Today marks the 6th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks. Do the world a favor and pass this photo around to everyone you know. (Not that I naively believe that it will convert anyone away from magical thinking on its own; rather, I would like to hope it could spark a debate among people and slowly get at least a few to begin peeling the scales from their eyes-to steal a biblical reference)
Bill Maher, in his Podcast this week (find it here), calls for Americans to institute a national Life is too short day on September 11th.
To quote Maher,
"You never know when 19 scumbags armed with box cutters and pure sweet faith are going to end it all."Indeed, Bill is right. Life is too short. Too short and too full of wonderfully amazing things to waste a single moment.
I originally thought September 11th would be a great day to kick off a National Debate a Fundie Day or even a Introduce a Theist to Rational Thought Day.
But then...
Upon further consideration, sadly, I realize we might as well have a National Masturbate With a Cheese Grater Day since it would be similarly as interesting at first- but in the end...
just as painful.
68 comments:
Religion is not the problem.
It's fanatism. And that can very well exist without religion...
True, fanaticism can exist without religion. And Religion isn't THE problem; I never suggested that it was the only one; there are lots of problems on our lovely little rock.
Religion however is a problem, and a VERY BIG ONE. Burying your head in the sand and blaming it all on fanatics contributes to the problem.
I submit that religion IS fanaticism; a fanatical perversion of humanity.
"Burying your head in the sand and blaming it all on fanatics contributes to the problem."
The most conscious, active people and aware of the reality that surrounded them, are or were all religious people.
Some of the most corageous and caring people I know are or were religious people.
To say that religion buries your head in the sand is not fair.
Some people do bury their head in the sand with religion but some don't. And can you guaranty me that without religion they would not bury their heads with something else?
My answer is: I don't know.
There is A problem that is THE problem: it's what goes on one's heart. That can turn whatever you want into a bad and evil thing or make it a marvelous and fulfilling experience.
P.S.: I don't know if the Introduce a Theist to Rational Thought Day would be as fruitfull as you think, because I find myself to be one of the most rational guys I know. I love science, I have a computer science major, so I believe it's not for lack of rational thinking that I'm a religious guy.
Thanks for your comment Jorge, BUT
The argument that many caring wonderful courageous people etc were religious DOES NOT make it a good thing. There are just as many fine examples of non religious people who do wonderful philanthropic things that benefit mankind. So what?
You are right in that people are either good or bad in and of themselves. But religion seems to affect people (who otherwise may be good to do inherently bad things like... I don't know fly a plane into a skyscraper)
As for your concept of rational thought, Is it rational to believe in something for which ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER exists.
I find myself to be one of the most rational guys I know
May I suggest a larger circle of acquaintances.
May I suggest a larger circle of acquaintances.
You can :)
One of my best friends is, as you, a real defender of atheism.
As for your concept of rational thought, Is it rational to believe in something for which ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER exists.
I didn't say that believing in something for which absolutely no evidence exists is rational. I just say that I'm a rational guy, which does not exclude everything that is not rational from my life.
What I'm saying is that my rationality is perfectly compatible with this irational reality.
I believe you consider yourself a rational guy. Would you describe your love for your family (allow me to talk about you wife and kids) as a purely rational thing?
Allow me to suppose you love your parents. Can you prove that to me?
I love my parents and I can't prove that to you.
The argument that many caring wonderful courageous people etc were religious DOES NOT make it a good thing.
True, but it does prove that burying the head in the sand doesn't come with being religious.
But religion seems to affect people
Always true (must be like that). And due the nature of religion it's one of the easyest things to use to manipulate people and brainwash them. I give you that. But the problem is not religion itself, but badly intentioned people that use religion as a way of making people do things for them.
I think this discussion could go indefinitely with both of us writing (valid) arguments and we will never reach an agreement. Anyway I like to discuss these subjects even knowing I will never convince anybody (and that's not my purpose, I just like to make people think [or at least try]).
OMG!!! daddy! haha. May I suggest a larger circle of acquaintances? Wow! love it. ur a comedic genius as always!!!!!!
First off Jorge, I really do appreciate your comments here. This is one of the reasons I started this Blog-( that and to give my smart-assededness an outlet)
To clarify, I never said religion makes people bury their heads in the sand (although I do believe it is true) what I meant to say was people who separate the religious from the fanatical have kind of missed the point.
As for being a defender of atheism, I am not. I am an atheist. I have offered no claims that need defending. As Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It is on the religious to offer evidence (other than subjective) that what they claim is true. Atheism is indefensible since it asserts nothing. It is the default position! (we are all born atheists). You(I assume) don't believe in invisible fairies that control events in your life. Why? Because there is no reason to believe such nonsense. Keep going down that same logical road and you will wind up at an inescapable conclusion.
You agree that people have used religion to manipulate people and justify horrific actions. My point is thus: If people didn't allow themselves believe in the irrational then this at least wouldn't be possible.
Finally your point about my love for my family is just semantical at best, but mostly misguided.
1. There is an inherent (evolutionary advantage) to loving one's family members. This is not irrational in the slightest. Altruism among, and even at times, across species has a distinct advantage.
2.Can I prove I love my family? Certainly I can demonstrate actions that would lead you to that conclusion. But more importantly, I don't assert you must love them or perish in hell. Then we would enter the realm of silly. The provability of emotions and private thoughts does not translate well to religion.
Well, this argument could go on forever...
Vince, your point about there being an evolutionary advantage to loving your family could just as easily be argued for religion.
As for the rationality thing, people can be perfectly rational in most things and completely irrational in others. I, obviously, think religion as irrational but can see many people turn off their brain for that part of their life. This is something people do very well. Think of love , especially when young and the hormones are still raging.
Now for Jorge's comment about the problem being fanaticism, I can not agree with that either. There are just too many people out there who may not be blowing up buildings but still think that is OK to some extent because they identify to some degree with the fanatics.
Hell, that is basically what Republicans have been charging liberals with for the last six years.
Art, I don't think that there is an evolutionary advantage to religion- since we are all born atheists. I would guess that the opposite is true.
Granted there may have been some societies that wrangled in chaos by imposing religious explanations for phenomena and creating some sort of order with rules. But that is just as well accomplished with morality and I believe that it has well been demonstrated that this is not exclusive to religion. Animals engage in altruistic behavior because it has offered them a distinct advantage and thusly has been selected for evolutionarily.
At least in the last 1500 years I would say that religion has certainly killed (directly or indirectly) more than it has saved.
As far as rationality goes, yes you are right teenagers with their raging hormones(and many non-teenagers) do engage in irrational behavior and this is a DIRECT result of evolution. Religions(at least the Abrahamic ones) advocate abstaining from these primal urges. This seems at odds with our main directive as lifeforms on this rock. To procreate. This would offer an advantage to the hedonistic I would think.
"First off Jorge, I really do appreciate your comments here.
Thanks. I'll try not to disappoint you :)
"what I meant to say was people who separate the religious from the fanatical have kind of missed the point"
I'm religious, but I'm not fanatic. It's a fact.
"It is on the religious to offer evidence (other than subjective) that what they claim is true." NOT
Religion will NEVER offer any proof of any kind. That's the essence of faith. If you prove it you no longer can believe it because it's a fact and it imposes itself to you. You just have to accept it. But true faith is something else. It will ALWAYS be personal, it will always be a choice. The object of your faith can never impose itself to you. Just like atheism is indefensible since it asserts nothing, the object of your faith is impossible to prove because by definition it's a belief.
"Why? Because there is no reason to believe such nonsense. Keep going down that same logical road and you will wind up at an inescapable conclusion."
But for me there is a reason (it will always be a subjective one) and fairies are a nonsense, but God isn't (again: for me).
"You agree that people have used religion to manipulate people and justify horrific actions. My point is thus: If people didn't allow themselves believe in the irrational then this at least wouldn't be possible."
True. But that's not the only way out. They could still believe and not go doing such actions. And you cannot assure me they wouldn't do it if they were not religious.
"1. There is an inherent (evolutionary advantage) (...)"
True. Rather cold (sorry), but true.
"2. Can I prove I love my family? Certainly I can demonstrate actions that would lead you to that conclusion."
But that wouldn't prove anything, right? I could imitate your actions and that doesn't mean I love them. Attention: my point here is that there are real things that you know exist but you just can't find a rational scientific proof of it. This is one of those. Everything you can do to show your love can be reproduced by someone who has no such feeling. So it prooves nothing. But you believe it exists.
But more importantly, I don't assert you must love them or perish in hell.
Neither do I... But that would leed me into another (long) discussion.
My point is only this: there are things in life you just can't proove, that don't belong to the universe of rational conclusion. Yes, it's very personal and subjective... but that's the way it is.
No one will ever prove that God exists. The same way no one will ever prove He doesn't.
...and fairies are a nonsense, but God isn't (again: for me).
You claim to be rational and then you make this statement. What difference is there between your god and fairies (logically speaking of course)?
The same logic you employ to arrive at the conclusion that fairies are nonsense is PRECISELY the same logic I use to arrive at my atheism.
If you prove it you no longer can believe it because it's a fact and it imposes itself to you. You just have to accept it.
Come on Jorge, you're better than this. You really don't believe this do you? This is the most specious argument you have made. Why does anyone "just have to accept it"? Why don't you accept fairies?
There is no proof for them and isn't that a requirement for your "faith", an absence of proof(provability)?
I don't begrudge you your personal beliefs; should they bring you comfort and peace and meaning to your life, that is great.
What I do hope you realize is that once people check their logic and rationality at the door they are susceptible to all sorts of chicanery.
I personally don't have a need for any supernatural entities or mysticism in my life; it is quite amazing enough to live in the universe and there are almost an infinite number of things to enjoy and learn.
(republicans notwithstanding hahahaha)
"What difference is there between your god and fairies (logically speaking of course)?"
Logically? None.
"The same logic you employ to arrive at the conclusion that fairies are nonsense is PRECISELY the same logic I use to arrive at my atheism."
Yes it is, and I understand it.
"This is the most specious argument you have made. Why does anyone "just have to accept it"? Why don't you accept fairies?"
Probably I didn't express myself correctly. If you can prove it, it's a fact, so you have to accept it. There's no possibility of faith by its own definition. I don't accept fairies because you can't prove they exist AND I don't believe in them. But I believe in God which I can't prove that exists, that's why I call it faith.
"There is no proof for them [fairies] and isn't that a requirement for your "faith", an absence of proof(provability)?"
Yes, its a requirement for it to be called faith, but it doesn't force me to believe. I'll not start believing in everything I can't prove.
"What I do hope you realize is that once people check their logic and rationality at the door they are susceptible to all sorts of chicanery."
I know you don't believe me, but I never left my logic and rationality at the door and I recognize my inhability to make you believe that.
Well, admitting it is the first step. ;-)
:)
Nothing of what I said is a single step away from my original position.
I'm happy, though, that we could have an interesting discussion with mutual respect.
I wish you the best and I hope you'll never stop developing your opinions and thinking about them.
I'll keep thinking about mine.
Hummmm,
Granted, the towers might be still standing if there were no religion. Though it is unfounded to believe they would have been built in the first place, especially since America's founding fathers came here to escape religious persecution.
On the other hand, we would also have to consider:
- when the printing press with movable type would have been invented since its main inspiration, if I am well informed, was to print the Bible.
- who would be sheltering the homeless in the world. Last I checked EVERY homeless shelter in my city was affiliated with a religion.
- who would be feeding the hungry and helping the poor. Last I checked EVERY food pantry and almost every living assistance program is affiliated with a religion.
- who would have founded our hospitals and universities. The vast majority of these are tied to a religion in one form or another.
- who would be combating child-slavery, starvation and a myriad of other social issues that various religions are on the front lines of right now.
Let me guess, you, the non-believers? Bullshit! If that were so you would already be doing it, and by percentage you simply are not. If you want to show me a world better off without religion you'll have to start by actually working to fix these major social injustices with as much passion as many those religious institutions you hate so much do.
To act as though that picture represents some better world without religion is to show a lack of depth in thought that speaks for itself very clearly.
To Vince, Religion is a problem? Who have you feed, clothed, sheltered and medicated lately? Bet I already know the answer.
Allow me to clarify. Yes religion is a problem- a huge one- but I'll get back to that in a minute. I agree there have been advancements in the world made by religious people. I will concede that a great number of charitable and worthwhile work has been done by religious groups.
However, here is where your logic has some holes in it. All of the good things you claim the religious do can and ARE being done by secular groups as well. Amnesty International for instance is one of the leading organizations fighting for human rights all over the world, and the last time I checked they are NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY RELIGION AT ALL.
Do you assert that believers are more charitable and socially aware than non-believers? Lets examine that. Believers are instructed (however inconsistently) by their dogma to behave with with fellowship and charity because god says so. Not following these rules can land you guys in trouble. The non believer acts in a similar fashion, not out of coercion or fear, but out of a sense of morality and justice. Which one of us is more noble in their actions? If you claim that believers act charitably, not for selfish fear-of-god reasons, then you make my argument for me. Religion is NOT necessary to be a compassionate and charitable citizen.
The indoctrinated cherry-pick those bits of their scriptures that advocate acts of goodness and charity while ignoring those horrible bits like for instance: if you find out that wife is not a virgin when you marry her it is ok to stone her to death.(Deuteronomy 22:19-21) or that homosexual men are fair game for killing (Leviticus 20:13) etc. etc. etc.- this proves that your "sense of morality" is inherent in you as a human being and religion is not only not necessary, but counter productive.
"...actually working to fix these major social injustices with as much passion as many those religious institutions you hate so much do."
Funny you mention social injustices and religion. Where do I start? The systematic rape of children and the complicit covering up and protection of pedophiles by the church? Perhaps the spreading fear and repression and subsequently the HIV virus across Africa by a church that ACTIVELY works to eradicate condom use? Surely you think it is more socially just to have millions of dead people rather than have them engage in (premarital) sex. Or perhaps you are referring the cutting edge work that religion is doing in trying to retard scientific education (creation fairy tale) or hinder potentially life saving research (stem cell).
Religion systematically uses fear and silly magical thinking to control people and make abandon thinking for themselves, and makes them do some truly "evil" things.
You are correct: religion speaks for itself.
There have been good things that have been inspired by religion but my point is that it is no longer necessary in the modern(read enlightened) world. Any force such as religion that causes people to abandon reason and accept things to be true DESPITE either evidence to the contrary or an absence of evidence, is a wholly dangerous endeavor and can only serve to set all of humanity back.
BTW, I was a paramedic for 6 years, an Emergency Room nurse for 4 years and currently am a 2nd yr medical student.I have literally medicated thousands of people and furthermore, decided to dedicate a large portion of my life to those Jesus-like pursuits like healing the sick and so forth. I do this not because some silly piece of pulp fiction tells me so, or I hear voices from an imaginary friend; rather, I chose do do this because I think it is a noble, necessary, and worthwhile thing to do.
Thanks for stopping by my blog :-)
No way:
As Vince has already obliterated every one of your arguments, I will keep this short. I just wanted to point out that similar to Vince, I was a paramedic for 9 years and literally thousands of people are either still alive or received care and comfort faster because I was there. Although I was career for a while, I was also a volunteer the entire time, and I certainly never did it because I wanted to avoid hell fire! There are only two differences between Jesus and I. First, he was probably a better showman than I. Second, I treated every illness and injury without discrimination; I did not restrict myself to those naturally self limiting conditions that all other "faith healers" (I use this term very loosely), including Jesus, are limited to.
I am reminded of a fantastic quote by Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
Scott and Vince,
Scott, glad to see that you thought he obliterated my points. I would whole-heartedly disagree but then we are all prone to seeing what we want to see.
Amnesty International is a good example. I bet they do about as much good as the churches in my state. I firmly believe (and am considering how it could be investigated) that the total good of the secular groups pales in comparison to that of religion. It is easy to cherry pick an example on either side. Instead, try opening up you local phone book (or any phone book) and see where the percentages are at.
As for making your point if I claim that these acts are not done because of selfish fear-of-god reasons nothing could be further from the truth. Here is my point: all the deeds I do I do because of a love for God and a gratitude for his grace. Fear never, NEVER enters my mind in relation to my relationship with God.
So, believers can have other reasons that the one you dictate as the only reason. That, is part of my point. You think you can boil it down to one little reason we all act in certain ways. You can't and to act as though you have is a failing.
Also, I have not claimed that religion is necessary to be a compassionate and charitable citizen. It just seems to greatly help. What percentage of your income and time do you give to others?
"The indoctrinated cherry-pick those bits of their scriptures that advocate acts of goodness and charity while ignoring those horrible bits like for instance: if you find out that wife is not a virgin when you marry her it is ok to stone her to death.(Deuteronomy 22:19-21) or that homosexual men are fair game for killing (Leviticus 20:13) etc. etc. etc.- this proves that your “sense of morality” is inherent in you as a human being and religion is not only not necessary, but counter productive."
I would have to say that many probably do. I for one very directly questioned these things. Any believer willing to come out of the dark ages (which most have) and look at these issues in the context of the whole faith, not just that little 1-3 verse section, knows that our relationship with God has changed since those times. If not, Jesus would have stoned the woman to death instead of speaking "Let he who has not sinned...."
The social injustices you write of a little later are indeed failings of the church, not religion. I think EVERYONE that was involved or knew about the abuses of those children should go to prison. Everyone, even the Pope if he knew of it. If you were to argue that the church as a rule is not acting as Christ would wish I would probably have to agree with you. If you argue against the very teachings of Christ there is no way to agree with you.
I am glad to hear of your vocation. How much of that kind of work do you do as charity? It seems as though you have confused the two.
"all the deeds I do I do because of a love for God and a gratitude for his grace. Fear never, NEVER enters my mind in relation to my relationship with God"
If you claim your actions are motivated by a love for your god, well, wonderful. Again what motivates me is a sense of morality and justice; I feel no obligation to an imaginary being for any "grace". I submit my motivations are more 'pure' at least in the sense of caring about my fellow man because I think it is right to do so; mystical beings notwithstanding.
"What percentage of your income and time do you give to others?"
I don't subscribe to any silly notion about devoting a special magical number of my income to charity. I give to causes I feel are worthwhile. You seem to have a naive sense of "we have more do-gooders than you" or "we give more of our money and time than you do" nya nya nya nya. This is silly you have conceded that there are examples of people who do good work on both sides of religion. That is one of my main points- religion isn't NECESSARY to be a good person- and as has been demonstrated over and over again often serves to make people do heinous things.
"Any believer willing to come out of the dark ages (which most have) and look at these issues in the context of the whole faith, not just that little 1-3 verse section, knows that our relationship with God has changed since those times. If not, Jesus would have stoned the woman to death instead of speaking "Let he who has not sinned...."
This is the "No REAL Christian would do those things defense..." This proves my point. What part of you decides that those sections of the bible are morally reprehensible and outdated or irrelevant now. (perhaps you should get more familiar with the book you dedicate your life to: there are many many more than "1-3 verses" btw)Of course, and it is my point to say, that the sense of morality that you use to reject such disgusting examples in the bible is inherent in your humanity completely outside of the realm of religion. The reason that there are "religious moderates" who cherry pick pieces that suit them have came to a conclusion first and scan the scripture for evidence to support it. I say you don't need that silly drivel. You know what you feel is right / wrong WITHOUT the bible.
I actually have more respect for "extremist or fundamentalists". True they are wingnuts and believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god, but at least they are consistent in their lunacy. They don't try to skew the dogma by creatively selecting those verses that support a preconceived conclusion. What you claim to do with your malleable view of your faith is a bit dishonest. Either you believe the crap in that book or you don't. Once you feel free to editorialize then you remove the only reason to take it seriously,(however deluded an idea that is to begin with)once you acknowledge that OK, parts of this book are silly, then you why don't you question the veracity of any and, for that matter-all of its grandiose claims. You are the one who is "prone to seeing what they want to see". It is just intellectual sloth and dishonesty.
This brings me to your buddy, Jesus. Have you read the bible at all? How about [Mark 7:9] where he criticized Jewish parents for not killing their disobedient children (according to the old testament law)? [Matthew 5:17]he throws his support behind the cruel and violent laws of the old testament. What about in [Luke 12:47] where your hero OK's the beating of slaves? Not to mention what he did to those poor 2000 piggies [Mark 5:12]what did they do wrong? Doesn't seem very Christ-like at all.You see- picking and choosing the "good bits".
I do indeed argue with these "teachings of christ" and I agree, you have no way to argue with me.
And finally:
"I am glad to hear of your vocation. How much of that kind of work do you do as charity? It seems as though you have confused the two."
Again you miss the point; it isn't a numbers game. I have volunteered to help out in the community on several occasions. Admittedly, I do not spend as much time giving of myself as I suppose you do. But my point isn't that I am a better person than you. You may well be a model citizen and if so I commend you.
My point is simply one can be just as "good" a person without religion as with it; and there is too much that religion detracts from to point to charity work and say, "see we need religion".
The good that any religion does is severely outweighed by the damage (physical, emotional, psychological, financial) that it inflicts to its own constituency as well as those of us forced to live in a world with this sort of ass-clownery.
Where to start... I suspect I'm wasting my time but one more attempt for your sake and then I'll dust off my feet.
"(perhaps you should get more familiar with the book you dedicate your life to: there are many many more than “1-3 verses” btw)"
I'm afraid you missed the point of my statement about 1-3 verses. Intentionally. I was saying that you pick sections of the many books in the Bible that are only 1-3 verses long to meet your personal desires. That you have, in fact, never made an attempt to understand the underlying meaning of the entire story as it is told by all the books of the Bible in total. The fact that all of the attacks you later made in this post were based on one verse kinda lends support to my hypothesis. As of this time I see no evidence to indicate I am incorrect.
"Of course, and it is my point to say, that the sense of morality that you use to reject such disgusting examples in the bible is inherent in your humanity completely outside of the realm of religion."
It is not that I have "rejected such disgusting examples of the bible" out of my humanity. These laws have been completed. That one statement sums up the message of the whole Bible. Not that these laws no longer apply, that they have been completed.
"I actually have more respect for “extremist or fundamentalists”. True they are wingnuts and believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god, but at least they are consistent in their lunacy. They don’t try to skew the dogma by creatively selecting those verses that support a preconceived conclusion. What you claim to do with your malleable view of your faith is a bit dishonest."
I am sure that you do have more respect for the "extremist or fundamentalist". It seems to me from what you put forward as the teaching of Jesus that you have the same quality of eyes and ears as they do. I do not "try to skew the dogma by creatively selecting those verses that support a preconceived conclusion". It is in reading and wresting with the small context first (be it a book a chapter or a verse) instead of at the complete message that things become skewed. As I refute your examples below it will become clear to any who can hear with an ear to understand where you have missed the point.
"You are the one who is “prone to seeing what they want to see”. It is just intellectual sloth and dishonesty."
My comment was that we are all prone to seeing what we want to see. I included myself in that statement the first time and will continue to do so. You will find little to no intellectual sloth or dishonesty within me - that is you view. I think the same of you but am intellectually honest enough to know that is my view.
Now, time for your Bible lesson.
"[Matthew 5:17]he throws his support behind the cruel and violent laws of the old testament."
No, Jesus did not "throw his support behind the cruel and violent laws of the old testament". That statement alone proves that you either do not understand the whole message of the Bible or you intentionally distort it. Jesus threw himself in between the laws of the old testament and us. He fulfilled the law - just as the passage says. We were judged and found guilty and he paid the price for us. My friend, what you have just done, taking this one verse and contorting it like that, is cherry-picking.
"What about in [Luke 12:47] where your hero OK’s the beating of slaves?"
I don't know where you are from or what your real educational background. Maybe you have never heard of a parable or using one thing to describe another. He was simply saying that "as a slave's master would beat a slave that knew what to do but didn't so to would God upon the willfully sinful". Never did he say it was alright to beat a slave. In fact, I would suggest you read the book of Philemon if you would like to know a little more about a Christian view on slavery.
I do believe that you are intelligent enough to know that this example was completely incorrect. That being said, either you have not read the entire book of Luke yourself or you have intentionally and malisciously decided to inject intellectual dishonesty into the discussion.
"How about [Mark 7:9] where he criticized Jewish parents for not killing their disobedient children (according to the old testament law)?"
This was in response to a question about his disciples eating with "defiled hands". No where near that passage is the punishment of disobedient children mentioned. If you are speaking about the reference to "anyone who speaks evil of father or mother must surely die" we can cover that later - if you really want to understand it. My suspicion at this point it that you know full well what was meant in that section and ignore it for your own motives.
Either way, it doesn't hurt to say it. His point was that their tradition was NOT the law of God even though they acted like it was. His further point was that their traditions prevented many people from coming to God and that was a violation of God's law. Not unlike many "Christian" denominations and congregations today I am afraid.
Please, before you accuse me on not reading the Bible, read it yourself. If you have read it, get the help of someone who understands it and can help you do the same. If you already understand it stop misquoting it. If you wish to attack it use more than a few sections that are one to three verses long. Intellectual honesty would demand it ;>
Alas, the old "the bible is an allegory". How trite.
Well, you make my point for me.
The verses I chose to point out, and there are dozens and dozens that have very disturbing passages, when taken literally, paint a completely different view of the world from what "religious moderates" hold. However if what you say about the allegorical nature of the bible is true, then it raises a couple of problems.
First, who does the interpreting? Look at all the different denominations with variations on beliefs that all use the same bible! How do you reconcile that? You ask me to "get the help of someone who understands it" - that is just the problem- there is NO CONSENSUS. I could elicit the interpretive abilities of 100 different religious leaders and get 100 differing opinions as to the "true" message. And, of course I realize I was cherry-picking!!! That was MY POINT- to show there is, if you look hard enough, so-called evidence to support a myriad of crazy ideas.
The sheer number of inconsistencies in such "holy" books points that it surely is not the actual inerrant word of god (given omnipotence and omniscience). I don't understand why god would compose (dictate) such seemingly hard to figure out language for our silly little mortal selves to comprehend. I suppose if I was to hand humanity a rule book I wanted followed and to not do so would result in death, I would be pretty explicit with my ransom note. But I digress...
So you believe that the bible is allegorical, but in so doing you have to apply intelligence and morality (which come from outside religion- as is my original point)to "interpret for yourself what is true. You have a preconceived notion of what the bible should be saying and read it accordingly.
And more more thing: Intellectual dishonesty = having no intellectually rational reason to believe in something and continuing to delude yourself anyway.
Try this:
Have you read the Koran? If so why don't you accept what is has to say? So many others have. What is it about its contents that you don't agree with? How do you know you are right? If you haven't read it, then why not? How do you know the Koran is not completely correct and your bible is wrong? If your bible isn't the completely inerrant word of god then maybe the Koran is. Or maybe they are both allegorical. But they can't both be right.
And if that is the case then why believe either one of them? After all the is the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE for both tomes of lunacy.
Perhaps you read something and interpret it in a way that fits in with how you want the world to be and what you want to believe in.
Just a thought.
We will end our little debate here.
But take solace in the fact that you tried "for my sake" to point out the errors of my rationality-influenced thinking. I'm sure your god will look kindly on your efforts.
Debate ended.
Just in case you were curious, yes I have read the Koran and many, many other religious texts from around the world. In fact, the Bhagavad-Gita and the Koran are on the main shelf in my office right now. I agree, the way you wish to read texts they could have little to nothing in common. Solace appreciated.
On the contrary, I find them to have very much in common... they are all complete fantasy.
Vince,
I thought you might think they were both complete fantasy. So let me ask you this:
Have you read the Koran? Have you read the Bible. I mean, have you actually read either all the way through, maybe even asking for clarification where things got confusing?
If not, your opinion could hold no more weight with me than that of someone who discredits say, evolution, and hasn't read The Origin of Species.
By the way, your earlier misunderstanding of the Bible had only a little to do with the parable nature of the teachings of Jesus. It seemed to have more to do with reaching into a paragraph and taking one sentence completely out of context.
At a minimum, you should consider the paragraph and often the chapter or book so that people can actually have a chance to understand the situation or context under which a simple sentence was muttered.
That was my complaint about the habit of quoting 1-3 verses, its spin-doctoring at best and deceitful at worst.
So much for our debate being over... :-)
You still haven't answered my question yet. Having read the Koran, why do reject its claims? How about just those parts that differ from the bible? How do you know that your text is any more valid than it? What gives you the authority to disagree with millions of Muslims around the world?
Having been indoctrinated into the Catholic faith at a young age, I have had the opportunity to read the bible. I have not read the actual Koran in its entirety, but I have read a fair amount on Islam and the tenets of that faith, as well as several text on religions around the world.
I disagree with your assessment however. It sounds a lot like the infamous Courtier's defense.
One need not be a preeminent scholar in fairy-ology to say that the belief in fairies is irrational. I never claimed to be a biblical scholar. But what I am is a rational thinking person equipped with (at least) a modicum of logical reasoning.
Getting caught up in a debate about the exact meanings of specific biblical passages which are all about an imaginary supernatural entity, seems like a consummate waste of time to me.
When the basis of your beliefs is an antiquated book that was compiled over centuries, via countless translations and rewriting, by men with varying intentions(Constantine et al) it seems prudent to me to question its veracity. Upon further inspection: many of its claims have been rejected by science, it is riddled with inconsistencies, it is centered on magical thinking, it makes incredible claims about the nature of our universe- NONE of which have any evidence based in science. Hmmmm
In every discussion with a believer I have I always reach this point. I like to ask them WHY it is they happen to believe what they do.
Do you think you would be a Christian if say, you were born to Muslim, or Jewish parents? Why or Why not?
When you remove the blinders of your particular religion's prejudices and view all religions equally I ask you which is more likely:
1)One of them is actually the truth and the others got it wrong somehow.
or
2)Religion is a universally anthropological trait, simply a collection of mythologies (common to practically EVERY human society) that attempted to explain phenomena that lacked an explanation at the time (as well as teach mores and promote civil order etc. etc.)
Let Ockham be your guide and you will arrive at the same conclusion that I have.
Vince,
I will happily answer your question. First however, I would like you to do something for me, either
- point to a more complete section of text (say a paragraph or entire book) of the new testament that would support your selective use of sentences from that set of books to attack Jesus.
Or
- admit that you cannot. That you selectively chose sentences and intentionally presented them out of context in a manner that changed their meaning.
Sorry, but until we get to that level of intellectual honesty with each other the conversation is really just a game.
Next, we would be able to discuss the merits of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism and a couple other religious belief systems.
Until then, it may be interesting to note that of the major religious beliefs in practice today there are only two root religions. Which ones are they?
BTW, I do have an answer for your question. I'll be happy to tell you it when we reach a level of honest communications.
Either way, I think we've gotten off track. My original point was to say that your picture is not an accurate representation of a world without religion. It leads the ignorant to make rash decisions and judgements. That's not to say that all who think the world would be better without religion are ignorant, just that the image is manipulative and incomplete.
Also, I wasn't trying to start the debate again. I was simply trying to figure out if you realized that books should not be judged by one sentence and a sentence cannot be understood out of context.
For the 4th (and last) time: I picked those verses to demonstrate how at the very best the bible is ambiguous and full of contradictions. I am not attacking Jesus. (since I don't believe he really existed-at least the version that is in the bible)
"the major religious beliefs in practice today there are only two root religions. Which ones are they?"
The key point is IN PRACTICE TODAY. Every culture has INVENTED its own mythology. FACT. The fact that 2 major root religions survive today SAY NOTHING ABOUT THEIR VERACITY.Because something is popular does not make it true.
I wasn't trying to judge a whole book on those verses. There are a myriad of reasons to reject the outlandish claims made therein but the simplest is: the is no proof to believe any of it.
"My original point was to say that your picture is not an accurate representation of a world without religion. It leads the ignorant to make rash decisions and judgements. That's not to say that all who think the world would be better without religion are ignorant, just that the image is manipulative and incomplete."
First of all, the picture doesn't represent a world without religion; it simply points out that religion was a cause in the buildings' destruction(this is a fact) and infers the towers would be standing were it not for religion.(reasonable assumption) As far as the ignorant making rash decisions and judgments, um...yeah, I agree- like believing in religion in the first place! I think the world would be much better off without religion and I don't consider myself ignorant(feel free to disagree) The image is not manipulative at all, as far as complete...it is one little picture- since I don't have a JPEG of the universe...It'll have to do.
You needn't bother answering my question(s). You may consider our conversation over. It's ok.
God Bless ;-)
"For the 4th (and last) time: I picked those verses to demonstrate how at the very best the bible is ambiguous and full of contradictions."
Also for the last time, my point is that pulling a sentence out of context could make any book seem ambiguous and full of contradictions.
What you said Jesus meant by those sentences is refuted simply by reading the whole paragraph, chapter or book (most of which are only a few pages).
My point was to question the accuracy of your demonstration was seriously questionable.
I'm not trying to "convert" you. (maybe that makes me a bad Christian?). I simply wish you to recognize the weakness of the very evidence for the argument you put forth.
God Bless you also.
My opening salvo is to suggest an exploration of 'evidence'. Let's see, there was plenty of evidence that the sun revolved around the earth, there was ample documentation that the earth was flat, and mathematics at one time proved that we could never reach the moon. The medical community was certain that 'spontaneous generation' was the cause of most disease, until germ theory came along. Evidence is only as reliable as the system that evaluates it. The veracity of any evidence chances as our perspective / understanding changes. All that to say (until we have a T.O.E.) don't be too quick to hang your hat on the 'evidence'.
Atheism is indefensible since it asserts nothing. It is the default position! (we are all born atheists).
#1. Webster says:
atheism
One entry found.
atheism
Main Entry:
athe·ism Listen to the pronunciation of atheism
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
Is that nothing ?? In mathematics 0 (or nothing) is nothing. What's up Doc?
#2. Were is the 'evidence' to support the assertion that we are all born atheists ? We are born without religion --- perhaps that's what you meant to say ;)
We are all born with a marked lack of belief in god. This is what I mean when I say we are all atheists. Similarly we have no belief in the easter bunny, tooth fairy, or bigfoot. This comes with indoctrination.
Lou, in response to you "evidence" post:
Yes I agree wholeheartedly! The beauty of scientific thinking is that when new evidence comes along that demonstrates an error in our previous model you know what happens?
WE CHANGE IT!
This is in stark contrast to religion. Religion claims it has the "truth" and no amount of evidence, scientific or otherwise, will convince them.
Since there is no evidence whatsoever of a deity I take the position that one doesn't exist. In the same manner I have no evidence for the existence of little purple fairies that live in my sock drawer and dismiss this notion as well.
I make no claim that there is DEFINITELY no god. Could there be? Sure I suppose there could. I simply say that there is no reason to believe it is so.
Is it your position to say that since we cannot disprove a thing that this somehow bolsters the veracity of claims of its existence?
Ok ---- there are several issues to cover in response.
#1. No disrespect intended, but to my way of thinking atheism is an intellectual cop-out. At least the mindless automatons that follow organized religion have the nuts to tell you what they believe. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. The absence of a God is not in and of itself a belief system (its more of a disbelief system). What do you believe, what is your position? Do you denounce all forms of spirituality? When you formally articulate your views you open yourself up to criticism - a little scary to be sure ;)
#2. My point about 'evidence' was designed to proffer the notion that our scientific knowledge (math) is not the bedrock principle that most folks believe it to be. It is dynamic. What drives the changes in science? One answer is new beliefs. Beliefs are investigated (to the best of our ability), and if the results bear out the hypothesis then we develop a formula to describe it. Since our body of knowledge is constantly evolving how can you know what to believe? What's true today could be false tomorrow. In fact, you have to allow for the possibility that science at some point could prove the existence of God !!! (I did notice that you acknowledged this in the blog)
#3. TOA (talking out ass) alert ! You did not provide one bit of 'evidence' to support your assertion that we are all born with a 'marked lack of belief in God'. Is there a study, formula, or equation that I missed?
#4.I think that you used the wrong title for your blog (see below).
agnostic |agˈnästik|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Okay, allow me to reiterate my point. I never claimed to have an inside tract and complete understanding of the universe. By no means am I agnostic. I am an atheist. Agnosticism is the cop-out (maybe maybe, not who knows for sure). Agnostics straddle the fence and fail to commit to a position. Atheists firmly state that they do not believe in god.
As far as the possibility of my being wrong and a god actually existing, I have already conceded that point. So what is one to do live my life believing "just in case" as in Pascals Wager or make an educated decision based on what I know right now. No copping out is involved, I assure you.
You can not prove to me that there aren't invisible fairies living in my sock drawer and I can not prove god doesn't exist.
You choose to make an educated assumption based on your understanding of the world and it's notable lack of fairies so you ( I hope) don't believe in them. I do the same with god. Logically, it isn't a leap to go from one to the other.
To steal from Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Telling me there is an invisible space daddy that has magic powers and gives a shit about the outcome of the super bowl, sounds pretty extraordinary.
I disagree with your categorizing atheism as a "disbelief system" it is not a system of thinking at all. It is simply a position taken when it comes to the god issue. When I tell you I am an atheist you know only that I do not believe in god. That is it. Nothing else is implied at all.
I can't believe you are taking exception with my point that we are all born atheists. Do you honestly believe we are born with a belief in...oh,anything?? I don't think it is talking out of my ass at all. I didn't think this needed any "proving". It sounds pretty self-evident to me. You may make the claim that we are born with say a genetic predisposition to believe in god(s) as humans, or individually some people are born with the predisposition to be more "religious" than others; and I could see that having merit.
MMMM....
atheist = there is no God.
agnostic = there may be a God.
Vince = 'I make no claim that there is DEFINITELY no god. Could there be? Sure I suppose there could. I simply say that there is no reason to believe it is so.'
You do the 'math' ;)
One of the many reasons that I hate the democrat party is because their main claim to fame is what they appose.
The war is bad, the economy is bad, our medical system is bad, and last but not least Bush is bad.
When asked what do you support they respond - did I tell you Bush is very very bad?
I know what you don't support. Care to take a walk on the wild side and tell me what you do support?
Describe your belief system in detail. Are there any phenomena that you have experienced which seem to contradict your belief system ? Flesh it out -- be verbose !!!!
Verbose huh? I don't think I have ever been accused of brevity to excess but here goes.
To clarify this semantical point, I do not believe in god. Period. I took a stand. There it is. My personal way of thinking is primarily evidenced based and based on what I have seen I have examined the idea of god and it has been found wanting.
Since I cannot prove there is no god I cannot make the bold statement that (s)he does not exist. There is no ambiguity here but in an effort to construct a logical argument it would be incorrect to say definitively there is no god. Just as correct you cannot prove to me that there AREN'T my beloved little fairies. Because something can't be dis-proven doesn't make it true.
Agnostics fail to take a stand on the god issue.
So what do I believe? I believe in this physical realm and, inasmuch as we understand it, the physical laws that govern matter and energy (at least here on this rock). I believe when we die, that's it.No heaven, no choirs cherubim, no tearful reunions with the dearly departed, no judgment, no god. This is the only life we have.
This outlook is understandably grim to some people, but I am pretty comfortable with my mortality. I don't feel the need to model any behavior based on any "scripture" or dogma. With a constant eye on "in the next life...". I actually believe it is quite liberating.
What is the meaning of life? Why are we all here? Is there an answer to these questions?
Of Course there is:
42
Almost there -----
Are there any phenomena that you have experienced which seem to contradict your belief system ?
I suppose you mean other than Carrot Top having a career.
Nothing readily comes to mind.
I'm glad to see this blog, and this particular thread, active again!
To Id: Let's just start with a quick understanding: I am an atheist and I am absolutely certain that there is no god. I do not simply believe that there is no god, but I am as sure of this fact as I am sure that to believe otherwise is a travesty of human intellect.
Atheism is not a belief system, but it is not a disbelief system either. In fact, it is not a system at all! I agree with Sam Harris when he says that the term "atheist" should probably just go away. Atheism is not a religion for sure, nor does it prescribe any rules, values, morals, or anything of the sort; it is nothing more than to not believe in god. However, we have never seen it necessary to give a name to any similar situation. I would assume that you don't believe in wizards, but we don't have a special name for you...you just don't believe in wizards.
That being said, as Vince has already pointed out, the beauty of science is that it is always open to change. As we find new evidence, we revise our knowledge to develop a more thorough understanding of the world. When evidence appeared that disease may not be due to spontaneous generation, scientists investigated the claim, found the evidence to be compelling, and worked to greatly improve our medical knowledge. Fortunately, in this particular field, we do get to see what things would be like if we left it up to religion. You need look no further than the Christian Scientists, or Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny modern medicine, and die unnecessarily, for their inability to think rationally.
Finally, I think you are totally missing the ball with your apparent misunderstanding of the difference between faith and belief. I may believe something is true, which is to say that I accept that it probably is the way it seems. However, my acceptance of this belief is free to change at any time, as my initial acceptance was based on available evidence. Again, I think this is the best thing that science has going for it. Religious people, however, have faith, which is a complete trust in something with absolutely no evidence. It is perhaps the most convenient argument of all time: to say that you don't need proof, you just have to have faith (also probably the weakest argument of all time).
There are so many arguments that I could give to provide evidence against the existence of god...I could go on for days on end. And, after all that, you would not be able to provide a single shred of evidence, outside of the bible, for the existence of god. But still, you would continue to believe in god. Because, after all, you just have to have faith, right? I suppose you can't argue reason against something which is based so far out of the realm of reasoning.
'Do you honestly believe we are born with a belief in...oh,anything??'
No -- I never made any such claim, but you said that we are all born as atheists = 'one who believes that there is no deity' (according to the widely accepted definition - Webster)
'I believe when we die, that's it.No heaven, no choirs cherubim, no tearful reunions with the dearly departed, no judgment, no god. This is the only life we have.'
If you cannot rule out the possibility that God exists then how can you say with certainty any of the above?
'the physical laws that govern matter and energy'
How do you operationally define 'law'?
Have you considered that 'science' could be a new / different type of highly adaptive religious system complete with prophets and commandments (laws)?
A big welcome to Doogie Houser. Clearly you are a paragon of tolerance and open mindedness. Twenty something and you know it all --- got the world by the balls --- you go daddio. I've got boots older than you and they have more smarts.
'I do not simply believe that there is no god, but I am as sure of this fact as I am sure that to believe otherwise is a travesty of human intellect.'
'You need look no further than the Christian Scientists, or Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny modern medicine, and die unnecessarily, for their inability to think rationally.'
Einstein believed in God (as described by Spinoza), but I guess you have way more on the ball than he did.
'There are so many arguments that I could give to provide evidence against the existence of god...I could go on for days on end. And, after all that, you would not be able to provide a single shred of evidence, outside of the bible, for the existence of god. But still, you would continue to believe in god. Because, after all, you just have to have faith, right? I suppose you can't argue reason against something which is based so far out of the realm of reasoning.'
Ahh.. I love the smell of invective in the morning!
Lou, I think we have gotten a bit off course on this topic. The original thesis of my blog post here was that the world would be better off today sans religion. A ,by the way, that I believe I have
defended pretty well here.
In response to your points:
Regarding what I believe happens when we die, I suppose I can not rule out anything, I will give you that. While I cant be "certain" from an iron-clad logical debate point of view, what I can do is employ a bit of critical thinking, a sprinkle of logic, and just a dash of .. oh where did I put it?... oh here it is, Reason. I accept that I can not disprove god, the tooth fairy, or any myriad of silly notions. What I do is consider what is most likely and I refuse to prostrate myself before any imaginary space daddy.
However you miss the larger point. SO WHAT? Upon my demise, could there be a purple 3 headed squirrel monkey speaking Pig Latin ready to play me in an eternal game of backgammon? Again, I can not absolutely disprove this notion. Here is the important part: SO WHAT? Should the possibility of ... well...everything conceivable awaiting us when we die really affect our lives. I chose to say NO! NO! NO!
As to my definition of "law". I think I use the same definition that the scientific community does: a model of the universe based on what we have observed, constructed mathematics that describe phenomena, test our expected outcomes with experiments and while it remains reproducible, and disprovable we ordain it a law. The key here is dis-provability. Science is "humble" in the sense that it will, and has, changed the way we think of our world when new information comes to light that dis-proves a prior held theory.
Making claims about the existence of god enjoys the benefit of not being disprovable. Again just because you cannot prove something, DOES NOT make it true.
Science as a new religion: This is an interesting semantical game. At first glance I suppose many of my fellow atheists would rail against that contention. The key here is how you define religion. I suppose in some perversion one may note the parallels between science and religion where the nature of god is the "true" knowledge of the universe and prophets are those who are able to understand this information and disseminate it en masse. Following this metaphor, commandments would be the "laws" governing the universe. An interesting metaphor but little more than semantics. The traditionally held definition of religion sits in antithesis to all that science subscribes to.
As far as Einstein, So many times I have seen this little gem trotted out and proffered as "proof" by proxy that one of the (arguably) greatest minds in history was a believer in god. This is simply not true. I commend you on at least making the distinction between the "god" that Einstein believed in.
As I am sure you know, Spinoza's concept of god bears no resemblance whatsoever to the god of any religion. His god was neither anthropomorphic nor responsive. His god was the embodiment of the natural order of the universe.
In this regard I take no exception with Spinoza or Einstein; if they want to use the term "god" for the natural world, I'm all for it.
Scott, In Lou's defense, I don't think he has ever made the claim that he believes in god ( at least any popular version). Hopefully he will clear this up and give us a thumb-nail sketch of what his views on god/ religion are. I suspect we are not too far apart on the religion issue.
My purpose thus far has been to engage in the form of a Socratic dialog. I have asked many questions. When most folks use words like religion, God, law, etc, they assume that they mean the same thing to everyone. I make no such assumptions. Before there can be a meaningful exchange we must develop a Rosetta stone of sorts so that we can communicate.
My only 'opinion' so far has been on the term 'atheist'. I stand by my remarks. In my estimation taking on that type of label broadcasts that you want to engage in a philosophical discussion, but that you are too timid to describe your philosophical model. I would certainly respect the following position: "I believe in a totally probabilistic / mechanistic universe that came into existence by chance, and that no dimensions (deities) exist beyond the ability of our senses to perceive." That's man style ---- you put your s!*t out there ---- don't make me guess.
I concur, 'organized religion' is a blight. It does not make sense to me. Would the world be better off without it ??? Some of you might think that the answer is a resounding yes, but consider all the potential sequeli and unintended consequences. What would take its place? ( --- note: use the initial Iraq war plan as an example).
Now, the last major term that needs to be operationally defined is God. Any takers ?
Well slap a toga on me and fetch me a young boy. We're getting all Greeky up in here.
I do agree that in a philosophical discussion it is best to state what you believe in rather than what you do not. This however was not intended to be the forum for a debate on the nature of the universe merely my contention that the modern world would be much better without religion. More in this in a bit.
Back to my personal beliefs. I do believe in a probabilistic random universe. I do not believe in any deities. The questions of dimensions, the nature of consciousness, and what, if any, purpose there is to our meager existence are quite interesting topics that, admittedly, I do not have a complete understanding of. I suppose there are many possibilities but since philosophers have been wrestling with these questions for eons, I don't feel alone in my unanswered questions. Could there be more to the universe than we can perceive? Again, anything is possible, the more pragmatic question is what do we do about it? These are questions of a philosophical nature and, as such, seemed doomed to remained unanswered forever.
What I chose to loose sleep over is more practical matters. Such tangible things that are of a more pressing nature.
Now on to your final question: What would take religion's place?
I submit that there is no need for religion in the first place and its disappearance would predicate nothing more than the need for a whopping bolus of rational thought.(admittedly a bitter pill for many to swallow) There is nothing wrong with us as a species saying, "Hey, we know a bunch of stuff, but not everything. So instead of making shit up about magic beings let's figure out how to make things better here on this little blue rock.
Furthermore, I firmly believe that once we rip away the blinders and knock down those false walls, erected by religion, that divide us we can tap into a the most amazing force on the planet, Humanity.
Our species, hairless little monkeys that we are, are capable of incredible things. Heretofore we have been limited in our potential as we operate under the ridiculous reigns of religion (hows that for alliteration). Once we remove the chains of irrationality that bind us to provincial, superstitious, and derisive thinking we can concentrate on furthering not only our understanding of the world around us but transcend the paradigm of servitude. We will then all be gods.
While I cannot disprove the probabilistic universe, (please check out: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/human_machine.html ) it somehow 'seems' counterintuitive 'to me'. At times I can almost hear him saying 'God does not play dice'. I guess I would group myself with the scientific pantheism crowd; at least I'm in good company;)
Quantum theory (I have very limited knowledge here) does not appear to endorse a totally random universe. Probability breaks down after a certain point and can no longer adequately explain 'everything'.
Comments ??
True, but in addition to the "dice" comment, Einstein called quantum theory "spooky".
'I submit that there is no need for religion in the first place and its disappearance would predicate nothing more than the need for a whopping bolus of rational thought.(admittedly a bitter pill for many to swallow) There is nothing wrong with us as a species saying, "Hey, we know a bunch of stuff, but not everything. So instead of making shit up about magic beings let's figure out how to make things better here on this little blue rock.
Furthermore, I firmly believe that once we rip away the blinders and knock down those false walls, erected by religion, that divide us we can tap into a the most amazing force on the planet, Humanity.'
------------------------------------
I am no fan of 'organized religion', but remember the axiom 'doctor do no harm'. Change (esp. precipitous change) always has the potential to make things worse (tell that to Obama). Star Trek TOS --- 'Return of the Archons' ---- tackled this very question, but Kirk didn't stick around to see what happened after he pulled Landru's plug ;) If you don't have a copy (every red blooded heterosexual American male should have the ST TOS series) I will hook you up.
You would be able to handle the transition (well, not really a transition for you), but look around at your fellow hominids ---- what do you see? If you get rid of organized religions would you get more cults like Jim Jones? People (the vast majority) don't impress me as critical thinkers.
Do no harm would be a great axiom to follow here, except there is already harm, and BIG harm at that, being done by organized religion. (see World for complete mathematical proof)
Given the state of our world today, I say, "Lets go ahead and roll the dice!" (If you want to make an omlette you gotta break a few eggs)
Alas, at the end of the day I am a realist and understand the incredible inertia that would have to be overcome to effect any real change. I also understand that there would be powerful forces, aside from religion, that may oppose a sudden run on critical thinking. (a certain government comes to mind)
But a brother can dream.
Live long and prosper!
(see World for complete mathematical proof)
VERY GOOD !!!!
I fail to see how comparing my age to that of your boots provides a good argument against anything that I said. I would hope that you do not believe that one's ability to form a compelling argument, or to engage in a constructive discussion, is at all correlated to that person's age. I will admit that not knowing you, I may have been prematurely harsh. However, even if what I said does not fully apply to you, I do stand by what I said; I believe that religion is dangerous, and that it takes an enormous lapse of judgement to believe in god, when there is such a vast mountain of evidence against his existence.
Honestly, I am not incredibly tolerant of religion, but that is not to say I am not open minded. If there were a way to prove the existence of god, I'd certainly be willing to listen and evaluate the evidence. And, as I enjoy religious discussions, I do take the time to listen to people with views that differ from mine. However, I really do not see the need to respect other people's religious beliefs.
Again, I'll refer back to Sam Harris (If you have not read his books or listened to him speak, I'd recommend you do so). As he points out, nowhere else, outside of religion, do we respect people's beliefs. Rather, we evaluate their reasons. If their reasons are good enough, you will necessarily believe what they believe; reason is contagious. However, if someone said they believed that slavery must return, the holocaust never happened, or that the Sun revolved around the Earth, you would not respect their beliefs. And you definitely would not find them in political office or as president of a public university! This prejudice is fine, until you change the subject to god, and all bets are off.
Do I care what people do on their private time? No, not really. The US guarantees the freedom of religion and I am not necessarily against this freedom. However, I do take issue when religious beliefs begin to encroach on the well being of society. When the government will not fund embryonic stem cell research, because some people believe that the "life" of an unborn clump of cells is just as precious as that of a living, suffering human being, I take issue. When children are denied life saving or life lengthening medical treatment because their parents place think it's acceptable to place their child's life in god's hands, I have major concerns. And, when people take literally god's direct instructions to kill anyone who would not believe in him, I become very afraid.
Scott-
I've worked in Newark, Jersey City, and Philadelphia so I am plenty used to 'harsh', and quite frankly I find it refreshing. In the arena of epistemology / philosophy there is precious little firm ground. As far as science is concerned, what we know pales in comparison to what we don't understand. A discourse on the subject of God / religion / atheism demands tolerance because no one can 'prove' a Goddamn thing.
When it comes to other more earthly / concrete issues .... like affirmative action or hate crime legislation ... the NAPA ... well let's just say I could give you a run for your money in the no tolerance department ;)
However, if someone said they believed that slavery must return,
holocaust never happened, or that the Sun revolved around the Earth, you would not respect their beliefs. And you definitely would not find them in political office or as president of a public university!
Hello !!!! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad !!!
David Duke, Robert Byrd, yada yada yada.
When the government will not fund embryonic stem cell research, because some people believe that the "life" of an unborn clump of cells is just as precious as that of a living, suffering human being, I take issue.
Be very careful here. Devalue any life and you devalue all life. Mengele felt that he was equipped to judge which life was worth more than another. Slippery slope !!
A discourse on the subject of God / religion / atheism demands tolerance because no one can 'prove' a Goddamn thing.
[I have to disagree with this. We can prove evolution, we can probe the earth is more than 6000 years old, we can prove that medicine effects treatment (and prayer does not), etc. etc. etc... The fact that religious people flatly deny scientific truths in the face of overwhelming evidence, for their totally unfounded beliefs, is one of my biggest issues with religion]
Hello !!!! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad !!!
David Duke, Robert Byrd, yada yada yada.
[Well, everyone makes mistakes sometimes. However, my point was that we do not respect beliefs outside of religion. And, I would hope that very few people in the US respect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's beliefs. The two others are unfortunate, but I'd like to think that they're just the leftover products of a somewhat embarassing past. But again, however they got into office, I doubt many people respect their racist beliefs.]
Be very careful here. Devalue any life and you devalue all life. Mengele felt that he was equipped to judge which life was worth more than another. Slippery slope !!
[I do not have any qualms valuing the life of living, breathing, feeling, and thinking human over that of a clump of undifferentiated cells. Perhaps you could make this argument for abortion issues (particularly partial birth abortions - another argument for another time), but I do not think it's a valid argument against stem cell research. A stem cell is no different than any other cell in your body, except that the others have undergone differentiation to express certain genes. And, with new developments in medical research, nearly any cell in your body could be transformed back into a stem cell. So, every time you scratch your nose, you're committing a holocaust of potential humans. A countless number of egg and sperm cells are wasted every day, but nobody cries for them. What's the harm in taking a few of those and building some new tissue so that people with debilitating or deadly diseases can have a better life? Only when you accept the idea that the soul enters the body at conception could you possibly begin to think that an embryo and a living person are equal.]
[I have to disagree with this. We can prove evolution, we can probe the earth is more than 6000 years old, we can prove that medicine effects treatment (and prayer does not), etc. etc. etc... The fact that religious people flatly deny scientific truths in the face of overwhelming evidence, for their totally unfounded beliefs, is one of my biggest issues with religion]
Scott, Scott, Scott, you are bolstering my case about the boots.
Don't regurgitate --- think --- you sound like Jimmy Swaggart !!
You claim to be devoted to science --- so what can you know for sure ??? Nothing. All your bedrock 'truths' could evaporate like water on a hot tin roof tomorrow if a new paradigm comes along. Additionally, you speak as though science is one big monolithic entity where everyone agrees about everything. Wrong. So which scientists are you going to believe?? The numerical majority? Einstein was a minority of one. Are you seeing the big picture yet? As you learn / experience more you will realize just how much uncertainty there is in everything. If you don't come to that conclusion then you have a closed mind like the religious zealots.
Science, religion, and government are all the same animal, but with different masks. They employ dissimilar mechanisms, but they achieve similar effects. THINK !!!! The drug companies use corrupted scientists to push their agenda, the energy companies distort science to suit their goals, the government slants science to further societal change. Do you remember how Arlene Specter twisted ballistic science to produce the magic bullet? How many dissenting scientists have been muzzled or even killed ? How many scientific advances are right now being kept from 'the people'? Do you think that the periodic table of elements that you have access to is as complete as it could be?
Any endeavor that involves humans is influenced by our shortcomings. Nothing we touch is pure.
I am a fan of science. It does many wonderful things. The key is to maintain perspective, and avoid getting sucked down the rabbit hole by ANYTHING or ANYONE.
Only when you accept the idea that the soul enters the body at conception could you possibly begin to think that an embryo and a living person are equal.]
So, Dr. Mengele, at what point is a human a human. Must the POC totally emerge from the vagina before it is a 'human life'? If you catch it half the way out of the birth canal should you be able to kill it? Please explain in detail how / when 'human life' begins. Also, please tell me where you plan to practice so I can avoid that region.
Lou, while I suppose it is true that what we consider "true" could , as you put it, evaporate tomorrow should a new paradigm come along, you fail to address the practical. Again, I say SO WHAT?
At any point while we were skydiving did you doubt that the density of air, the square footage of the canopy, and Bernoulli's principle would combine to effect your landing safely? I have never known you to be suicidal so I will assume: NO!
We must ascribe a certain likelihood to what we understand to not fall apart. True we may be missing the whole picture, but the model we have constructed seems to fit just about every circumstance we can observe. I take no small modicum of comfort from this.
I agree with you that we need more thinking and not regurgitation, but let's not throw out what we currently know to be true on the (unlikely at this point) chance that some more elegant explanation comes along.
I must agree with Scott here, I don't think any credible scientists argue that the earth is greater than 6000 yrs old, or that prayer yields no discernible results, and despite what the embarrassing propaganda the creationists churn out, that yes, Virginia there is evolution.
There is a slight difference that probably needs distinction here. There is Science and there is the Scientific method. While I agree that the scientific world has, on occasion, been swayed by external forces, ego, a lack of integrity etc. etc.; there remains the scientific method. This is what I hold very dear. It and it alone allows us the best chance of coming to grips with "truth". Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Perhaps we can hold the bioethical when does life begin debate for another post
'any credible scientists'
Please tell me, were either Galileo or Einstein considered by their contemporaries to be credible? Come on ! How many Einsteins never came to light because they threatened the establishment in unacceptable ways?
All you can say about evolution is that is appears to be true --- today. Tomorrow, well, tomorrow is another day.
What does 'credible' mean? (to you) I suspect it means that the scientist is following the party line; that he is producing results which support the accepted paradigm. In 1905, how would you have judged Einstein ? If you would have called him a quack you would have been right, and you would have also been very wrong.
Who solved the really tough cases Scully or Mulder --- get with the program !!!
What we know pales in comparison to what we don't understand ---- so how can we be 'sure' about anything that we 'know'?
'There is Science and there is the Scientific method. While I agree that the scientific world has, on occasion, been swayed by external forces, ego, a lack of integrity etc. etc.; there remains the scientific method. This is what I hold very dear. It and it alone allows us the best chance of coming to grips with "truth". Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.'
The same argument can be made for religion / government.
Science is a construct developed and practiced by flawed humans, so how can you expect anything but flawed results?
Every time I get on a plane --- I have to force myself not to run out before takeoff ---- heavier than air flight is based on Newtonian physics ------ Newton was not right / correct ----- he made many mistakes. I have a pucker factor of 12 on a ten scale during every flight. Those 'mysterious crashes' in my mind are testament to our gaps in understanding.
We have to be ready to throw out what we know at a moments notice if we subscribe to the 'scientific method' / 'scientific paradigm'.
'prayer yields no discernible results'
Is the placebo effect just BS ? There are 'scientists' who support it ;) Perhaps they are not "credible".
Okay. When I talk about credible scientist I am referring to those whose results are reproducible. The is the bedrock upon which science is built. In this regard, Yes Newton and even Einstein were/ are credible. This is not to say they weren't revolutionaries but radical ideas notwithstanding their work was reproducible.
While humans are flawed (some of us more than others) the scientific method is not flawed at all! You may make the argument that we haven't asked the right questions or designed the right experiments yet, but how can you find fault with the process?
You say:
We have to be ready to throw out what we know at a moments notice if we subscribe to the 'scientific method' / 'scientific paradigm'.
Well that's just it. This is the beauty of the scientific method. We ARE ready to change our thinking should sufficient data come to light. Science is not dogmatic at all; it is transparent (you can duplicate the experiment for yourself) and can, will, and has been willing to revise the model we offer up as 'correct'. It is in this regard that the scientific method is beyond reproach. What other system of thinking offers this openness?
I will again invoke the quote that "One should have an open mind; just not so open that his brains fall out!"
Finally, there is a BIG difference between the placebo effect and the supposed "power of prayer". Science ABSOLUTELY acknowledges the former. This is the basis for the double blind study!
Prayer has failed miserably in controlled experiments that randomly assigned patients to receive intercessionary prayer. There was no statistical difference between the groups.
I do not discount that people who beleive their prayers will be answered may have a better chance of seeing medical benefit. I would file this under placebo effect since you cannot divorce the "power of positive thinking" aspect.
To put some perspective on the whole science debate, I admit we most certainly do not understand everything. But let us not try to fill in these gaps of knowledge with just any ass-clownery, metaphysics, or religious notions we might imagine . Let the theories stand up to the same rigors of testing that accepted theories have endured.
We certainly have just begun to grasp the smallest percentage of the universe around us, but the method is sound.
'While humans are flawed (some of us more than others) the scientific method is not flawed at all!'
Vince is that really you? November-Foxtrot-Whiskey !!!
Read that statement back to yourself a few times. It has a very distinctive Falwell-like tone. Are you a closet Bible thumper?
So let me get this straight, the flawed hairless ape developed a flawless system. Would you like to buy my perpetual motion machine, or perhaps a really cool bridge in NYC?
My head is exploding !!!!!!
Imperfection produced perfection? With all due respect, you are as bad as the bible which suggests that perfection produced imperfection !
flawless |ˈflôləs|
adjective
without any blemishes or imperfections; perfect
I can't wait to hear your response to this one !!!!!
Again with the semantics!
Come on, really, "perfect from imperfect"- is this your argument?
So humans have made nothing "perfect"? Hmm.
Have you seen the Shakira My hips don't lie video? The defense rests.
What do you see as the "flaw" in the scientific method exactly?
Re-read my post and tell me how I am wrong. Semantics aside. Perfect /non perfect humbug! What about pretty damn good and the best we got? Does that make you and your pet dictionary happy? :-)
Side Note: It is Newtonian Physics that rules out the possibility of a perpetual motion machine. Aren't you the one who is casting stones at my cathedral of science? Perhaps in your reality one may exist ;)
'The best we got' .... 'pretty damn good' ..... I agree 100%.
My point is not semantic. Give it the "flawless" label and you have created a religion. Words matter. The meaning of "is" matters ;)
A true 'scientist' has to be willing to accept that a particular theory could be disproved, and that the scientific method itself could at some point be replaced.
I envy you your certainty and willingness to believe ---- really ---- gray is no fun.
Okay we can agree that it is the best we've got. This is what I am "willing to believe" I can't, with my inadequate cerebrum, imagine a better way. But I suppose it is possible and when and if that day comes I will wave the flag with you.
Words matter, I agree. But this debate has taken a turn that, if not semantical, certainly is hypothetical beyond reason and purely academic. What if my grandmother had any balls? She'd be my grandfather.
I would hope that you understand that I don't blindly subscribe to anything nor do I rule anything out a priori. My most recent point is that science, or shall I say the scientific method, and religion are markedly different beasts.
"What if my grandmother had any balls? She'd be my grandfather."
Great !!! Love it !! I use that one all the time. ;)
Let's test your s@!t at a drop zone somewhere --- see if it holds up for a few jumps ;)
Agreed!
With that I shall call this particular equine beast demised and we shall beat upon him no longer.
Ah...wish I kept up on the thread yesterday, it would appear that I missed out on a lot!
In any case, do I remember correctly that you're in Delaware, Vince? If so, you're not far from my favorite DZ!! I didn't know you were a skydiver. Perhaps when I get back to the US, we can talk about what it's like to be done in SXM, you can give me some USMLE hints, and we can jump out of a plane! I haven't been in probably a year now, only made one jump after my A license!
oh, and P.S. -
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/300042
Scott, Actually I'm in Philadelphia but I have jumped at Laurel, DE.
Sure, sounds good.
Post a Comment