Summer means no religion or politics?

[Khris]

"There's no god" isn't the default position just for science. Because there must have been a first person to wonder how we came to be and as a consequence suggested a supernatural cause, and up until that specific point in time, the concept of a god didn't exist.
Of course one could argue that the concept that there is no god didn't exist until then either.
On the other hand though, would you argue that the concept that there aren't any fairies isn't the default position?

All experimental science must assume a purely naturalistic world (and usually does so without thinking about it). Otherwise it wouldn't work. Even the most staunch believers don't include the possibility of a divine intervention into their lab work. They readily admit this.

Technically, those are equally valid concepts.

I don't think so. Consider the concept of there being the classical Luminiferous aether. It was proposed, researched, then ditched. Scientific consensus fell back to the default position of there being no aether.
And just because the god hypothesis can not be disproven doesn't make it equally valid as the default position.

Jim Reed:
You quoted Misj', not me.

Edit: I just remembered something from The God Delusion about the age-old argument that the question of God's existence cannot be addressed by scientists because it is outside the realm of science.
But now suppose science discovered a method to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that there actually is a supernatural, omnipotent being.
Could you imagine there'd be any theologian who'd say "well, doesn't matter to me, God's outside the realm of science"?

[Misj']

"There's no god" isn't the default position just for science. Because there must have been a first person to wonder how we came to be and as a consequence suggested a supernatural cause, and up until that specific point in time, the concept of a god didn't exist. Of course one could argue that the concept that there is no god didn't exist until then either.

Sorry Khris, but this is a pre-assumption based on the non-existence of (the Jewish) God. To show what I mean take the following:

IF God created everything, and IF he told the first humans, than technically the 'there is a God' came before people started doubting this, and the 'there is no god' came into existence. That would than imply that the 'there is a God' was the default. So if God was known from the beginning this reasoning is not valid (and this is a historical question, not a scientific one).

What I wanted to point out is that using exactly the same argumentation it can 'proof' the opposite point of view. To loosely quote the mathematician Kurt Gödel: you can't proof a hypothesis from within the hypothesis. (and for those who do not know Kurt Gödel: brilliant mathematician, German but went to the US during the war, friends with Einstein...you get the idea).

All experimental science must assume a purely naturalistic world (and usually does so without thinking about it). Otherwise it wouldn't work. Even the most staunch believers don't include the possibility of a divine intervention into their lab work. They readily admit this.

However, the existence of a god does not chance anything for the true sciences; since science concerns the mechanisms. A cell won't work differently if it was created or not. Everything that we measure about the world works the way it does independent of how it came into existence.



Ps. I'm still not discussing whether or not God is.



Real, actual, studied scientists say: "Chris Jones is responsible for the Adventure Game Studio (AGS)".

[Jim Reed]

Oh...my mistake, and my apologies KrisMUC. But the question remains nevertheless. Misj'?
Why would a person be good to other people?

[Misj']

But the question remains nevertheless. Misj'? - Why would a person be good to other people?

Depends on whom you ask. Answers range from everything to 'the game theory' to 'God gave humans a general notion of what's right' to 'just because'.

I really don't care about the 'why'-question...I care about the fact whether they actually do or not.  

[Jim Reed]

Well, I ask you, please. What do you think?

[miguel]

Khris, when you say after the war then it means after releasing the atomic bomb right? Well, it's clearly a defensive stance, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki everything changed politically and military super nations started thinking that they could be next. The reason Japan hasn't fight back by now it's purely commercial, and the fact that their culture is something else.
You are trying to imply that the Bomb was constructed by religious motifs or even ordered by the Baptist Church and that is just the silliest thing I've heard since the last episode of "Family Guy".
Child molesting priests do bring shame to the Church, Khris. But it's not like if you repeat it several times that you're going to change anything.
Unless you think that a priest molester is worse than a doctor?
If a priest should have higher moral standards because he follows God then all who don't follow God are less responsible for their villainies? 

[Misj']

Well, I ask you, please. What do you think?

I think that if I'm hungry, and you give me a piece of bread, the bread won't taste any better or worse based on your motivation for giving it (unless you motivation was to poison me, but I was thinking happy thoughts).

[guitar_hero]

All experimental science must assume a purely naturalistic world (and usually does so without thinking about it). Otherwise it wouldn't work. Even the most staunch believers don't include the possibility of a divine intervention into their lab work. They readily admit this.

It's only convenient to work that way. But who decided what is "natural" and what isn't? It's just a definition. And it's another more ore less random decision to base not only our scientific work, but even our political system and whole society on that definition. Who tells us that's right? As Misj' said, you can't proof a hypothesis from within the hypothesis.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's bad. It's a good basis for learning about biological processes and for building computers. But a just naturalistic view of the world is not enough. It's not appropiate (and it definitely is not how we live our daily lives). Either we let go of science as the ultimate source of truth and rather see it for what it is, a tool. Or we need to develop an idea of what a "new" science could look like, and that one surely is not bound to the actual definition of the natural and supernatural.

However, the existence of a god does not chance anything for the true sciences; since science concerns the mechanisms. A cell won't work differently if it was created or not. Everything that we measure about the world works the way it does independent of how it came into existence.

Actually what we can study are not "the mechanisms". A "mechanism" is an abstract construct we build by putting together our pieces of observations with some other data, defined by a set of what we call "scientific" rules. (Another time: more or less random rules. Practical for all kinds of things but they're not a given and can't say anything about truth.)

[Khris]

Khris, when you say after the war then it means after releasing the atomic bomb right? Well, it's clearly a defensive stance, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki everything changed politically and military super nations started thinking that they could be next. The reason Japan hasn't fight back by now it's purely commercial, and the fact that their culture is something else.
You are trying to imply that the Bomb was constructed by religious motifs or even ordered by the Baptist Church and that is just the silliest thing I've heard since the last episode of "Family Guy".
Child molesting priests do bring shame to the Church, Khris. But it's not like if you repeat it several times that you're going to change anything.

Oh come on, don't (pretend to) be thick.
Nowhere have I said remotely "that the bomb was constructed by religious motifs". You made the absurd claim that scientists are directly responsible for the use of those bombs. I just said that the men who actually decided to use them where all religious people and not scientists themselves. Please don't mangle my words and their meaning.
I repeated who I considered to be evil since you replied like I had said god was evil.
Please read my posts carefully and don't reinterpret them and we can stop wasting time, thanks.

Unless you think that a priest molester is worse than a doctor?
If a priest should have higher moral standards because he follows God then all who don't follow God are less responsible for their villainies?

No, of course the fuck not.
But why are there so many sick people who are deeply religious at the same time? That's an obvious contradiction if religion is the one true way to being a moral and good person.
It has been said before: there's a strong correlation between a) high percentage of religious people b) lots of general violence/crime c) a low quality of life.
Compare Texas to Finland, the numbers are out there.

[miguel]

Of course scientists are directly responsible for the Atomic Bomb. Unless they had guns pointed to their heads they were the ones that made it possible. It is common knowledge that politicians can't count.
And to say that the men who decided to use it were religious people is a bit vague isn't it?
The US are by official definition a religious country, it's in their constitution and no American president ever claimed to be an atheist.

Why don't you ask why are so many sick people. Period?
About numbers, 80% of the Finish population is Lutheran and being a very organized, literate country where average life is stable, it's odd to find that the other 20% are part of the highest number of suicides per year.
The numbers are out there, but still here are some official numbers:
Suicides per 100,000 people
Lithuania        38.6    2005
Belarus        35.1    2003
Russia        32.2    2005
Slovenia        26.3    2006
Hungary        26.0    2005
Kazakhstan     25.9    2005
Latvia        24.5    2005
Japan See: Su    23.7    2006
Guyana        22.9    2005
Ukraine        22.6    2005
South Korea     21.9    2006
Sri Lanka[2]   21.6    1996
Belgium        21.1    1997
Estonia        20.3    2005
Finland        20.1    2005   --- Here's Finland
Croatia    30.5    9.7    19.7    2005
Serbia and Montenegro    19.5    2006
Moldova        17.8    2006
France        17.6    2005
Switzerland     17.6    2005
Hong Kong     17.4    2005
Poland        15.8    2005
Austria        15.6    2006
Czech Republic   15.3    2005
Uruguay        15.1    2001
People's Republic of China    13.9    1999
Denmark            13.7    2001
Sweden            13.3    2002
Seychelles[3]   13.2    1998
New Zealand[4]13.2    2008
Bulgaria        13.0    2004
Germany        13.0    2004
Trinidad and Tobago    Slovakia    Romania    Cuba    Suriname    Bosnia and Herzegovina...    
Norway    ...
Canada    ...
Iceland    ...
Portugal    ...
United States    17.7    4.5    11.1    2005

What do numbers prove? Texas has more than 80% of religious people? Texas is more violent than Finland? The quality of life in Texas is worse?
Well, non-religious people kill themselves in Finland.
And this is official, Finish are registered on their chosen religion. 

[MrColossal]

So Miguel, why would a religious president drop an atomic bomb on a city full of innocent people?

[miguel]

Because they had the means to do it.

[MrColossal]

But the religious president ordered it be made.

[miguel]

I'm sure he ordered it in the name of God if he had to, but Truman wasn't what I'd call a true Catholic, even if I said that the US presidents aren't or were not atheists.
Truman was part of the darkest part of history of the US.

[MrColossal]

Ok, thank you.

[Khris]

Seriously miguel, you need to READ MORE CAREFULLY.

Scientists may be responsible for the design or even construction of the bomb, but they didn't order the drop nor did they execute the drop (=use the bomb).
Nowhere did I dispute that they're more or less directly responsible for the bomb's existence.
But again: who is to blame if somebody is stabbed to death: the guy who stabbed him or the people who designed and constructed the knife?

To put it another way: what if nuclear bombs had been exclusively used to blow up massive asteroids headed for earth?
Would you still consider the involved scientists to be bad people for having them invented?
-----

Suicide maybe a violent death, but it isn't a crime nor violence against another person; in any case it's not what I was talking about. So if you must look up numbers, at least look at the right ones, e.g. the murder rate.
Also keep in mind that committing suicide is a grave sin in many religions, i.e. it's probably one of the worst examples you could have chosen, doesn't prove shit and doesn't relate to the correlation I was pointing out.

[Matti]

I don't get you guys... you're talking about scientists as if they were a certain exclusive kind of men. That's as untrue as to say, all religious people are the same.

Who cares if a scientist or a catholic has ordered to drop the bomb. You know, there are scientists who (deliberately or not) build weapons and others who don't. There are christians who kill and others who don't. There isn't much sense in simply dividing mankind in religious people vs. atheists or believers vs scientists.

[Nacho]

Hey, how can God (A being of overwhelming power and wisdom) create an angel that finally became the demon? I mean, according to the tradition (not to the bible, though...) Satan was most beautyful and highest of the Angels He created... How can He be so stupid of creating something that is going to be the seed of all the bad things in Earth?

(Believer answer) God did not create something bad. It was Satan who wanted to be as good as God. That's why he started a revolt. He lost the war against God, so He punished him. So he turned bad and was sent to hell.

(Skeptic Answer) Okay, then... How can God be so stupid of not previewing that Satan is going to revolt? If he was able to see he was going to revolt, he is stupid for creating him. If he was not able to see he was going to revolt, then He is not so powerfull as we've been told. So, what is God, an idiot which creates bad things on purpose or a weak supernatural being who can not forecast future?

[Jim Reed]

Well I would say that He created him so he could revolt. And then (lucifer) would test humans, because the struggle makes humans stronger.

[Nacho]

And if we are not stronger enough for his standards, He kills us with a deluge...

A true loving Father...