you will: that will be conclusive. Maybe you won't; that will leave the question open and reveal the limitations of your approach.

Remember also, the majority of reasonable people believe in gods: few reasonable people believe in unicorns.

Anywhere? Even places which we cannot see? Or measure? Like maybe between the universes? Or in the infinite time before the creation of the universe? Again, there's no way to absolutely say these hypothetical conditions do not, or can not, exist anywhere, any more than we can prove that gods, or unicorns, do not exist.

Yes anywhere, any time, any dimension. If we don't have the tools to prove our case, we must find them or accept the possibility of gods may be a real one and that our denial is just another act of faith. You can't blame religionists for science's shortcomings.

But first the majority would have to prove their case, not just base everything on an unprovable assertion. That's the point of atheism, after all. Theists are in the majority and asserting the existence of their multiple gods, without any evidence, and expecting non-believers to prove something which is ultimately unprovable. Show me the evidence for gods and then we can study that evidence and try to determine if it is truly evidence for supernatural beings or perhaps evidence of a much more advanced, but natural, race of beings. Just remember Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

You are doing precisely the same: claiming that belief in gods is unscientific, when science may be entirely irrelevant to the question. To deny the existence of god is just as much an unprovable assertion as to believe in the existence of gods. The evidence for god is all around us, but you interpret that same evidence as demonstrating his absence. Clearly, the evidence, either way, is inconclusive. Evidence, therefore, is unreliable for resolving this particular problem.

Finally, Clarke is wrong, technology is not to be confused with magic. Magic, if it works at all, works without technology - possibly in spite of it.

denuseri

04-14-2011, 10:02 PM

WOW MMI thanks for saying what I was trying to say but couldnt find the right words to say for so long now so wondefully.

Thats kinda of the logic behind why I had to exclude the aethiest approach as being just as illogical as any thesistically sect specific belief system compared to that of the agnostic or IDK approach to the whole existance or not of a god or gods to begin with back when I was questioning my faith.

Its also why I lump the aethiests in as a just another type of belief system requiring "faith" to believe in what it as a system of belief proposes as truth or not.

Which is exactly how my philosophy and ethics and logic teachers all explained it too for the most part using abeit different sematical arguments.

In any event, imho no one should be anything other than accepting and tollerant that people are going to believe and or have faith in different things from each other for their own reasons.

Thorne

04-15-2011, 06:42 AM

Because, even now, I believe there is a majority consensus among sensible people that there is a god. That means that believers have persuaded most other reasonable people that there is a god. It seems to me that anyone who goes against this common acceptance must justify his position rather than the other way round.
The majority consensus doesn't mean anything except that many people believe in something that may or may not exist. What you are saying is that, since Christianity is the largest religion (according to Wikipedia) then everyone should be required to accept Christianity or justify why they do not.

And I, and atheists in general, HAVE justified our position. The is NO evidence for gods, none, nothing, nada. Not that there are no gods, which we cannot, can never, prove, but that there is no evidence for gods.

That's a problem for the scientists to solve, and if they can't then science is too limited to be used as a method for deciding whether gods exist.
Science will always be too limited, since science studies the natural world, not a supernatural one. In the supernatural world, anyone can make up anything they happen to think of and claim it to be true, simply because no one can prove them wrong. In the natural world, you must provide evidence, testable evidence, for your claims.

Many scientific discoveries have been the result of inferring their existence, and then establishing whether the conditions existed to allow those "theoretical" objects to be.
Yes, inferred from evidence which doesn't fit the established theories.

Do the same for gods, or admit that science is inadequate for that particular purpose.
We've been doing the same for gods since they were first dreamed up in some shaman's drug ravaged brain. "The gods live in the volcano," they said, so we studied the volcanoes. No gods. "The gods live in the sky," they said, so we studied the skies. No gods. "The gods send lightning to destroy the unfaithful," but the faithful get destroyed just as readily. Every testable claim for the gods has been tested, and the gods have come up short. So the theist claim that "The gods are unknowable, untestable. They must be taken on faith alone." And that lets science out. ANY test or evidence which fails to show the existence of gods will be either ignored as not relevant or shrugged at and a modified definition of gods will come out. It's called shifting the goal posts, and theists have had thousands of years to become masters at it.

For example - and I'm not offering this as a genuine argument, but simply as an illustration - you might infer god needs to be believed in to exist. You can then argue that god does not exist in any place where there is no faith. If you find any place in the universe or multiverse where faith exists at any time, you can then begin a search to find him. Maybe you will: that will be conclusive. Maybe you won't; that will leave the question open and reveal the limitations of your approach.
And that just more clearly illustrates my point. There will NEVER be enough evidence to convince the faithful that they are wrong. They will ALWAYS find some way around reality to justify their beliefs.

Remember also, the majority of reasonable people believe in gods: few reasonable people believe in unicorns.
And yet the evidence for unicorns is just as compelling as the evidence for gods.

You ignore the fact that most people are brought up in cultures which promote belief in gods. You ignore the fact that most people are not taught to be skeptical of everything they see, or to be wary of authority, especially religious authority. You shrug off the fact that humanity is still struggling to cast off the superstitions of thousands of years of ignorance.

At one time the majority of reasonable people believed the Earth was flat. It's not. At one time the majority of reasonable people believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. It's not. At one time the majority of reasonable people thought the sun was made of coal! It's not.

People will believe what they have been taught to believe, what they want to believe, what they think others want them to believe. It's not reasonable, it's just the way we are made.

Yes anywhere, any time, any dimension. If we don't have the tools to prove our case, we must find them or accept the possibility of gods may be a real one and that our denial is just another act of faith. You can't blame religionists for science's shortcomings.
I don't blame theists for anything. But as I noted before, science cannot examine something which is not there! And every time science has looked and shown that the gods are not here, theists have come back and said, "Of course they're not there, stupid, they're over here!"

And science will ALWAYS accept the possibility of gods, because they can never prove anything other than the improbability of them.

You are doing precisely the same: claiming that belief in gods is unscientific, when science may be entirely irrelevant to the question.
That's exactly what I'm saying. The gods, as defined by theists, are not testable by any current scientific method. When we develop new methods and, presumably, show that the gods don't appear there either, the theists will move even further away from reality, requiring science to start all over again.

To deny the existence of god is just as much an unprovable assertion as to believe in the existence of gods.
Absolutely. And I have said this repeatedly.

The evidence for god is all around us, but you interpret that same evidence as demonstrating his absence. Clearly, the evidence, either way, is inconclusive. Evidence, therefore, is unreliable for resolving this particular problem.
I disagree. The evidence is quite conclusive. The entire structure of the universe, everything from the first few milliseconds of the big bang right through to the present can be explained by evidence without recourse to supernatural beings. Nothing we have studied shows any evidence of being anything but natural. You want to say that God guided it? Be my guest. But if you can't prove it, your belief is worthless. Everything we know to date says that no gods did anything.

Finally, Clarke is wrong, technology is not to be confused with magic. Magic, if it works at all, works without technology - possibly in spite of it.
Magic, like the gods, is a supernatural explanation for something we don't understand. If you don't have the understanding of the technology, how do you differentiate the real from the unreal? Try explaining television to a primitive culture. To them it will seem like magic. Hell, even some "civilized" people don't understand it, even though they use it every day.

And yet again, magic, like the gods, fails in the face of knowledge. It's a trick, a sleight of hand designed to fool the believer. Once you understand the trick the magic, like the gods, dissolves.

Thorne

04-15-2011, 06:53 AM

WOW MMI thanks for saying what I was trying to say but couldnt find the right words to say for so long now so wondefully.
Gee. I never get compliments like that! :(

Thats kinda of the logic behind why I had to exclude the aethiest approach as being just as illogical as any thesistically sect specific belief system compared to that of the agnostic or IDK approach to the whole existance or not of a god or gods to begin with back when I was questioning my faith.
Agnostics are basically lazy atheists. They don't really believe in gods, but they don't feel like understanding why. I once styled myself as an agnostic, until I started really looking into belief systems. That's when I understood WHY I don't believe in gods.

Its also why I lump the aethiests in as a just another type of belief system requiring "faith" to believe in what it as a system of belief proposes as truth or not.
I still think it's because you cannot quite comprehend how anyone can function without some kind of belief system, so you assume that atheism is such a system. It's like a mechanic trying to explain the intricacies of the brain. You're going to tend to get mechanical explanations. (With all due respect to mechanics.)

In any event, imho no one should be anything other than accepting and tollerant that people are going to believe and or have faith in different things from each other for their own reasons.
I AM accepting and tolerant! Until they start trying to force their beliefs on me, or anyone else. Until they start using those beliefs to justify the harm they do to others. Until they refuse to accept and tolerate my LACK of belief!

denuseri

04-15-2011, 08:19 AM

If your so accepting and tollerant why is it every single time you get a chance (like someone even mentions the word religion in a thread) even if its not in a thread about religion vs aethisim, you resort too attacking those who do not believe as you do as "lazy" or "stupid" or believing in "fairytales and purple dinosuars" etc etc, without fail, knowing full well how derogatory such sophistry is; instead of recognizing their beliefs to be just as possible as your own, since both are indeed possible as science as of yet has no way to prove or disprove the existance there of?

And please while you chew on this one keep in mind that: many many "scientists" do indeed believe in not only a theoretical surpreme being or beings as not only being a possibility but as a mathematical certianty just as strongly as the aethiests believe in their assumptions despite any real confirmable hard evidence eaither way.

Thorne

04-15-2011, 08:57 AM

[B][COLOR="pink"]If your so accepting and tollerant why is it every single time you get a chance (like someone even mentions the word religion in a thread) even if its not in a thread about religion vs aethisim, you resort too attacking those who do not believe as you do as "lazy" or "stupid" or believing in "fairytales and purple dinosuars" etc etc, without fail, knowing full well how derogatory such sophistry is;
Yes, I guess I have to admit that I sometimes get snippy about it. I guess it's a defense mechanism against being called ignorant, immoral or evil just because I don't believe in someone's fairytale. And yes, I do mean fairytale, because religious stories (at least the ones I know) have no more evidence of truth than the tales of the brothers Grimm. And yes, SOME theists are lazy or stupid, never bothering to understand what they profess to believe in, simply trying to force others to accept those beliefs as gospel. Some atheists are lazy and stupid, too. Alas, they are all too common human conditions. But it is not my intention to imply that people are lazy or stupid BECAUSE they are believers. You, for example, have obviously done a lot of study, even to the point of rejecting your birth religion in favor of something else. I may not agree with your conclusions, but I certainly don't consider them stupid.

instead of recognizing their beliefs to be just as possible as your own, since both are indeed possible as science as of yet has no way to prove or disprove the existance there of?
While I might accept that their beliefs can be possible, that does not mean that they are even remotely probable. When every attempt to prove the existence of supernatural beings, for thousands of years, has resulted in a negative, it becomes quite reasonable to accept that the probability of there actually existing approaches zero. Opposing beliefs are not necessarily equal. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese covered by a thin layer of dust is not just as acceptable as saying the moon is just a big rock. Until we actually drill there we cannot know for certain, but really, which is more likely?

And please while you chew on this one keep in mind that: many many "scientists" do indeed believe in not only a theoretical surpreme being or beings as not only being a possibility but as a mathematical certianty just as strongly as the aethiests believe in their assumptions despite any real confirmable hard evidence eaither way.
I know there are many scientists who still believe in God, or gods. I have never heard of any who accept it as a mathematical certainty, however. I do know there are "scientists" who try to distort evidence to conform to their beliefs, rather than the other way round. This is not the right way to do science, but as noted previously, scientists are also humans, and subject to the same frailties as anyone else.

A blogger I was reading just this morning made a comment which may be apropos here. I am an atheist. The ONLY thing that tells you about me is that I do not believe in gods. It says nothing else about who I am, or who I am not. It says nothing about anything else I may or may not believe in. It ONLY says that I do not believe in ANY gods. I happen to be a scientific atheist, meaning that I trust science, believe in it if you will, because science shows me evidence. I also happen to be anti-religion, which again has nothing to do with belief in gods. I believe, based on my observations and experiences, that religions are, or tend to become, organizations which foster hate and alienation rather than love and acceptance. NOT necessarily the people who subscribe to a religion, but the organization itself, such as the Roman Catholic Church, or Islam.

So yes, I do have beliefs and assumptions. But none of these have anything to do with gods. I KNOW, as much as it is possible to know anything, that there are no gods. Just as I KNOW that Santa Claus is a fictional being. Just as I KNOW that Little Red Riding Hood is an allegory. I cannot prove any of these things, especially to those who really WANT to believe in them. But the probability of there being a jolly old elf living at the north pole is just as low as the probability of there being a bearded god in the sky. If you want me to accept either of them you'll have to have pretty convincing proof.

thir

04-15-2011, 09:49 AM

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Why is that neccesary?

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

Thorne

04-15-2011, 01:51 PM

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?
Primarily because there are people, especially here in the US, who want to force all Americans to accept their god as the one TRUE god. They are constantly trying to create a theocracy in the US, one which I believe would rival the Taliban in barbarity.

It's important because of the amount of harm done to people in the name of religion, from cults which kill their children (http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html) because they disdain modern medicine, to those who destroy children's lives (http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2011/04/sister-of-sect-leader-holy-ghost.html) in the name of their gods.

But since we cannot prove that gods don't exist we have to be happy with exposing those who perpetuate evil in the names of those gods, and show people that the religion which tries to maintain a hold upon them is far more evil than any demons or devils that religion claims to fight against.

denuseri

04-15-2011, 01:58 PM

MMI

04-15-2011, 03:53 PM

Science will always be too limited, since science studies the natural world, not a supernatural one. In the supernatural world, anyone can make up anything they happen to think of and claim it to be true, simply because no one can prove them wrong. In the natural world, you must provide evidence, testable evidence, for your claims.

You have responded to my other points in detail, Thorne, and while I personally do agree with your sentiments in general, I still think you have missed the point, and because of that, you persist in your Quixotic tilting at religious windmills. Gods are, or are believed to be, supernatural. That means that any attempt to restrict them to the narrow confines of the physical universe, to the laws of nature, or within the boundaries of the real world is doomed to failure, and any sensible person, once he realises this, will accept that it is impossible and futile to continue to try to define god in earthly terms.

That, really, answers your objections as to proving the existence of gods or otherwise completely.

Gee. I never get compliments like that! :(

It is a rare event when I do, too, and for that reason, it is a greatly appreciated one. Thank-you den :)

I AM accepting and tolerant! Until they start trying to force their beliefs on me, or anyone else. Until they start using those beliefs to justify the harm they do to others. Until they refuse to accept and tolerate my LACK of belief!

I have never seen on this site any attempts to force you or anyone else to believe in a god or gods in general. I have also never seen any attacks on atheism as vehement and as zealous as I have seen atheists proclaim the righteousness of their views above those of anyone else, based on their limited scientific viewpoints as we have just seen.

Your freedom to believe that this is as good as it gets is under no threat from anyone here. I wonder if you have chosen the wrong forum to proselytise on behalf of your creed of emptiness.

Why is that neccesary?

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

Excellent question. I don't think it is at all necessary, other than for intellectual exercise. The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

MMI

04-15-2011, 04:12 PM

I don't think it is at all necessary, other than for intellectual exercise.

I've just mulled that over for a bit. Since the pro-god side says, You can't prove God exists, because that is beyond proof, and the anti-god side says, You can't prove God doesn't exist because you can't reduce the supposed nature of God into scientific terms, I wonder if any attempt to prove or disprove God is more an exercise in foolishness than an intellectual exercise.

denuseri

04-15-2011, 07:08 PM

It is a rare event when I do, too, and for that reason, it is a greatly appreciated one. Thank-you den :)

Your ever so welcome kind Sir.

The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

Just like they did in the Soviet Union and China when those places banned all religions save that of state sponsered aetheism.

Thorne

04-16-2011, 05:17 AM

Thorne, that Sounds exactly like the same rehtoric the people you claim to be so different from use almost word for word.

"Primarily because there are people, especially here in the US, who want to force all Americans to accept their godless beliefs as the one truth. Replacing faith with science. They are constantly trying to create an aethiest state in the US, one which I believe would rival the Soviet Union in barbarity. "

The difference is that, as an atheist, I don't see America as an atheist state, simply a secular one. Atheists don't want to replace anyone's faith, they only want to keep people's religion out of the science classrooms and out of the government. From my point of view there is more barbarity practiced in the name of religion than in the name of science. They hide it well, having had a long, long time to practice their deceptions, but the barbarity is there. But regardless of which "type" of state is created, it will still be run by people, and people can be both saints and sinners.

Thorne

04-16-2011, 05:34 AM

Gods are, or are believed to be, supernatural. That means that any attempt to restrict them to the narrow confines of the physical universe, to the laws of nature, or within the boundaries of the real world is doomed to failure, and any sensible person, once he realises this, will accept that it is impossible and futile to continue to try to define god in earthly terms.
Then why do theists keep trying to do so? I'm not defining gods, after all. I'm trying to find evidence for them, or not. Regardless of their nature, if they are of any import in the physical world they have to have some impact on that world. Something which has happened which cannot be explained in any other way. If they do not exist then there are no impacts and no reason to worship them, as all evidence to date has indicated. If they DO exist and they still do not impact our world, then what is the reason to worship them? Their existence is moot.

I have never seen on this site any attempts to force you or anyone else to believe in a god or gods in general. I have also never seen any attacks on atheism as vehement and as zealous as I have seen atheists proclaim the righteousness of their views above those of anyone else, based on their limited scientific viewpoints as we have just seen.
On this site, no. But look at some of the legislation being put forward in the US right now. Look at the Texas Board of Education. They are aimed directly at non-believers, or different-believers. They are attempting to force faith-based laws onto everyone. And look up information about Atheist Advertisements, and how those ads are vehemently denounced by (some) religious people, and how they are defaced by "good" Christians around the US. A simple message such as, "It's OK to be Good without God!" has these "loving" theists gathering the wood for the witch burning.

Your freedom to believe that this is as good as it gets is under no threat from anyone here. I wonder if you have chosen the wrong forum to proselytise on behalf of your creed of emptiness.
I do post my opinions elsewhere, true. But this is one of the few places where I can get reasonable and intelligent arguments from believers of such diverse faiths. Besides, I like it here!

The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.
Absolutely. People are people, everywhere. But as I see it, this kind of person finds it easier to manipulate people through their fears of their own mortality and lack of understanding of reality. Religion has always been used as a tool for suppression. It's simply my belief that removing religion from the political landscape gives that kind of person less room to maneuver, makes them easier to identify for the vile person he or she might be.

Thorne

04-16-2011, 05:40 AM

I've just mulled that over for a bit. Since the pro-god side says, You can't prove God exists, because that is beyond proof, and the anti-god side says, You can't prove God doesn't exist because you can't reduce the supposed nature of God into scientific terms, I wonder if any attempt to prove or disprove God is more an exercise in foolishness than an intellectual exercise.
Perhaps you are right. And if religion were not so pervasive, here in the US far more than in the UK as I understand it, I might agree that it is foolishness. But as things stand I feel it is an important question with far-ranging effects on everyone's lives. As for proving something does NOT exist, it will always be impossible. I can't prove a three-legged flapdoodle doesn't exist somewhere in the universe. All I can ever say is that there is no credible evidence that one DOES exist. And the same is true about gods. (Though given the immensity and complexity of the universe, I rather think a three-legged flapdoodle is far more likely to be real.)

Thorne

04-16-2011, 05:47 AM

Just like they did in the Soviet Union and China when those places banned all religions save that of state sponsered aetheism.
Ahh yes, those old bogeymen. Those were COMMUNIST governments, not atheist governments. They banned religions because religions usurped too much power from the state, reducing the control the PEOPLE running those governments could impose upon their populations. They simply replaced gods with their Supreme Councils, or whatever title they gave them. Just as Islamic governments ban all non-Islamic religions in order to maintain control. Just as some Christian nations once banned all non-Christian religions. In every case it was an attempt to maintain control. These are very different from SECULAR governments. I don't want to BAN religions, just remove their influence from the government.

denuseri

04-16-2011, 08:05 AM

Dear Thorne,

Its not those old boogymen at all!

It's just that they were misguilded in their thinking when it came to religion.

Its what happened, and the people who worked to make it happen, the marxists, had very idealized and lofty goals, very aetheist goals...their rehtoric and yours about the evils of religion were exactly the same in so many ways it isnt even funny.

They didnt get rid of religion becuase it took power from the state eaither...in Tzarist controlled Russia at the time the Chruch was a direct puppet of the Tzars, the marxists saw religion in general as a corrupt tool used by the state.

They idealistically thought that removing that tool would help them build a better state, a state free of coruption that would work for their people becuase it was composed of their people, instead of a ruleing elite.

Basically they took seperation of church and state to the extreme. Perhaps went a little overboard.

But what they found out was: removing religions from the equation the way they did it did nothing to get rid of the evil that was happening. I guess two wrongs really dont make a right huh?

Just like MMI said...it isnt the religion that makes them do evil...evil doesnt come from religion, it comes from people. It was around before religions, and it is certiantly around after.

If you want to make a credible argument for the replacement of religion you would do better to hop on the "personal autonomy" bandwagon (a new philosophy the dutch have kind of invented) then you would do to continue with the hyperbole and "hate" rehtoric of the militant aethiest crowd.

Personal autonomy believes that as personal liberties are increased...strict religious adherence and fundamentalists zealotry becomes reduced all on its own with no hateful oppression from anyone. It also seems to reduce the overall amount of "evil" too, and without inducing the self indulgent headonism we so fear is overtaking us in the USA. They have been at it now for a couple decades at least with fairly good results.

Personal autonomy however doesnt want to drive religion out and burn everyone at the stake who keeps their beliefs, nor does it say that everyone who doesnt believe in what they believe in is stupid or whorshiping a three legged flag pole with a unicorn on top. Heck it doesnt even get rid of religions, it lets people practice them all they wish. What it did was promote giving people a choice. A choice to do what ever they wish to do with their lives without worry so long as they are not running around hurting other people.

Sound familiar?

Sound like a premise thats been tried before doesnt it?

Like here in America back in the days of the Founding fathers maby? or even yes, in Russia during their revolution.

Only thing is, as old as the consept may be, they are indeed doing it differently from their predessors...using just the carrot, and no stick.

If I sound like I using your own words against you with the same kind hyperbole over the past few threads where we have went through this exact same debate on religion vs aethisim...its becuase Im trying to show you exactly what your words look like when you use them the way you have...if you get my drift Sir.

Respectfully

denuseri

Thorne

04-16-2011, 09:10 AM

Its what happened, and the people who worked to make it happen, the marxists, had very idealized and lofty goals, very aetheist goals...their rehtoric and yours about the evils of religion were exactly the same in so many ways it isnt even funny.
But that's my point! There are no atheist goals. The ONLY thing you can say for certain about someone who is an atheist is that he/she does NOT believe in gods. They can be conservative, or liberal, or progressive, or even Marxist.

They didnt get rid of religion becuase it took power from the state eaither...in Tzarist controlled Russia at the time the Chruch was a direct puppet of the Tzars, the marxists saw religion in general as a corrupt tool used by the state.
Exactly! Which is why they fought to eliminate it. Trouble was, they tried to eliminate FAITH as well. I'm not advocating that at all.

They idealistically thought that removing that tool would help them build a better state, a state free of coruption that would work for their people becuase it was composed of their people, instead of a ruleing elite.
At least that was their rhetoric. In practice it was something far less.

Basically they took seperation of church and state to the extreme. Perhaps went a little overboard.
They went WAY overboard, I agree. But it wasn't because they were atheists. It was because they were Marxists who happened to be atheists.

Just like MMI said...it isnt the religion that makes them do evil...evil doesnt come from religion, it comes from people. It was around before religions, and it is certiantly around after.
Agreed, but religion provides a means to control people, get them to believe what you want them to believe. Whether it's gay marriage, abortion, birth control, women's rights, all these things are being manipulated by mainstream religions, to the detriment of everyone. It's my contention that no religion has the right to tell me whether a gay person can be married, or whether a rape victim should be allowed to have an abortion. It's not their right to decide. If MEMBERS of that religion which to adhere to these tenets, that's one thing. But they have no right to force those beliefs upon everyone. And especially not on the vulnerable minds of children.

If you want to make a credible argument for the replacement of religion you would do better to hop on the "personal autonomy" bandwagon (a new philosophy the dutch have kind of invented) then you would do to continue with the hyperbole and "hate" rehtoric of the militant aethiest crowd.
I don't want to replace religion! Personally, I wouldn't be saddened if all religious organizations suddenly vanished from the human equation, but I'm not advocating eliminating or replacing them. Just restricting them to where they belong: in Church, and in the hearts and minds of believers.

I have always been a proponent of personal responsibility, not blaming others for my own failings.

And yes, I do sometimes ridicule certain beliefs. But that's only because I see some of those beliefs as ridiculous. Like images of Jesus in a piece of burnt toast or plate of spaghetti. Or seeing the the Virgin Mary in bird droppings. Or even the newest one, the image of Kate Middleton in a freaking jelly bean (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/kate-middleton/8450314/Jelly-bean-resembling-Kate-Middleton-to-fetch-500.html)! The psychological aspects of this kind of thing are well understood (pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia)) but some people insist on claiming they are signs from their gods! I do not believe that, just because someone claims that something ridiculous has religious significance that it isn't just as deserving of ridicule. Want to avoid ridicule? Avoid making ridiculous claims in the name of your gods!