[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51121855]Most religion does conflict science, but religion is up for interpretation and cherry-picking, so while the beliefs may conflict with how nature works according to what science tells us, religion doesn't have to have to conflict with science in society.[/QUOTE]
Although, What's the point of holding up your message as the stated truth of a god/gods if you can pick things out of it by either one's personal feelings or the vote of a Committee?
If you determine that you are moral by your own sense of what is moral anyway.. Why not cut religion out?
All religions do this, and they still turn up extremely amoral and flawed in nearly all instances. So logically, nobody has ever seen the shadow of a god, and were just playing out the politics of a long-dead society. I/e, ancient Palestine in the case of Christianity. Christians are essentially letting themselves be dictated to by politicians from 2000 years ago.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51121881]If someone is absurd and religious they would likely still be absurd without religion.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't see how. Religion is the one thing telling him how certain things should be irrelevant of what science and personal believe may say, for example. The thing that he is expected by his peers and superiors to follow.
Religion in many cases is basically pressuring a person into accepting all its ideologies, including its absurdities - even though there are obviously religious people that can see past them. That's why we're talking about people who had no good/reliable access to education, and sadly these make up a fairly big percentage of the population depending on the country. At worst, it's only [I]one[/I] of the bad influences a person in this situation can have, and even then the fact that other bad influences exist does not excuse this one. And vice versa, obviously.
Not to mention straight up indoctrination of children, in which case - depending on the severity - no amount of education helps them create their own beliefs while tolerating others.
Which is why a move towards secularism is a good thing. Obviously it's important to remember, that secularism, to quote Google, is the "belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education". Separating Church and State, not condemning religion.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51121881]If someone is absurd and religious they would likely still be absurd without religion.[/QUOTE]
Well the difference is that Religion makes for a strong, magically tinted justification. Pretty much as i stated above.
[QUOTE=SirJon;51121897]Well I don't see how. Religion is the one thing telling him how certain things should be irrelevant of what science and personal believe may say, for example. The thing that he is expected by his peers and superiors to follow.
Religion in many cases is basically pressuring a person into accepting all its ideologies, including its absurdities - even though there are obviously religious people that can see past them. That's why we're talking about people who had no good/reliable access to education, and sadly these make up a fairly big percentage of the population depending on the country. Not to mention straight up indoctrination of children, in which case usually no amount of education helps them create their own beliefs while tolerating others.
Which is why a move towards secularism is a good thing.[/QUOTE]
If someone is dumb enough to drink the coolaid because a guy in a robe told him that an invisible thing said he say to then they would be dumb enough to drink the coolaid for their country/love/tribe/gang.
Maybe you're right though. Maybe in absence of religion people wouldn't seek to brainwash people and people might be be brainwashed. Maybe those wars over resources, land and influence; which are blamed on religion wouldn't occur. I don't buy it though.
Brainwashing would still happen as would stupidity, jet fuel + steel beams etc.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51121967]If someone is dumb enough to drink the coolaid because a guy in a robe told him that an invisible thing said he say to then they would be dumb enough to drink the coolaid for their country/love/tribe/gang.
Maybe you're right though. Maybe in absence of religion people wouldn't seek to brainwash people and people might be be brainwashed. Maybe those wars over resources, land and influence; which are blamed on religion wouldn't occur. I don't buy it though.
Brainwashing would still happen as would stupidity, jet fuel + steel beams etc.[/QUOTE]
Yeah you have a point I think
[QUOTE=SirJon;51121897]
Which is why a move towards secularism is a good thing. Obviously it's important to remember, that secularism, to quote Google, is the "belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education". Separating Church and State, not condemning religion.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this completely.
but.
I think 2 equal societies, 1 with a state mandated religion and 1 without, I think the state mandated religion would be more stable and its people would ensure more hardships, it would also help better assimilate people better. It is not preferable but it is, I believe, more successful. I would still endorse a secular state and I am personally an agnostic atheist.
That said, maybe I'm wrong, the Persians and Mongols didn't force people to adopt religions (while going through their strongest) and allowed people to worship what they liked, so perhaps I'm chatting shit.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51121206]atheism is either disbelief or lack of belief
your point is fine with disbelief, but completely falls apart when it comes to lack of belief
believing that there definitely isn't a god makes you an atheist
not having a belief that there is a god makes you an atheist.[/QUOTE]
Technically, atheism is merely the lack of belief. A firm disbelief, however, is called antitheism. Though the distinction is rarely ever made by people.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;51121893]Although, What's the point of holding up your message as the stated truth of a god/gods if you can pick things out of it by either one's personal feelings or the vote of a Committee?
If you determine that you are moral by your own sense of what is moral anyway.. Why not cut religion out?
All religions do this, and they still turn up extremely amoral and flawed in nearly all instances. So logically, nobody has ever seen the shadow of a god, and were just playing out the politics of a long-dead society. I/e, ancient Palestine in the case of Christianity. Christians are essentially letting themselves be dictated to by politicians from 2000 years ago.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but there is no good way of cutting religion out so you kinda just have to focus on more concrete issues and let religion sorta fade away in the back
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51121826]A lot, and I mean a LOT of faiths directly conflict science, with no way around it
Humans cannot part seas. They cannot go 40 days without eating, sleeping, or drinking. We do not "reincarnate" based on "karma." We do not have spirits that protect our family after death.[/QUOTE]
... None of those are scientific claims. They aren't saying that Moses split the sea, but that God directly intervened to part the red sea.
In order to believe in miracles you must first believe that there's a normal way that things work. Miracle claims establish science, not contradict science.
Exactly - the reason they are 'miracles' is because they go against what normally happens (ie. traditional science).
Which still suggests the miracles actually happen.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51122482]
In order to believe in miracles you must first believe that there's a normal way that things work. Miracle claims establish science, not contradict science.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but in order to believe in miracles, you must also believe in miracles, which is where the problems start.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;51122599]Which still suggests the miracles actually happen.[/QUOTE]
No, it suggests that things we don't understand happen.
(if you mean 'miracle' as in divine intervention of some sort)
Or miracle as how they're described as happening: seas parting, Jesus, talking snakes, Noah's ark etc
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51122605]Yes, but in order to believe in miracles, you must also believe in miracles, which is where the problems start.[/QUOTE]
What? What problems in reality are caused by believing in miracles having happened in the Bible?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51122687]What? What problems in reality are caused by believing in miracles having happened in the Bible?[/QUOTE]
Lack of critical thinking and skepticism, misunderstanding and ignorance about science, and unrealistic ideas about reality
[editline]28th September 2016[/editline]
For starters
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51122687]What? What problems in reality are caused by believing in miracles having happened in the Bible?[/QUOTE]
Your atheistic Christianity is confusing.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;51122799]Lack of critical thinking and skepticism, misunderstanding and ignorance about science, and unrealistic ideas about reality
[editline]28th September 2016[/editline]
For starters[/QUOTE]
You'll get mouth breathers religion or not.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;51122799]Lack of critical thinking and skepticism, misunderstanding and ignorance about science, and unrealistic ideas about reality
[editline]28th September 2016[/editline]
For starters[/QUOTE]
And what in practice does this mean? Does it really matter whether a scientist believes that God parted the red sea and Jesus fed the five thousand and turned water into wine or not? In practice, for the vast majority of religious people, believing in Biblical miracles does not affect their views on ordinary science. There are a few issues which remain as exceptions - most notably evolution (for some but far, far from all Christians) - but that is very much the exception and not the norm.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51122850]And what in practice does this mean? Does it really matter whether a scientist believes that God parted the red sea and Jesus fed the five thousand and turned water into wine or not? In practice, for the vast majority of religious people, believing in Biblical miracles does not affect their views on ordinary science. There are a few issues which remain as exceptions - most notably evolution (for some but far, far from all Christians) - but that is very much the exception and not the norm.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, but the fact remains that they're being dishonest with themselves. They're making a convenient exception for themselves to accommodate the social or cultural pressure toward being religious, as well as thier own wishful thinking.
What? How are they being dishonest with themselves? Why would God (which you can't disprove, as much as you can't prove) not be able to bend the laws of physics and science at his whim? Why is it 'dishonest' and 'wishful thinking' to simply have an exception to these laws for a supernatural omnipotent being that basically doesn't affect anything whatsoever in practice?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51121881]If someone is absurd and religious they would likely still be absurd without religion.[/QUOTE]
huh?
what if they are being absurd about their religion, so Islamic extremists would be extreme but without Islam?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51123211]Why would God (which you can't disprove, as much as you can't prove) not be able to bend the laws of physics and science at his whim?[/QUOTE]
The burden of proof applies to any subject, even men in the sky. Unless you refute the scientific method, then there's no way to avoid the idea that you have to prove something exists, rather than prove it does not.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51122850]And what in practice does this mean? Does it really matter whether a scientist believes that God parted the red sea and Jesus fed the five thousand and turned water into wine or not? In practice, for the vast majority of religious people, believing in Biblical miracles does not affect their views on ordinary science. There are a few issues which remain as exceptions - most notably evolution (for some but far, far from all Christians) - but that is very much the exception and not the norm.[/QUOTE]
Christians only dismiss evolution as the start of human life, they don't dismiss it out of hand.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51123211]What? How are they being dishonest with themselves? Why would God (which you can't disprove, as much as you can't prove) not be able to bend the laws of physics and science at his whim? Why is it 'dishonest' and 'wishful thinking' to simply have an exception to these laws for a supernatural omnipotent being that basically doesn't affect anything whatsoever in practice?[/QUOTE]
Because if it doesn't affect anything, has no evidence for it's existence, and is not needed for any explanation for the universe, than it is pointless to even consider it, because the amount of equally unfalsifiable things one can believe in is limitless, and there's no reason to pick one or the other, other than one fitting your idea of how you want things to be.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;51123260]huh?
what if they are being absurd about their religion, so Islamic extremists would be extreme but without Islam?[/QUOTE]
Yup coz the factors which made them think that way - long term exploitation and humilitation by first the brits then the yanks along with current poor socio-economic conditions and instability - would still be there. They'd just have found a different ideology. USSR brand "Socialism" or perhaps some ethnic supremacy thing like the nazis had are 2 possible candidates.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51123289]Because if it doesn't affect anything, has no evidence for it's existence, and is not needed for any explanation for the universe, than it is pointless to even consider it, because the amount of equally unfalsifiable things one can believe in is limitless, and there's no reason to pick one or the other, other than one fitting your idea of how you want things to be.[/QUOTE]
Considering the human race is going to die out eventually, all things are pointless. Might as well look to the sky and consider the unknowable while we're at it.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51123300]Yup coz the factors which made them think that way - long term exploitation and humilitation by first the brits then the yanks along with current poor socio-economic conditions and instability - would still be there. They'd just have found a different ideology. USSR brand "Socialism" or perhaps some ethnic supremacy thing like the nazis had are 2 possible candidates.[/QUOTE]
How so?
they wouldn't be victims if they weren't muslims?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51123211]What? How are they being dishonest with themselves? Why would God (which you can't disprove, as much as you can't prove) not be able to bend the laws of physics and science at his whim? Why is it 'dishonest' and 'wishful thinking' to simply have an exception to these laws for a supernatural omnipotent being that basically doesn't affect anything whatsoever in practice?[/QUOTE]
because the nature of science is that if a miracle happened, it would not be a "breach" of the rules of science, because science changes to explain phenomena
a miracle is a miracle until it happens, at which point, it becomes part of reality
"an exception to the laws" is completely nonsensical, because the "laws" are only such until they are violated, at which point the exception becomes part of the law
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51123370]because the nature of science is that if a miracle happened, it would not be a "breach" of the rules of science, because science changes to explain phenomena
a miracle is a miracle until it happens, at which point, it becomes part of reality
"an exception to the laws" is completely nonsensical, because the "laws" are only such until they are violated, at which point the exception becomes part of the law[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, I'm sure that all of the religious scientists around are busy trying to work out new laws to obey the actions of God and disregarding all the evidence they have around them. When they examine tides, they of course have to take into account the parting of the Red Sea by God when observing anything. When looking at mass, they need to take into account the fact that God was able to feed the five thousand with only a tiny amount of bread and fish and put that right there in their equations. Sure, this may be correct on a very theoretical level, but in practice, on *most* (not all, of course!) issues this doesn't occur.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
